Floor Statements

Mr. President, I thank Senator McCain for his support and his words, and the chairman for his help in getting us here. This is a bipartisan amendment that is vital to U.S. national security and regional stability in the Middle East.

Our most recent sanctions that we passed a year ago 100 to 0 are working toward crippling Iran's economy, but Iran hasn't quit trying. That is why we need to go further with this amendment and apply additional sanctions to Iran's energy, port, shipping, shipbuilding sectors that support their nuclear program, and the sales of certain commodities that support those sectors.

Just this week the IAEA said Iran has not slowed down its enrichment activities. They continue to deny access for inspection of facilities, and they have actually conducted live tests of conventional explosives that could be used to detonate a nuclear weapon. We must make clear to the Iranians that toughing out and waiting out is not an option; that it will only get worse. And I hope we have, on behalf of Senator Kirk, myself, Senators Lieberman and Casey, and many other colleagues, the strong bipartisan vote we had last year.

Sanctions Credibility

I welcome my colleague's support, and I agree to work with him to refine the new sanctions provisions contained in this amendment to make them as workable and effective as possible as the bill moves forward.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Reserving the right to object, I ask the Senator----

Did the Senator say the only time for debate on these amendments would be 2 minutes?

Tonight is open. Tomorrow there would just be 2 minutes on each amendment? Because Senator Kirk and I, and Senator Lieberman, have amendments that several Members have asked to speak on, including the distinguished ranking member. I would then urge them to come tonight and speak on it. I will not object.

Mr. President, if I could ask the distinguished chairman a question, I would assume, then, that at this point I would not have to call up the amendment? That would be in order tomorrow?

Mr. President, I will ask to call up my amendment, the only amendment I have pending with Senator Kirk.

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

Mr. President, first I appreciate where we are. This is a bipartisan amendment. It is an amendment with Senator Kirk and Senator Lieberman. It is a continuing perfection of sanctions as it relates to Iran that has been unanimously passed by this body approximately a year ago last December. Iran has set its sights on achieving nuclear weapons capability and this would not be in the national security interests of the United States because we have tens of thousands of our troops who would be in harm's way if Iran had nuclear weapons.

It would also not be in our national security interests because we clearly have to ensure that the Straits of Hormuz remain open and accessible and we would be obligated under our NATO agreements to respond should a Shabab missile be launched against one of our allies. Of course a Shabab missile is an Iranian missile that has the type of flight and capability to do so.

It is not in our national security interests because the last thing we need is a nuclear arms race in the tinderbox of the world where countries, for example, such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia would feel obligated to follow suit if Iran were to become a nuclear power.

For all of those reasons among others, it would not be in the national security interests of the United States. That achievement would jeopardize U.S. national security interests, pose an existential threat to the state of Israel, and would result in a nuclear arms race that would further destabilize the region.

The news out of Iran is dire. Just this week the Director of the International Atomic Energy Administration told the press Iran has not slowed its enrichment activities. The International Atomic Energy Administration also suspects that Iran has conducted live tests of conventional explosives that could be used to detonate a nuclear weapon at the Parchin military base--a facility the Iranians have denied access to by the International Atomic Energy Administration.

Between May and August of this year, Iran doubled the number of centrifuges at its fortified Fordow facility, buried deep inside a mountain to protect it against strikes. Iran now has over 2,140 centrifuges for enriching uranium and it continues to enrich to 20 percent. Iran claims it needs this higher grade uranium for its peaceful nuclear program, but a country with peaceful ambitions doesn't enrich uranium in defiance of U.N. Security Council resolutions. It doesn't refuse to disclose its operations. It doesn't hide them inside a mountain. A peaceful nation doesn't breach the international inspections regime compelled by the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and a peaceful nation is not one that pursues weaponization of missiles that can reach countries far beyond its borders.

The sanctions passed by this body unanimously last December are having a significant impact. The Iranian currency, the rial, has lost much of its value, and Iran's oil exports have dropped to a new daily low of 860,000 barrels per day, which is over 1 million barrels of oil per day less than 1 year ago.

Through our sanctions and the combined effort of the European Union, we have forced the Iranians back to the negotiating table. By passing these additional measures--requiring the cessation of sales to and transactions within Iranian sectors that support proliferation, including energy, shipping, shipbuilding, and port sectors, as well as anyone on our specially designated national list--we will send a message to Iran that the time for confidence-building measures is over. We do not want the Iranian regime simply to believe they can toughen out the sanctions. This sends a clear message that toughening it out will not work and it will only get worse.

If Iran is serious about wanting to reach a diplomatic solution, then it must quickly and fully implement U.N. Security Council resolutions. It must stop enriching uranium, permit removal from its territory of enriched uranium, close the Fordow enrichment facility, and submit to a robust inspections regime that includes inspections of the Parchin military facility.

Clearly, sanctions are not the ultimate goal. They are only a means to a clear end, in this case preventing Iran from becoming the next nuclear state and an existential threat to our ally, the State of Israel. Let me highlight the major provisions of this amendment.

First, this amendment designates Iran's energy, port, shipping, and shipbuilding sectors as entities of proliferation because of the role they play in supporting and funding Iran's obvious proliferation activities. With the exception of permissible petroleum transactions under the existing sanctions regime from countries that have significantly reduced their purchases of oil from Iran, these sectors will now be off limits. We will sanction any transactions with these sectors and we will block the property--and any third party--that engages in transactions with them.

Second, we impose sanctions on persons selling or supplying a defined list of commodities to Iran--commodities that are relevant to Iran's shipbuilding and nuclear sectors such as graphite, aluminum, steel, metallurgical coal, and software for integrating industrial processes. We also will prevent Iran from circumventing sanctions on its Central Bank that this Congress and the President signed by receiving payments in precious metals.

Third, we designate the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting entity and its President as human rights abusers for their broadcasting of forced television confessions and show trials, thereby blocking their assets and preventing others from doing business with the IRIB.

To address concerns about access to humanitarian goods in Iran, which is a very real and serious concern, we have provided for exceptions for the provision and sale to Iran of food, agricultural commodities, medicine, medical devices, and other humanitarian goods. We have imposed new human rights sanctions on those in Iran who are engaged in corruption or the diversion of resources related to these goods and that are preventing them from reaching the Iranian people.

