Floor Statements

Mr. President, it has been more than 4 months since an earthquake struck Haiti, devastating not only its citizens, but also the support infrastructure--government, NGO and international--that is critical in responding to such emergencies. The U.S. and the international community rallied to Haiti's aid. Americans put their concerns to action, whether by writing to elected officials in support of greater assistance to Haiti, as so many of my constituents have done, or by contributing their own time and resources. Although it might seem to the people of Haiti, that along with the original flurry of media attention, the support of the American people has now dissipated, this is not the case.

I continue to hear regularly from the people of Wisconsin, who write not only to express their thoughts and prayers for the Haitian people, but who also request that their government do everything in its power to provide continuously needed relief and to encourage close collaboration with the Haitian people to support long-term recovery and rebuilding efforts. I was pleased to support Senator Kerry's Haiti Empowerment, Assistance, and Rebuilding Act of 2010, as amended, out of committee earlier this week and appreciate the signal it sends about our ongoing dedication to helping the people of Haiti get back on their feet in this time of great need.

While we work towards recovery and reconstruction, we must not lose focus on the immediate needs of the Haitian people--who remain in a suspended state of normalcy. More than 1 million people reside in camps, both official and informal, for the displaced. Major challenges remain in the areas of drainage, sanitation, food distribution, water, and coordination. Communicable diseases such as tetanus, malaria, and typhoid are on the rise. I especially share the concerns my constituents have raised about physical security for vulnerable populations, particularly women and children, who have suffered unacceptably from sexual violence, as well as for the disabled. Such populations are often the most severely affected by a lack of security and difficulties in accessing resources.

I am encouraged to see funding for many of these issues and areas in the supplemental request, but, as always, the devil is in the details. We must make sure our effort to provide timely and expedited assistance is not done at the expense of doing it right. We must make sure we are coordinating with all actors working in Haiti, including the Haitian government, international donors and organizations and the people of Haiti themselves. We can better understand the needs of the Haitian people and ensure we are addressing them effectively if we make sure to incorporate their voices into the planning process. To overlook the voices of the very individuals who are experiencing such devastation would be a severe injustice and yet it appears we may be doing just that.

I am troubled by reports from Haitian civil society of the obstacles to their full participation. We must not ignore the invaluable experience and insight of leaders on the ground by favoring large international NGOs over smaller grassroots organizations. We must make sure all relevant actors are at the table as we seek to implement a pragmatic and efficient plan for recovery. As Senator Kerry's bill notes, ``when the people and other civil society actors in an affected country play a significant role in the design and execution of the rebuilding efforts, the efforts are often more sustainable and more in line with the needs and aspirations of local populations.'' We must therefore facilitate the participation of civil society and the Haitian people as well as their collaboration with the international community and their government as we continue relief and transition to recovery and rebuilding.

The damage done by the January 12 earthquake was all the more destructive because Haiti, the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, was still recovering from the devastating hurricane season of 2008, and still struggling with poverty and stability. Prior to the earthquake, the U.N. and the U.S. Government, along with many domestic and international partners, had been working alongside the Haitian people to strengthen their country. Now more than ever, we must redouble our efforts to ensure that priorities and needs do not go unmet and that in relief and recovery we give the Haitian people, and through them our own citizens and constituents, the biggest possible returns.

Madam President, we need to improve our border security, and I have worked to do just that by supporting efforts to crack down on Mexican drug cartels and to increase the number of Federal agents and Homeland Security personnel on the ground in the Southwest border region. Unfortunately, the three amendments the Senate considered today that were intended to enhance border security would have redirected funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. It doesn't make sense to cut funding from a program CBO says boosted employment by as many as 2.8 million jobs in the first quarter of 2010, while raising GDP somewhere between 1.7 and 4.2 percent. We face serious fiscal challenges, and we need to cut wasteful spending, but the American people should not have to choose between saving jobs and protecting our border.

Madam President, my amendment is cosponsored by Senators Boxer, Durbin, Merkley, Sherrod Brown, Sanders, Udall of New Mexico, and Harkin, and would require the President to provide a flexible, nonbinding timetable for the responsible drawdown of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. It does not set a specific date for the withdrawal of such troops. It does not require the President to actually redeploy troops. It does not place any restrictions on funding.

The President has already indicated his surge strategy in Afghanistan is time limited and that he will begin redeploying troops in July 2011. All we are asking in this amendment is that the President provide further details on how long this redeployment is expected to take.

Our brave servicemembers and the American taxpayers deserve to know what is being asked of them as they risk their lives and spend their money to continue this war.

My amendment is not about whether we support the President or the troops. All of us support the troops, and I hope we all wish the President success in Afghanistan. Nor is it about whether we agree with the President's strategy. I, for one, happen to have serious doubts about the administration's approach. But in light of our deficit and domestic needs and in light of rising casualty rates in Afghanistan and in light of the growing al-Qaida threat around the world, an expensive, troop-intensive, nation-building campaign doesn't add up for me. We should be focusing on Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and other terrorist safe havens.

Frankly, I am disappointed we are about to pass a bill providing tens of billions of dollars to keep this war going with so little public debate about whether this approach even makes any sense. But no matter how we feel about the President or his approach in Afghanistan, I hope we can agree on the need for an exit strategy as we approach the 9-year anniversary of a war that is showing no signs of winding down. That is all my amendment would require--a nonbinding plan to bring this war eventually to a close.

We have lost 1,000 servicemembers in this war. We have spent $300 billion. I hope my colleagues will agree that the American people deserve an answer to the question: How much longer?

I reserve the remainder of my time, and I yield the floor.

Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?

I thank the Chair. I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Michigan, but I feel very strongly that my amendment has to be properly characterized. This is not a specific timetable. It merely asks the President to give us a vision of a timetable of when he intends for this to be over.

The Senator from Michigan tries to reassure us that the President has announced a start date for us to get out of Afghanistan. Well, that doesn't work because how do we think the people of that area of the world will be reassured if we are going to only start to withdraw the troops in 2011? You take one troop out, that starts it. That is not a vision of when we intend to complete it.

The Senator suggests that somehow this sends the wrong message in the region. Well, actually, the wrong message is that we intend to be there forever. We don't intend to be there forever. But you know what. After 9 years, people start wondering--9 years; 9 years with no vision of when we might depart. In fact, I think the absolute worst message in the region is an open-ended commitment. The worst thing we can do is not give some sense to the people of that region and to the American people and to our troops that there is some end to this thing. All we ask for in this amendment is some vision from the President about when he thinks we might complete this task.

