John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I am going to speak to the issue raised by Senator Brownback in a moment. But let me say, Ambassador Christopher Hill has made a career, which is now entering his fourth decade, of taking on some of the toughest assignments in our Government. Today, the President, our country, and our troops, need him to take on this task in Iraq. I hope my colleagues will join the overwhelming majority of the Foreign Relations Committee and Senator Lugar who has spoken on this in moving to this nomination which is long overdue. This should not be a controversial nomination. There are very few American diplomats with more experience than Chris Hill where it matters most: in negotiating complex, high-stakes, multilateral deals in conflict zones. In addition to serving as Ambassador to Macedonia, Poland, and South Korea, Chris Hill was one of the top negotiators at the 1995 Dayton Accords that ended the war in Bosnia. He served as Special Envoy to Kosovo during the 1999 NATO bombing campaign. As Ambassador to South Korea from 2004 to 2005, he managed the bilateral relationship that includes the presence of nearly 30,000 American troops, and, of course, he was the point person in the talks Senator Brownback has referenced. Make no mistake, our troops are beginning to draw down in Iraq, and the entire resolution of Iraq as a success will revolve around the diplomacy we apply and our ability to seek political reconciliation which will be implemented by that diplomacy. We will have more time tomorrow to talk about this, I hope, if we can move to the nomination. Let me speak quickly to what Senator Brownback has said. Chris Hill was working under daily communications and instructions from the State Department, from Secretary of State Condi Rice, and from the President. What he did was in response to those instructions. He was never admonished publicly or otherwise for going outside those instructions. The argument is made about humanitarian and human rights issues. I ask unanimous consent that the portion of Ambassador Hill's Senate Foreign Relations Committee testimony be printed in the Record so Senators can judge for themselves.

Mr. KERRY. Senator Lugar asked him about this. He said specifically that, yes, he would have been willing to have the additional participation of the human rights appointee at the talks, but that referred to the talks when they moved beyond the nuclear component. The fact is that he said to Senator Lugar in committee that they never got to that phase. I will quote him: We were not able to get beyond phase two because although the North Koreans did issue a nuclear declaration, we did not get adequate verification measures to verify the entire declaration. We got some verification measures. Then he goes on about that. He says: But what we were seeking was a fuller international standard verification, and we were not able to complete phase two. Therefore, we never got on to having the bilateral talks. They never got to the period where he would have been perfectly happy, as he always was, to deal with the human rights issues. The fact is, Ambassador Hill has explained this. I respect Senator Brownback's long track record of outspokenness on human rights. What he has shown there in those photographs is unacceptable. It is unacceptable to all of us. But the fact is, Chris Hill, following the President's instructions, kept his primary focus on the denuclearization, while also trying to address a host of other concerns, including human rights, missile proliferation, counterfeiting, drug smuggling, and other illicit activities. That focus was entirely appropriate given the direct threat to our security. Moreover, those who criticize him for not accomplishing more in the area of human rights ought to appreciate that he was, in fact, implementing the specific daily instructions he was receiving. If they don't like that policy, then their real complaint is against President Bush and the Secretary of State. I will have more to say about this tomorrow.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I wish to make a plea, if I can publicly. There is still time between now and tomorrow to try to do something differently on this question of sending our Ambassador to Iraq. Senator Lugar is supportive. I am supportive. There is bipartisan support for this nominee. He is going to be approved. We all know that. Iraq is experiencing increasing political difficulties, and the missing ingredient of our capacity to get the success we want is political reconciliation. Ambassador Crocker has not been well recently. He has put enormous energy in this effort. Getting Christopher Hill there in the next 2 weeks can make a difference. I would urge our colleagues, if there are other issues linked to this, there are other ways to work it through. My hope would be that we would be able to free him up. It is a terrible message to send, to tie him to issues of North Korea or otherwise extraneous. It handicaps our capacity to maximize our efforts in a war. If we are going to treat a war seriously, we ought to treat this Ambassador nomination seriously. I would ask my colleagues to think about that while there is an opportunity to be able to approve it in these next 24 hours.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I wish to try and clarify that now because this has gone back and forth. What I understood you to say is--I wish to have this clear--if it passes now, it has a corrosive effect, but if it does not come back--if it comes back from conference committee, it would be fatal?

Mr. KERRY. If it does not come back from the conference committee, then the corrosive--whatever effect--is eliminated?

Mr. KERRY. Is there any possibility that the resolution could be challenged prior to going to conference on the basis of its privilege and that it could lose its privilege prior to going to conference?

Mr. KERRY. I thank the distinguished Senator. That was one of the more intriguing half hours we have spent in the Senate in a long time. I might add, it is sort of interesting that we are haggling about an amendment which raises one of those great red herrings on the subject of global climate change and cap and trade because we already have a cap-and-trade system in America. It is not an automatic tax increase. It is not going to, if properly structured, result in a tax increase. We like to tilt against goblins around here sometimes. This is one of those amendments that do that in a very political way. I ask that amendment No. 732 be called up.