Our message is clear. The window is closing. The time for the waiting game is over. Yes, our sanctions are having a demonstrable effect on the Iranian economy, but Iran is still working just as hard to develop nuclear weapons. Iran has to decide what it will do. Will it continue down the path to proliferation and risk further crushing economic sanctions or will it end the madness and negotiate a responsible end to its nuclear ambition? The waiting game is over and, in the end, one way or the other, Iran will not be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon that could threaten the national interests and security interests of the United States, Israel, the region, and the world.

I wish to thank Senator Kirk, whom we have worked with on this issue for quite some time, as well as Senator Lieberman, Senator Casey, and many others who have shared their interests and their views, and we have tried to incorporate those views. I hope that tomorrow when we cast a vote, it will be the type of unanimous vote this Senate passed nearly 1 year ago, that ultimately sends a very clear message to the Iranians that if they seek to evade, if they seek to avoid, if they think they can wait out the process, they are wrong. That is, in essence, what we are doing through this amendment. It is, in essence, why we believe it is so critical to move forward, to send a very clear message to the Iranians.

This is about the national security of the United States. It is the existential challenge to the State of Israel, our ally, and it is the best of a bipartisan effort that we have seen in this Senate.

With that, I look forward to tomorrow's vote.

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

Mr. President, for half a century after its formation in the 1820s, the Hudson River School was the dominant movement in American art. Its 10 celebrated painters were inspired by the scenery of the Catskills Mountains and the Hudson Valley, with its panoramic vistas and natural landscapes. These artists helped create a conservation and environmental movement whose legacy lives on today. The Hudson River School paintings helped inspire the development of the National Park Service.

Madam President, I rise to celebrate the people of New Jersey, many of whom lost everything in Superstorm Sandy but who came through one of the most devastating storms in our State's history battered but not broken.

The storm struck New Jersey with extraordinary force. It was the entry point of Superstorm Sandy, and the surge came quickly, destroying whole

communities, taking homes from their foundations, changing the topography of the coastline, devastating some of the most densely populated communities in the country, taking lives and taking property, leaving New Jerseyans without power but not powerless, without the personal possessions accumulated over a lifetime but with their families and their memories intact. Their memories are the foundation upon which New Jerseyans are recovering and rebuilding their lives and their communities. They are rebuilding with the help of FEMA and other Federal agencies, including the American Red Cross and countless volunteers from around the country, State and local officials,working overtime to help. New Jersey will come back stronger and better, and we are more determined than ever to rebuild and restore our communities to where they were.

The people of New Jersey withstood the unbridled power of nature--the power of nature strengthened by manmade climate change--to create an unprecedented storm and unprecedented damage. I wish to share with my colleagues some of the photos showing the devastation and why New Jersey needs a strong Federal partner if we hope to rebuild.

As my colleagues can see, Sandy mixed all forms of transportation with a force we haven't seen in many years. This is a shipping container and a large pleasure boat tossed onto the Morgan rail bridge on the North Jersey coastline along with tons of debris. The photo shows the container from the shipping lines and the boat on a bridge that obviously was a rail bridge.

You can see, we have a lot of work to do with scenes like this up and down the coast.

In this photograph, you can see the kind of damage that our rail lines have suffered--heaved from the railroad beds and buckled. This again is along the north Jersey coastline, which had miles of track damaged just like this, as shown in this photograph, and in need of millions of dollars in repairs.

In fact, 40 percent of the Nation's transit riders from Washington to Boston had their service interrupted. Dozens and dozens of New Jersey Transit's locomotives and rail cars were damaged by flooding. So today I am proud to announce that we expedited $25 million in transportation funding to help ease that situation.

But some commuters into New York, for example, from my home State of New Jersey are still suffering 4-hour commutes, with rail service only about half of what it normally is, largely because there still is not enough power for all the trains.

In the meantime, New Jersey has added subsidized ferry service to make up the difference, with the Federal Department of Transportation providing over 300 buses to help serve those new ferry lines, including one out of Liberty State Park.

Here is another photograph of the extraordinary power of Sandy's surge that lifted boats on to a rail bridge along the north Jersey coastline. Amazingly, through the hard work of New Jersey Transit workers, this devastated rail line might be able to resume limited service by the end of this week.

But this line, like many other commuter lines in New Jersey, will need much more extensive work to get service levels back to normal and to make more permanent repairs to ensure long-term reliability.

But beyond the transportation damage, it is important to remember that some lost everything in the storm and some lost their lives. Our thoughts and prayers go out to all the families who lost loved ones to Super Sandy.

I toured some of the worst hit areas with President Obama and Governor Christie and spoke to New Jerseyans who suffered extraordinary loss and were hit the hardest.

Some of these photos I am about to show now I took myself. They may not be the best photographs and I may not be the best photographer, but they show a small part of the overall destruction my State has suffered.

You can see in this photograph from the Coast Guard plane I was aboard some of the destruction at Sandy Hook, NJ. These homes are deeply under water, many of them rendered impossible to return to for a significant period of time. There are other homes I will show you where people cannot return to what was their home.

This is a photograph of the flooding in the Mantoloking area north of Seaside Heights that submerged cars and caused millions of dollars of damage and thousands to be displaced from their homes. This bridge actually collapsed at the end there, leaving this whole section in difficulty in terms of exit off the barrier islands.

I took the next two photographs while touring northern New Jersey. I have shown most of the pictures from the shore area, which took the hardest hit, because that was the entry point largely for Superstorm Sandy, but it was not just along the shore. Here is an example of the type of flooding that took place in Hoboken, NJ. On the night of the storm, this flooding was just beginning, and it only got worse, so much so that it took the National Guard to rescue residents from their homes, days--days--after the storm. It filled the streets with overflow from sewage plants. Gasoline was reeking in the air--a danger to the health and well-being of residents. And it made the damage even worse than anyone had imagined possible.

The next photograph I took is of Observer Highway. This is a major thoroughfare between two significant parts of the metropolitan area, between the city of Hoboken and the city of Jersey City, the second largest city in our State. I cannot remember ever seeing the area so expansively under water, and I hope to never see it again.

All of these cars were floating, some of them crashing into each other, rendered largely useless, and, of course, stopping a major thoroughfare for days in terms of anybody being able to get through.

And if the images do not give you a sense of the destruction and the loss families have suffered, then this next photograph encapsulates the power of the storm to take away all that people had worked for all of their lives. It is in the faces of the people I met.

Here in Pleasantville, NJ, which is right outside Atlantic City along a section there, the mayor of Pleasantville took me to meet a series of residents whose homes had been ripped apart.