So when this amendment is properly characterized, it is actually a way to help us make sure the Taliban and al-Qaida and others do not win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people because they need to be reassured that we intend to make sure their country comes back to them and that it will not be occupied indefinitely.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?

I ask unanimous consent for 10 seconds to respond to the Senator from Michigan.

I thank the Chair. I thought I had a little more.

Madam President, the Senator is trying to read the amendment in a way that is simply not accurate.

The amendment simply asks the President to provide his vision of a

timetable by which he would intend to withdraw the troops. It is entirely nonbinding. Any suggestion that this is binding in any way on the President or the U.S. Government is completely false and a mischaracterization of the amendment. It is not binding. In fact, it allows the President specifically to identify variables that would cause him on his own to change the timetable. So how anyone can say this is a binding timetable in any way, shape, or form is beyond me.

It is merely a request that the President give us his vision of when he might withdraw from Afghanistan. It is the only fair way to characterize this amendment.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Reserving the right to object, if the Senator from Hawaii consents to having the pending business set aside so that one of the speakers can offer an amendment, I assume that would be acceptable.

Then I have no objection.

Madam President, what is the pending business?

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside that amendment for the purpose of calling up an amendment.

Madam President, if I can respond to the Senator from Illinois, I will make my remarks, but I spoke to the Senator from Hawaii prior to this, and I believe there is no objection. If I could, I will proceed and then at the conclusion I will renew my request.

Then, Madam President, I renew my unanimous-consent request to set aside the pending amendment for the purpose of calling up an amendment.

It is amendment No. 4204, which is at the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Madam President, I rise to offer an amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Boxer, Senator Durbin, and Senator Merkley, that would require the President to provide a flexible timetable for the responsible drawdown of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. The amendment is based on legislation I have introduced in the Senate, as I mentioned, with Senator Boxer, and also that Representative McGovern and Representative Jones have introduced in the House.

Our amendment would require the President to be clear about his timeframe in Afghanistan. The President has already indicated that his surge strategy in Afghanistan is time limited and he will begin redeploying troops in July 2011. All we are asking is that the President provide further details about how long he intends to leave our troops in Afghanistan, and about what variables could lead him to change his mind about this timetable.

Before I go on, I want to explain what my amendment does not do. It does not set a specific date for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. It does not require the President to actually redeploy troops. And it does not place any restrictions on funding.

Rather, it simply requires the President to provide a timeline for the redeployment of U.S. troops. That timeline is not binding. In fact, the amendment directs the President to identify, as I said, what variables, if any, would warrant the alteration of that timeline. Secretary Clinton has already testified that she anticipates it will take 3 to 5 years to transition control to Afghan security forces.

My bill would simply require the President to lay this out clearly and specifically, and to spell out what, if any, conditions would warrant a longer U.S. military presence. It allows him to provide some of this information in a classified annex, if that is appropriate.

Congress needs information about expected troop levels in order to properly plan and pay for the war and to avoid future unpaid-for supplemental spending bills such as the one we are now considering. Frankly, I had hoped the days of budget-busting supplemental war spending bills were in the past. We have already spent hundreds of billions of dollars on this war and hundreds of billions more on Iraq. At a time of massive deficits, economic upheaval, and major domestic needs going unfilled, that level of deficit spending is simply unsustainable.

In fairness, unlike his predecessor, President Obama has attempted to provide realistic budget estimates for war costs in the current and next fiscal years. But beyond fiscal year 2011, the President's budget numbers are unrealistically low. It would likely cost the American taxpayer $300 billion to $500 billion to conduct the President's strategy over and above the $300 billion we have already spent in Afghanistan.

I have serious concerns about this strategy, and I would be more than happy to discuss those concerns with my colleagues on the floor. It is about time we had a real debate in the Senate about this war. But I hope even those who support the administration's surge agree it should be paid for. We cannot continue to do what the last administration did and add this massive cost to the national credit card.

Al-Qaida's stated goal is to bankrupt the United States of America. If we keep running up debt to pay for the war, al-Qaida may well achieve its goal. If Congress cannot provide the will to pay for this war, then we need to seriously ask ourselves, How much longer can we keep fighting it?

By requiring the administration to provide its exit strategy, we can also help to provide our men and women in uniform with greater certainty about their deployments. After almost a decade of war, our servicemembers deserve to know how much longer our military operations in Afghanistan are expected to continue and, frankly, so do the American people.

We have many priorities and many pressing needs, both domestically and abroad. The American people deserve more information about the administration's plans in Afghanistan so they can evaluate those plans and weigh them against other priorities, including and especially the need to target growing al-Qaida affiliates around the world.

Moreover, a timetable will help make clear to our partners in Afghanistan that our support is not unconditional and that we will not continue to bear the burden of our current military deployment indefinitely. That is an important message that the current flawed Afghan leadership needs to hear.

While I am disappointed by his decision to expand our military involvement in Afghanistan, I commend the President for setting a start date for redeployment, namely, July 2011. Our allies have stated that it has helped ``focus the minds'' of our partners in Afghanistan and around the world. Having a start date is essential, but alone it is insufficient. It should be accompanied by an end date too.

The President should convey to the American and Afghan people how long he anticipates it will take to complete his military objectives. So long as our large-scale military presence remains open-ended, al- Qaida will have a valuable recruiting tool and our partners in Afghanistan will have an incentive to take a back seat, leaving U.S. troops and U.S. taxpayers on the hook.

Again, my amendment is not about whether one of us supports the President or the troops. All of us support the troops and hope and wish the President has success in Afghanistan. But no matter how we feel about the President or about his approach in Afghanistan, I hope we can agree on the need for an exit strategy, as we approach the 9-year anniversary of a war that is showing no signs of winding down.

As I said before, I, for one, have serious doubts about the administration's approach. In light of our own domestic needs, rising casualty rates in Afghanistan, and the emergence of al-Qaida safe havens around the world, an expensive, troop-intensive, nation-building campaign just does not add up for me. But my amendment does not dictate a particular strategy for Afghanistan. All it does is require the President to inform Congress and the American people about how long his military strategy is expected to take.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Fair Pricing for Prescription Drugs Act to help make prescription drugs more affordable for all Americans. This legislation endorses the excellent work that my colleague Senator Dorgan of North Dakota has done to promote importing prescription drugs from other industrialized countries. And it includes companion language to Congressman Welch's bill to call on the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate drug prices on behalf of Medicare Part D beneficiaries. Here in the Senate, several of my colleagues, most recently Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, have tirelessly pushed the need for negotiation of drug prices. I am proud to have stood with my colleagues on these issues over the last decade--and feel strongly that Congress must move quickly to ensure that all Americans--whether they purchase private health insurance or are enrolled in Medicare--have fairly priced prescription drugs.