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

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, over the first 9 years of this new century, we have learned a lot about national security. We learned the hard way in 2001. Since then, with two wars, one in Afghanistan and one in Pakistan, and also with the global economic crisis we face today, we understand the degree to which in a globalized world our problems are interconnected. Ultimately, our security is interconnected. We are currently endangered by weak states and failed states as well as by strong states because those weak and failed states become places where terrorism can flourish. We are endangered also by diseases that know no borders, by climate change half a world away. We are endangered when we allow chaos and crisis to create conditions for ideologies of radical hatred and violence to take root. It is clear to all Members, who are, all of them, no matter what committee on which they serve, forced to think hard about how to protect our country, that it requires a lot more than just a strong military in order to provide that protection. It requires, above all, in this new world in which we live, a strengthened commitment to diplomacy and to development. To put this as simply and as bluntly as possible, that is why passing a robust foreign affairs budget is a matter not only of America's world leadership but also of our practical national security at home. I call to the attention of my colleagues the words of Secretary of Defense Bob Gates spoken almost a year and a half ago in Kansas where he gave a speech while serving as President Bush's Secretary of Defense. What he said there is the following: What is clear to me is that there is a need for a dramatic increase in spending on the civilian instruments of national security--diplomacy, strategic communication, foreign assistance, civic action, and economic reconstruction and development. The other day, I was told the story of our National Security Adviser, former Marine Commandant Jim Jones, who was commenting how we have powerful, enormous ships off the shores of Lebanon, but Hezbollah is building schools and building homes and winning the hearts and minds of people in that divided and volatile country by doing so. In effect, he described a situation where, as powerful as our military is, we are not able to win the contest for ideas at the center of security issues today. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, our former colleague, testified in her confirmation the following: The relatively small but important amount of money we do spend on foreign aid is in the best interests of the American people and promotes our national security and advances our interests and reflects our values. When our soldiers and generals join our top diplomats in demanding increased civilian capacity and increased civilian funding, even in the midst of this economic crisis, that is when you know there is not only a growing consensus, there is a sense of urgency behind the strengthening of our civilian mission. We just had an elaborate, long period where I think three studies were commissioned by President Bush, and then President Obama recommissioned another evaluation of what is happening in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It is clear that we cannot achieve our objectives unless we have the kind of robust budget in the foreign affairs account President Obama asked for. Regrettably, that is not what the budget resolution currently calls for, even when we add the supplemental budgets to it. It falls about $4 billion short from the $53.8 billion the President asked for. I believe that returning diplomacy and development to their rightful place is not going to be achieved by talking about it. It is going to take money to drive civilian foreign policy. If it keeps us safer, and it is the consensus of our military and our diplomats that it does that, then that is money well spent. Full funding of the President's international affairs budget is a vital step toward greater civilian capacity. I urge colleagues to support this amendment. Senator Lugar, Senators Leahy, Voinovich, Durbin, Kaufman, Menendez, Dodd, Feinstein, Brown, Sanders, Lieberman, Casey, and Corker have all joined together to cosponsor this amendment. We ask for the approval of the Senate to add $4 billion worth of funding to the President's fiscal year 2010 international affairs budget request for the function 150 account. There is an offset. The offset that would pay for this transfer would come from the function 920 account. The reality is that we are just not doing enough today to invest in the vital components of both diplomacy and development. I was recently in the Middle East, in Egypt and Jordan and in the West Bank and Israel and Syria, Lebanon. I saw firsthand the degree to which people we support in many ways are struggling to push back against enormous spending by Iran and other actors who seek to destabilize the region. If the United States talks about democracy and doesn't support people in the same way the people trying to disrupt it do, we lose our credibility and, more importantly, we walk away from people who are literally putting their lives on the line to live up to the standards we have set and the beliefs we have espoused so powerfully. It is extraordinary to me that the funding for the Department of Defense today, with all of these restraints we see on its ability to achieve our goals, as powerful as we know it is and as much as we admire the sacrifices and the extraordinary capability of our modern military--the fact is, we spent over half a trillion dollars on it. Then in 2008, the Army added about 7,000 soldiers to the total. I supported that. I believed we needed to do that to relieve pressure on the current deployments. But 7,000 soldiers is more people than serve in the entire Foreign Service every year all the time. The fact is, 1,100 Foreign Service officers could be hired for the cost of a single C-17 military cargo plane, and $4 billion, which is what we are looking for here, is less than 2 percent of what the Government has given to AIG over the course of the last year and a half. This is a vital context to put this discussion into. We have to decide around here what is really important to us. What really makes a difference to the security and safety of the American people? The President requested $53.8 billion in this year to fund next year's budget. That is an increase of 8 percent over last year's funding level of 49.8. Why is this so important? Well, first of all, let me put this in context, if I can. The total request of the President for this entire context of America's security comes to about 1.4 percent of our whole budget. In fact, if you break out the entire national security budget, which is our defense, homeland security, all the components of security, you are only talking about 6.8 percent of the entire national security budget of our country for some of the most important things that prevent people from becoming terrorists or from being able to engage in their terrorist acts with impunity. Some people try to assert that the President's request has increased 41 percent from last year's total of $38 billion. Let me say very clearly, right now, that is not accurate. The figure of $38 billion does not include last year's supplemental appropriations. And those supplemental appropriations raised the total to about $50 billion. What President Obama did was break the practice of past Presidents of sending in a phony half budget or a three-quarter budget and then we do the rest of it through the supplementals. He decided the American people ought to see it as it is, they ought to know what we are doing, we ought to make the request we need. So he put in the request for the $53 billion because that is, in fact, reflecting what we actually spent last year, plus what we need to do for Afghanistan and Pakistan in this year. This is a more straightforward way of doing business, frankly. Rather than hiding the amount of money or massaging the spending figures by tucking extra spending into the supplemental bills, President Obama has been up front and open, and he has put it into one bill and says: Here is what I need. That