In this picture, I am standing outside of the person's home, almost as if it were a dollhouse, looking in. I would love to have said that it was only this poor gentleman, but it was an entire community where homes had been ripped apart and you could see into their homes. It shows the nature of, the breadth and scope of, the devastation.

It is not that this gentleman lost a shingle, it is that he lost the whole side of his home, now exposed to the elements and, of course, everything ripped apart.

The other aspect about this picture, in addition to the incredible destruction, is the resiliency. When I went to share my sentiments and my concern with this gentleman, he asked me: How are you doing, Senator? I said: Well, sir, what is more important is, how are you doing? He said: I'm doing fine. I'm here, I'm alive, and I still have part of my home.

So sometimes when we think about how difficult our lives might be at any given moment, I think about this gentleman and the extraordinary resiliency he has had in the midst of probably one of the most difficult times in his life. And there are so many other New Jerseyans whom I met like that.

I met a young woman in Hoboken whose entire basement apartment was flooded--totally gone. She lost everything she had worked for in her young professional life. In the midst of that tragedy for her, she was at a shelter, running the shelter, helping everybody else who had been displaced--some not as badly as her, not thinking about her tomorrow, but thinking about her fellow citizens in Hoboken, NJ.

I met some poor families who were not badly affected by the storm who opened their homes and their kitchen tables to individuals who were their neighbors who were hurt very badly. And even though they did not have a lot to put around the kitchen table, they were sharing what they had.

I saw citizens risk their own lives to save their neighbors' lives in the rushing water and heard their accounts. So I saw the better angels of people in the midst of a storm.

The fact is, despite the damage and displacement, the human suffering and loss of property, possessions, personal photographs and family memories, the people of New Jersey held together.

Neighbors came together to help one another. As much as they were shaken and mourned their own loss, they worked together to help each other, to save each other, to begin the recovery, to get New Jersey back on its feet, and Federal, State, and local governments were there to help.

The Federal response was quick, and it was effective, but there is still so much more that we need to do, and still more that we can do to help those families who are still without shelter, still without a place to return to, to call home, and without a clear picture of what the future holds.

The storm was unprecedented in the breadth of its devastation. While our shoreline was hard hit, that does not begin to describe the full impact. Some of our Nation's most densely populated communities were also hit very hard, requiring one of the biggest rescue and recovery efforts we have seen. A response that size, obviously, takes time, but we acted quickly and will continue to do what needs to be done.

After surveying Sandy's damage with President Obama and Governor Christie on October 31, Senator Lautenberg and I called for increased support from the Federal Government to deal with the cost of response efforts.

In a letter to the President, we asked that the Federal share for disaster response be increased from the standard 75 percent to a much higher possibly 100 percent because of the devastating impact of what meteorologists have called a perfect storm.

The President initially issued a disaster declaration for eight New Jersey counties and, along with Senator Lautenberg, we requested additional counties be included, and they were.

Before walking with the President and the Governor through Brigantine, NJ, I had an opportunity to tour the destruction in Pleasantville, Hoboken, Jersey City, and communities in Bergen County. What I saw was unlike anything I had ever seen in my lifetime in those communities.

I am very grateful that the President came to New Jersey with the full force of the Federal Government to see and to respond firsthand to the devastation the hurricane left in its wake.

I have proudly lived in New Jersey all of my life, and seeing the Garden State in ruin is heartbreaking. The shore of my youth is gone. Much of it lies in the ocean for the ages. But it made me realize that, in times of tragedy, in times of storms like Sandy, we need government at all levels to come together, all of us rolling up our sleeves to help our neighbors recover and rebuild and reclaim their lives. We need to make certain that we secure all of the resources necessary to help New Jersey, and every community affected by this horrible storm, to rebuild and emerge stronger than before.

Since the storm, I have requested emergency funding for New Jersey's transportation network--highways, rail lines, ports, and airports--that was devastated by the storm.

I asked the President and Secretary LaHood for emergency funds to repair highways and bridges and to expedite assistance to all impacted modes of transportation.

I called on the President to dispatch emergency fuel and power supplies to New Jersey to ease the fuel shortage and to keep emergency vehicles running in the immediate aftermath of the storm.

To ensure critical infrastructure--water treatment and sanitation facilities--we received the help of the Army Corps of Engineers to have these facilities remain operable.

The Federal Government also responded with $10 million in emergency funding, with some of those critical transportation needs, freed up 2 million gallons of fuel from the Northeast Oil Reserve, and the EPA took action that rerouted this fuel to New Jersey when it needed it the most.

The Federal response also included a grant for New Jersey to hire 1,000 workers to help communities clean up from the storm.

But, despite all of that, many families in my State are still suffering. They have lost much, and many are displaced, some permanently, from their homes. That is why I have called for the immediate suspension of foreclosures and evictions for all New Jersey homeowners who faced financial difficulties before the storm and now are suffering additional difficulties in the wake of it; and for swift action to expand emergency mortgage payment relief to all New Jersey homeowners who have lost income as a result of Hurricane Sandy.

That is why we must work to give them certainty of what the Federal Government will do to help them rebuild their lives so they can make critical decisions as to their futures.

What I take away from this experience is the fact that we are all in this together, one community, each of us dependent on the other--each of us working to rebuild and recover for the benefit of all of us in New Jersey, but I believe all of us in the country.

That is what community is all about. It is the heart of our motto: E Pluribus Unum; From Many, One. We have just gone through an election at the heart of which we debated the role of government in our lives. I would submit we need to focus on what government does to rebuild the spirit of community that we have seen in action in the aftermath of this devastating storm.

Americans across the country were riveted by the stories of the immediate aftermath of the storm--the pictures of communities under water, homes moved blocks down the road, homes and trains blocking Federal highways, hospitals closed, gas lines miles long, people waiting hours for fuel to run generators and keep their homes heated, weeks of fuel rationing, and no transit or Amtrak service for the entire region for people to get to work or visit their families.

Without a doubt, those have been trying times for New Jersey. But now, just because those scenes may no longer be showing in living rooms across the country does not mean that the recovery is over.

Thousands of families are still displaced from their homes and will be for months to come.

Transit lines are still out. Community infrastructure still has to be rebuilt. Now is not the time for the Federal Government to walk away. It is more crucial now than ever for the Federal Government to help devastated communities rebuild, help families get the assistance they need to repair their homes, and put their lives back together.