Allowing for importation of prescription drugs and price negotiation for Medicare Part D are common sense policies, These are changes that Congress can make to drastically improve the affordability of prescription drugs for our constituents, save the government money, and further enhance the health reform law passed earlier this year. I was pleased to be a part of that historic effort, but the health reform law was not perfect and did not go as far as it could have to reduce prescription drug prices for consumers. I have heard from thousands of Wisconsinites about the need for health reform during my time in the Senate. The health reform law empowers consumers and small businesses for the first time in our history to demand more for their health care dollar. These changes will

improve the affordability of health insurance and medical care for individuals and families. But I also continue to hear from Wisconsinites about the burden of rising prescription drug costs. They need our help.

One of the fastest ways to reduce prescription drug costs is to allow for importation of FDA-approved prescription drugs from other industrialized nations like Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and European countries. Americans pay some of the highest prices for the same prescription drugs that are sold 33 to 55 percent less in other countries. Americans are now importing more than $1 billion in prescription drugs from Canada alone. In these tough economic times, and with equally safe but more affordable drugs just over the border, it is no wonder that Americans are going to such lengths to buy the prescriptions they need.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated in 2007 that allowing importation of prescription drugs would save consumers upwards of $50 billion. Just last year, the CBO reviewed their original estimate of government savings as a result of this policy, concluding that the government would nearly double its expected savings to over $19 billion.

We do a lot of things in Congress that leave our constituents scratching their heads. Well, now we have a chance to show them we are listening to them, that we understand their concerns, and that we want to bring down Federal spending while ensuring the prescriptions drugs they need are more affordable.

We can also do more to ensure affordable prescription drugs for Medicare beneficiaries by calling on the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate drug prices for Medicare Part D enrollees. Mr. President, I opposed the legislation that created the Medicare Part D drug benefit because I did not believe the program would provide adequate financial relief for Medicare beneficiaries facing high prescription drug costs. This legislation actually included a provision which explicitly forbade the Secretary from negotiating with drug manufacturers on behalf of seniors' interests. We should have done better for our seniors. And they are living with the consequence of that decision today--with ever-rising prescription drug costs.

The health reform law will provide some relief, particularly for the dreaded ``donut hole'' of Medicare Part D. But health reform does not speak to the other glaring shortfall of the Medicare Part D program-- that the government is prohibited from negotiating for better drug prices for beneficiaries.

Negotiating on behalf of beneficiaries is hardly a radical idea, Mr. President. The Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, negotiates on drug prices and spends considerably less than the Medicare program on the same drugs. The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare released a study that found that VA drug prices are, on average, 48 percent lower than Medicare Part D prices for the top 10 prescribed drugs. NCPSSM estimates that billions could be saved annually by requiring the Secretary to negotiate drug prices for Medicare Part D. With the government on the hook for over $50 billion in drug costs for Part D alone, it is simply irresponsible to not aggressively seek new savings from negotiating prices. Focusing on lowering the price of prescription drugs rather than subsidizing insurance and pharmaceutical companies will not only provide relief for the sick, but will save taxpayer dollars.

Changing how we purchase prescription drugs by allowing importation from industrialized countries and negotiation on pricing for Medicare Part D is a clear and simple way to reduce prescription drug costs, reduce government spending, and keep Americans healthier. I am thankful for the leadership that my colleagues have shown in introducing legislation on these topics, and add my voice, and my bill, to theirs in our combined effort to answer the demands of our constituents.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Fair Pricing for Prescription Drugs Act to help make prescription drugs more affordable for all Americans. This legislation endorses the excellent work that my colleague Senator Dorgan of North Dakota has done to promote importing prescription drugs from other industrialized countries. And it includes companion language to Congressman Welch's bill to call on the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate drug prices on behalf of Medicare Part D beneficiaries. Here in the Senate, several of my colleagues, most recently Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, have tirelessly pushed the need for negotiation of drug prices. I am proud to have stood with my colleagues on these issues over the last decade--and feel strongly that Congress must move quickly to ensure that all Americans--whether they purchase private health insurance or are enrolled in Medicare--have fairly priced prescription drugs.

Allowing for importation of prescription drugs and price negotiation for Medicare Part D are common sense policies, These are changes that Congress can make to drastically improve the affordability of prescription drugs for our constituents, save the government money, and further enhance the health reform law passed earlier this year. I was pleased to be a part of that historic effort, but the health reform law was not perfect and did not go as far as it could have to reduce prescription drug prices for consumers. I have heard from thousands of Wisconsinites about the need for health reform during my time in the Senate. The health reform law empowers consumers and small businesses for the first time in our history to demand more for their health care dollar. These changes will

improve the affordability of health insurance and medical care for individuals and families. But I also continue to hear from Wisconsinites about the burden of rising prescription drug costs. They need our help.

One of the fastest ways to reduce prescription drug costs is to allow for importation of FDA-approved prescription drugs from other industrialized nations like Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and European countries. Americans pay some of the highest prices for the same prescription drugs that are sold 33 to 55 percent less in other countries. Americans are now importing more than $1 billion in prescription drugs from Canada alone. In these tough economic times, and with equally safe but more affordable drugs just over the border, it is no wonder that Americans are going to such lengths to buy the prescriptions they need.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated in 2007 that allowing importation of prescription drugs would save consumers upwards of $50 billion. Just last year, the CBO reviewed their original estimate of government savings as a result of this policy, concluding that the government would nearly double its expected savings to over $19 billion.

We do a lot of things in Congress that leave our constituents scratching their heads. Well, now we have a chance to show them we are listening to them, that we understand their concerns, and that we want to bring down Federal spending while ensuring the prescriptions drugs they need are more affordable.

We can also do more to ensure affordable prescription drugs for Medicare beneficiaries by calling on the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate drug prices for Medicare Part D enrollees. Mr. President, I opposed the legislation that created the Medicare Part D drug benefit because I did not believe the program would provide adequate financial relief for Medicare beneficiaries facing high prescription drug costs. This legislation actually included a provision which explicitly forbade the Secretary from negotiating with drug manufacturers on behalf of seniors' interests. We should have done better for our seniors. And they are living with the consequence of that decision today--with ever-rising prescription drug costs.

The health reform law will provide some relief, particularly for the dreaded ``donut hole'' of Medicare Part D. But health reform does not speak to the other glaring shortfall of the Medicare Part D program-- that the government is prohibited from negotiating for better drug prices for beneficiaries.