is why my colleague, the chairman of the Budget Committee, who labors unbelievably hard under these difficult circumstances to make all this work--and I respect him enormously in those efforts--has praised President Obama's approach in this openness. So the real question is sort of, What is this $4 billion going to get us? What is the difference it is going to make? First of all, we have a vital new package the President announced yesterday that Senator Lugar and I will be introducing in a few days to provide additional assistance for Pakistan and Afghanistan. The $4 billion is going to help build civilian capacity and put our diplomats back on the front lines of American foreign policy. It will provide lifesaving treatment for people with HIV/AIDS and continue the program that was perhaps the single most successful program of the Bush administration, which is the PEPFAR efforts in Africa. This $4 billion will help make people all over the world safer and in the process help keep America safer. Ultimately, these kinds of efforts are the key to the strategy in Afghanistan. Our on-the-ground ability to be able to win, hold, and build is the whole strategy to be able to win people back over to us and prevent the Taliban from supplanting or filling the vacuum that currently exists. We need to reverse years of neglect in those two countries. Pakistan has nuclear weapons. We just saw the other day an attack on police recruits in the heart of Pakistan itself--not out in the Fatah or in Baluchistan or the areas we know are harder to control. So we see that insurgency with a message clearly sent that they can act with impunity. So it is critical for the United States to step up and show President Zardari and the Government of Pakistan, who are courageously trying to forge forward with their youthful democracy, that, in fact, we are supportive and we are there to help them. I ask my colleagues to imagine a nation as populous as Iraq, Afghanistan, and North Korea combined, a nation with a full arsenal of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles capable of delivering them anywhere in a 1,000-kilometer range. Imagine a nation with a population that is overwhelmingly moderate, overwhelmingly committed to democracy and the rule of law, but deeply suspicious of its leadership and of America's friendship. Imagine a nation in which Osama bin Laden and the leadership of al-Qaida have found sanctuary for the past 7 years--a haven from which they and their confederates have plotted and carried out attacks on their host country, on neighboring countries, and on sites around the globe. That nation can serve as a keystone for a new, cooperative relationship between the Western and Muslim worlds, or, if we do not do our job, it could become an epicenter for radicalism and violence on a cataclysmic scale. So I believe we are at a critical crossroads, and we need a bold new strategy for Pakistan. Our current path has not brought success, and tinkering around the margins is absolutely guaranteed to fail. That is why President Obama has called on Congress to pass the Enhanced Partnership With Pakistan Act that Senator Lugar and I will introduce very soon that authorizes up to $1.5 billion annually in order to help shape this new relationship with Pakistan. We also might mention again the importance of standing up with respect to Iran. When you look back at what happened in the war with Israel and Lebanon, the southern part of the country of Lebanon was significantly damaged. Iran, using its surrogate Hezbollah, immediately painted flags on the houses--their flags, Hezbollah flags--and essentially asserted: Don't worry, we are here, and we are going to rebuild this. So last year both parties came together. We had 73 votes to pull together, in addition to the budget, to provide $48 billion over 5 years. Today, it is imperative that we fund these programs, and I ask my colleagues for their support for this amendment.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished managers of the bill. One of the amendments that was just accepted--and I want to make clear Senator Lugar is a cosponsor of it, together with Senator Corker and others on that side of the aisle. This is an amendment that adds to the function 150 account. I want to make clear to colleagues why that was so important. Secretary Gates, a year and a half ago, while he was still Secretary serving with President Bush, said the following: What is clear to me is that there is a need for a dramatic increase in spending on the civilian instruments of national security, diplomacy, strategic communications, foreign assistance, civic action, and economic reconstruction and development. National Security Adviser Jim Jones, just the other day, mentioned that we have huge warships off the coast of Lebanon, but Hezbollah is, in fact, gaining more foothold because they are building schools and building homes and involved on the ground. Our diplomacy and our foreign policy needs to do that. With the acceptance of this amendment, hopefully, we are going to. I thank the distinguished managers.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, as we move forward with comprehensive health reform we must also not ignore that some of our most vulnerable Medicare beneficiaries are subject to costly, bureaucratic red tape which is delaying essential, life-saving treatments. Addressing this problem can both increase the quality of life for many patients and ease financial burdens for their medical providers. Between 6,000 and 10,000 Medicare beneficiaries have primary immunodeficiency diseases, PIDD, that require intravenous immunoglobulin, IVIG, treatment to maintain a healthy immune system. Primary Immunodeficiency Diseases, PIDD, are disorders in which part of the body's immune system is missing or does not function properly. Untreated PIDDs result in frequent life-threatening infections and debilitating illnesses. Even illnesses such as the common cold or the flu can be deadly for someone with PIDD. Because of advances in our medical understanding and treatment of primary immune deficiency diseases, individuals who in the past would not have survived childhood are now able to live nearly normal lives. While there is still no cure for PIDD, there are effective treatments available. Nearly 70 percent of primary immune deficient patients use intravenous immunoglobulin, IVIG, to maintain their health. Immunoglobulin is a naturally occurring collection of highly specialized proteins, known as antibodies, which strengthen the body's immune response. It is derived from human plasma donations and is administered intravenously to the patient every three to four weeks. Currently, Medicare beneficiaries needing IVIG treatments are experiencing access problems. This is an unintended result of the way Medicare has determined the payment for IVIG. In January 2005, the Medicare Modernization Act changed the way physicians and hospital outpatient departments were paid under Medicare. The law reduced IVIG reimbursement rates so most physicians in outpatient settings could no longer afford to treat Medicare patients requiring IVIG. Access to home based infusion therapy is limited since Medicare currently pays for the cost of IVIG, but not for the nursing services or supplies required for infusion. As a result, patients are experiencing delays in receiving critically-needed treatment and are being shifted to more expensive care settings such as inpatient hospitals. In April 2007, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General, OIG, reported that Medicare reimbursement for IVIG was inadequate to cover the cost many providers must pay for the product. In fact, the OIG found that 44 percent of hospitals and 41 percent of physicians were unable to purchase IVIG at the Medicare reimbursement rate during the 3rd quarter of 2006. The previous quarter was even worse--77.2 percent of hospitals and 96.5 percent of physicians were unable to purchase IVIG at the Medicare reimbursement rate. We have an opportunity to fix this very real problem with a compassionate and common sense solution. I believe we can improve the quality of life for PIDD patients and cut inpatient expenses by improving reimbursement procedures for IVIG treatments for physicians and outpatient facilities and allowing for home treatments and coverage for related services. That is why, today, I am introducing the Medicare IVIG Access Act, with Senators Alexander, Wyden, Whitehouse, and Brownback, to authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services to update the payment for IVIG, based on new or existing data, and to provide coverage for related items and services currently excluded from the existing Medicare home infusion therapy benefit. This bill is endorsed by several national organizations from the patient and physician communities, including the Immune Deficiency Foundation, GBS/CIDP Foundation International, the Jeffrey Modell Foundation, the Clinical Immunology Society, and the National Patient Advocate Foundation. I hope all my colleagues can support this legislation to help patients, physicians, caretakers, researchers, and plasma donors.