I for one will not rest until the rebuilding is done. This is one country, the United States of America. That is why, when there was destruction in New Orleans with Katrina, in Florida, in Joplin, or crop destruction in the Midwest, I came along with other colleagues to support those communities. I viewed it as my time to stand with my fellow Americans in distress.

Now it is time for my fellow Americans to stand with New Jersey. New Jersey has been battered, but we are not broken. We are stronger and more united in our efforts to work together to recover, rebuild, and recommit ourselves to uniting around our common concerns and shared values rather than divided by our differences. That is the lesson we learned. And together we will rebuild and the Garden State will bloom once again.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the people and leaders of Taiwan on their National Day on October 10. This is a day for celebration, a special day that recognizes the founding of the country 101 years ago.

I would like to highlight the economic success of Taiwan over the last century--a success that has rightly been called a ``miracle'' and resulted in a strong and dynamic economy. The United States and Taiwan have a long history of mutual trade and friendship that has promoted economic prosperity on both sides of the Pacific. I am particularly pleased that the U.S.-Taiwan bilateral relationship has become even stronger in recent years.

I also would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Ambassador Jason Yuan, Representative of the ROC (Taiwan) to the United States, on his new post as Secretary-General of the National Security Council of Taiwan. I cherish the friendship with Ambassador Yuan and wish Ambassador and Madame Yuan the very best of luck in the future.

I urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating the people of Taiwan on their success and thanking them for their continued efforts to work with the United States to foster a strong economic growth and cooperation. On this day of National Celebration, the people of both the United States and Taiwan have much to celebrate.

Mr. President, this week I submitted two resolutions: The first recognizes September 15 through October 15 as Hispanic Heritage Month; the second designates the week of September 16 as ``National Hispanic-Serving Institutions Week'' and honors the

critical work of Hispanic-serving Institutions across the United States.

These resolutions celebrate the immense contributions of Hispanic Americans to our great Nation and pay tribute to over 300 nonprofit Hispanic-serving Institutions for their important role in educating and empowering Hispanic youth.

Latinos have a long and decorated history in the United States, full of extraordinary contributions to America's past, present, and future. Latinos have proudly served, helped build, and defended our country and have done so for hundreds of years, honorably serving in every action since before the founding of the Nation.

Hispanics fought alongside patriots in the American Revolution and rallied in the Civil War, serving bravely in both the Union and Confederate armies. Latinos rode in Teddy Roosevelt's Rough Riders during the Spanish-American War, received Congressional Medals of Honor in both world wars, and made the ultimate sacrifice for our country in Korea and Vietnam. As of July 2012, over 143,000 Hispanic Americans were actively serving with distinction in the U.S. Armed Forces, including 19,752 Hispanics serving in Afghanistan.

Just as Hispanics have defended our Nation, we have also helped shape and build it. That is why I also want to honor the exemplary institutions that are making vital investments in the next generation of Latino leaders.

Hispanic-serving Institutions are colleges or universities where total Hispanic enrollment constitutes a minimum of 25 percent of the student body, and they serve over half of all Hispanic students in the United States. As a product of a Hispanic-serving Institution in my home State of New Jersey, my experience is a living testimony of the important role that HSIs play in providing opportunities to Hispanic students in States such as Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, Washington, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

With these resolutions, we celebrate the contributions of all Latinos and the institutions that serve the Hispanic community in the United States. This month, let us celebrate not only Hispanic Heritage, but Hispanic-serving Institutions as well.

I am pleased with the overwhelming support these important resolutions have from my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, particularly Leader Reid and Senator Cornyn. This outpouring of bipartisan support is a strong indication of how far our community has come and how important our contributions are to this country. I look forward to celebrating the heritage and culture of Latinos and our valuable contributions to this Nation.

Mr. President, I understand my distinguished colleague from Oklahoma has asked consent to speak at 6:30 p.m. I will take about 10 or 15 minutes, which would put us about 5 minutes past that time. So I ask unanimous consent to speak for about 15 minutes, if that is acceptable to the Senator.

I thank the Presiding Officer and I thank my colleague for his courtesy.

Death of Oswaldo Paya

Mr. President, while we are focused on issues here at home--and certainly we should be--there are incidents taking place around the world, and those of us who care about freedom and democracy and human rights, those of us like myself who sit on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, also have our focus on what is happening in other places in the world.

I come to the floor to talk about the violence and repression that continues in the country of Cuba--this time in a dramatic and brazen attempt to exercise power through fear and intimidation over those who want nothing more than to see the day when the people of Cuba are free--and against members of the international community.

Once again, I am forced to come to the floor to put a spotlight on what is happening inside of Cuba and all those who put their lives on the line for freedom and human rights around the world.

The information we are receiving from both public reports and other information from Cuba concerning the circumstances surrounding the death of Oswaldo Paya--the island's most prominent and respected human rights advocate--is disturbing. It underscores the continued brutality and repression

of the Castro regime, and it demands a response from the international community, as well as from ourselves as part of that community.

The facts as we know them are that 50 prodemocracy activists were arrested and detained at the funeral--at the funeral--of Oswaldo Paya. At a funeral--they were not demonstrating, they were not marching or carrying signs, they were not engaged in acts of civil disobedience of any kind. They were not violating any laws. They were attending a funeral.

Hundreds gathered peacefully. Family, friends, and those who want nothing more than a free and democratic Cuba were at a funeral mourning the death of their hero, Oswaldo Paya.

But the arrest and detention of 50 dissidents who were mourning the loss of a friend and loved one is not the whole story of how far this regime will go.

The circumstances surrounding Oswaldo Paya's death leave any reasonable person to wonder what may have really happened on that road in Cuba that ended in the tragic automobile accident that took the life of Oswaldo Paya.

Paya's daughter Rosa Maria Paya immediately challenged the regime's version of events, stating that the family had received information from the survivors that their car was repeatedly rammed--rammed--by another vehicle.

She said:

So we think it's not an accident. They wanted to do harm

and then ended up killing my father.

The family also said that Oswaldo Paya was targeted in a similar incident 2 weeks earlier in Havana. The same thing: an effort as they were driving to ram them off the road. In retrospect, the family now sees that incident as a warning from the regime.

What we know is the car, driven by a politician from Spain, Angel Carromero, a citizen of Spain, and Aron Modig, an activist in Sweden, was involved in the fatal automobile accident that killed Paya and his Cuban colleague Harold Cepero.