Negotiating on behalf of beneficiaries is hardly a radical idea, Mr. President. The Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, negotiates on drug prices and spends considerably less than the Medicare program on the same drugs. The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare released a study that found that VA drug prices are, on average, 48 percent lower than Medicare Part D prices for the top 10 prescribed drugs. NCPSSM estimates that billions could be saved annually by requiring the Secretary to negotiate drug prices for Medicare Part D. With the government on the hook for over $50 billion in drug costs for Part D alone, it is simply irresponsible to not aggressively seek new savings from negotiating prices. Focusing on lowering the price of prescription drugs rather than subsidizing insurance and pharmaceutical companies will not only provide relief for the sick, but will save taxpayer dollars.

Changing how we purchase prescription drugs by allowing importation from industrialized countries and negotiation on pricing for Medicare Part D is a clear and simple way to reduce prescription drug costs, reduce government spending, and keep Americans healthier. I am thankful for the leadership that my colleagues have shown in introducing legislation on these topics, and add my voice, and my bill, to theirs in our combined effort to answer the demands of our constituents.

Madam President, while I opposed the motion to instruct offered by the Senator from Kansas, Mr. Brownback, I did so with reluctance. The vast majority of auto dealers in Wisconsin do not engage in the kinds of behavior that have been held up as a reason to oppose the Senator's motion, or the amendment he had previously offered to the financial regulatory reform bill. Our dealers are wonderful corporate citizens, who have contributed significantly to our communities and our State.

Some of that excellent track record stems from Wisconsin's tough consumer protection laws that not only safeguard consumers, but also protect those firms that treat their customers fairly from the fly-by- night operators who seek to gain a competitive advantage over honest dealers at the expense of the consumer. Had Wisconsin's consumer laws and history of vigorous enforcement been reflected in other States across the Nation, there would have been a stronger argument for carving out an exception in the bill for a specific set of firms, as is proposed by the motion to instruct.

Even though I opposed the motion to instruct, supporters of the motion are right when they note that auto dealers, who are almost uniformly small businesses, should not be treated the same as the large financial institutions that are the focus of much of this bill. That is why I supported the amendment offered by the Senator from Maine, Ms.

Snowe, to extend the Regulatory Flexibility Act provisions to the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. That approach will not only address some of the concerns of the Senator from Kansas but also other small businesses that may fall under the oversight of that new bureau.

Madam President, while I opposed the motion to instruct offered by the Senator from Kansas, Mr. Brownback, I did so with reluctance. The vast majority of auto dealers in Wisconsin do not engage in the kinds of behavior that have been held up as a reason to oppose the Senator's motion, or the amendment he had previously offered to the financial regulatory reform bill. Our dealers are wonderful corporate citizens, who have contributed significantly to our communities and our State.

Some of that excellent track record stems from Wisconsin's tough consumer protection laws that not only safeguard consumers, but also protect those firms that treat their customers fairly from the fly-by- night operators who seek to gain a competitive advantage over honest dealers at the expense of the consumer. Had Wisconsin's consumer laws and history of vigorous enforcement been reflected in other States across the Nation, there would have been a stronger argument for carving out an exception in the bill for a specific set of firms, as is proposed by the motion to instruct.

Even though I opposed the motion to instruct, supporters of the motion are right when they note that auto dealers, who are almost uniformly small businesses, should not be treated the same as the large financial institutions that are the focus of much of this bill. That is why I supported the amendment offered by the Senator from Maine, Ms.

Snowe, to extend the Regulatory Flexibility Act provisions to the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. That approach will not only address some of the concerns of the Senator from Kansas but also other small businesses that may fall under the oversight of that new bureau.

Madam President, I would like to raise the important issue of human rights and democratic reform in our partnership with Egypt. I am very concerned by Egypt's recent extension of its emergency law--which has been in place continuously since 1981--yet again, for another 2 years. Since 2005, President Hosni Mubarak and his government have repeatedly pledged to end the use of the emergency law, but it continues to be extended. Although some changes were apparently announced with the extension, these were little more than cosmetic and will do nothing to improve the deeply repressive environment this law enables. Emergency laws, if they are ever appropriate, are intended for exceptional circumstances, not continuous application for decades.

Furthermore, numerous concerns have been raised about violations of human rights and civil liberties under Egypt's emergency law. The extension also comes ahead of parliamentary and Presidential elections, which may see new challenges emerge to the leadership structure. As Amnesty International's deputy director for the Middle East and North Africa stated recently, ``[w]e are particularly concerned that this extension comes as Egypt prepares for elections this year; the authorities are notorious for relying on the emergency powers to lock up their opponents.''

In a report on his visit to Egypt last year, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, Martin Scheinin, acknowledged ``the right of a State to proclaim a state of emergency as a temporary measure determined by the exigencies of the situation'' but expressed his concern that ``Egypt has been almost continuously governed by emergency law, which includes far-reaching restrictions on fundamental rights and freedoms, for more than 50 years.'' The dangers inherent in the law's continuing use are highlighted by its provisions and their apparent application.

Among other things, the law apparently allows preventive detention and enables individuals to be held indefinitely without being charged or brought to trial. Egyptian citizens do not enjoy the freedom to assemble or protest peacefully and, in fact, face arrest if they participate in such demonstrations. In fact, Mr. Sheinin has noted that special State Security Investigations officers ``in practice enjoy carte blanche in deciding on whom to arrest'' and have used the emergency law to arrest and detain human rights activists, journalists and internet bloggers who were critical of the government.

Human rights and civil liberties should not be sacrificed in the search for security, nor would doing so guarantee security. On the contrary, counterterrorism measures must ensure respect for political and civil rights and the rule of law if they are to be effective in the long term. Repression only yields more resentment, more opposition, and more alienation. As President Obama said during his 2009 Cairo speech, ``Governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away.''

I am pleased that the State Department and then the White House released public statements expressing regret at Egypt's extension of the emergency law, but they were insufficient in recognizing how critical political and democratic reform is both to security and stability within Egypt, as well as to the broader region. In order to genuinely address the very real concerns of radicalism, Egypt must expand its engagement with its citizens and provide them with greater openings to voice their concerns. Stifling the public feeds rather than prevents the growth of radicalism. In contrast, reducing corruption, improving governance, and building democratic institutions will go a long way toward reducing the appeal of extremism. The historic partnership between the United States and Egypt means we have an active and critical role to play in pressing for these reforms. We should use every opportunity to bring them up.