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise to support the Overseas Private Investment Corporation Reauthorization Act of 2009. Along with Senators Lugar, Kaufman and Menendez, I ask for approval of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation Reauthorization Act of 2009, a bill to reauthorize a vital U.S. Government agency that has assisted U.S. businesses and promoted projects in support of our foreign policy interests since 1971. This legislation reauthorizes the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, OPIC, for 4 years. OPIC is an independent U.S. agency whose mission is to mobilize U.S. private sector investment in poorer countries to facilitate their economic and social development. It provides U.S. companies with financing--from large structured finance to small business loans, political risk insurance, and investment funds. OPIC operates at no net cost to taxpayers: OPIC charges market-based fees for its products and operates on a self-sustaining basis. Over its 38-year history, OPIC projects have generated more than $72 billion in U.S. exports and supported more than 273,000 American jobs while supporting over $188 billion worth of investments that have helped developing countries generate almost $15 billion in host-government revenues leading to over 821,000 host-country jobs. OPIC's financing and political risk insurance help U.S. businesses, particularly small- and medium-sized enterprises, to compete in emerging markets and meet the challenges of investing overseas when private sector support is not available. OPIC promotes U.S. best practices by requiring that projects adhere to international labor standards. OPIC also engages in critical foreign policy areas. It is implementing major projects in the Middle East, including Jordan, the West Bank, and Lebanon. In Africa, OPIC has established a new investment fund that will mobilize $1.6 billion of private investment in Africa towards health care, housing, telecommunications and small businesses. The agency also gives preferential consideration to projects supported by small businesses. It has even established a separate department to focus on small business financing. An overwhelming majority of projects supported by OPIC involved small business--87 percent in fiscal year 2006. This is up from 24 percent in fiscal year 1997. The bill incorporates several important aspects, including: strengthening the rights of workers overseas, and strengthening transparency requirements to ensure NGOs and other interested groups have sufficient notice and information about potential OPIC-supported projects. We all are aware of the unfortunate history associated with extractive industry projects and developing countries. Our bill ensures that OPIC projects will conform to principles and standards developed by the Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative. The transparency for extraction investments is a new subsection created by the bill to ensure that countries with extractive industry projects will put in place functioning systems to allow accurate accounting, regular independent audits and broader accountability. Ultimately, this will be an important tool for preventing fraud, bribery and corruption in host countries with extractive projects. This legislation will also ensure greater transparency for how the Corporation operates. It directs OPIC to provide more detailed information in advance about potential projects so NGOs and other groups can determine their impact. The bill ensures that NGOs and other interested groups will have adequate notice and information about potential OPIC-supported projects, prior to Board meeting votes on OPIC assistance. I would like to reiterate that OPIC is an important foreign policy tool that encourages U.S. private sector companies to invest in poorer countries and improve their economic and social development. I want to make sure OPIC can continue to do its good work, but I also want to ensure that OPIC adheres to the highest labor and environmental standards, incorporates stringent accountability measures towards extractive industry projects, and promotes a green investment agenda. In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to approve the Overseas Private Investment Corporation Reauthorization Act of 2009 and join in this effort.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, as we move forward with comprehensive health reform we must also not ignore that some of our most vulnerable Medicare beneficiaries are subject to costly, bureaucratic red tape which is delaying essential, life-saving treatments. Addressing this problem can both increase the quality of life for many patients and ease financial burdens for their medical providers. Between 6,000 and 10,000 Medicare beneficiaries have primary immunodeficiency diseases, PIDD, that require intravenous immunoglobulin, IVIG, treatment to maintain a healthy immune system. Primary Immunodeficiency Diseases, PIDD, are disorders in which part of the body's immune system is missing or does not function properly. Untreated PIDDs result in frequent life-threatening infections and debilitating illnesses. Even illnesses such as the common cold or the flu can be deadly for someone with PIDD. Because of advances in our medical understanding and treatment of primary immune deficiency diseases, individuals who in the past would not have survived childhood are now able to live nearly normal lives. While there is still no cure for PIDD, there are effective treatments available. Nearly 70 percent of primary immune deficient patients use intravenous immunoglobulin, IVIG, to maintain their health. Immunoglobulin is a naturally occurring collection of highly specialized proteins, known as antibodies, which strengthen the body's immune response. It is derived from human plasma donations and is administered intravenously to the patient every three to four weeks. Currently, Medicare beneficiaries needing IVIG treatments are experiencing access problems. This is an unintended result of the way Medicare has determined the payment for IVIG. In January 2005, the Medicare Modernization Act changed the way physicians and hospital outpatient departments were paid under Medicare. The law reduced IVIG reimbursement rates so most physicians in outpatient settings could no longer afford to treat Medicare patients requiring IVIG. Access to home based infusion therapy is limited since Medicare currently pays for the cost of IVIG, but not for the nursing services or supplies required for infusion. As a result, patients are experiencing delays in receiving critically-needed treatment and are being shifted to more expensive care settings such as inpatient hospitals. In April 2007, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General, OIG, reported that Medicare reimbursement for IVIG was inadequate to cover the cost many providers must pay for the product. In fact, the OIG found that 44 percent of hospitals and 41 percent of physicians were unable to purchase IVIG at the Medicare reimbursement rate during the 3rd quarter of 2006. The previous quarter was even worse--77.2 percent of hospitals and 96.5 percent of physicians were unable to purchase IVIG at the Medicare reimbursement rate. We have an opportunity to fix this very real problem with a compassionate and common sense solution. I believe we can improve the quality of life for PIDD patients and cut inpatient expenses by improving reimbursement procedures for IVIG treatments for physicians and outpatient facilities and allowing for home treatments and coverage for related services. That is why, today, I am introducing the Medicare IVIG Access Act, with Senators Alexander, Wyden, Whitehouse, and Brownback, to authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services to update the payment for IVIG, based on new or existing data, and to provide coverage for related items and services currently excluded from the existing Medicare home infusion therapy benefit. This bill is endorsed by several national organizations from the patient and physician communities, including the Immune Deficiency Foundation, GBS/CIDP Foundation International, the Jeffrey Modell Foundation, the Clinical Immunology Society, and the National Patient Advocate Foundation. I hope all my colleagues can support this legislation to help patients, physicians, caretakers, researchers, and plasma donors.