Floor Statements

Mr. President, I will pick up where the Senator from Delaware left off and the Senator from Utah, also thanking John Walsh and his wife Reve for their tremendous contribution to our society but in particular for this piece of legislation. We all have to deal in life with tragedies, struggles. It is the measure of a person to see how that individual responds.

Given the nature of the tragedy they experience, it could have easily destroyed them. They took this horrific incident and turned it into a tremendous good. As Senator Biden says, who knows personally, I can't think of anything worse than losing a child. Losing a child in such an incredibly tragic situation has to be more than you can possibly bear. To take that emotion and channel it into a positive course for the benefit of other children is an incredible legacy for Adam. I know John and Reve do it for that reason, to build this incredible legacy. This legacy is added to today by naming this bill the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act.

Not only is this a great thing they are doing for society, they are a great model for so many who experience tragedies every single day. People can look at them and see how something that I am sure brought them to their knees can be turned around to do so much good for so many. So they are not only helping the children, helping those who are victims of crime, but they are helping those who are victims of life's tragedies that befall us all and giving them an inspiration to move forward and turn tragedy into triumph. This is another triumph. It may not even be the biggest triumph they have experienced, but it is certainly a triumph and a positive thing to add to that legacy.

I rise to talk about two pieces of this bill I have been working on and of which I am the author. One is called Project Safe Childhood. The second is called the Schools SAFE Act. I introduced Project Safe Childhood a couple months ago after learning of a program at the Justice Department called Project Safe Childhood.

The Justice Department, in reviewing and seeing the incredible proliferation of child exploitation crimes, basically being proliferated through the Internet, took on a new program within the Department. This new program was in response to what we see of sexual predators on the Internet and with other types of sexual trafficking, again, as a result of the Internet and other places. They developed a program which is a very good program. It has five main purposes:

First, it seeks to integrate Federal, State, and local efforts and investigate and prosecute child exploitation cases.

Second, the project allows major case coordination between the Department of Justice and other appropriate Federal agencies.

Third, it increases Federal involvement in child exploitation cases by providing additional investigative tools and additional penalties that are available under Federal law that State and local governments may not have.

Four, the project provides increased training for Federal, State, and local law enforcement regarding the investigation and prosecution of computer-facilitated crimes against children.

Finally, it promotes community and educational programs to raise national awareness about the threat of online sexual predators and to provide information to families on how to report violations.

As the father of six children, I can tell you that what Senator Biden said about what parents used to feel they could do to protect children--locking doors and being with them--has gotten a lot more complex, with that fiber optic tube that runs into your house that allows the entire world to come crashing into your home and allows sick people to be able to prey on members of your family. We need to do more to educate parents. This is like pointing a loaded gun at your child, in many cases, and asking them to get on and play. This is a dangerous tool.

Yes, there are wonderful things on the Internet. There is a tremendous world of knowledge and adventure on the Internet. But as we know, too often the major traffic on the Internet is not those wonderful and informative sites. They are sites that prey on our failings and weaknesses, prey on the unsuspecting, on the innocent, in many cases. We as parents have to be better armed to deal with these people who want to reach into our homes and corrupt members of our families, corrupt everything that we are trying to teach them not to do and, worse yet, potentially could opt them into behavior that could risk, ultimately, their lives.

So this program is very important that the Justice Department is engaged in. I contacted the Department and worked with them to develop an authorization bill so we could provide a stable stream of funding for Project Safe Childhood and expand the program in a way that the Department on its own could not do.

For example, increasing penalties for registered sex offenders, child sex trafficking and sexual abuse, and other child exploitation crimes, which this does. It creates a children's safety online awareness campaign and authorizes grants for child safety programs. So in addition to what the Justice Department program does, we add those provisions to help with better coordination between State, local, and Federal prosecutors and investigators.

I had a meeting in the western district of Pennsylvania with our U.S. attorney, Mary Beth Buchanan, and State and local officials. They were talking about it--just the practical difficulties of assigning police and investigators and detectives and prosecutors on a local level and the support they need and the overlapping jurisdictional issues. So this will help them be able to create seamless teams of people to go after these child abusers, as well as to project into the community information that is important to prevent these crimes from happening.

So I am grateful that Senators Specter, Hatch, and Leahy have worked to include that provision in the bill. I think it will take us a step forward in protecting our children from these predators and from exploitation.

The second piece of legislation is called the Schools SAFE Act. We spend a lot of time on the Senate floor talking about how we can improve the quality of education. But it almost goes without saying that when you drop your child off at school, at a bare minimum, you expect that the people who interact with them at school will not harm them. You would think that would be almost a given. But, unfortunately, in our country today we actually have a very poor system of checking as to whether people who are hired in schools are, in fact, safe for the children with whom they interact.

Obviously, the vast majority of teachers and people who work in schools are good and decent people and are there because they want to help children, not because they want to harm children. But like anything else, if you are someone who is a sexual predator, and you are looking to harm children, what better place to go than a place where there are children every single day you could possibly exploit.

So it is important that we have sufficient checks in place to make sure that these predators are not in educational settings where they can harm and corrupt our children.

The current state of play is basically a mishmash of different State laws and different participation in a system created to help schools access information about criminal background checks. Some States require, for example, only a State background check, while other States require an FBI background check. With these disparities, individuals continue to find opportunities to evade safeguards that have been put into place.

In Pennsylvania, an FBI background check is only required for individuals applying to schools for work and have lived in the Commonwealth for less than 2 years. So if you lived in the Commonwealth for several years and you committed a crime someplace else, Pennsylvania would not have the ability to check that out.

Beginning in 2007, Pennsylvania will require applicants who have lived in the Commonwealth for more than 2 years to also undergo FBI background checks.

So we are addressing that issue in Pennsylvania.

I think it just goes to show you that there is no good system out there. What we need to do is allow States to access a database that was established by Congress in 1998 in the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact. This compact allows States to share background information on individuals seeking employment in a school district. This is an important thing to have all the States participating in. I will not go through all of the problems, but there are all sorts of memoranda and agreements and data-sharing information. As a result of that, only roughly half of the States--26 States--participate in the compact. Even States that have joined the compact don't always get access to the information they need. This is a problem.

You could have a man from Pennsylvania who committed sex crimes in Pennsylvania and moved to Nevada. Nevada is a compact State. Nevada could do the compact based check of whether this person has committed crimes against children and find nothing, because Pennsylvania does not participate in the compact. So they could be hired in Nevada schools without any knowledge of the individual's problems in Pennsylvania.

This is obviously a great threat to our children. So what this bill does is give schools across our Nation an essential resource when making hiring decisions. They will be able to access this database and conduct fingerprint-based background checks on individuals who are seeking work with or around children in schools. So this is another important step in protecting our children, in addition to all of the other provisions in this bill--protecting our children in this case in our schools.

I thank, again, the chairman and ranking member for their tremendous assistance to me in getting this legislation in the final package. Again, I congratulate all who have been involved in this very important legislation.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I would like to begin this discussion, talking about the three pieces of legislation that are before us, to talk about the one I believe is the least controversial of all; and that is the issue of fetus farming. It is a piece of legislation that I introduced, thanks to the great help of my staff, Heather MacLean, who has worked diligently on both pieces of legislation that are on the floor today that I happen to be the sponsor of, the alternatives bill as well as the fetus farming bill.

This legislation comes as a result of a recommendation from the President's Council on Bioethics. That council, as you know, is not made up of people who share the President's viewpoint on the issue of stem cell research. In fact, it is a rather diverse group. But they unanimously agreed with what they see out in the scientific world with respect to research being done--where animals are being implanted with embryos grown to a certain gestational age and then aborted for purposes of research--that this should not be allowed in humans; that we should not be developing embryos, implanting them in women, and then having those women abort the fetus for the purposes of doing research.

So the bill I have introduced follows on with the unanimous recommendation of the President's Council on Bioethics. Again, it is a diverse group. And they said: We should prohibit the transfer of a human embryo produced ex vivo--that is, outside of the mother's womb-- to a woman's uterus for any purpose other than to attempt to produce a live-born child.

That is what the first piece of legislation does, what is referred to as the fetus farming bill. I am hopeful we can have a broad consensus, hopefully a unanimous vote, on the floor of the Senate in favor of this legislation. The House will hopefully pass that later today and the President will move forward and sign it.

The other issues I want to talk about get into a lot more detail with respect to how we deal with these very difficult moral questions. I have heard some say on the floor of the Senate there is no moral question here. In fact, I heard the senior Senator from New York calling those who oppose this H.R. 810--which calls for the destruction of human embryos for purposes of deriving embryonic stem cells--he called people who oppose H.R. 810 theocrats.

I do not agree with the Senator from New York on a lot of things. I am sure the Senator from New York is motivated by his faith to do a lot of things in his life. I am sure there are things on the floor of the Senate for which the Senator from New York is motivated by his faith tradition and uses it as a tool which has provided him a moral framework for this world. But I would never call him a theocrat for taking that element of his faith, which he happens to believe is valuable, and applying it to a fact of circumstances before him in the Senate. So I would hope we would tone down that type of rhetoric. No one is advocating theocracy here.

But to suggest there are not moral questions at stake, I think is blatantly dishonest. There was a doctor that was on a C-SPAN program this morning, a doctor from Johns Hopkins, who was in favor of H.R. 810, who got up and said it very clearly, if you believe that killing a 5-day-old embryo is the taking of a human life, then I can understand, she said, you having problems with H.R. 810. If you do not, then I can understand why you do not have a problem with H.R. 810.

Now, to suggest that someone who happens to believe that a 5-day-old embryo, that is genetically human, that if implanted in a woman would have as good a chance as any other embryo in a woman to develop into any one of us--that we believe that killing that embryo is the taking of a human life--I am not too sure that goes into the bounds of imposing a theocracy on America.

I think that is, yes, to some degree, a moral question but I would argue, to some degree, very much a scientific question as to whether that is actually human and is it alive. And the answer is, yes, it is genetically human. It is like every one of us. And it is alive. If it were dead, no one would be implanting it, no one would be killing it. So it is human and it is alive.

You can say it is not human life. I can say this piece of paper is not a piece of paper, but that does not make it what it is not. It is human, and it is alive. Under H.R. 810, we say that the Federal Government is going to fund research dependent on the destruction, the killing of that embryo. I think it needs to be made clear there is nothing in the legislation--in fact, there is no bill I am aware of that has been introduced--that says any individual without Government dollars cannot take, cannot buy or get donated a fertilized embryo, an embryo, a 5-day-old embryo from an in vitro fertilization clinic and do research on it. There is no law prohibiting it. There is no law prohibiting the killing of those embryos.

All of us who have concerns about H.R. 810 have concerns because this is Federal funding for research dependent on the destruction of human life. I happen to believe that is morally objectionable. I also think it is scientifically objectionable too.