Of course, we have no proof of that. But we do know Carromero and Modig survived the accident, and they obviously know exactly what happened that day. These are two individuals--one is a Spanish citizen, the other one is a Swedish citizen--who were involved in helping Paya promote, from an international perspective, the views of his civil society movement toward peaceful change in democracy and human rights.

But instead of getting the two survivors' real story, in a demonstration of the twisted nature of the Castro regime, the Cuban Ministry of Interior detained, without consular access, the two foreigners who survived the crash and then paraded Modig, the Swede, before a Ministry of Interior press conference, where he was clearly forced to apologize for working with Paya and ``illegally aiding the Cuban opposition.''

The driver of the car, Carromero, the Spanish citizen, was less lucky than his Swedish colleague. It appears he will not be allowed to speak freely for years to come, courtesy of the Castro regime. They have formally charged him with vehicular manslaughter in the crash.

Carromero, like Modig, was forced to offer a mea culpa, which was made available in a video presentation hosted by Castro's nefarious Ministry of the Interior.

The regime's logic has to boggle the mind of any reasonable person who cares about the rule of law.

It is also my understanding, according to reports from Cuba, that--in a move typical of the Castro regime--Spanish diplomats were prohibited from seeing or meeting with Carromero until yesterday.

Meanwhile, the grieving widow of Oswaldo Paya has expressed outrage and has rejected Castro's official report regarding the death of her husband and the circumstances surrounding the accident which has now blamed the accident on the actions of Angel Carromero, who was driving the car.

Paya's widow has said: ``Until I'm able to speak with Angel or with Aron, the last two people who saw my husband alive, have access to the expert reports, and have the advice of people independent of the Cuban government, I can have no idea what really happened that day.''

I cannot be certain that the regime killed Oswaldo Paya, but the circumstances of his death are highly suspicious. There is no question that the regime had no motive to kill Oswaldo Paya. Oswaldo Paya was most--one of the most prominent opponents of the Castro dictatorship, a Catholic activist who funded the Christian Liberation Movement in 1988.

He is best known for the Varela Project, a petition drive he launched in 2002 that called for free elections and other rights. That drive led the Cuban Government to adopt a constitutional amendment making the Communist system in Cuba irrevocable. It followed that with the 2003 Black Spring, which arrested 75 of the most prominent Cuban activists in that year.

Paya had become the most known, most visible face of Cuba's peaceful opposition movement. The European Parliament awarded him the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought in 2002. That year, he was also nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize by hundreds of parliamentarians in a campaign led by his friend Vaclav Havel, the Czech Republic President.

Paya was determined that Cuba and Cubans should enjoy the benefits of freedom and democracy and he committed his life to that cause and he may very well have lost his life to that cause. We cannot continue to turn our backs on those inside Cuba struggling in peaceful ways to promote democracy and human rights. We cannot allow the violence and the repression, the brutal detentions to continue without consequence. We cannot allow innocent members of the international community to be brutalized and victimized by the Castro brothers so they can hide the truth without the international community standing together and holding them accountable for their repressive and illegal actions.

Will the Castro regime stop at nothing, nothing to repress the rights of its people? Can we turn our back on the rule of law on the Cuban people, on the facts of this case, on Mr. Carromero or can we once again have that wink and nod and say: Oh, well, you know, it has been over 50 years; things are changing for the better in Cuba, and we should let bygones be bygones, as people languish in jail, as people die at the hands of the regime, as we see the hunger strikers who give up their lives because of the brutality they are facing, to try to rivet the world's attention in this regard.

Some say we should permit Castro's hooligans to parade across our Nation, which we seem to give visas to, spewing lies while American Alan Gross sits in a prison simply because he brought some communications equipment for the Jewish community in Havana to be able to collaborate and to inform each other. That was his crime. He has now been in prison, a U.S. citizen, for 2 years, languishing in Castro's jails, not to mention thousands of Cuban political prisoners who suffer in Cuban prisons.

As I have said on this floor over and over, to me, the silence is so deafening from so many of our colleagues. They may have a different view than I do about how we promote democracy, but I do not hear them speak out about these human rights abuses, about the deaths in Castro's prisons, about those who can get knocked off the side of a road and killed. The silence in that respect is deafening.

So there are some of us who are committed to making sure that silence is broken. Today, I am asking my colleagues to join me in sending a letter to Ban Ki-moon, the Secretary General of the United Nations, demanding that the United Nations and the Human Rights Council immediately undertake a full and thorough investigation of the circumstances surrounding Oswaldo Paya's tragic death and the detention of Angel Carromero. We must demand the truth about these tragic events that took the life of Cuba's most devoted human rights advocate.

I hope our colleagues will join us in that respect. We have supported democracy movements around the world. They have often made a big difference, from Vaclav Havel, Lech Walesa, Soviet Jewry, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, and so many others. When we side on behalf of those struggling against repressive regimes for democracy and human rights, it makes a difference. It can make a difference in this regard as well.

I am hoping our colleagues will join us in helping break the silence, on behalf of the memory of Oswaldo Paya and on behalf of all those who lose their lives every day or their liberty simply because they peacefully choose to try to change the nature of the country in which they live. It is something America should be a beacon of light for, something I hope we can shine very brightly, and in doing so, create a protective element to those who are peacefully trying to create change inside Cuba. We should do no less.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with the majority leader, Senator Reid, and the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus.

Mr. President, let me begin by clearly stating I understand the majority leader later today will issue a unanimous consent request to move forward on the AGOA, the African Growth and Opportunity Act trade bill, and the Burma sanctions package as well as CAFTA-DR. Those are all efforts I supported as a member of the Finance Committee and voted for and ultimately want to see passed.

I believe trade is an effective development tool and that by investing in people we can make a long-term and sustainable change in developing countries. But at the same time, I am very concerned about our failure to reauthorize the cotton and wool trust funds which are crucial to sustaining jobs in the United States and jobs in my State of New Jersey.

For some time now I have been working tirelessly to reach an agreeable resolution on the issue, one that enables us to pass AGOA and CAFTA-DR and Burma sanctions while simultaneously protecting dwindling apparel sector jobs in the United States, hundreds in my home State, thousands across the country, and ensuring that our trade is not just free but is also fair.

That is not the case right now. So I come to the floor to enter into a colloquy with the distinguished majority leader and the chairman of the Finance Committee to ask for their help and commitment to addressing this domestic jobs issue, the cotton and wool trust funds this year, so we can seek to move this legislation and do right by American workers as we are trying to also help African workers.