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise to support the Overseas Private Investment Corporation Reauthorization Act of 2009. Along with Senators Lugar, Kaufman and Menendez, I ask for approval of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation Reauthorization Act of 2009, a bill to reauthorize a vital U.S. Government agency that has assisted U.S. businesses and promoted projects in support of our foreign policy interests since 1971. This legislation reauthorizes the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, OPIC, for 4 years. OPIC is an independent U.S. agency whose mission is to mobilize U.S. private sector investment in poorer countries to facilitate their economic and social development. It provides U.S. companies with financing--from large structured finance to small business loans, political risk insurance, and investment funds. OPIC operates at no net cost to taxpayers: OPIC charges market-based fees for its products and operates on a self-sustaining basis. Over its 38-year history, OPIC projects have generated more than $72 billion in U.S. exports and supported more than 273,000 American jobs while supporting over $188 billion worth of investments that have helped developing countries generate almost $15 billion in host-government revenues leading to over 821,000 host-country jobs. OPIC's financing and political risk insurance help U.S. businesses, particularly small- and medium-sized enterprises, to compete in emerging markets and meet the challenges of investing overseas when private sector support is not available. OPIC promotes U.S. best practices by requiring that projects adhere to international labor standards. OPIC also engages in critical foreign policy areas. It is implementing major projects in the Middle East, including Jordan, the West Bank, and Lebanon. In Africa, OPIC has established a new investment fund that will mobilize $1.6 billion of private investment in Africa towards health care, housing, telecommunications and small businesses. The agency also gives preferential consideration to projects supported by small businesses. It has even established a separate department to focus on small business financing. An overwhelming majority of projects supported by OPIC involved small business--87 percent in fiscal year 2006. This is up from 24 percent in fiscal year 1997. The bill incorporates several important aspects, including: strengthening the rights of workers overseas, and strengthening transparency requirements to ensure NGOs and other interested groups have sufficient notice and information about potential OPIC-supported projects. We all are aware of the unfortunate history associated with extractive industry projects and developing countries. Our bill ensures that OPIC projects will conform to principles and standards developed by the Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative. The transparency for extraction investments is a new subsection created by the bill to ensure that countries with extractive industry projects will put in place functioning systems to allow accurate accounting, regular independent audits and broader accountability. Ultimately, this will be an important tool for preventing fraud, bribery and corruption in host countries with extractive projects. This legislation will also ensure greater transparency for how the Corporation operates. It directs OPIC to provide more detailed information in advance about potential projects so NGOs and other groups can determine their impact. The bill ensures that NGOs and other interested groups will have adequate notice and information about potential OPIC-supported projects, prior to Board meeting votes on OPIC assistance. I would like to reiterate that OPIC is an important foreign policy tool that encourages U.S. private sector companies to invest in poorer countries and improve their economic and social development. I want to make sure OPIC can continue to do its good work, but I also want to ensure that OPIC adheres to the highest labor and environmental standards, incorporates stringent accountability measures towards extractive industry projects, and promotes a green investment agenda. In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to approve the Overseas Private Investment Corporation Reauthorization Act of 2009 and join in this effort.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, let me begin by thanking the Senator from Utah, whose leadership on this effort has been absolutely spectacular and who obviously, from the words he just spoke, has a deeply personal and historical understanding of the importance of this kind of service. We are all very grateful to him for his partnership with my colleague, Senator Kennedy, and for the leadership he has offered along the way. I would concur with every word he has spoken about it, all of the good things he said it would do. I couldn't agree more. It will do all those things and more. This is one of the better moments and better bills for which we get an opportunity as Senators to vote. May I also thank Senator Mikulski. She has been tenacious and unbelievably engaged and enthusiastic and wonderful in her commitment to help bring us to this moment. I know how much Senator Kennedy and Senator Hatch both value the contribution she has made. We all value it. We are grateful to her for stepping in. She has been a tiger. Perish the thought for anybody who has wanted to run counter to her intent to get this done. I want to speak for a couple moments. I yield myself perhaps 5 minutes. I think we have about 7\1/2\ remaining. This effort we will vote on is going to generate the largest expansion in national service since President Kennedy inspired the creation of VISTA and the Peace Corps. For many of us in public life today, that was the formative moment. That was the demarcation point that excited many of us about public service and brought a lot of us into this arena. It is particularly fitting that this legislation comes at a time when a new President is inspiring a whole new era of volunteerism, much as President Kennedy did nearly half a century ago. It is equally fitting and appropriate that this legislation bears the name of our friend and beloved colleague, my senior Senator from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy. As President Obama observed in his first address to Congress, Senator Kennedy is ``an American who has never stopped asking what he can do for his country.'' It was under Senator Kennedy's leadership as chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee that this bill was crafted. This is nothing new for Senator Kennedy. In 1990, Senator Kennedy worked with the first President Bush to pass the original National Community Service Act, the Thousand Points of Light Foundation. President Bush called that particular effort, helped by Senator Kennedy, the hallmark of his Presidency. When President Clinton needed a champion for the proposed Corporation for National Community Service, he didn't have to look any further than Ted Kennedy. As Senator Kennedy notes, ``Service is a bipartisan goal.'' Indeed, Members of Congress from across the political spectrum have pledged their