Egypt is an incredibly important country and a vital strategic partner of the United States. It is a nation of 80 million people that sits at the strategic crossroads between Africa and Asia. Egypt is a leader among Arab States and has played an important role in matters of peace and security in the Middle East, particularly in the area of Arab-Israeli peace. At the same time, Egypt continues to be heavily involved in affairs in North and East Africa, not least because of its reliance on water resources from the Nile River, where ongoing negotiations over the Nile Basin Initiative have escalated regional tensions between Egypt and its neighboring countries at a time when Egypt's own internal dynamics are fluid. Egypt's long history with Sudan, the largest country in Africa, is also of critical importance given South Sudan's upcoming vote on self-determination set for January 2011. Without question, successful political reform in Cairo would significantly enhance Egypt's leadership role throughout the Middle East and Africa and could help ensure constructive political engagement in these regions for years to come.

For all these reasons, it is in our interest to continue to pursue a strong working relationship with the Egyptian Government. But it is also in our interest to ensure that relationship is sustainable and strategic over the long-term. To do this, I believe we must engage more broadly with the Egyptian people and support efforts in the country to push for human rights and democratic reform. This is especially important in the coming months as Egypt prepares to hold parliamentary elections, which will be followed next year by a Presidential election. This period could be one of transition, possibly one of tumult. The Obama administration should begin engaging now with the Egyptian government and other stakeholders to make clear that we support a fair, free, and peaceful process. Continuing to provide uncritical support to an authoritarian regime undermines our credibility as champions of political and civil rights and creates tensions, particularly in the Muslim world, which are ripe for exploitation. Those tensions, in turn, threaten our own national security.

As I have noted before in this forum, we must be strong and consistent in advancing human rights, good governance, and the rule of law while also addressing security and economic concerns. And we should make sure that message is being reinforced by all U.S. Government officials and programs in Egypt.

Madam President, I would like to raise the important issue of human rights and democratic reform in our partnership with Egypt. I am very concerned by Egypt's recent extension of its emergency law--which has been in place continuously since 1981--yet again, for another 2 years. Since 2005, President Hosni Mubarak and his government have repeatedly pledged to end the use of the emergency law, but it continues to be extended. Although some changes were apparently announced with the extension, these were little more than cosmetic and will do nothing to improve the deeply repressive environment this law enables. Emergency laws, if they are ever appropriate, are intended for exceptional circumstances, not continuous application for decades.

Furthermore, numerous concerns have been raised about violations of human rights and civil liberties under Egypt's emergency law. The extension also comes ahead of parliamentary and Presidential elections, which may see new challenges emerge to the leadership structure. As Amnesty International's deputy director for the Middle East and North Africa stated recently, ``[w]e are particularly concerned that this extension comes as Egypt prepares for elections this year; the authorities are notorious for relying on the emergency powers to lock up their opponents.''

In a report on his visit to Egypt last year, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, Martin Scheinin, acknowledged ``the right of a State to proclaim a state of emergency as a temporary measure determined by the exigencies of the situation'' but expressed his concern that ``Egypt has been almost continuously governed by emergency law, which includes far-reaching restrictions on fundamental rights and freedoms, for more than 50 years.'' The dangers inherent in the law's continuing use are highlighted by its provisions and their apparent application.

Among other things, the law apparently allows preventive detention and enables individuals to be held indefinitely without being charged or brought to trial. Egyptian citizens do not enjoy the freedom to assemble or protest peacefully and, in fact, face arrest if they participate in such demonstrations. In fact, Mr. Sheinin has noted that special State Security Investigations officers ``in practice enjoy carte blanche in deciding on whom to arrest'' and have used the emergency law to arrest and detain human rights activists, journalists and internet bloggers who were critical of the government.

Human rights and civil liberties should not be sacrificed in the search for security, nor would doing so guarantee security. On the contrary, counterterrorism measures must ensure respect for political and civil rights and the rule of law if they are to be effective in the long term. Repression only yields more resentment, more opposition, and more alienation. As President Obama said during his 2009 Cairo speech, ``Governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away.''

I am pleased that the State Department and then the White House released public statements expressing regret at Egypt's extension of the emergency law, but they were insufficient in recognizing how critical political and democratic reform is both to security and stability within Egypt, as well as to the broader region. In order to genuinely address the very real concerns of radicalism, Egypt must expand its engagement with its citizens and provide them with greater openings to voice their concerns. Stifling the public feeds rather than prevents the growth of radicalism. In contrast, reducing corruption, improving governance, and building democratic institutions will go a long way toward reducing the appeal of extremism. The historic partnership between the United States and Egypt means we have an active and critical role to play in pressing for these reforms. We should use every opportunity to bring them up.

Egypt is an incredibly important country and a vital strategic partner of the United States. It is a nation of 80 million people that sits at the strategic crossroads between Africa and Asia. Egypt is a leader among Arab States and has played an important role in matters of peace and security in the Middle East, particularly in the area of Arab-Israeli peace. At the same time, Egypt continues to be heavily involved in affairs in North and East Africa, not least because of its reliance on water resources from the Nile River, where ongoing negotiations over the Nile Basin Initiative have escalated regional tensions between Egypt and its neighboring countries at a time when Egypt's own internal dynamics are fluid. Egypt's long history with Sudan, the largest country in Africa, is also of critical importance given South Sudan's upcoming vote on self-determination set for January 2011. Without question, successful political reform in Cairo would significantly enhance Egypt's leadership role throughout the Middle East and Africa and could help ensure constructive political engagement in these regions for years to come.

For all these reasons, it is in our interest to continue to pursue a strong working relationship with the Egyptian Government. But it is also in our interest to ensure that relationship is sustainable and strategic over the long-term. To do this, I believe we must engage more broadly with the Egyptian people and support efforts in the country to push for human rights and democratic reform. This is especially important in the coming months as Egypt prepares to hold parliamentary elections, which will be followed next year by a Presidential election. This period could be one of transition, possibly one of tumult. The Obama administration should begin engaging now with the Egyptian government and other stakeholders to make clear that we support a fair, free, and peaceful process. Continuing to provide uncritical support to an authoritarian regime undermines our credibility as champions of political and civil rights and creates tensions, particularly in the Muslim world, which are ripe for exploitation. Those tensions, in turn, threaten our own national security.

As I have noted before in this forum, we must be strong and consistent in advancing human rights, good governance, and the rule of law while also addressing security and economic concerns. And we should make sure that message is being reinforced by all U.S. Government officials and programs in Egypt.

Mr. President, there were two amendments I supported during debate on the financial reform bill that would take steps to improve our Nation's housing policy. Unfortunately, only one of these amendments was adopted by the Senate. Senator McCain offered an amendment, that I supported, that would have required the Federal Government to end its conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac 2 years after the financial reform bill was signed into law. While the amendment was not perfect, I supported it because neither the current structure of Fannie and Freddie nor the billions of taxpayer dollars that the Federal Government is using to prop up Fannie and Freddie are sustainable. Federal taxpayer support of Fannie and Freddie needs to end, and the McCain amendment would have provided a timetable for bringing that Federal support to an end.