Having said that, I have one final point I would make. I do not think this position is necessarily well out of the mainstream. There was a poll taken recently. In the poll, this question was asked: Stem cells are the basic cells from which all person's tissues and organs develop. Congress is considering the question of Federal funding for experiments using stem cells from human embryos. The live embryos would be destroyed in their first week of development to obtain these cells. Do you support or oppose using Federal tax dollars for such experiments? Thirty-eight percent support; almost 48 percent oppose.

I do not think those people would be called theocrats. They are not theocrats. These are honest, hard-working Americans who see human life and say: We should treat it with dignity and not do research.

Now, there are obviously a sizeable number on the other side. And, obviously, the majority of the Senate is going to support H.R. 810. I respect people who differ with me. I am not going to call them names. I am not going to label them something that sounds un-American. What I will say is I disagree with them and will try to do so respectfully. I will try to do so from the basis of someone who is a very strong supporter of stem cell research. In fact, I would put my record up against just about anybody in the Senate with respect to appropriating, asking for, and getting appropriated dollars designated to do stem cell research.

I have been working for 6 years, particularly with the Pittsburgh Tissue Engineering Institute and a whole host of companies that have developed in and around the biotech quarter in Pittsburgh that have shown great promise. Some of the research you have heard about with respect to alternatives to embryonic stem cell research with these pluripotent cells--many of these companies, many of these alternatives have come out of Pittsburgh, come out of the work that has advanced as a result of some of the Federal help that we have given to the McGowan Institute and to the Pittsburgh Tissue Engineering Institute.

In fact, we have put together such a robust program with respect to tissue engineering and regenerative medicine using stem cells that we have partnered with the Army. President Bush, earlier this year, went down to Fort Sam Houston, TX, to look at some of the work that is being done with our soldiers who have been wounded and being able to regenerate skin or parts of bodies. In fact, there is one study underway right now to regenerate an ear, actually grow back an ear of someone who lost their ear in the Iraq war.

All of that came from the support the Congress has shown, thanks to the leadership of Senator Specter and myself in this collaboration--the Pittsburgh Tissue Engineering Institute, the McGowan Institute for Regenerative Medicine, the U.S. Army Institute of Surgical Research, and on and on. This collaboration is based on the promise of stem cell research, to help our wounded soldiers. They are making dramatic and wonderful progress. So there is, as many have said, a tremendous opportunity for a lot of powerful things to help cure people with respect to stem cells--these adult stem cells.

But I have not foreclosed, in any respect, the possibility of other types of stem cells being used, if they can be derived in an ethical fashion; ``ethical,'' meaning we do not sacrifice life in order to do research to find out more.

So what I have pursued--and what I think this alternative bill I have introduced, working with Senator Specter on it--is an attempt to find this middle ground. Some have suggested--I know Senator Harkin has repeatedly suggested--this bill does not accomplish anything, the alternatives bill I have introduced does not do anything. I would strongly disagree with that.

The alternative bill--let me give you an example. I have been working with Senator Dodd over the past several months--actually, over a year now--in developing a bill to provide direction to the National Institutes of Health with respect to autism research. It is a vitally important bill for the autism community. It is one that the entire community across the Nation has mobilized around, called the Combat Autism bill. We have worked meticulously on the language to make sure Congress provides direction to the NIH to ensure proper research is being done in accordance with the sensitivities of the community.

This bill, in many respects, is no different. What we are doing--as we are doing in the Combat Autism bill, as we did by setting up centers of excellence within the NIH, congressional-sponsored coordinators such as diabetes coordinators--all of these things NIH could have done. Could NIH have put up, structured a diabetes coordinator? Sure. Could they have set up a cancer institute? Sure. Could they have done all these thing that have been congressionally mandated to do? Yes, they could have. But Congress thought it was important enough that we put it in statute. And we direct the funding so we can get a focus on what we believe as Congress--and representing the people's belief--is important for the future of medicine.

So in this case, yes, we are directing the National Institutes of Health shall invest money--not they ``may; but they ``shall'' invest money--in developing alternatives to the destruction of the human embryo for the creation of pluripotent cells. In fact, there are 16 different ideas, peer-reviewed studies showing alternative sources of pluripotent stem cells that have been published already.

What we are saying to the National Institutes of Health is: Look at these particular areas and others. You shall do research in this area. You shall look for alternatives for the development of these pluripotent cells. It is a directive. That is different. That is meaningful. It is important. It is not: Oh, they can do it already, so this is no big deal. This is a big deal. This is an important step forward in getting the NIH focused on an area of research which is ethical, moral, and potentially curative for an unknown number of diseases.

There is work being done, I can tell you, because of the work we have done, and Senator Specter and I have done, in Pittsburgh with a company called Stemnion which I am very proud of. They are taking cells from the lining of the placenta--I was at their lab not too long ago. They had a placenta there, and they had a technician peeling off this sheathe from the lining of the inside of the placenta.

It is a three-cell layer sheet that is opaque; you can see through it almost. But it is a three-cell layer which is put into a solution. They retrieve the middle layer of the cell. They have found that this middle layer of cell can, in fact, differentiate into various types of body tissue, which is what we are looking for with respect to embryonic stem cells. They have also found that it doesn't cause tumors, which is one of the problems with embryonic stem cells. They are not just looking at that, they are also looking at--many of these researchers who are doing research on adult stem cells, cord blood, or placenta cells, or whatever--whether they can use these cells not just for direct treatment but to create a broader based treatment--something that is not just a treatment for the particular baby who came with that placenta but whether there is a broader application with these cells.

Can they do things that many believe embryonic stem cells can do-- provide some sort of cellular solution that can be replicated in large doses, instead of just individual treatments, which can be expensive and not necessarily as useful or helpful? So there is the potential for broad-based solutions out of these pluripotent cells, something which those who argue for H.R. 810 say really isn't available.

The fact is, that it is an objective. We don't know if it is available, but, again, we don't know if embryonic stem cells will result in cures because they have not to date. Senators Brownback, Coburn, Frist, and many others have talked about all of the different therapies being used today to treat people through adult stem cell research. In fact, I mentioned one, which is the soldiers, in treating wound care. There are so many others. I was at another institution in Pittsburgh where they were showing how they were treating--I know this was talked about on the floor--congestive heart failure with adult stem cells and injecting them into the heart to try to regenerate the heart. So there are all sorts of opportunities with these cells. We should pursue that.

Actually, what my bill does is focus on creating embryonic-like cells. What my bill does is provide an alternative path to get to where those who want to see embryonic stem cell research move forward want to go. We try to get them there with an ethical way of doing it.

I am hopeful--and I have not heard anybody get up and say they would oppose this legislation--that this legislation will pass with a very large number because I think it deserves passage. It does more than nothing. It does something, and it does something very important.

Also, I believe it is important that we stand firm and say that those who may be against H.R. 810 have the opportunity to stand firm and say that we are pro research, pro science, pro improving the quality of health care in this country, but we need, as public officials, to be the governor for science.

I know there have been attempts in the past--I don't think H.R. 810 does it because it is a limited use of human embryos, but there have been attempts in the past to sort of throw the gates open and allow Federal funding for any type of research in this area. I think we have an obligation, as the voice of the people, to limit, at least with Federal dollars, where science goes with taxpayer dollars. This is a scientific society that, if you can do it, they want to do it. In my mind, far too many scientists don't feel any check by the moral implications of creating a cloned individual, which we have seen in some places around the world. There have been attempts in private labs in this country and around the world, and there still are attempts to clone individuals. We need to speak clearly into this moment. I think the passage of this alternative bill does that. It says we can be pro science and do so in an ethical fashion.

I guess I will conclude my remarks by saying that this is an important moment for us in this country. This is about the value of human life. I know people will dismiss that, saying they would be discarded anyway. All I can suggest is that every life, whether it is in a suspended state in an IVF clinic or standing on the floor of the Senate attempting to defend and protect those suspended lives, has meaning. Every life deserves protection under our Constitution. Our Constitution protects persons. It is a very interesting word. They use the term ``persons.'' So we have had a debate in this country for half a century or more--actually since its founding--as to what a person is under the Constitution. We are going to say, with respect to embryos at IVF clinics, that they are not people. We are going to say that this 5- day-old embryo created by a couple who wanted life--think about that. Every one of

these embryos was created because a couple wanted desperately to create human life, and what we are going to say is that life that was created is not a person, doesn't really exist from the standpoint of the Constitution. I think that is sort of hard for my mind to square--that we create human life and then later we say it is not human life, it is not a person, it is not entitled to any constitutional protections.

Some people have drawn lines and said it is not implanted and therefore it is not human life. When the egg is fertilized, it takes a while for that embryo to implant in any normal pregnancy. In the interim, is it not human life? What is it? These are questions that I know are very difficult to grapple with. It is very easy--and this is the caution--it is very easy, because that little embryo doesn't have a pair of eyes, a color of hair, or a name, to dismiss this entity as insignificant, particularly when we see some utilization, some usefulness to us in its existence. This utilitarian view that, well, we don't really know what these are--at least we make the claim that we don't really know what they are, so we sort of claim that there is a cloudiness to what this is, and it then allows us to destroy that life and use it for our purposes.

Let's be very clear about that. That is what we are doing. We are using it for our purposes, to benefit us. We are using a human life to help those of us who are alive, without the permission of that silent embryo. You can say, well, H.R. 810 is sort of a rare circumstance. It is just these small groups of embryos that are unwanted. I have been on the floor of the Senate debating issues of life for 12 years now. It seems to me that every year I come up here we tend to debate a different issue, and if we had been debating it 10 years prior, we never would have taken that position; we would have found it morally offensive to have argued what we argued--in this case 10 years ago. But 10 years from now, if we allow this to happen, what will be the next argument of what we must do because of the potential benefit for us? What must we do next?

One of the principal reasons I am an avid supporter of the fetal farming bill is a great fear that 10 years from now, we will be back here arguing the bill again. We may find that the embryonic stem cell research that is done in the public sector--and it is being done now in the private sector, and certainly there is international support for it in the public sector--just isn't the right thing, that they don't work quite as well as expected. But if you grow that embryo to a little later stage and these cells settle down and are not as hyperactive as these embryonic stem cells are, which have the potential of creating tumors, if you wait until they are a month or 2 months old, now you have the right time to be able to harvest these tissues for--you name it. I will not say that is highly likely--I don't know, I am not a scientist--but I don't think that is without question. Then what would we say? If we can maybe just put the embryos in artificial wombs for a while and let them develop for a little bit or maybe implant them into a woman who volunteers, with no moral objection, to do so. You can say, that is repugnant. It is today.

I remember when I stood on the floor and debated the partial-birth abortion bill--how many repugnant things I had to explain regarding the killing of a child. We debated that, and it failed many times on the floor of the Senate, the banning of that procedure. No, these things do not happen in one great leap; they happen with just little steps, little defensible steps, little utilitarian steps, until the next time and the next time.