I yield to the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. President, I wish to thank and appreciate the majority leader's and the chairman's ongoing commitment to this issue. I look forward to continuing to work with them on the issue to protect American workers and American manufacturers from the negative effect of certain trade policies and tariffs that threaten their livelihood.

I appreciate them both coming to the floor and for their commitment. I just wish to take a minute or two for those who have asked me--I have had a whole host of our colleagues who have come and said to me: What are you trying to achieve? So we can move quickly to try to achieve the passage of AGOA and CAFTA-DR, Burma sanctions, all which I support.

I know colleagues, such as Congressman Rangel, who was the original author of AGOA, has called, among many others. You know, very simply, pursuant to the passage of NAFTA and CAFTA and AGOA and other trade preference programs, Congress has eliminated duties on, for example, imported shirts from other countries. In some cases such as AGOA, it has also allowed the use of third-country fabrics to make those imported shirts.

Our tariff policy, however, has not changed. While foreign-made dress shirts are entering the United States duty free, we are charging American manufacturers a duty as high as 13\1/2\ percent on cotton shirting fabric. So not surprisingly, this made-in-America tax resulted in American manufacturers moving production offshore where shirting fabric is not subject to those high duties and where the finished product can come back to the United States duty free.

Six years ago, Congress recognized that, in fact, is simply unfair. Why should an American manufacturer have to pay a duty when those abroad using the same fabric can send it to the United States without any duty? They created the cotton trust fund to provide a combination of duty reductions and duty refunds to shirt manufacturers that continue manufacturing in the United States.

That program expired in 2009. Since then, these businesses have suffered and dwindled. I am just simply trying, as we promote jobs in Africa and in the Caribbean, to promote jobs in the United States. I want the women in the factories I have visited--this is the essence of how they sustain their families--to be able to continue to have those jobs.

That is why I appreciate the effort by the chairman and by the majority leader to try to get us to that point, so we can have free trade, but it also has to be fair to Americans who are here and can compete. They cannot compete when they have to pay a 13\1/2\-percent tax and people sending it from all over the world have to pay nothing. That is the essence of what I am trying to accomplish.

I will not object later today when the majority leader proposes his unanimous consent request and will support the effort to move those trade bills.

I thank my colleague.

Yes.

Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from Maryland, a fellow member of the Finance Committee. Senator Cardin has been a passionate voice on this as well. I am thrilled to have him as an ally in this endeavor.

All we want is for Americans to stay employed. They can compete with anybody in the world but not when they have to pay a tariff or tax that nobody else has to pay who sends the same product back into the United States. That is our goal. I appreciate his work, his passion, and his commitment. I look forward to working with the majority leader and the chairman of the Finance Committee.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for 4 minutes; that following my 4 minutes, the distinguished Senator from Iowa, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, be recognized for 6 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise to strongly support the nomination of Judge Michael Shipp for the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

All of us in New Jersey, everyone who has dealt with him, everyone who knows him is very familiar with Judge Shipp's strong qualifications and reputation for excellence. He is an exceptional candidate for the Federal bench--an accomplished jurist with impressive credentials.

I recommended Judge Shipp to President Obama, and I urge all my colleagues in the Senate to support his nomination, as the Judiciary Committee did.

With almost 5 years' experience as a Federal magistrate judge for the District of New Jersey, he is well prepared to assume a seat as a Federal district judge. As a magistrate, he has successfully managed significant and complex cases. On occasion, he has served as the district court judge in cases with magistrate jurisdiction.

The first 8 years of his distinguished legal career were spent in the litigation department at the law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. In 2003, he turned to public service to give something back to the community as an assistant attorney general for consumer protection in the Office of the Attorney General of New Jersey, where he honed his expertise in consumer fraud, insurance fraud, and securities fraud cases.

Judge Shipp clearly excelled. He was twice promoted within the office, first as a liaison to the attorney general and second as counsel to the attorney general. As counsel, he was in charge, in essence, of day-to-day operations of the Department of Law and Public Safety, a department with over 10,000 employees and 800 attorneys.

An accomplished jurist, an experienced prosecutor, a dedicated public servant, and an effective administrator and manager as well, that is Michael Shipp. It is what all of us in New Jersey have known him to be.

Judge Shipp has not stayed on the sidelines. Even with a full plate, he has been deeply involved in the legal community in helping address the profession's needs and concerns. He held a leadership role with the New Jersey State Bar Association and is actively involved with the Garden State Bar Association, which is the association of African- American lawyers.

As a faculty member of Seton Hall University's School of Law's Summer Institute for Pre-Legal Studies, he helped disadvantaged students develop their interest in the law, and he served on the faculty of the New Jersey Attorney General's Advocacy Institute, which ensures that attorneys representing the State of New Jersey maintain the highest possible levels of professionalism.

Judge Shipp is also a very proud New Jerseyan--part of the community--with deep roots in the State. A native of Paterson, he grew up and has lived in New Jersey all his life. He earned his degrees from Rutgers, the State university, and Seton Hall University School of Law. After graduating, he

went on to clerk for the Honorable James Coleman, a former justice on the New Jersey Supreme Court.

To put it simply, Michael Shipp will be an extraordinary district court judge for the District of New Jersey. He is a man of honor, principle, and he possesses an excellent judicial temperament, has extraordinary legal experience, and a deep and abiding commitment to the rule of law.

I have full confidence he will serve the people of New Jersey and the country with all the dignity, fairness, and honor he has shown throughout his extraordinary career. We are lucky to have a nominee of his caliber, and I wholeheartedly urge the full Senate to vote to confirm Judge Shipp to the District of New Jersey.

I am thrilled we are actually going to do a confirmation vote and not a cloture vote and I appreciate those who made that possible.

With that, I yield the floor to my distinguished colleague from Iowa.

Madam President, I am pleased to join my colleagues in speaking about the DISCLOSE Act and why this is so critically important for our democracy. I appreciate the leadership of several of our colleagues in this respect.

For the last 2 years our democracy has been hijacked by powerful special interests. Tonight we had the opportunity to begin repairing the fabric of our Nation's democracy before permanent damage is done. Unfortunately, Republicans decided not to put our democracy back on the right track.