I was pleased that the Senate did adopt an amendment I supported, offered by Senator Merkley, to curb predatory lending practices throughout the Nation. These unconscionable predatory lending practices contributed to the subprime housing mess, and the Merkley amendment included commonsense provisions to address some of these practices. Too often, loan originators received higher compensation if they steered borrowers into subprime loans than if they had placed those borrowers into qualifying prime loans. The Merkley amendment would address this perverse financial incentive to put borrowers into predatory loan products by preventing loan originators from receiving payments based on the terms of loans. The amendment, which also includes stronger underwriting standards, provides sensible protections to Wisconsin's borrowers.

Madam President, 3 weeks ago I supported invoking cloture on the motion to proceed to this bill. Proceeding to this measure was essential to being able to debate, amend, and strengthen it. But as I noted at that time, after 30 years of acquiescing to the wishes of Wall Street lobbyists, it is essential that Congress get it right this time, and finally enact tough reforms to prevent Wall Street from driving our economy into the ditch again. In particular, that means eliminating the risk posed to our economy by the massive financial firms that are considered ``too big to fail.''

Over the last few weeks, this body has repeatedly rejected amendments that address ``too big to fail.'' And perhaps the most important amendment in this respect--one offered by the Senator from Washington, Ms. Cantwell, to reinstate the protective firewalls of the Glass- Steagall Act--may not be considered if we invoke cloture on the underlying measure.

Three weeks ago, I said that for me the test for this legislation is a simple one--whether or not it will prevent another financial crisis. And central to that test is how this bill will address ``too big to fail.'' Right now, this bill fails that test, and for that reason I will not support ending debate on the measure.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of two amendments to the Restoring American Financial Stability Act that seek to ensure there is greater transparency around how international companies are addressing issues of foreign corruption and violent conflict that relate to their business. Creating these mechanisms to enhance transparency will help the United States and our allies more effectively deal with these complex problems, at the same time that they will also help American consumers and investors make more informed decisions.

Mr. President, I am very pleased that my colleagues agreed yesterday to accept the first amendment, sponsored by Senator Brownback. This amendment specifically responds to the continued crisis in the eastern region of the Democratic Republic of Congo. Despite efforts to curb the violence, mass atrocities and widespread sexual violence and rape continue at an alarming rate. Some have justifiably labeled eastern Congo as ``the worst place in the world to be female.'' Several of us in this body, including Senators Brownback and Durbin and I, have traveled to this region and seen first-hand the tragedy of this relentless crisis. Increasingly, American citizens are also learning of the devastating situation in eastern Congo and are actively engaged to bring about policy changes. I am pleased to see Americans so engaged on this issue.

One of the underlying reasons this crisis persists is the exploitation and illicit trade in natural resources, specifically cassiterite, columbite-tantalite, wolframite and gold. The United Nations Group of Experts has reported for years how parties to the conflict in eastern Congo continue to benefit and finance themselves by controlling mines or taxing trading routes for these minerals. In response to these reports, the U.N. Security Council adopted Resolution 1857, 2008, encouraging Member States ``to ensure that companies handling minerals from the DRC exercise due diligence on their suppliers.'' Over a year ago, Senator Brownback, Senator Durbin, and I teamed up to author legislation that would do just that: the Congo Conflict Minerals Act, S. 891.

Senator Brownback's amendment is taken from that bill, but includes modifications based on discussions with representatives from industry, U.S. Government agencies, and the Banking Committee. The amendment applies to companies on the U.S. stock exchanges for which these minerals constitute a necessary part of a product they manufacture. It will require those companies to make public and disclose annually to the Securities and Exchange Commission if the minerals in their products originated or may have originated in Congo or a neighboring country. Furthermore, it will require those companies to provide information on measures they have taken to exercise due diligence on the source and chain of custody to ensure activities involving such minerals did not finance or benefit armed groups.

I recognize that this conflict minerals problem is a complex one, given the importance of this trade to the local economy in eastern Congo and given the extensive supply chains and processing stages between the source and end use of these minerals. The Brownback amendment was narrowly crafted in consideration of those challenges, and it includes waivers and a sunset clause after 5 years. However, I believe strongly that the status quo in eastern Congo is unacceptable to the people there and it should be to us as well. We have put financial resources toward mitigating this crisis, but we need to get serious about addressing the underlying causes of conflict. The Brownback amendment is a significant, practical step toward doing that, and I thank my colleagues for their support of it. I thank Senator Brownback for his longstanding leadership on these important humanitarian issues.

The second amendment, led by Senator Cardin and Senator Lugar, is different than the Congo amendment but would complement it. This amendment would require companies listed on U.S. stock exchanges to disclose in their SEC filings extractive payments made to foreign governments for oil, gas, and mining. This information would then be made public, empowering citizens in resource-rich countries in their efforts to combat corruption and hold their governments accountable. In far too many countries, natural resource wealth has fueled corruption and conflict rather than growth and development. This so-called ``resource curse'' is especially problematic in Africa, and in 2008, I chaired a subcommittee hearing on this very topic. I said then that we must look for ways that the United States can use our leverage to push for greater corporate transparency in Africa's extractive industries.

In addition to helping countries combat the ``resources curse,'' it is also in our national interest to improve transparency in the extractive industries. The amendment was drawn from an important piece of legislation, the Energy Security through Transparency Act, S. 1700. The bill was given this title because enhancing transparency in the extractive industries can have real benefits for U.S. energy security. This will ultimately create a more open investment environment and increase the reliability of commodity supplies. Energy security is a topic that Senator Lugar and his staff have worked on for years, and we all know how central it is to our national security. I thank Senator Lugar and Senator Cardin for their work on this important amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from New York bringing us together to discuss the DISCLOSE Act, S. 3295, which he introduced last week and which I am proud to cosponsor.

As the name suggests, the central goal of this bill is disclosure. It aims to make sure that when faced with a barrage of election-related advertising funded by corporations, which the Supreme Court's decision in the Citizens United case has made possible, the American people have the information they need to understand who is really behind those ads. That information is essential to being able to thoughtfully exercise the most important right in a democracy--the right to vote.

It is no secret that the Senator Schumer and I, and all of the original cosponsors of the bill, were deeply disappointed by the Citizens United decision. We reject the Court's theory that the first amendment rights of corporations, which can't vote or hold elected office, are equivalent to those of citizens. And we believe that the decision will harm our democracy. I, for one, very much hope that the Supreme Court will one day realize the mistake it made and overturn it.