This is an important moment when we will say no to that and we will do what I believe is important to stand up for that value. At the same time, we can support a measure that is pro science. At the same time, we can support a measure that says we need to move forward, we need cures, we need scientific experimentation, we need to develop this incredibly rich field of regenerative medicine and stem cell research. It is an incredibly rich field, a promising field. We need to do it at a pace and in a way that we can be proud of over time and in a way that respects the dignity of the human person. But this is an incredibly promising field. No one on either side of this issue will deny that. It is an incredibly promising field, one we must pursue.

So that is why I introduced the alternative bill. That is why I strongly support it, and I would encourage all of my colleagues to support it. I would encourage the House to pass it, and then we will be enthusiastic supporters of Senator Specter's and Senator Harkin's appropriations bill, to get as much money as the NIH can responsibly use to develop this field fully. It is an incredibly promising field that we must pursue, and we can do it. We can do it, America, ethically and morally, in a way that is consistent with the proud traditions of America. Science in an ethical and moral fashion: What a nice blend. We accomplished that with the alternative stem cell bill, and I urge the Senate's adoption.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters I have received regarding this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman and ranking member and the Senator from Michigan for providing me this opportunity to speak for a few minutes about the importance of this legislation to my State.

As many know, the State of Pennsylvania over the last several weeks has experienced catastrophic floods. FEMA has now issued individual assistance declarations for 22 of our 67 counties and declarations of public assistance for 24 counties. It could have been a lot worse but for flood control projects that this Congress authorized and approved in the WRDA process in the past, particularly the Wyoming Valley levee- raising project, which I will address in a moment.

I thank the chairman and ranking member for including a provision for a flood control project for the town of Bloomsburg. It is the only town in Pennsylvania. What you see was 25 percent underwater from the Susquehanna River just a couple weeks ago. Bloomsburg State University is there. It is a beautiful little town. It was completely submerged as a result of the flash flooding and then the raising of the Susquehanna River subsequent to the rains. So I appreciate the fact there is a flood control project in this legislation for the town of Bloomsburg.

In addition, we have had another problem upstream from Bloomsburg, an area where we have had a tremendous success, and that is the Wyoming Valley levee-raising project which is almost completed, but there is an area in Wilkes-Barre in particular called Solomon Creek. It is a tributary to the Susquehanna River.

This picture shows a little bridge that goes over Solomon Creek. This bridge is virtually dry most of the time. You can see it is up 12, 14 feet from the bottom. It is a horrible problem in the city of Wilkes- Barre. It backs up into the river and causes all sorts of damage in the city of Wilkes-Barre and south Wilkes-Barre right near a hospital which is hoping to expand--but will not expand if we can't fix this problem-- to serve the residents of the area.

What I have asked the chairman to do--there is a provision that Congressman Kanjorski got into the House WRDA bill which puts this flood control project underneath the Wyoming Valley levee-raising project which is authorized for over $400 million. Believe it or not, the levee-raising project came in at well under $400 million, about $250 million. So there is room under that cap to bring in this tributary which really does need to be fixed to address this major flooding problem.

The Senator from Oklahoma, when I explained this project to him, said he would support us in conference in making sure this project is included in the final bill. I will tell you, the people of south Wilkes-Barre are very pleased to hear tonight that as a result of this bill passing, and we get it through conference, the chairman of the committee will support the Solomon Creek project in conference, which will mean that literally within the next 12 months, we can begin to work on making sure that south Wilkes-Barre doesn't experience this kind of tragic flooding in the future.

With that, I thank the chairman for his assurance and his support. It is deeply appreciated by me and I know by Senator Specter and by the people of Wilkes-Barre.

Madam President, I call up amendment No. 4575 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Madam President, let me say, on behalf of myself and Senator Kyl, we are working on two amendments that deal with the issue of border security. The first I am offering is an amendment to add 500 additional border guards to the underlying bill. The President, in his budget request, suggested we increase the number of border guards to be trained this year to 2,500. One thousand of those were provided in the bill, but this would add an additional 500. The other 1,000 was provided in the emergency supplemental, which was passed earlier this year, which would bring us a total of 1,000, plus 1,000 in this bill, plus 500, to 2,500.

The reason the subcommittee and the committee did not provide the additional 500 the President requested was because the President funded those additional 500 with a fee on airline flights. That was something the committee did not include in their mark and, as a result, didn't have the resources the President's budget request had to be able to fund these additional 500 guards.

We have been working with Chairman Gregg and the ranking member to try to come up with an offset, understanding this bill is incredibly tight. There are a lot of priorities in the Department of Homeland Security. Trying to find offsets and taking money away from other vital areas of homeland security was a very difficult thing to do. As a result, I worked with the committee and came up with an offset that was used in the House of Representatives on another appropriations bill over there. It is an offset with which I am very familiar because it is a piece of legislation I actually introduced earlier this year having to do with reverse mortgages.

Reverse mortgages are a very important tool that is used by some seniors in our society who have a lot of equity in their home but do not have a lot of income. They don't have a substantial stream of income to be able to support themselves in their retirement, so they have all this equity locked up and no ability to access that equity.

The reverse mortgage program, sponsored and directed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development--overseen by them--is a way to unlock that equity to be able to get income into the hands of our senior population. It is a pilot program now and has a cap of 250,000 mortgages. What this amendment does is removes the cap, adjusts the amount of money that will be allowed--the size of these reverse mortgages--based on the geographic area of the country, to reflect the discrepancy in pricing of houses in those different geographic areas of our country.

As a result, it will, because of these transactions, result in more income to the Federal Government, more revenue to the Federal Government. It is about $190 million. This would pay for the amendment I am offering to increase the number of border guards.

In addition, there would be some additional money left over, which Senator Kyl, in a subsequent amendment, will address, to deal with the detention facilities and use up the remaining part of that money and some additional money in an offset that he has.

It is a combination effort to try to help the subcommittee come up with additional resources which I am sure the chairman would love to do. The chairman has been excellent in the past several years, since the events of 9/11, in fully funding the requests from the administration--in fact, in some cases exceeding the requests from the administration in providing for border guards. I think he has said on the floor of the Senate that we have seen a 40-percent increase in border guards, in the number of border guards being trained and the number of border guards, period, in this country since the events of 9/ 11.

We have seen a substantial increase. I commend him for the priority he has put to that. But I understood the difficulties he had in trying to come up with the money to add the additional 500 the Department said they could train this year and that they need. This is a way to provide the additional resources, to do so without emergency designation, to do so without busting the budget, to do so with a legitimate offset that actually raises the money that could counter the expense in providing for the additional border guards.

Obviously, this is an important issue. There is no issue I heard about more, over the past several months in particular as I traveled around the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, as the issue of defending our border. We passed an immigration bill in the Senate which was an attempt to increase the number of border guards, increase detention facilities, build new fences, improve our points of entry at our southern border. That is wonderful, if we can get a comprehensive immigration bill passed. If we get a piece of that immigration bill passed that deals with the border, I think that is a positive step in the right direction.

That doesn't mean we can't do things right now in the normal process to improve the situation at the border. We have done that in prior appropriations bills as a result of the work of the chairman and ranking member, and we should continue to do so, whether we get an immigration reform bill ultimately passed this session of Congress.

This is the opportunity for Congress to actually do something concrete and positive this year to enhance our border security--to increase the number of border guards up to the President's request and up to what the Department of Homeland Security says they can use this year and train this year.

I am hopeful we will get support for this--again, if it is fully offset. It is something we have cleared through the Ways and Means Committee because this does raise revenue. When Chairman Thomas was on the Senate floor, I asked about the potential blue slip problem. We have gotten word we will clear that hurdle, if necessary.

I obviously checked with Chairman Bond and the housing subcommittee. They have been very helpful in that regard. We have run all the traps. There is a solid offset, and it provides for a definite need in a very critical area of our national security; that is, our border presence.

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

Madam President, I congratulate the Senator from Arizona. I am a cosponsor of his amendment as he is a cosponsor of mine. I am very sanguine about the opportunity to get both the detention facilities, the beds added, as well as the additional border guards the President requests. I think everyone in this Chamber has been very clear about the need for additional border security on both sides of the aisle. In fact, we voted on numerous amendments in the past offered by Members on both sides of the aisle to increase border security as well as to stop the catch-and-release policy.

Here is an opportunity to have the President's budget request complied with, and to offset that is sort of a bonus. It is good public policy. We have

good public policy providing streams of income for our seniors at a difficult time in their life through the process of reverse mortgages, which was a pilot program that has worked very well and has broad support on both sides of the aisle.

What we have in this amendment, as well as the amendment of the Senator from Arizona, is the opportunity to have a win-win situation. My understanding is, however, that--at least there is a rumor afoot-- some on the other side of the aisle have a problem with the offset, not that they have a problem--my understanding is they do not have a problem with the offset itself but that under the rules of the Senate there is a germaneness issue with respect to this particular offset on this particular piece of legislation.

I hope we look to the merits of actually both pieces of legislation: One, the funding for detention facilities and for border guards, the need to do that, the need to do it in a fiscally responsible way, not adding to the deficit. On top of that, there is the good public policy that can be accomplished through the Reverse Mortgage Program--which, again, has broad support from both sides of the aisle and has terrific support within the senior community, the AARP, as well as so many other senior organizations, lending organizations, and the like who see the terrific advantage. This is a program overseen by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. It is a good public-private partnership that has the public component to ensure that seniors are not taken advantage of in these transactions. So it is a good win for our seniors, it is a good win for our border security, as well as getting rid of a very bad policy which is catch and release.

So again, the point of germaneness has not been made, and maybe on second thought we will see that the actual public policy benefits of getting something done here in the U.S. Senate, of increasing border security, as well as improving the living conditions of our seniors, will be a good one-two punch to accomplish here today in the U.S. Senate. I hope we can do that.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the Senator from New Hampshire did not provide me any opportunity to respond to the Senator from Maryland. I would like 2 minutes to respond.

Mr. President, as Senator Kyl and I discussed earlier, this is an attempt to try to find an offset to basically increase the cap for this appropriations bill by finding an offset of a little over $200 million so we could fully fund the border security request from the President, from the Department of Homeland Security, for 2,500 border guards and increase the detention facilities to the amount that the President requested in his budget. This amount comes from a provision that lifts the cap on the number of reverse mortgages that will be available to our seniors to help them provide for themselves where they have a high amount of equity in their homes and not a sufficient stream of income. So what this legislation would do is provide that initial income by allowing more reverse mortgages to be authorized from the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Unfortunately, we did understand this is subject to a point of germaneness, but this is good public policy, and it has bipartisan support. It happens to come up with basically the amount of money that we needed to provide for both fully funding border guards and fully funding detention facilities. So my hope was that--as is the case in many appropriations bills--we set aside the issue of germaneness, and we deal with the substantive issue, which is this is good public policy and it accomplishes another good public policy, which is to provide for the border guards.

I am disappointed that the point of germaneness was raised. There certainly is a point to be held here. I was hoping that it would not be raised and we could vote on the merits of the bill. I think it is an unfortunate occurrence, but the Senator has the right to make that point of order.

Mr. President, how much time is remaining?