support for this measure, which is a clear indication that the ethic of service is spawned not by faithfulness to party but by devotion to country and community. The Serve America Act is also the work of our colleague from Utah, Senator Orrin Hatch. Senator Hatch has on many occasions been Ted Kennedy's partner in these kinds of bipartisan efforts. Senator Hatch points out that volunteer service is the lifeblood of our Nation and that it benefits the volunteer as much, if not more, than the country the volunteer is serving. We just heard those words a moment ago from Senator Hatch when he talked about his own experience as a young person, about the mission for faith that he called the greatest of his life. Service is what has always made America, America. Many times in 2004, when I was running for President, I talked about de Tocqueville's visit to our country and how he found something special here. He wrote about it. He wrote that ``America is great because Americans are good.'' What he meant by that was he had observed this extraordinary spirit of voluntarism, a kind of patriotism that was defined by Americans who would voluntarily give back to their community or help other people or do something openly on behalf of their country and that community. He clearly had not seen or witnessed that kind of giving in his experience in Europe. Just as it was in de Tocqueville's day, Americans in many ways, big and small, are looking for opportunities to do more for their country. Last year, 62 million Americans gave 8 billion hours of service to the country. Last month, AmeriCorps had tripled the number of applications over the same month as a year ago. I note that my own kids who graduated recently from college commented to me how so many of their classmates in college were all engaged in some kind of local activity, not necessarily fighting on the national stage, but they were involved mentoring kids or helping in a homeless shelter. Indeed, many of our colleges and universities across the country boast unbelievably high percentages of voluntarism. They are sending us a signal, telling us why this is a good moment to create a new corps of 175,000 volunteers who are going to be organized and assist in their efforts to do the things we need to do in America. That means that in addition to the other volunteer programs, we will have as many as a quarter of a million Americans serving full time or part time working to meet some of our most pressing challenges: modernizing schools, building homes, serving as mentors or tutors in schools, helping with the sick in hospitals and clinics. And with the Serve America Act, it is going to be a lot easier for professionals and retirees, the baby boomers, the people who were first challenged by President Kennedy's call to service in 1961, it is going to be much easier for them to get involved once again. So we face great challenges. We should have no illusion about the magnitude of those challenges. But we also have extraordinary opportunities staring us in the face. With the Serve America Act, with more Americans involved, with Americans pulling together, I am confident that is going to be the definition of America's future, and it will be a definition we will all be proud of. So I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this important piece of legislation. I pay tribute, again, to my colleague, Ted Kennedy, and his partners in this effort, Senator Mikulski and Senator Hatch, who have brought us to this time. Thank you. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of our time. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this week marks the Celebrate Volunteers Week at the Falmouth Volunteers in Public Schools Program, VIPS, in Falmouth, MA. I would like to take this opportunity to commend and thank those that participate in the VIPS Program which fosters interaction between the citizens of Falmouth and their public schools. Through this connection the schools are empowered to enrich their curriculum and the community at large benefits from a greater participation in their children's future. The volunteers in this nonprofit organization log about 40,000 hours each year in support of the students, faculty, administration, and the community. This incredible effort is also supported by the business community in Falmouth that not only invests in VIPS events but also supports employee participation. By comprehensively involving all facets of the Falmouth community VIPS enriches the lives of all involved. They provide mentoring and tutoring programs aimed at raising children's self esteem and teaching English as a second language. They have made school to business partnerships that enhance the educational experience of students by sharing resources with local businesses and bringing in guest speakers. Their innovative Cross Age Science Teaching Program matches junior high school volunteers to help elementary school students learn about electricity. VIPS has grown from its inception in 1982, when they only had a handful of volunteers, to a robust program with over 1,100 volunteers in all 7 schools in Falmouth. When we think about improving our education system, what we need to remember is that community involvement can make a world of difference. When you get folks in the community to volunteer and become a part of the educational process, they become invested in the success of the students. That is what is happening in Falmouth. I congratulate all of the people who have helped make the Falmouth Volunteers in Public Service a success, and I commend the work that they do.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 604

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I opposed the amendment offered by Senator Vitter to the Fiscal Year 2009 Omnibus appropriations bill that would repeal the automatic cost of living adjustment, COLA, for Members of Congress starting in fiscal year 2010. The Omnibus appropriations bill already eliminates the Members of Congress COLA for fiscal year 2010. I choose to give my COLA to worthy charities because I know that many families in Massachusetts and across the Nation are struggling to make ends meet and need help. I opposed the Vitter amendment because it could have jeopardized the enactment of the omnibus legislation which includes critical investments in America's future. Given the process of the bill winding its way through Congress, the Vitter amendment would have essentially stopped the omnibus in its tracks. We can't afford to have this bill delayed. The bill increases our energy security by prioritizing research and development of renewable energy and energy efficiency including solar power, biofuels, vehicle technologies, energy-efficient buildings, and advanced energy research. It also includes strong investments into cutting-edge science so that our Nation will maintain its preeminence in the global economy and create new jobs. The bill also keeps Americans safe by supporting the Community Oriented Policing Services, or COPS program, and the Byrne justice assistance grants, which help State and local law enforcement fight and prevent crime in communities across America. The Vitter amendment should be considered on another legislative vehicle that would not jeopardize our national priorities.