But the Supreme Court made the decision and we in the Senate, along with the country, have to live with it. The intent of the DISCLOSE Act is not to try to overturn that decision or challenge it. It is to address the consequences of the decision within the confines of the Court's holdings. Congress has a responsibility to survey the wreckage left or threatened by the Supreme Court's ruling and do whatever it can constitutionally to repair that damage or try to prevent it.

In Citizens United, the Court ruled that corporations could not constitutionally be prohibited from engaging in campaign related speech. But, with only one dissenting Justice, the Court also specifically upheld applying disclosure requirements to corporations. The Court stated:

[P]rompt disclosure of expenditures can provide

shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold

corporations and elected officials accountable for their

positions and supporters. Shareholders can determine whether

their corporation's political speech advances the

corporation's interest in making profits, and citizens can

see whether elected officials are `` in the pocket' of so-

called moneyed interests.

The Court also explained that disclosure is very much consistent with free speech:

The First Amendment protects political speech; and

disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the

speech of corporate entities in a proper way. This

transparency enables the electorate to make informed

decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and

messages.

The Court also made clear that corporate advertisers can be required to include disclaimers to identify themselves in their ads. It specifically reaffirmed the part of the McConnell v. FEC decision that held that such requirements are constitutional.

The DISCLOSE Act simply builds on disclosure and disclaimer requirements that are already in the law and that the Court has said do not violate the first amendment. Notwithstanding the Court's strong endorsement of disclosure and the fact that for years opponents of campaign finance reform have claimed that timely and exacting disclosure requirements are preferable to other campaign finance restrictions, we are already hearing claims that this bill violates the first amendment. Let me take a minute to address some of the criticisms of this bill that have been made.

First, there is the claim that the disclosure requirements are intended to chill political expression. It is, of course, entirely possible that some organizations will decide not to run ads if they have to identify who is really footing the bill for them. But if that happens, it is not because the disclosure requirements interfered with their right to speak out, it is because they were not willing to provide the information that the Supreme Court has said ``enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.'' Candidates disclose their donors. There is no reason for those who want to elect or defeat those candidates not to disclose theirs. We do not intend to chill speech with this bill. We intend to make it easier for the public to evaluate that speech.

Second, some claim that the requirements of the DISCLOSE Act are too burdensome, and the expense will prevent some groups from speaking. This seems highly unlikely in light of the already high cost of campaign advertising. Surely any group that is able to spend the kind of money it takes to run television ads attacking or promoting a candidate will have the resources to make sure that the American people have the information they need to evaluate those ads.

Third, the bill is criticized because it requires additional reporting of corporations that spend money directly from their treasuries rather than setting up a campaign related activity account. But this is the wrong way to look at the bill. The Citizens United decision allows spending directly from corporate treasuries. That's the default way of doing it, and the bill sets up a disclosure system that will ensure that adequate information about the real sources of the spending is made available to the public. It then sets up an alternative format for disclosure that a corporation can choose to take advantage of if it agrees to spend money on campaign spending only from a separate account. That promise to spend only from the campaign related activities account makes the more comprehensive disclosure of contributions to the treasury unnecessary. And it should always be remembered that any donor to a corporation or organization who wants to remain anonymous need only specify that the contribution cannot be use for campaign spending. These features of the bill show that it is narrowly tailored, not that it is discriminatory.

It is also very important to note that the bill applies equally to groups on both sides of the political fence. Corporations, unions, groups on the left and the right, will all have to disclose their spending and their donors if they want to spend treasury money on political ads. This bill doesn't discriminate against anyone. It treats all political actors equally. Any argument that the bill favors unions or other organizations that mostly support Democrats is simply wrong. I have a long history of bipartisan work on campaign finance issues. I am not interested in legislation that has a partisan effect. This bill is fair and evenhanded. It deserves the support of Senators on both sides of the aisle.

Most of the complaints about the bill come from interests that want to take advantage of one part of the Citizens United decision--the part that allows corporate spending on elections for the first time in over 100 years--and at the same time pretend that the other part of the decision--the part upholding disclosure requirements--doesn't exist. But the law doesn't work that way. As the old saying goes, ``you can't have your cake and eat it too.''

Once again, I very much appreciate the leadership of the Senator from New York and look forward to working with him and all my colleagues to pass this bill. I now yield for the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Wyden.

Mr. President, there are many important issues that demand Congress's attention, but one that we cannot afford to neglect the situation is Sudan. We are in the midst of a decisive period that will determine the future of that country and shape the conflicts that have long besieged its people.

In less than 9 months, the people of South Sudan will hold their referendum on self-determination, with the option to forge an independent state. There are serious challenges involved with the holding of that referendum and any subsequent transition to independence. The potential for instability is high.

Meanwhile, the conflict in Darfur remains unresolved and is likely to get worse. Over 2 million displaced people are still living in camps, and earlier this week, one of the largest rebel groups in Darfur suspended their involvement in peace talks after alleging that the Sudanese Government has launched fresh attacks.

Finally, the peace in eastern Sudan, one of the country's most impoverished regions, continues to be fragile. The dynamics in each of Sudan's regions and the future of the country in general will have profound implications for neighboring countries, as well as the wider region.

Last month, the people of Sudan held their first multiparty elections in 24 years. I join the White House in commending the Sudanese people for their efforts to make these elections peaceful and meaningful, and I am pleased that the voting witnessed no major armed violence. However, I was disappointed by statements of the U.S. Special Envoy in the runup to the election suggesting that the elections would be ``as free and as fair as possible.'' This was clearly not the case.

For months beforehand, many of us had expressed concern about the political, security, and logistical challenges to credible elections. The environment was clearly not conducive for opposition parties to freely operate and campaign, nor was it conducive for all voters to safely and confidently go to the polls. The inability of the government both in the north and in the south--to adequately address the significant infrastructure and logistical challenges resulted in decreased voter access.

There is good reason for the international community to question the extent to which the results reflect the will of the Sudanese people. Furthermore, the fact that the winner of the Presidential election has been indicted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes is problematic. In no way should the international community allow this outcome to take away from the serious charges President Bashir faces.

The White House statement after the Sudanese election was thoughtful and balanced. It acknowledged the significant problems with the process but also distinguished between the credibility of elections and the potential still for democratic progress. These elections were seriously flawed, but indeed there was evidence of the beginnings of citizen engagement at the local levels that did not exist before. It will be important to build on that momentum going forward.