Out there, in this Presidential election season, murky special interests are spending unlimited amounts of corporate money. It is even possible that foreign governments can determine it is in their interests to funnel vast amounts of money to influence American political elections. Think about a country that does currency manipulation, that violates trade agreements, that steals intellectual property rights. Those of us who oppose those types of actions taken by other countries that are against the national economic interests of the United States could easily see that money flow through U.S. subsidiaries. That money could ultimately end up in campaigns to say: We do not want this Member of Congress, who is standing up for the interests of the American middle class and American businesses against our interests. We want to be able to continue to manipulate our currency, to be able to continue to steal intellectual property rights, to be able to continue with impunity to violate trade agreements.

That is possible as the law exists now. I believe we have a patriotic obligation to protect our electoral system from that kind of influence. These anonymous secretive interests--mostly corporate--aren't spending money because they want to feel like a part of the process, they are spending money for a purpose. They have a reason and, no doubt, a self- interest. One doesn't spend tens of millions of dollars without having a self-interest. Is this what our Founding Fathers had in mind? We should know who they are and what is their agenda.

Since the Supreme Court made its ruling in Citizens United allowing corporate interests to spend money unlimitedly, the money has been more than trickling in, the money has been a torrent, a tsunami of unlimited cash. According to the New York Times, independent groups have spent at least $118 million since the start of the Presidential campaign. One super PAC alone has spent over $57 million.

If my colleagues do not believe me, listen to Michael Toner, the former Chairman of the Federal Election Commission, who said: ``I can tell you from personal experience the money's flowing.'' The money is flowing. This begs the question, Where is this money flowing from and where is it going? Who is behind the cash and what is to prevent foreign government interests from influencing our elections? What is to stop foreign influence in American elections other than complete disclosure?

If corporations are spending money to influence elections, it is for the sole purpose of improving their own bottom lines. And this undermines the very essence of our democracy, where individual citizens are the ones who should determine the outcome of elections, not murky, shadowy, multibillion-dollar corporate interests or, worse, a foreign government. Disclosure, full disclosure, is what we need, and that is what we should demand before the people lose control of our electoral process.

That is why I introduced another bill, the Shareholder Protection Act--a commonsense proposal that gives real people a say in the process. If the Supreme Court's position, which, obviously, is the law of the land, is that a corporation is a person and therefore can go ahead and spend in Federal elections, then since the corporation's money belongs to the shareholders, it is only right that they have a voice on how their money is going to influence elections.

My bill would require shareholder approval of corporate political spending. This basic step would ensure that corporations' political activities actually reflect the will of their shareholders. If, as the Supreme Court ruled, corporations have free speech rights, then their shareholders should have control of that speech. The Shareholder Protection Act does that by giving shareholders the opportunity to exercise their free speech rights. But until we can reach consensus on my proposal, the least we can give the American people is the right to know who is trying to influence them.

I think these are basic principles of a democracy. There are basic principles in our democracy on which both parties should be able to agree.

Imagine the influence of the big five oil companies on American elections. In March, 47 U.S. Senators voted against repealing $24 billion in oil subsidies over the next 10 years. We know from their publicly disclosed donations that these 47 Senators received over $23 million in donations from oil companies over the course of their careers. So after the oil companies fought tooth and nail to protect the taxpayer subsidies--the $24 billion they get, which costs us as taxpayers $76 dollars every second--do we think they wouldn't spend millions more in support of what they want? Now they can give unlimited amounts of money to super PACs without ever disclosing the contributions.

In another example, Alliance Resource Group, a coal company, gave over $2.4 million to Karl Rove's super PAC, American Crossroads, which then turned around and funded advertisements targeting important environmental protection regulations. They are using unlimited corporate funds to influence our elections and our Nation's energy policy to protect their bottom line, regardless of the consequences to the air we breathe and regardless that States such as mine suffer from too high of an incidence of respiratory illnesses and cancers. They basically spend whatever it takes to buy their right to continue to pollute the air we collectively breathe.

I could go on and on with examples of why special interests would very well spend in Federal elections to dictate policies that ultimately would hurt everyone but the special interests. That is what we are fighting against. This legislation is the first step in undoing that.

The American people deserve to know who is giving more than $10,000. I don't believe that is too much to ask. As a matter of fact, all of us who run in this body for the Senate and all who run in the House of Representatives--all of our contributors are subject to disclosure. So if the donation of an average citizen back at home is subject to disclosure, why can we not at least have that corporation disclose when they give over $10,000 to one of these shadowy super PACs? The average citizen has to disclose but the corporations don't. Isn't something wrong with that equation?

I see why we can't get a vote on the other side of the aisle because, overwhelmingly, they are receiving the benefits of this undisclosed, shadowy money. But is that truly the American way? Is that why we came to this institution? I thought we came for the very essence of what our democracy is about, which is clear, open transparency at the end of the day. Is that what the average voter wants to see in terms of this democracy? I don't think so.

I leave my colleagues with this simple message: Our democracy was founded on the principle of an open and honest debate, but without disclosure we get neither. All we get are commercials on television and we don't know who is paying for them; we don't know what their interests are; we only know the negativity that flows from it, but we get none of the people behind it, none of the corporations behind it.

Again, they will not spend tens of millions of dollars to just simply participate in the process. If they want to participate in the process, they can disclose, as does every other citizen. There is no reason they shouldn't disclose. If there is a reason why any company is spending money to make a case for what they believe is good public policy, fine. Let them disclose. But to vote against disclosure as a simple element of preserving our democracy is beyond my comprehension.

I hope, as the electorate sees these advertisements without disclosure, they will say to themselves: Who are the people behind these advertisements? Where are all of these millions of dollars coming from, and what is it that they want for their money? When we ask those questions, in the absence of simple disclosure, I think we will come to understand who these shadowy figures are and what they really want. That is why we should pass the DISCLOSE Act, and I hope we get another chance to get our colleagues to reconsider.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we are poised to pass a truly historic transportation bill and I wanted to engage in a brief colloquy with my colleague Chairman Johnson, with whom I have worked closely over the past year and a half to craft the transit title of the bill. He has been a true pleasure to work with and I think we should all be proud that we have secured stable funding for public transportation over the next 2 years.

The bill has record amounts of rail funding and by abandoning earmarks, all of the major formula programs have been increased significantly. We have greatly enhanced the Federal Transit Administration's powers to provide safety oversight and set national standards, which will ensure millions of transit passengers can travel safely and efficiently.