Mr. President, as a member of the Senate, I have devoted much of my time at looking for innovative ways to develop local communities in which our families can prosper. It is in that spirit that I am introducing legislation today that will help local governments across the country meet economic development needs in a manner that partners with the private sector and saves local taxpayers money. Specifically, I rise today to introduce legislation that would allow community bank members of Federal Home Loan Banks to provide credit support to tax-exempt municipal development bonds, including letters of credit, LOCs.

Under current law, State and local governments are able to issue tax- exempt bonds to help fund community and economic projects. To ensure that bond investors will be paid in full, Federal Home Loan Banks provide a LOC. Unfortunately, the Internal Revenue Service, IRS, has classified Federal Home Loan Bank LOCs as a Federal guarantee, a decision that triggers the loss of a bond's tax-exempt status. By allowing community banks to partner with the Federal Home Loan Banks to offer credit support on municipal tax-exempt bonds, local communities will be able to reduce the cost to local taxpayers for bonds issued for such projects as wastewater treatment facilities, fire stations, medical clinics, school buses, long-term care facilities, and infrastructure improvements.

Through their community bank owners, Federal Home Loan Banks have offered letters of credit for over 10 years. They can provide letters of credit for taxable municipal bonds and tax-exempt housing bonds; however, due to a quirk in the law, they cannot do so for tax-exempt economic development bonds. My legislation would fix this inconsistency in the Tax Code.

Congress has already determined that credit support issued by other government-sponsored enterprises, GSEs, can support nonhousing municipal bond issues without losing tax-exempt treatment. The other GSEs mentioned in the code--Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Ginnie Mae, the Farm Credit System, and the Tennessee Valley Administration--are privately owned corporations--Federal Home Loan Banks--whose obligations are also not guaranteed by the U.S. Government. Therefore, granting the Federal Home Loan Bank letters of credit the same recognition is simply an equitable proposition.

This legislation will have a positive economic impact for local communities. Allowing Federal Home Loan Banks to provide credit support for tax-exempt municipal bonds will increase access to capital for municipalities which will spur economic growth and stimulate job creation. Municipal bonds raise money for public purposes to build and strengthen their communities. This is why groups like the Pennsylvania School Board Association supports this provision. They agree that this bill can ``potentially help school districts lower the costs for expensive school projects, such as bus purchasing and building construction.'' Hospitals can gain the resources necessary to utilize the most up-to-date technology to provide our children with the best health care possible. Municipal bonds help local officials finance renovations of sewer systems, roads and highways to improve the quality of life for families.

This legislation is important because it gives local officials an additional option as they strive to do more for their communities with tighter budget constraints. This bill is supported by the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the Independent Community Bankers of America, the Council of Federal Home Loan Banks, the National Association of Homebuilders, and the American Bankers Association, the National Association of Higher Educational Facilities Authorities, and the National Council of Health Facilities Finance Authorities. In my state of Pennsylvania, this effort is supported by the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency, the Pennsylvania Association of Community Bankers, the Pennsylvania Bankers Association, the Pennsylvania School Boards Association, and the Pennsylvania League of Municipalities. These groups have a strong reputation of supporting economic development on the state and local level.

This bill will simply provide consistency in the Tax Code, but more importantly, the benefits to our families and communities will be substantial.

Congress must continue to look for ways to spur economic development for America's communities. This bill will help do just that, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, as a member of the Senate, I have devoted much of my time at looking for innovative ways to develop local communities in which our families can prosper. It is in that spirit that I am introducing legislation today that will help local governments across the country meet economic development needs in a manner that partners with the private sector and saves local taxpayers money. Specifically, I rise today to introduce legislation that would allow community bank members of Federal Home Loan Banks to provide credit support to tax-exempt municipal development bonds, including letters of credit, LOCs.

Under current law, State and local governments are able to issue tax- exempt bonds to help fund community and economic projects. To ensure that bond investors will be paid in full, Federal Home Loan Banks provide a LOC. Unfortunately, the Internal Revenue Service, IRS, has classified Federal Home Loan Bank LOCs as a Federal guarantee, a decision that triggers the loss of a bond's tax-exempt status. By allowing community banks to partner with the Federal Home Loan Banks to offer credit support on municipal tax-exempt bonds, local communities will be able to reduce the cost to local taxpayers for bonds issued for such projects as wastewater treatment facilities, fire stations, medical clinics, school buses, long-term care facilities, and infrastructure improvements.

Through their community bank owners, Federal Home Loan Banks have offered letters of credit for over 10 years. They can provide letters of credit for taxable municipal bonds and tax-exempt housing bonds; however, due to a quirk in the law, they cannot do so for tax-exempt economic development bonds. My legislation would fix this inconsistency in the Tax Code.

Congress has already determined that credit support issued by other government-sponsored enterprises, GSEs, can support nonhousing municipal bond issues without losing tax-exempt treatment. The other GSEs mentioned in the code--Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Ginnie Mae, the Farm Credit System, and the Tennessee Valley Administration--are privately owned corporations--Federal Home Loan Banks--whose obligations are also not guaranteed by the U.S. Government. Therefore, granting the Federal Home Loan Bank letters of credit the same recognition is simply an equitable proposition.

This legislation will have a positive economic impact for local communities. Allowing Federal Home Loan Banks to provide credit support for tax-exempt municipal bonds will increase access to capital for municipalities which will spur economic growth and stimulate job creation. Municipal bonds raise money for public purposes to build and strengthen their communities. This is why groups like the Pennsylvania School Board Association supports this provision. They agree that this bill can ``potentially help school districts lower the costs for expensive school projects, such as bus purchasing and building construction.'' Hospitals can gain the resources necessary to utilize the most up-to-date technology to provide our children with the best health care possible. Municipal bonds help local officials finance renovations of sewer systems, roads and highways to improve the quality of life for families.

This legislation is important because it gives local officials an additional option as they strive to do more for their communities with tighter budget constraints. This bill is supported by the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the Independent Community Bankers of America, the Council of Federal Home Loan Banks, the National Association of Homebuilders, and the American Bankers Association, the National Association of Higher Educational Facilities Authorities, and the National Council of Health Facilities Finance Authorities. In my state of Pennsylvania, this effort is supported by the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency, the Pennsylvania Association of Community Bankers, the Pennsylvania Bankers Association, the Pennsylvania School Boards Association, and the Pennsylvania League of Municipalities. These groups have a strong reputation of supporting economic development on the state and local level.

This bill will simply provide consistency in the Tax Code, but more importantly, the benefits to our families and communities will be substantial.

Congress must continue to look for ways to spur economic development for America's communities. This bill will help do just that, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on the amendment that I understand we are going to be voting on in about 6 minutes. I am not particularly pleased we are voting on this amendment in 6 minutes, that I only have 6 minutes to talk about this amendment on the importation of prescription drugs. I think what we are potentially about to do is something that is very dangerous, something that is a risk to consumers and patients in this country.

We have seen exposes written by newspapers. We have seen reports from the Surgeon General. We have seen reports by numerous government agencies, of the risk associated with drugs coming into this country from potentially dangerous foreign sources, prescription drugs, that are being used by people in this country. There is a profound risk of them being impure, contaminated, and having potency problems. Now we are back here on a quick amendment, and a quick time agreement, and we are going to have a vote on something that I think is life threatening to potentially thousands of individuals in this country.

This is an amendment that says, to my knowledge--I have it in front of me, but I understand it has been modified, and I have not yet seen the modification--that none of the funds in this bill will be made available for the Customs and Border Protection agents to prevent individuals from importing prescription drugs.

I understand it has been modified to say just from Canada. But, of course, how do we know they are from Canada? If a border agent sees a box that says ``from Canada'' or ``FDA approved'' or whatever, does that mean they can't look at it or can't examine it?

This is a very crude attempt to try to get around an issue that we have been debating for a long time, and that is, whether it is safe to allow people to get drugs, from other countries, that do not have the FDA safety and efficacy approvals.

We have huge concern in this Chamber, huge concerns around the United States with drug safety. There is a pill called Vioxx that has a small chance of causing certain side-effects in some individuals. Yet we want to allow importation of potentially dangerous drugs from other countries.

Let's look at the reports of analysis of some so called ``Canadian generics'' seized at the boarder. Experts in drug safety tell us that these drugs often have problems with potency, don't dissolve correctly, or have dangerous impurities. These are potentially dangerous drugs, and the United States Senate wants to say: Go ahead and bring those drugs in, but by the way, we have to take Vioxx off the market if there is even a 1-percent chance of hurting somebody.

Drug importation done this way has a nearly 100-percent chance of hurting

somebody, and we are going to come to the floor of the United States Senate and say that is a good idea because it might save a few dollars.

We addressed this issue for our most vulnerable population. We addressed it for seniors. We passed a Medicare prescription drug bill that is working. It is working very well. It is lowering costs of prescription drugs to our seniors. Providing affordable drugs of quality, FDA approved, we know they are safe, we know they are effective, they are made here in the United States.

We have folks who are going to vote for this amendment who complain night and day about exporting jobs around the world. What do you think this is? When these drugs are made in the United States they are made safe and effective. They are made by American workers. And we know they work for people who need these drugs. We are going to export these jobs to Bangladesh or Ghana or Belize--pick a country--which happens to mark the drug ``from Canada''?

If you write ``Canada'' on there, assume a border guard, just to be safe, will say don't open it because we may be breaking the law according to this amendment.

This is a dangerous piece of legislation for potentially thousands if not more persons who are looking for a cheap prescription and could get a prescription for ineffective treatment, which could lead to more problems, or potentially lethal treatment if there are dangerous side effects from impure drugs.

We should not be voting on this amendment, in my opinion. But the vote has been locked in--without my consent, I might add. What we are to do here--let's not muddy the water--this is not about cheap drugs. We have dealt with that issue for seniors. We have dealt with that issue by putting up huge amounts of money to make sure that our seniors get good-quality, American-made drugs, made by Americans who have good- quality jobs making them. This is about hurting those Americans making these drugs as well as hurting people who are going to be consuming these drugs.

I am not happy, even though I understand we will look at this in conference and it can be striped out in conference. This is bad public policy. This is dangerous to the health of American citizens, and it hurts our economy. It says to a border guard or the Customs Service that is already overburdened, that already has too much of a job to do--how are they going to know whether it is made in Canada or not? How are they going to know whether it came from Canada or not? This is a potentially monstrous problem. This is an enforcement problem. This is going to create huge problems on a number of levels.

I hope Members vote against this. I am going to vote against it. This is not the right way to do this, No. 1, to withhold money from the Border Patrol so they don't do their job. If you want to debate the issue of whether we should adopt Canadian-style drug pricing, fine; let's do that. We did that last session of Congress, and 38 Senators voted to allow Canada to set prices for drugs in America. That is how bad things are, in my opinion, in this Chamber when it comes to this issue.