The White House statement rightly pointed out that continued pressure will be critical to make progress for the civil and political rights of all Sudanese people. That pressure must come first and foremost from within the country, but there remains an important role for the United States and other members of the international community.

Over the last year, I have been concerned at times that the Obama administration has not exerted the requisite pressure to hold Khartoum accountable for a failure to live up to its commitments. There are too many promises, commitments, and agreements broken without consequence. Theoretically, I am not opposed to engaging the Government of Sudan, but I share Nicholas Kristof's concern that our engagement ``ends up as a policy to go soft on [Bashir] and to reduce pressure on Khartoum to honor the referendum in the south.''

With the election now concluded, the international community must redouble its efforts to prepare for South Sudan's referendum and its outcome, whatever that may be. It is critical that this referendum be held on time and that it be held as fairly and peacefully as possible.

In order for this to happen, there is much work to be done both logistically and politically including efforts to resolve the outstanding issues the CPA, as well as ambiguous postreferenda matters, such as resource allocation and citizenship rights. In the case of separation, these two issues are likely to be the most inflammatory and difficult to address. The international community, as well as countries in the region, has an active role to play in advancing related negotiations and preparations for the referendum. Sudan's neighboring states especially have interests at stake that could be directly affected by either a peaceful separation or a return to conflict.

We must see serious and detailed contingency planning for all possible scenarios, both pre- and post-referendum and they must get underway now. While the most obvious tripwire for a return to war would be a delay of the referendum, planning must also include clear guidance on how to deal with the possibility that the different actors could seek to manipulate, or disrupt, the results of that referendum.

I continue to be concerned that the NCP could foment insecurity in the south as it has done in the past, but I am particularly concerned by the internal security challenges within South Sudan. They are considerable and will not be easily resolved. Humanitarian organizations reported that over 2,500 people were killed and an additional 350,000 were displaced by interethnic and communal violence within southern Sudan throughout 2009. The Lord's Resistance Army continues to wreak havoc on communities in the southwestern corner of the country. In his testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee in February, the Director of National Intelligence identified South Sudan as the area in which ``a new mass killing or genocide is most likely to occur.''

The task of transforming the army and police into modern security organs that protect civilians and respect human rights is daunting but vital. We need to roll up our sleeves and get to work on helping the South Sudanese to accomplish this task, while empowering UNMIS in the meantime to better protect civilians and monitor flashpoints.

Of course security sector reform cannot be separated from the other governance and economic challenges facing the region. Most South Sudanese have not seen much progress in the 5 years since the signing of the CPA. Communities continue to lack access to basic services including water, health, and infrastructure. It is no secret that the Government of South Sudan still has limited capacity, and in some cases limited will, to provide this assistance or manage its own revenues. This lack of will and capacity concerns me particularly because it is closely linked with the growing problem of corruption within the government. A lack of transparency plagues this young government by complicating and undermining efforts to distribute services and reform the security services.

This is not cause for delaying the referendum, as to do so would be a retreat from our commitment as guarantors of the CPA and could be seen as a reason to abrogate the agreement by either party. Instead, it is cause for increasing our efforts in South Sudan and helping the region to reach a basic level of political and economic stability.

I am pleased that the Obama administration is in the process of scaling up our diplomatic and development personnel and activities in South Sudan to prepare for the referendum and its aftermath. I urge other governments to do the same, if they are not already. The regional states and international community all have a stake in facilitating an orderly process and preventing an outbreak of violence. It is

in our interest to work together and coordinate our efforts to help the South Sudanese meet the many challenges in front of them.

Finally, as we do this, we should not turn our backs on the other conflicts within Sudan, particularly the situation in Darfur. We have seen in the past how the National Congress Party can effectively manipulate the international community's narrow focus on one region or conflict at the expense of another. Despite some small successes, the situation in Darfur is unresolved and the events of recent weeks have shown that a peace deal remains elusive. The situation could become more difficult and complex to resolve over time, especially if the CPA collapses and the north-south war is reignited.

The Obama administration must maintain its focus on building a credible peace process for Darfur at the same time that it seeks to shore up the CPA. We need to keep the pressure on to ensure there is a cessation of attacks and to begin seriously addressing the legitimate grievances of Darfurians.

Mr. President, in the critical months ahead, we need to have a bold, comprehensive approach toward all of Sudan that brings resources to bear and ensures consistent, high-level engagement from the White House as well as here in Congress. To that end, I will continue to do my part, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. President, we recently learned that David Obey, one of the longest serving Members of the other body, a friend, and a fellow member of the Wisconsin delegation, has decided to retire. To come here and try to sum up his record and accomplishments isn't easy to do; Congressman Obey has achieved so much for Wisconsin, and for this Nation. He has been the dean of the Wisconsin delegation, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, and a national leader on many issues affecting hardworking families.

Congressman Obey understood the concerns of the people of the 7th District of Wisconsin, and he has been their champion for more than 40 years. He and I are both so fortunate to represent this beautiful swath of Wisconsin's north woods, including the magnificent Apostle Islands. In fact, Congressman Obey and I worked together to protect the Apostles, designating almost 80 percent of the Apostles as federally protected wilderness.

That was just one of many ways that Congressman Obey and I worked together. Recently, we were also proud to come together to honor our friend, the late Gaylord Nelson, on the 40th anniversary of Earth Day. And through the years, I have had the chance to work with Congressman Obey in areas where he has shown tremendous leadership,

including advocating for veterans, farmers, and seniors.

Wisconsin veterans have a terrific ally in Congressman Obey, who has stood up for better funding and facilities for our veterans time and again. I have been so pleased to work with him to open new veterans' health clinics, push for more vet centers, and fight for the best possible care for those men and women who have sacrificed so much for our country.

Congressman Obey has also worked tirelessly on behalf of the farmers of our State. He has fought for country-of-origin labeling and other issues critical to ginseng farmers, worked for emergency appropriations funding for direct payments to help shore up the safety net for dairy farmers in tough times, and pushed to create, extend and improve the Milk Income Loss Contract, MILC, Program. Those are just a few of the many things he has done for Wisconsin's farmers, and I was proud to join him in those efforts.

He is also a determined advocate for our seniors, and was a critical member of our effort to save the SeniorCare Program in both 2007 and 2009. Congressman Obey also has a long and distinguished record on a host of other issues. He is committed to strengthening public education, improving our health care system, and a longtime advocate for political and congressional reforms.

There are so many things he has accomplished, and so many reasons he will be missed. I want to take this opportunity to recognize Congressman Obey's outstanding service in the other body. I wish him all the best, and I thank him for his dedicated work for the people of Wisconsin and for every American.