But for the purposes of this colloquy I wanted to focus on section 20013 on private sector participation in public transportation. I ask the chairman, does anything in this section show a preference by Congress for public transportation to be provided by private operators rather than public operators?

Chairman Johnson, I completely agree. This language should not be interpreted to encourage or require public-private partnership activities in transit or give any preference to grantees based on the decisions they make on this issue.

For years, the committee has endorsed the longstanding congressional policy that decisions involving the choice between public and private transit operators should be left to local authorities who are better equipped to make local transportation decisions. The Federal government is clearly best suited to making broad public policy decisions rather than micromanaging the local transit choices selected to meet the needs of rural, urban, and suburban communities. Does the chairman agree?

I thank the chairman. I look forward to continue working with you to oversee the implementation of this and other provisions in this bill and continue to do all we can do to support a robust, well-funded public transportation program.

Madam President, I ask to be recognized to engage in a colloquy with my good friend from Iowa, the Chairman of the HELP Committee, Senator Harkin.

I want to thank the Chairman for his leadership on this bill, the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act. This is a critically important piece of legislation and I am proud to support it. I wanted to ask the Senator to clarify something for me regarding language in the bill dealing with the development of new antibiotics. This bill contains language to incentivize the development of antibiotics, both for newly-discovered infections where antibiotics do not yet exist as well as for those resistant infections where currently available antibiotic treatments may no longer work. These incentives are available for qualified infectious disease products, that is, products intended to treat serious or life-threatening infections, including those caused by resistant gram positive pathogens and multi- drug resistant gram negative bacteria. It is my understanding that products intended to treat serious or life-threatening infections caused by gram negative anaerobic bacteria are also considered qualified infectious disease products, and therefore eligible for the incentives contained in this provision. Is that the case?

I appreciate the Senator clarifying that point. As he knows, infections caused by gram negative anaerobic bacteria such as Bacteroides and Garnerella have a disproportionate impact on women of color and cause an increased risk of HIV infection and complications of pre-term labor. I am pleased that this bill takes the steps necessary to ensure treatments for these infections can come to market and help those in need. Again, I thank the Senator for his leadership on this bill and for clarifying this point today.

Madam President, I rise to ask the Senate to protect public health, not polluters, and to protect clean air over corporate profits.

Upholding the mercury and air toxics standard means keeping toxic mercury, arsenic, lead, and other pollutants out of our lakes and streams and out of children's lungs. It will prevent 11,000 premature deaths, 5,000 heart attacks, and 130,000 asthma attacks in this country each year after its implementation.

For over 20 years polluters have fought these rules and used their influence to create delay after delay in administration after administration. It is time these rules were finally implemented so we can preserve the health of the American people and our Nation's air quality.

New Jersey has many residents who are vulnerable to poor air quality. According to the American Lung Association, there are over 184,000 children and 587,000 adults with asthma in New Jersey. It is estimated that these new air toxics standards will prevent up to 320 premature deaths and create up to $2.6 billion in health benefits in New Jersey in 2016 alone. These residents deserve better than to have their health subordinated to the financial interests of corporate executives.

Reducing toxic emissions is welcomed by New Jersey's power providers. The Public Service Enterprise Group, PSEG, New Jersey's oldest and largest electric utility, operates several of the powerplants that would be affected by the mercury and air toxic standards. Because these regulations have been in the works for over 20 years, PSEG and other power providers have already made investments in anticipation of their implementation. To assert that these standards are somehow a surprise or could not have been anticipated by electric utilities would be grossly inaccurate.

Mercury is perhaps the most dangerous pollutant targeted by this rule and coal-fired powerplants are responsible for half of the mercury emissions in the United States.

Mercury, a dangerous neurotoxin, has been associated with damage to the kidneys, liver, brain, and nervous system. It has also been shown to cause neurological and developmental problems in children. The American Academy of Pediatrics, in detailing the impact of mercury exposure on human health, noted,

mercury in all of its forms is toxic to the fetus and

children, and efforts should be made to reduce exposure to

the extent possible to pregnant women and children, as well

as the general population.

Elevated levels of mercury exposure have also been shown to put adults at increased risk of heart attacks, increased blood pressure, and blocked arteries. Rather than cater to polluters, we must heed the warnings of doctors, nurses, and respiratory therapists--medical professionals that have dedicated their lives to preventing and treating illness caused by mercury.

Mercury emissions also act as a pervasive contaminant throughout our Nation's watersheds, where the pollutant accumulates in fish, other wildlife, and ultimately, in humans. In 2003, Jeff Holmstead, the EPA Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation under George W. Bush, stated:

Mercury, a potent toxin, can cause permanent damage to the

brain and nervous system, particularly in developing fetuses

when ingested in sufficient quantities. People are exposed to

mercury mainly through eating fish contaminated with

methylmercury.

In New Jersey, mercury has been a widespread and consistent contaminant in freshwater fish collected throughout the State, with unsafe concentrations of mercury being found in both urban and rural areas. The statistics send a clear message: if we don't act now, we risk mass contamination of our Nation's waters and food supply.

The mercury and air toxics standard will work to curb toxic emissions produced from coal powerplants, and to ensure that future emissions comply with set national limits. These new standards are expected to reduce mercury emissions from coal and powerplants by 90 percent, acid gas pollution by 88 percent, and particulate matter emissions by 30 percent.

Senator Inhofe's proposal, if enacted, would not only void all of the health benefits produced by the air toxics standard, but also prevent the government from issuing similar standards in the future. In effect, this would

severely curtail the government's ability to address the serious hazards posed by pollutant emissions. I believe this would be deeply irresponsible.

These national standards are long overdue. In 1990, Congress amended the Clean Air Act to require performance-based regulations of air pollutants, in an effort to reduce toxic emissions produced from industrial sources. That amendment was passed with broad bipartisan support, approved by 89 Senators, 401 House members, and signed by a Republican president. After two decades, national standards regulating powerplant emissions of mercury and other toxic pollutants are finally in place. How many more children will be poisoned by mercury in their bodies, if Congress continues to delay or eliminate safeguards ensuring health safety?

In 1990, Congress recognized the harm posed by these pollutants and took appropriate action. Now it is time for us to finally implement them and protect the health of all Americans.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 12 noon today, the Senate proceed to executive session and that the motion to proceed to the motion to reconsider the cloture vote by which cloture was not invoked on Executive Calendar No. 501 be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be agreed to, and that there be 30 minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form; and that following the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote on cloture on the nomination, upon reconsideration.

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

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

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