This country's pharmaceutical industry is the envy of the world. We are the envy of the world for our biotech and pharmaceutical treatments and cures. We discover over 50 percent of the new drugs in the world. We have research jobs. We employ the best and brightest scientists in the world here in the United States. What do we want to do? We want to destroy that. We want to completely go around safety and effectiveness, completely go around the FDA and bring in counterfeit, bogus drugs to let our seniors or let other people use those drugs because it is a political advantage to doing it, to saying we are for cheap drugs. You are for harming people if you vote for this amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Senator from Louisiana said it only concerns Canadian drugs. Let's take a look at what FDA said when they looked at so-called Canadian generic drugs ordered from a website claiming to sell drugs from Canada.

Where was the website registered? China. Where was the post office address? Dallas, TX. Where was the return address? Miami, FL. Where was the credit card billed? St. Kitts. And where was the phone number listed? Belize. Canadian pharmacies, legal under this new amendment coming in from Canada. Canadian? Really? Where was this stuff made? We don't know. Probably China. Maybe not. Is it FDA approved? Is it licensed? Safe and effective? No, no, no.

This is dangerous stuff.

For U.S. Senators to stand up and say, We have concerns about Vioxx if there is even a 1-percent potential problem for somebody who uses it, but we are going to let drugs come in from God knows where, that are potentially ineffective and deadly, is a travesty.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that I believe offers us an opportunity to move forward in the immigration debate. My bill takes a first-things-first approach. It is imperative that we secure our borders now. This first step cannot--and should not have to--wait for a ``comprehensive'' solution. Once we secure our borders, we can look at all of the other illegal immigration related issues that remain. There is a bipartisan consensus on what needs to be done on border security and the provisions that make up this consensus were included with other more controversial elements in S. 2611--the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006. While the other body is holding hearings on the ``comprehensive'' part of that bill, we should not hold our border security hostage.

My bill will significantly increase the assets available for controlling our borders. It provides more inspectors, more marshals, and more border patrol agents on both the northern and southern borders. It provides new aerial vehicles and virtual fencing--camera, sensors, satellite and radar coverage, et cetera. It increases our surveillance assets and their deployment, and provides for new checkpoints and ports of entry. It includes Senator Sessions' amendment for greater fencing along our southern border, including 370 miles of triple-layered fencing and 500 miles of vehicle barriers. It also provides for the acquisition of more helicopters, powerboats, motor vehicles, portable computers, radio communications, hand-held global positioning devices, night vision equipment, body armor, weapons, and detention space.

While we know these resources will be critical improvements, it does not just throw resources at the problem. My bill requires a comprehensive national strategy for border security, surveillance, ports of entry, information exchange between agencies, increasing the capacity to train border patrol agents and combating human smuggling. It enhances initiatives on biometric data, secure communications for border patrol agents, and document fraud detection. It includes Senator Ensign's amendment to temporarily deploy the National Guard to support the border patrol in securing our southern land border. Additionally, it increases punishment for the construction of border tunnels or passages.

When our borders are not secure, it is our cities and counties are on the frontlines, particularly those closest to the borders. Unfortunately, the negative impacts of illegal immigration are not limited to our border towns. Recently I worked with communities in Southeastern Pennsylvania--Allentown, Easton, Bethlehem, Reading and Lancaster--as well as the U.S. Attomey for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Pat Meehan, to get one of the six recent Anti-Gang Initiative grants given by the Department of Justice. This area, called the Route 222 Corridor, was the only nonmetropolitan area to receive one of the $2.5 million grants to combat growing criminal activity in part because of illegal immigrants. However, I raise this issue here because U.S. Attorney Meehan's letter explains this issue very succinctly. He stated ``[e]ach city is seeing extensive Latino relocation to its poorer neighborhoods and housing projects. Once largely Puerto Rican, the minority populations are increasingly from Central America. Simultaneously, Mexican workers migrate to the agricultural areas around Lancaster, creating a southern link to criminal networks. The urban core is therefore transient, poor, non- English speaking and often undocumented . . . In this fertile environment, the Latin Kings, Bloods, NETA and lately MS-13, are recruiting or fighting with local gangs for control of the drug markets. Violence is a daily byproduct.''

My bill provides relief for cities, counties and States dealing with increased costs because of illegal immigration--specifically those caused by the criminal acts of illegal immigrants. There are four programs included in my bill to address these issues. First, there are grants to law enforcement agencies within 100 miles of the Canadian or Mexican borders or such agencies where there is a lack of security and a rise in criminal activity because of the lack of border security, including a preference for communities with less than 50,000 people. Second, local governments can be reimbursed for costs associated with processing criminal illegal aliens such as indigent defense, criminal prosecution, translators and court costs. Third, State and local law enforcement agencies can be reimbursed for expenses incurred in the detention and transportation of an illegal alien to Federal custody. Finally, reimbursements are available for costs incurred in prosecuting criminal cases that were federally-initiated but where the Federal entity declined to prosecute. In addition, my bill requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide sufficient transportation and officers to take illegal aliens apprehended by State and local law enforcement officers into custody for processing at a detention facility operated by the Department, and that the Secretary designate at least one Federal, State, or local facility in each State as the central facility to transfer custody to the Department of Homeland Security.

This bill also expedites the removal of criminal aliens from correctional facilities and expands border security programs through the Department of Commerce such as the Carrier Initiative, the Americas Counter Smuggling Initiative, the Container Security Initiative, and the Free and Secure Trade Initiative.

Throughout the debate on immigration reform, I have consistently stated that the first thing we must do is secure our Nation's borders. While the House and Senate are working to come to an agreement on the broader issues in the immigration bill, I am pleased to be introducing the Border Security First Act today with my colleague from Georgia, Senator Isakson, and my colleague from Missouri, Senator Talent, because our borders must be secured now--not later. In the post 9/11 world we live in, our national security depends on our border security. We need to know who is coming into our country, where they are from, and what they are doing here. We must put first things first--we must secure our Nation's borders. I hope that my Senate colleagues will join me in recognizing the urgency of addressing this issue without delay.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that I believe offers us an opportunity to move forward in the immigration debate. My bill takes a first-things-first approach. It is imperative that we secure our borders now. This first step cannot--and should not have to--wait for a ``comprehensive'' solution. Once we secure our borders, we can look at all of the other illegal immigration related issues that remain. There is a bipartisan consensus on what needs to be done on border security and the provisions that make up this consensus were included with other more controversial elements in S. 2611--the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006. While the other body is holding hearings on the ``comprehensive'' part of that bill, we should not hold our border security hostage.

My bill will significantly increase the assets available for controlling our borders. It provides more inspectors, more marshals, and more border patrol agents on both the northern and southern borders. It provides new aerial vehicles and virtual fencing--camera, sensors, satellite and radar coverage, et cetera. It increases our surveillance assets and their deployment, and provides for new checkpoints and ports of entry. It includes Senator Sessions' amendment for greater fencing along our southern border, including 370 miles of triple-layered fencing and 500 miles of vehicle barriers. It also provides for the acquisition of more helicopters, powerboats, motor vehicles, portable computers, radio communications, hand-held global positioning devices, night vision equipment, body armor, weapons, and detention space.

While we know these resources will be critical improvements, it does not just throw resources at the problem. My bill requires a comprehensive national strategy for border security, surveillance, ports of entry, information exchange between agencies, increasing the capacity to train border patrol agents and combating human smuggling. It enhances initiatives on biometric data, secure communications for border patrol agents, and document fraud detection. It includes Senator Ensign's amendment to temporarily deploy the National Guard to support the border patrol in securing our southern land border. Additionally, it increases punishment for the construction of border tunnels or passages.

When our borders are not secure, it is our cities and counties are on the frontlines, particularly those closest to the borders. Unfortunately, the negative impacts of illegal immigration are not limited to our border towns. Recently I worked with communities in Southeastern Pennsylvania--Allentown, Easton, Bethlehem, Reading and Lancaster--as well as the U.S. Attomey for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Pat Meehan, to get one of the six recent Anti-Gang Initiative grants given by the Department of Justice. This area, called the Route 222 Corridor, was the only nonmetropolitan area to receive one of the $2.5 million grants to combat growing criminal activity in part because of illegal immigrants. However, I raise this issue here because U.S. Attorney Meehan's letter explains this issue very succinctly. He stated ``[e]ach city is seeing extensive Latino relocation to its poorer neighborhoods and housing projects. Once largely Puerto Rican, the minority populations are increasingly from Central America. Simultaneously, Mexican workers migrate to the agricultural areas around Lancaster, creating a southern link to criminal networks. The urban core is therefore transient, poor, non- English speaking and often undocumented . . . In this fertile environment, the Latin Kings, Bloods, NETA and lately MS-13, are recruiting or fighting with local gangs for control of the drug markets. Violence is a daily byproduct.''

My bill provides relief for cities, counties and States dealing with increased costs because of illegal immigration--specifically those caused by the criminal acts of illegal immigrants. There are four programs included in my bill to address these issues. First, there are grants to law enforcement agencies within 100 miles of the Canadian or Mexican borders or such agencies where there is a lack of security and a rise in criminal activity because of the lack of border security, including a preference for communities with less than 50,000 people. Second, local governments can be reimbursed for costs associated with processing criminal illegal aliens such as indigent defense, criminal prosecution, translators and court costs. Third, State and local law enforcement agencies can be reimbursed for expenses incurred in the detention and transportation of an illegal alien to Federal custody. Finally, reimbursements are available for costs incurred in prosecuting criminal cases that were federally-initiated but where the Federal entity declined to prosecute. In addition, my bill requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide sufficient transportation and officers to take illegal aliens apprehended by State and local law enforcement officers into custody for processing at a detention facility operated by the Department, and that the Secretary designate at least one Federal, State, or local facility in each State as the central facility to transfer custody to the Department of Homeland Security.

This bill also expedites the removal of criminal aliens from correctional facilities and expands border security programs through the Department of Commerce such as the Carrier Initiative, the Americas Counter Smuggling Initiative, the Container Security Initiative, and the Free and Secure Trade Initiative.

Throughout the debate on immigration reform, I have consistently stated that the first thing we must do is secure our Nation's borders. While the House and Senate are working to come to an agreement on the broader issues in the immigration bill, I am pleased to be introducing the Border Security First Act today with my colleague from Georgia, Senator Isakson, and my colleague from Missouri, Senator Talent, because our borders must be secured now--not later. In the post 9/11 world we live in, our national security depends on our border security. We need to know who is coming into our country, where they are from, and what they are doing here. We must put first things first--we must secure our Nation's borders. I hope that my Senate colleagues will join me in recognizing the urgency of addressing this issue without delay.

Mr. President, first, I would like to associate myself with the remarks made by the Senator from Virginia. If I could, I would like to also associate myself with the remarks made by the Senator from Connecticut. I agree with him wholeheartedly. They were incredibly articulately made and hits on all of the relevant points as to why these two amendments should be defeated.

I actually want to talk about a different debate which has been brewing on the floor of the Senate for over 3 years. That is the debate as to the reasons why we entered into a war in Iraq in the first place. There was some information released today that I think sheds some light as to the facts relating to what the conditions were in Iraq prior to our commencing the Iraq war.