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I rise to talk about two amendments offered by the good Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, amendment No. 630 and amendment No. 629. I say to my friend from Arizona that I regret to sort of be in the position of opposing a couple of his amendments because these are subjects I would have loved to have worked with him on closely and I appreciate the relationship we have and the conversations we have had recently about a number of very important issues in front of the Senate. So I find myself a little bit in an uncomfortable position, but nevertheless a necessary one, because, first of all, on amendment No. 630--which refers to the issue of requiring a report on whether more United States assistance to Egypt is going to improve Egyptian efforts to counter illicit smuggling in Gaza--we all agree we have to increase the efforts with respect to smuggling. In fact, we agree so much that over the course of the last administration, and now continuing into this one, we have entered into new agreements with the Egyptians, with new technical means that are going to be applied to this effort, with an increased effort that is going to be taking place right now. But the problem with the amendment is--it is a well-intended amendment, but again everyone here understands what the effect of this amendment is going to be. It is simply to keep us, if it were to pass, from enacting this bill before the current continuing resolution expires. Because given what we have heard from the House, a vote for the amendment is effectively a vote against the Omnibus appropriations bill and a vote for a year-long continuing resolution at last year's funding levels. That is what is at stake here. But going from there, given the fact there are so many priorities in this bill we want to pass, and we need to, let me talk for a moment about the substance, just on the substance itself. I personally do not think this is the best moment or best way to go about achieving what we want to achieve with the Egyptians, who have been particularly helpful at this moment with respect to the efforts to try to seek Hamas-Fatah reconciliation, and particularly helpful with respect to some of the issues on the border at Rafah and with respect to the tunnels. Moreover, the bill that is in front of us states that ``not less than $1,300,000,000 shall be made available for grants only for Egypt, including for border security programs and activities in the Sinai.'' So there is additional money here. There is money available to be spent on this task. It also reflects the fact we have recently upgraded our efforts with Egypt. I think if we come along now and pass this amendment, we wind up saying that the efforts we have made are insufficient, and it is a slap in the face to the Egyptians in the process. So this is a sensitive time. It is an important time. I hope Egypt's good interventions--and I recently was in Egypt. I met with President Mubarak. I met with General Suleiman and the people involved directly in this effort. I am absolutely confident about their focus on the border, as well as their focus on these reconciliation efforts. So in the context of those efforts, this amendment is, frankly, not helpful to the broader interests in the region at this moment. Amendment No. 629 The second amendment, No. 629, would prohibit the use of any funds in the omnibus to resettle Palestinians from Gaza into the United States. Now, let me first point out, in 2008 the United States did not resettle anyone from Gaza. So this is an amendment, this is a solution in search of a problem. The fact is, there is no problem currently. But let's assume--let's assume for the purposes of argument--in the future a Palestinian escaped from Gaza to get away from Hamas oppression and applied to be resettled in the United States. This amendment would prevent that resettlement. Now, obviously, any Palestinian refugee ought to be subjected to a complete and thorough battery of security checks, screens, background checks, as we do already for any refugee from anywhere. And, of course, we want to be assured that an asylum seeker does not have ties with Hamas, with Islamic Jihaddists or any other terrorist organization. But the point is, we already have exactly those kinds of security screens and background checks. We have them in the regular Department of Homeland Security resettlement procedures. So I see no reason to make an exception to the normal procedures that suddenly singles out a resident of Gaza. It also sends a message, not just of indifference, but, frankly, of hostility to tens of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza who are victims of Hamas. Now, I just was in Gaza. I became--unbeknownst to me; I did not realize it at the time--the highest ranking American to go into Gaza in something like 8 or 9 years, and I saw thousands of kids roaming around the rubble of Gaza. I met with Fatah businessmen and others, with people who are struggling to make ends meet and pull their lives together. If one of them were to escape because of the oppression of Hamas and wanted to come to the United States, it would seem, given the daily deprivations and brutality of Hamas militants, the United States, commensurate with our highest values and the traditions of this country, would not want to refuse the possibility of asylum to those folks. In fact, this amendment assumes that every resident of Gaza, regardless of age, background, political opinion or any other distinguishing characteristic, is pro-Hamas and ineligible for consideration for resettlement in the United States, even if they are lucky enough to escape from Gaza. It ignores the fact that a whole bunch of folks in Fatah were killed by Hamas and some of them knee- capped and otherwise assaulted in the course of the recent war because they weren't part of Hamas. It is unnecessary. There are ample laws on the books which prohibit entry into the United States of any person who has been involved in terrorism or other crimes. During the Cold War, we did not bar Russians from coming to the United States, just as we don't bar Cubans or North Koreans from entering the United States, even though they live in oppressive regimes that we object to--or did live, in the case of the Soviet Union, in that situation. This amendment, therefore, is not only unnecessary but it would establish for the first time since the passage of the 1980 Refugee Act a law that discriminates against a particular nationality in a particular geographic region. I urge my colleagues to vote against both these amendments, and I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator. As I said, I know he works reasonably on these things and I look forward to working with him on it and I thank him. Amendment No. 630

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I understand what the Senator is saying. Again, I was just in Israel and I know the smuggling continues. We all understand that. Immediately after the war, the Hamas folks immediately began to try to restore those tunnels, and we understand that. But there are specific steps now to counter that in new means which I will not go into here on the floor of the Senate--I can't. But Egypt has agreed to engage in a significantly ratcheted-up effort. Since there is additional money and that is exactly what is contained, again, I say this is unnecessary, particularly given the impact that this might have on this bill if it were to pass. So we have three reasons there. One, the problem is being addressed. Two, it does have an impact on the Egyptians in terms of what they have already agreed to, given the fact that we have agreed to it. Three, it has a huge damaging impact on the overall omnibus bill we are trying to pass. But I thank my friend.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I wish to talk about the amendment of the Senator from Arizona, Senator Kyl, amendment No. 634, which is a well- intentioned amendment fundamentally but I think a misdirected amendment. The purpose of the amendment is to prohibit the expenditure of amounts of money made available under this act in a contract with any company that has a business presence in Iran's energy sector. Effectively, what Senator Kyl is seeking to do on this appropriations bill--on the fly, without hearings within the appropriate committees of jurisdiction, and without any appropriate input by the administration-- a new administration, 1 month into office, and an administration that already has announced it has a new policy with respect to Iran--is to walk in here and apply a unilateral sanction by the United States. Now, all of us share a very deep and real concern about the course Iran is on. We have just concluded 3 days of hearings in the Foreign Relations Committee on this very subject in order to get a better understanding of exactly what is happening in Iran, exactly what the possibilities may be, how we might avoid making the mistakes that were made in the last administration by rushing to judgment, and how we can proceed in a deliberative, thoughtful way. To simply attach to this appropriations bill this amendment in this way would be to contradict every single one