The essential nature of the decision that we made at the time when we had to decide whether to go to war with Iraq was based on many factors. Colin Powell laid them out at the United Nations. One was that Saddam had possessed and had used biological and chemical weapons on his people and that he had biological. That is indisputable.

The second was that he had an active WMD program. And we have the Iraqi Survey Group which published the Delta Report. It was very clear in the Delta Report that, in fact, there was ongoing research at the time of the Iraq war, and if that research of those sanctions were lifted it could have quickly turned into a full-fledged biological and chemical warfare capability.

In fact, the Delta Report mentioned that they could, postsanctions, reconstitute anthrax and an anthrax program in 4 weeks.

So he already used chemical weapons and had chemical weapons research that could quickly be transitioned into programs.

The one aspect that has been in question or which most Americans find--and certainly many have spoken on the floor of the Senate--was whether at the time of the Iraq war back in 2003 Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. That was always the claim--that he had not gotten rid of his weapons of mass destruction and potentially produced additional weapons of mass destruction.

Up until today, the general perception of the American public--and certainly Members in this Chamber--was that there were no such weapons of mass destruction.

In fact, today on the floor of the Senate, the Senator from Rhode Island said, ``We have heard the initial defense of the approach to Iraq as we are going after weapons of mass destruction. They were not there.''

The senior Senator from Connecticut said, ``If I had known then what I now know, namely that Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons of mass destruction, I would not have given the President my vote.''

The senior Senator from Washington said, ``We have looked for weapons of mass destruction and found none.''

Let me follow up these quotes with quotes from an unclassified version of a document released 3 hours ago coming from the National Ground Intelligence Center, a part of the Department of Defense. It is a summary of a classified document which I have had the opportunity to take a look at.

The document's key points in the unclassified version are as follows:

Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately

500 weapons, munitions which contain degraded mustard or

sarin nerve agents. Despite many efforts to locate and

destroy Iraq's pregulf war chemical munitions, filled and

unfilled pregulf war chemical munitions are assessed and

still exist.

That means that in addition to the 500 that we have recovered, there are additional munitions.

The report goes into great detail as to what those munitions are. There are additional munitions that we have not categorized and identified specifically in number or in character.

Back to the document:

Pre-gulf war Iraq chemical weapons could be sold on the

black market. Use of these weapons by terrorists or insurgent

groups would have implications for coalition forces in Iraq.

The possibility of use outside of Iraq cannot be ruled out.

The most likely munitions remaining are sarin- and mustard-

filled projectiles. The purity of the agents inside the

munitions depend on many factors, including the manufacturing

process, potential additives, and environmental storage

conditions. While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare

agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal. It has been

reported in the open press that insurgents in Iraqi groups

desire to acquire and use chemical weapons.

This is an incredibly significant document.

We now have a lot from our intelligence agencies that said we have recovered 500 chemical weapons and that there are a number of others.

It is hopeful that we can, in fact, get that number and that information out.

But the bottom line is, irrespective of whether there were any others, the fact that we recovered 500 and the fact that there are a likelihood of others to recover, maybe from Iraq, maybe from other places around the Middle East, suggests that Saddam Hussein did have weapons of mass destruction.

One of the principal concerns that we had in going into this war against terror, or terrorists as it has been defined, was that Saddam would not necessarily use chemical weapons or biological weapons against his neighbors again or against us, but, more importantly, that he would have these stockpiles of weapons to give to terrorists to use against us or to use against others. Now we have information that confirms that some 500, and likely more, weapons were, in fact, in Iraq at the time of the Iraq war.

The quotes that there were no chemical weapons, that the President lied, that all of this was a fabrication of neocons who wanted to go to war, is now--if it was not, in my mind, discredited from the other information we have gotten--is now, in my mind, completely discredited. He had chemical weapons before the gulf war. He used them after the gulf war. He used them during the Iran-Iraq war. They had weapons programmed in place at the time of the second gulf war, the Iraq conflict. And we now have found stockpiles.

The Duelfer report said there were no stockpiles. We have now found 500. You want to call that a stockpile? Five hundred is a lot of chemical weapons. We handed out a video upstairs, Congressman Hoekstra and I--who has been tremendously helpful in gathering this information and having this report, first finding the report and declassifying portions of it--he handed out information that showed an attack of the Iraqis using 15 sarin chemical

weapon shells like the ones recovered here that killed 5,000 people.

This is a serious and important document. This is a serious and important step in understanding what Iraq was all about when we, in fact, commenced military activities against them. It is an important finding to determine what our actions need to be going forward in making sure we rid this country of the chemical weapons that still may be available, as was mentioned, potentially on the black market.

I thank Congressman Hoekstra. I asked for this document from the National Ground Intelligence Center 2\1/2\ months ago. It took 2 months of going nowhere before I contacted Congressman Hoekstra. He, by the way, was not aware of this document, either. He was able to get this document and we were able to look at it. Several Members in the Senate and the House have reviewed the document. It is up in the Intelligence rooms. I encourage Members of the Senate on both sides of the aisle to go up and view the document. It is a classification that all Members can review the entire document. Please go up, take a look at it. If you do not believe the statements or you do not think the statements are compelling enough, I encourage you to go up and read the entire classified report. It is very compelling. It is a very serious situation.

The bottom line is, the statements that Saddam Hussein at the time of the second gulf war, the Iraq war, had no weapons of mass destruction is now categorically untrue. This report puts that to rest.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

With respect to the Biden amendment, I was handed a copy of it a couple minutes ago. But having read it, it is a sense of the Senate. I don't see any reason not to support the Biden amendment. I have no problem with the language. It basically says that we hope for a resolution to the diplomatic efforts under way, a positive resolution with respect to Iran not pursuing nuclear weapons. That is no problem for me. But it doesn't do anything other than say we wish you well.

The amendment I have offered is an amendment that is in substance the bill that passed the House of Representatives in April with over 300 votes. At the time it passed, prior to the negotiations that were commenced at the end of May by the administration, as the Senator from Delaware suggested, when it passed in April, the administration opposed it. I suspect, although I will let the Senator from Delaware speak for himself, I know he is not a cosponsor of my bill that is in the Foreign Relations Committee, and, to my knowledge, Senator Lugar has not supported this legislation. The State Department has not supported my legislation. It is not surprising to me that they don't support this amendment. They don't generally support amendments that have to do with sanctions and forcing them to do things they don't want to do.

We are a coequal branch of Government, and it is vitally important for us at a critical time--and I agree with the Senator from Delaware on this, this is a critical time. I disagree with him on several things. One of the things on which I disagree with him, I think these negotiations are more important than North Korea. I think the threat of Iran and Islamic fascism is more significant than the threat posed by North Korea.

I believe this is a vitally important negotiation. I think it is vitally important during the course of these negotiations to speak to them and to speak in support not only in words but in deeds of what the President is trying to accomplish. The deeds here are very clear. It is twofold. The Senator from Delaware suggested there are not very many good options on the table.

The two options on the table, other than military force, are in this amendment. Those two options are to support prodemocracy efforts within Iran, to try to see if we can get a peaceful transformation of that government. The second is to try to dissuade the Iranians from moving forward and dissuade others, companies and countries, from working with them in development of their nuclear weapons program. Those are the options.

The President is trying to do it through a diplomatic arrangement. I wish him the very best. But I remind everybody here who is going to vote, this is not going to the President today. It is not going to the President next week. It is not going to the President next month. This is an amendment to the Defense authorization bill. It will be months, I am sure. I would be amazed if we were able to get this done before September or October. This bill is not going to be decided upon, this amendment is not going to be concluded and passed on to the President before these negotiations come to a conclusion. What we do here is put ourselves in a position to have an amendment in conference ready to move if these negotiations do not work.

Putting off this amendment is not such an easy thing to do. Putting off this amendment and finding a vehicle to attach it to, particularly over the next few weeks, is not going to be easy to do, as we bring up appropriations bills. So this may be the last vehicle between now and the summer recess in August and potentially the rest of this Congress to debate this issue. It is important for us to speak to this issue now.

This is not a radical piece of legislation. This is a piece of legislation that has 61 cosponsors that passed with over 300 votes in the House of Representatives. It has broad bipartisan support. I understand it is opposed by the Department of State. Senator Warner was kind enough to show the letter that came from the Department suggesting their opposition. I remind all Members, they opposed this bill and have consistently, not just because of these negotiations but have opposed this bill, period. They opposed it when the House passed it in April. So this is nothing new.

I suggest that the opportunity we have on the most important national security issue facing this country, the threat of Islamic fascism and the threat of Iran as the principal cog in orchestrating, supporting, financing, and encouraging this type of behavior, is to speak into the moment where we are confronting them right now with our administration in their development of nuclear weapons. For the Congress to remain silent, for the Congress to step back and say: We wish you well, Mr. President, but we are not going to go on record of really supporting you, in deed not just in word, will be interpreted one way, in my opinion, the way words are always interpreted. I think the Senator from Delaware said that this will play into the hardliners in Iran. Let me remind the Senator from Delaware, the hardliners run Iran. The hardliner is the President of Iran. The hardliners are the mullahs who run the country. There are not hardliners and then the governing powers of Iran. The hardliners are the governing powers of Iran. They are the ones making the decision. We are not playing into their hands. We are telling them we are serious, as serious as the President is about doing something about their development of nuclear weapons and their desire and explicit statements about their willingness to use those weapons on the State of Israel and others.

This is a very serious debate. This is a very serious vote. This is a very serious message that we either will or will not send. Are we going to send a message to the Iranian hardliners that we are going to stand by our President in word and action and that we are not going to let their talk of maybe possibly down the road potentially coming and talking to us, which is all they are talking about right now, dissuade us from acting while they are acting right now in developing nuclear capability, which they are. They are acting right now. They are developing. They are pursuing. They are saying they are going to use it. All we are going to say is: Well, your talk about maybe talking to us in the future will dissuade us from acting? No, it should not. We should act today. We have 61 cosponsors of this legislation. I hope that all 61 and then some stand by and say to the Iranian hardliners/ government that we will stand with our President in word and deed and make sure that we do everything we can through peaceful means, and that is what this amendment is about, to stop them from getting nuclear weapons.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

I understand I have 4 minutes.

Mr. President, I will address the comments made by my colleagues. I appreciate their thoughtful comments.

First, this is not just a sanctions amendment. This is a sanctions amendment which imposes additional sanctions, but it also has a large prodemocracy component to support prodemocracy efforts and public diplomacy within Iran.

Second, with respect to the sanctions, I agree with some of the criticisms leveled by Senator Levin that it adds things which were not in the previous versions. One thing it adds is a nuclear components provision, which says that if you are going to be a company that is doing business with Iran in the development of their nuclear weapons capability, you cannot do business with us in America. If that is objectionable to folks, I find it somewhat remarkable that we would want companies doing business in Iran doing business here. But that is a new sanction; he is correct.

What he is not correct about is that we make it more difficult to waive these sanctions. In fact, we have made it easier to waive sanctions. We have given the President more time to waive sanctions. In fact, the big difference between the House bill and ours is we are much more liberal with respect to the waiver authority of the President. In that respect, the House bill passed--I have the exact vote--by a vote of 397 to 21. That is the bill which passed in the House of Representatives just 2 months ago. It has, with the exception of what I have said, a more liberal waiver authority component that deals with nuclear technology because of, obviously, this concern about the major difference between the two. I suspect that both the increased flexibility and the nuclear component provision would have very strong support in the Senate.

The other thing I wish to talk about is what Senator Warner referred to in the letter from the Secretary of State. I remind everybody that the Secretary and the State Department have opposed this legislation from the day I have introduced it.

No. 2, I have had discussions with the Secretary personally over at the State Department, and we have had ongoing discussions. They support aspects of this bill. They don't like some of the sanction provisions, specifically the codification of Executive orders. I understand that. That has been sort of an intractable problem we have had during these negotiations.

I also remind everybody here that I bet I could pull out a letter identical to the letter just read by the Senator from Virginia on the issue of the Syrian Accountability Act, which passed here after about 3\1/2\ years or 2\1/2\ years of work, to try to get the administration on board with that legislation. The State Department opposed it, opposed it, opposed it. The President opposed it. They thought it was the wrong time, something we shouldn't do.

I had three conversations with the President on the Syrian Accountability Act. The first two times, he about tore my head off, saying how inappropriate it was for Congress to act in this regard and try to impose sanctions and mess around with foreign policy. The third conversation I had with him was a conversation where he said he would sign it. Six months later, he gave the State of the Union Address and took credit for the Syrian Accountability Act as one of the great accomplishments of his administration in foreign policy.

I believe the impact of the Syrian Accountability Act is pretty discernible--what happened with the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon. The Congress, when we act and do so in a responsible fashion, can make a difference. I believe this is an appropriate time and appropriate subject for us to make a difference.

Iran is the great threat before us. If anyone believes that by being weak, by not acting, by not stepping forward, and by not getting involved and saying we are going to hold those who cooperate with the Iranians accountable for their cooperation, if we think that by backing off on that somehow or another we will create some good will with the hardliners who control Iran, you have not been watching how the Iranians behave. They respect one thing and one thing only--we are about to give it to them, I hope--and that is action, deeds, and a credible threat that we will impose sanctions and we will hurt their capability if they do not change their course. That is what we have an opportunity to do here in about 2 minutes. I hope we take that opportunity and do not simply say that we like what the President is doing and we are all for negotiation and we hope everything goes well. It will be interpreted as stepping back, as weakness. We cannot afford that.

Mr. President, this goes under the old rubric of no good deed goes unpunished. We have attempted in this amendment to meet the Senator from New Jersey halfway. The Senator's amendment has consistently been voted on. I have opposed it and so has most of the Senate, which suggests that those who are currently doing business and have invested should be penalized for their investment. What we say is that on any future investment, you will be penalized. We make the Lautenberg language prospective.

In attempting to meet the Senator from New Jersey halfway, we find out

that this is not sufficient and, therefore, we should oppose this amendment. I would think half a loaf is better than no loaf. This, by the way, was not in the Iran Freedom and Support Act. This is one of the provisions Senator Levin mentioned that was added, frankly, out of respect for the concerns the Senator from New Jersey raised and has raised on the floor repeatedly.

This is an attempt to make a good-faith attempt--and I do mean that-- a good-faith attempt to meet the Senator from New Jersey halfway and to take his policy and put it in place in a prospective manner. If that is not sufficient for the Senator from New Jersey, that is fine. He is welcome to oppose the amendment.

I will be happy to yield.

My understanding is that we crafted this language pursuant to the language the Senator from New Jersey used in the past and put a threshold we thought was--I think it was a $20 million threshold we put in place which we thought was a reasonable threshold of investment to reach the level of sanction.

If the Senator from New Jersey would like to toughen that language or change the threshold, I would be happy to sit down and talk with him about it. I am open to discussion.

My only point, and I think the point we have had in this discussion in the past, is I don't believe it is proper to penalize companies that have investments there, in many cases longstanding investments. What we want to do is discourage future investment. That is what we attempt to do in this amendment. If the Senator does not believe it has been effectively written, I will be happy to sit down with him, in all sincerity, and work to make it effective that future investments are discouraged.

The Senator has heard his answer.

Mr. President, as I said during debate, this amendment simply says that we support the President's effort to negotiate a diplomatic resolution to Iran's garnering of nuclear weapons. I support the amendment. I wish the President and those efforts well. I suspect we will be back, talking about this again in the future.

Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution to condemn an action that I find terribly appalling. On April 29, 2006, the municipal government of St. Denis, France, named a street in honor of Mumia Abu-Jamal, the convicted killer of Philadelphia Police Officer Danny Faulkner. Representative Fitzpatrick has introduced a similar resolution in the House of Representatives.

On the morning of December 9, 1981, Officer Danny Faulkner, a 5 year veteran of the Philadelphia Police Department, made a traffic stop at Locust Street near Twelfth Street. The car stopped by Officer Faulkner was driven by William Cook who was driving the wrong way down a one way street. William Cook's brother, Mumia Abu-Jamal, was across the street. As Faulkner attempted to handcuff William Cook, Abu-Jamal ran from across the street and shot the officer in the back. Faulkner was able to fire one shot that struck Abu-Jamal in the chest; the wounded officer then fell to the pavement. Mumia Abu-Jamal stood over the officer and shot him four more times at close range, including one directly in the face. Abu-Jamal was found at the scene of the shooting by officers who arrived there within seconds.

Official ballistics tests on the fatal bullet confirmed that Officer Faulkner was killed by a bullet identical in type, brand, and caliber to the bullet found in Abu-Jamal's gun. Witnesses to the brutal slaying identified Abu-Jamal as the killer both at the scene and during his trial. In July 1982, Mumia Abu-Jamal was convicted of murdering Officer Danny Faulkner and was sentenced to death. Abu-Jamal has had numerous legal appeals, including to the PA State Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court, and his conviction has been upheld each time.

I am outraged that the municipal government of St. Denis, France would make such a thoughtless and insensitive decision as to name a street after the murderer of a Philadelphia police officer. This is a monumental insult to the memory of Danny Faulkner, to his family, and to the courageous men and women who put on a police uniform every day to protect our communities. Officer Danny Faulkner gave his life to keep our nation's streets safe. St. Denis lawmakers have made the chilling decision of choosing to support a cold-blooded killer over a police officer who made the ultimate sacrifice.

I hope my Senate colleagues will join me in condemning the murder of Officer Faulkner, and urging the municipal government of St. Denis to take immediate action to change the name of ``Rue Mumia Abu-Jamal.'' If such action is not taken, this resolution urges the French Government to take appropriate action against the city of St. Denis to change the name of the street. Finally, this resolution appropriately commends all police officers for their commitment to public service and public safety. I urge my colleagues to support this important resolution.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, this is an amendment that I spoke about yesterday and which I wanted to bring to the floor. I think it is a very important one. It is an amendment that is embodied in the bill I introduced last year dealing with Iran. It now has 61 cosponsors.

We have had lots of debates on the floor of this Senate. We have not had a debate on what I believe is the greatest foreign policy threat to this country at this time; that is, Iran, what our policies should be toward Iran, and what we as a Congress and the Senate should do with respect to supporting the President's policy or modifying the President's policy with respect to Iran.

This legislation which I have introduced as an amendment brings together a couple of pieces of legislation into this one amendment. Before I describe what the amendment is about, let me describe what I believe is the problem that faces us and then lay out a prescription of what Congress can do in the interim to support the process of a diplomatic or peaceful solution to the problem that I am about to describe.

It is not a surprise to anyone reading the papers that Iran is in pursuit of a nuclear weapon. They are fairly clear about their desire to gain more nuclear technology. They have been very clear about their desire to enhance their ability to reprocess uranium. It is also clear to observers that they are doing so with the intent of developing nuclear weapons.

As a result of that, the United States has been engaged in discussions, both with multinational organizations, as well as with some of our allies who are similarly concerned about this attempt by Iran to develop this type of capability, to get them to cease to do so. We have had attempts by the Russians to get them to rely on them for this technology. We have now seen recent efforts by the United States and a group of countries to approach Iran in multilateral talks about the possibility of getting a different type of nuclear reactor there that does not lead to the potential for development of nuclear weapons. We have seen a whole host of attempts on the part of the world to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of this regime.

The question is, Why? What is the great concern about Iran? Why do we have more concerns about them than, say, other countries in the Middle East and in southeast Asia which have, in fact, developed nuclear weapons?

The answer to me is obvious, but it is important we lay that out as to what the great threat to this world is if Iran has the nuclear capability they seek to develop.

We are fighting a war right now and everyone focuses on the war in Iraq. Certainly that is important and that is the major field of battle right now, but the war in Iraq is part of a broader war. The President described it as a war on terror. I prefer to describe it as a war on Islamic fascism, Islamic extremism. The President has referred to it as Islamic totalitarianism. It is a movement within Islam, within the Middle East, within southeast Asia, but it actually goes beyond the Middle East and southeast Asia that believes in, eventually, the domination of the entire world, the Islamization of the entire world under this rather radical ideology, this fascist ideology.

This is not one particular group or one particular faction that is in charge. This is not one group--al-Qaida or Islamic jihad or the nation State of Iran--but it is a mosaic of different organizations, some of which are not necessarily allied with each other but coordinated with each other.

We saw that the other day when Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi was killed. We saw Hamas come forward and call this al-Qaida leader a brother in the struggle. These are not organizations, at least from all of our intelligence, that are closely tied, but they have a common theme. Even though they have different views of Islam, they have a general idea of a war, a jihad, against the West and against the infidels, if you will.

So we have this mosaic of different organizations, different Islamic fascist organizations. They are commonly called within the media terrorist organizations. Terrorism is just the tactic they use. What ties them together is not just their terrorism but their ideology. Although there are different strains and different ideas, they are tied together in a common theme at a common enemy, more importantly.

The largest piece of this mosaic, the dominant piece of this mosaic-- and it is the dominant piece because it happens to be the biggest piece with the biggest wallet, the most resources--is Iran. The mosaic is a big mosaic, but the major piece which tends to touch all of the other pieces in one way or another is Iran. Iran not only supports these organizations--some of them very directly, others very indirectly--but it is itself a threat to the world.

How do we understand what this threat is to America? We only need to look at the new leader of the country: Ahmadinejad is the new President. To Americans, the President is the leader of the country. In Iran, the President is an important position but traditionally has not been the most important position within the country of Iran. However, it seems to be that Ahmadinejad has taken that position to a new level because of his support from the ruling clerics within the country. As we know, this is a country ruled by these clerics, these mullahs. And the lead mullah is a spiritual adviser to Ahmadinejad, a supporter of his. He has been very forthright about what his design is. He has been very forthright. He has stated publicly that he would like to wipe out Israel off the face of the Earth. This is a leader of a country that is trying to develop nuclear weapons, that has the resources and the capability if not stopped to do so, that has been very clear about its desire to use these weapons to eliminate the State of Israel.

He has also made a lot of other comments that would lead one to believe he does not want to stop there with respect to his designs on the war against the ``infidels.''

So we have in the person of this President a character that has the resources, is developing the technology, has the desire, and wants to use this capability if it was developed, and has said so publicly, repeatedly. That is a pretty serious threat. In fact, I can think of no other threat that is more serious than that. This man and this country is actively pursuing the development of these weapons. I don't know of anyone in the world who does not believe that is what Iran is doing.

The Senate has, so far, not taken any action to try to deter that development, to try to change the political dynamic within Iran. Obviously, we have not taken any action to pursue any military force to stop them from doing so.

These are our three options, the way I see it: to get some sort of political dynamic going on within the country to change the regime; to impose sanctions or to get collaboration with other governments to stop them from developing these weapons; or, third, a military option.

I don't think we are prepared at this point to offer a military option, but with this amendment I am offering the other two. I am offering an amendment that will both support and codify Executive Order sanctions already in place against Iran; impose additional sanctions, not on Iran but on other entities that are doing business with Iran; and then try to impose a prohibition on importing into this country nuclear fuel assemblies made outside of this country if they do business with Iran.

Companies have to make a choice whether they want to do business with Iran or whether they want to do business with the United States. That is the sanctions part of it. So we need to enact these provisions because a lot of what is in place right now is done through Executive Orders. Part of the amendment directs the President to cut off foreign assistance to the host country of a company investing more than $20 million in Iran's energy sector; allow the President to waive that under certain circumstances--and, by the way, that is a prospective investment. It is very important we send a signal to companies and countries that if they are going to continue to support this development within Iran, there are consequences to the country and to the company for continuing to do that.

There are a variety of different sanctions we place in this legislation. By the way, the sanctions portion of this legislation has already passed the House of Representatives. It passed by a vote of over 300 votes in the House--well over 300 votes in the House. So the

House has already spoken on this issue, has already said we want to codify the sanctions that are in place. We want to impose new sanctions on companies and countries that do business with Iran, particularly in their energy sector, and we want to make companies choose between doing business in the United States with respect to the nuclear program versus Iran and the nuclear program.

I am happy to yield.

April of this year.

Mr. President, I would say that the developments have been--I would not call them dramatic. I would say they are modest in this respect: they are modest in the sense that the United States, for the first time, has decided to join with other countries in making an offer to Iran. The wisdom of that can be debated.

What would be dramatic is if Iran would seriously consider doing what is being suggested, and I don't see any indication they are willing to do so nor do I anticipate their willingness to do so.

My concern is--and the President has been very clear about this--that Iran is already jockeying around, seeming to extend the time for consideration and drawing this out, certainly, to their advantage. If you are developing a program, and you are actively pursuing developing a capability, the longer you can stall any action by your adversaries to stop you from doing so, buying that time is of great value to Iran.

What we are seeing with this development already, Iranians are trying to buy time.

The President has said, and I am not sure the other countries have been quite as firm as the United States has--that they have weeks, not months, to make this decision.

However, I have seen no indication that the Iranians are anywhere near accepting this proposal. I will make the argument that this is actually a very good time for the Senate to speak and say we see this as a very serious issue, that we need to at this point speak into this very critical juncture.

I would say it is more important now that we have this vote, or more important now that we pass this, to show the Iranians that both Chambers support this President in his desire, our country's desire, a bipartisan desire, to see that Iran does not develop this capability. The Senate going on record, codifying sanctions, increasing sanctions and, the point I did not get a chance to discuss but I will momentarily, funding prodemocracy, authorizing funding for prodemocracy groups, and for more communication, public diplomacy within the country of Iran to communicate to the dissidents within Iran and encourage the dissidents within Iran is exactly the kind of message we want to send if we want to force the Iranians' hand to actually come to the table.

I think pulling this back, in my mind, would be seen by the Iranians as a sign that the U.S. Senate does not support this President, does not support getting tough. Because the President has been very clear: If the Iranians do not come to the table here, they are going to seek resolutions at the U.N. to begin the process toward a different way of resolving this dispute--maybe that is the best way to put it--in a way that could be a lot more confrontational.

So I think the Senate speaking at this moment is actually critical for us to force the Iranians' hands. I am not particularly hopeful, by the way, that the Iranians will come to the table or will agree to any of the provisions that the groups have laid out. I understand why the President has done so. I do not believe they have any desire to comply.

I think it is important for us not to blink. I think this is a moment for us to deal with this issue, to debate it here, and to vote on it or to approve this amendment to send a very clear message to the Iranian Government that we stand four square behind this President and this administration in doing what we can here at this point in time both from the standpoint of sanctions as well as supporting a change of regime from within Iran.

Mr. President, what I would certainly say to the chairman is, this is the Defense authorization bill. We will probably be here the remainder of this week and maybe going into next week finishing this bill. Usually, the Defense authorization bill takes months to be able to discern the differences between the two bodies, of which this amendment, pending in this legislation, will be part of that discussion.

So I do not anticipate there will be any final resolution to this particular amendment that I am offering until several months. If the President is serious about what the President has said, that they do not have months but weeks, I do not anticipate that anything we do here today will have any impact on the deadline or any of these negotiations.

I think what they will do is signal to the Iranians that not only is the House serious about this, but even now that they are engaged potentially in a negotiated settlement, that the Senate is serious about pursuing this if, in fact, the Iranians do not come forward with an agreement.

If there is an agreement, we may want to take another look at this. But I do not think any harm is done by passing this legislation and putting us in the conference so if, in fact, things do not go well or if, in fact, we believe--whatever the result is of these negotiations-- that it is important for us to go on record on some of these or all of these things, that we are in a position to produce a bill relatively quickly and send that message.

Mr. President, I have tremendous respect for my former chairman. I say to the Senator, I served 8 absolutely remarkable and wonderful years on your committee, and got to serve under Senator Thurmond and then your great leadership. I certainly will do everything I can to work with you to make sure we can come to some agreement as to how we can dispose of this amendment, whether it is a vote or whether it is accepted or whatever the case may be. I am certainly not going to push for a vote today if that is not what you desire. But, obviously, this is a very important issue.

I remind the chairman there are 61 cosponsors on a similar piece of legislation, and it has very broad support here in this body from both sides of the aisle. It passed, as I said, with well over 300 votes in the House. And this issue is quite timely. So I would be happy to suspend any request for votes until we can negotiate how we would dispose of this amendment.

I would be happy to do so after we have had discussions about how we can dispose of this amendment, absolutely.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. President, if I can just finish the explanation of the legislation, I talked about the sanctions portions of this legislation. The final component of the legislation deals with what we call the pro- democracy side. This is very interesting. I introduced this legislation last year. Actually, I introduced it 3 years ago. It provided, at the time we introduced it 3 years ago, $10 million for the pro-democracy component of this.

I felt very strongly this was really the key to this legislation. In fact, just meeting a few weeks ago with a student dissident who had recently escaped from Iran, I am even more convinced there is a strong anti-regime movement within Iran. There is a very strong pro-American component of the Iranian population that understands the tremendous effort that our country has put forward in Iraq and Afghanistan, and, like most people around the world, seek self-determination and freedom. It is very important for us to communicate that in unequivocal terms.

One of the concerns I have with the diplomatic efforts being taken right now is that we are potentially muddying the waters somewhat with respect to our opinion of the regime in Iran. I want to make it very, very clear that personally that regime is the greatest threat to this country and must be removed. That is how I feel. Now, that is not in this legislation. But that is, to me, one of the highest national security priorities of this country.

I think the best way to do that under the current circumstances is to support pro-democracy groups, to support groups that would like to see changes within Iran and peaceful changes.

The one gentleman I met with just recently, a couple weeks ago, was very clear about the intention of at least the student movement within Iran to be a peaceful movement, similar to what happened in the old Soviet Union. They believe they can, in fact, rally support. But they need support. They need resources. They need to communicate. One of the things this legislation does is provide not $10 million but $100 million for that purpose. The reason I talk about the difference is that in the interim the President, thankfully, took some of the provisions of the Iran Freedom Support Act, which is the bulk of this amendment that I am proposing today, and proposed that in the emergency supplemental that he sent up and that we will be voting on, in all likelihood, tomorrow. So that money is being appropriated, in this case, before it is being authorized. But this is the authorization, and sets an authorization level of $100 million, which is what the President's request was.

Excuse me, the President's request was $75 million. We make it $100 million.

So we think this is important to send another strong signal that we support efforts for peaceful change within Iran, that we support those who on the evening of 9/11 stood in the city of Tehran in candlelight vigils in support of Americans. We support the Iranian people who would like to see the oppression end in that country that they have suffered under now for over 25 years. So this is a vitally important component of this authorization, and it is a very important signal to the people of Iran.

When I met with that student leader a few weeks ago, he told me how evil this regime was on a personal level, not only with his imprisonment for leading student protests, but also with the current group of students who are, in the eyes of the regime, a great threat to the future of that regime. He talked about how his sister, who is a student at one of the universities in Iran, recently had to sign a document as a condition of attending the university. The document was a commitment to be a suicide bomber.

So now every student in colleges within Iran has to sign a document pledging their commitment to be a suicide bomber. In fact, shortly after those documents were signed in every university in Iran, they conducted training courses for the students on how to strap on and detonate a suicide bomb.

This is the enemy we are confronting. This is why I think it is important for us to step forward now and have this debate, to step forward now and pass this legislation, to send a signal now, while they are deciding whether to engage the United States and the free world in the pursuit of peaceful nuclear energy as opposed to nuclear warheads. It is important for the Senate to act. This is our moment in history. This is the great threat that faces us. This is the war we are currently engaged in, and this is the principal player on that stage today. We must act.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation requiring the Secretary of the Department of the Interior to conduct a study evaluating a pristine area in the northeastern part of Pennsylvania, called Cherry Valley, for its potential designation as a national wildlife refuge. Known for its unspoiled wetlands and riparian forests, Cherry Valley provides an important habitat for one of the largest known populations of the threatened bog turtle, as well as for a plethora of endangered and rare species. Also, due to its location along the Kittatinny Ridge Migration Corridor, Cherry Valley is centrally located along an important migration route for eagles and the broad-winged hawk.

Recognized as an environmental treasure by local officials and residents, there is widespread support for Cherry Valley's designation as a wildlife refuge. Some landowners have, however, expressed private property concerns with the proposed designation. It is my hope that by requiring a study, during which the Secretary must consult with landowners and other interested parties, we can fully understand the value of the Cherry Valley area, as well as address any concerns landowners may have.

Representative Paul Kanjorski introduced similar legislation in the House. I ask for the support of my colleagues in authorizing this study to determine whether beautiful Cherry Valley should be preserved and designated a national wildlife refuge.