of those legitimate interests of trying to approach a policy with regard to Iran in a thoughtful way. First, let us make it very clear. We all know the effect of adopting this amendment, because of the procedural situation we are in, is very simple. It keeps us from enacting this bill before the current continuing resolution expires. And given what we have heard from the House of Representatives, that means a vote for this amendment is effectively a vote against the Omnibus appropriations bill and it is a vote for a year-long continuing resolution at last year's funding levels. Given the state of our economy, given all of the initiatives contained in bills we should have passed last year and that we are only now getting to, it would be irresponsible in the context of the current economic situation of this country to deny some of these funds to flow and to put people back to work and to help create the future jobs for this country that we need. On another level--and this is important--this amendment, if it passed, would actually have a very negative impact on the very office the Treasury Department--the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence--would require to enforce the amendment. Why is that? Because in this omnibus bill that we want to pass is over $5 million, or about 10 percent over last year's budget, to help them be able to do the very job this amendment seeks to have them do. So the result of passing the amendment would be to take away the needed resources from the very people at the Treasury Department who right now are trying to track down and root out the Iranian banking and financial transactions that contribute directly to Iran's nuclear missile programs. I think for the first reason alone you should not vote for this amendment, but the second reason not to vote for it is that it doesn't make sense to take money away from the people who are already doing the job we want them to do. That doesn't make sense. But more broadly--and I hope colleagues will think about this--this is not the time for this kind of an amendment. We had a secret briefing yesterday afternoon with all of the DNI and CIA and other folks who are doing a lot of hard work with respect to Iran, and we spent a number of hours analyzing this. We are trying to come up with a multilateral approach that reaches out to the Europeans, to the Russians, to the Chinese and others, and we are trying to put together an Iran policy that makes sense. Developing a more effective Iran strategy is one of President Obama's top priorities, and getting it right is challenging. That is why the administration is undertaking the comprehensive review of its policy options even as it works to get its team in place. It doesn't make sense to come careening in here in the course of an afternoon, without hearings, without melding it into that larger strategy, to think about putting in place something that not only works against your interests but actually may wind up making it more difficult for our allies to be able to work with us, and without understanding how it fits into a broader strategy. The President is right to open the door to direct engagement with Iran. And a lot of us are hoping--all of us hope, I think--that a more productive relationship is going to emerge, whereby we can explore areas of mutual interest. Believe it or not--a lot of people don't realize it at first blush--when you begin to look at the region and understand the dynamics of what is happening in Afghanistan and Pakistan and even Iraq, the fact is that Iran has the potential to be a constructive partner with respect to a number of different mutual interests. They do not like the Taliban, they have an interest in not having drugs come from Afghanistan across the border, they have other interests with respect to the stability of Afghanistan and other parts of that world. The fact is they helped us--a lot of people don't realize this-- recently, in 2001 and 2002, when the Senate made almost a unanimous decision that we needed to respond to the 9/11 attacks by dealing with Afghanistan and a safe haven. Iran was enormously helpful to us in that effort. And in fact much of what we were able to accomplish with the northern alliance, with the placement of our personnel on the ground, and other things through other components of that relationship wound up being very constructive in helping us to achieve what we did. So there are possibilities of a different relationship. Nobody is believing that mere talking is going to produce them, but you don't know until you talk what the possibilities are. And you certainly, if you ultimately are going to wind up going down a much tougher road, want to build your bona fides with other countries to show that you have made every effort to be able to find out whether there are alternatives. So I have long advocated that we take a different approach with respect to Iran, and I think this kind of measure gets flat bang immediately plunked down right in the way of being able to take those kinds of additional new initiatives. The challenge for the Obama administration now is going to be to choose a series of red lines with respect to Iran's potential nuclear program. And to do that, everybody has learned we need to build coalitions with the Europeans, the Russians, the Chinese, and nations within the Middle East in order to be able to pull the full weight of the international community against Iran, should they defy common sense and the requirements of the nonproliferation treaty and the United Nations and the IAEA. So I think for diplomacy to proceed, we don't want to engage in unthought out, ad hoc efforts such as this particular amendment, which can get in the way of our ability to put together a strong multilateral coalition. Here is another reality. This amendment would wind up actually making it more difficult to achieve that coalition, because it would indirectly sanction companies in some of the very countries we hope to enlist. That is going to be made more difficult if this amendment were to pass. So again, it is unwise to target unilateral sanctions at allies and other influential countries we need in order to help appropriately build a coalition to deal with Iran. I mentioned earlier that the Foreign Relations Committee has been doing 3 days of hearings on this very topic. Today, we heard from two of the most distinguished and thoughtful individuals in America with respect to national security issues. They have both served as national security advisers to Presidents of the United States--Democratic and Republican. I am talking about Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski and GEN Brent Scowcroft. Both of them made perfectly clear that this kind of approach--the kind of approach in this amendment--is counterproductive to our overall strategy of bringing tough pressure to bear on Iran in order to change its direction. So I say to my colleagues, going it alone on Iran may make you feel good, but it ain't smart, it is not playing to our strengths, and it is not permitting the current President of the United States, as Commander in Chief and as the initiator of our foreign policy, to be able to take the initiatives he wants. What is more, it is not even clear how the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Asset Control would even be able to implement this amendment, and we haven't had any hearings to determine how they would implement this amendment. This amendment would bar any funds provided by the bill for any new Federal contract with any company that has a ``business practice'' in Iran's energy sector. Well, nobody here even knows fully what the definition of a business practice is. Does that mean CIA? What does that mean in terms of anybody's understanding of what in fact is going to be banned? Moreover, the Office of Foreign Asset Control doesn't even catalogue those kinds of companies right now. So all of a sudden you pass the money and you are going to ask them to start tracking, no matter how small that company. It is going to distract them, frankly, from the serious work they are doing now to root out and shut down Iran's nuclear missile-related procurement transactions around the world. That is more important than diverting to this subeffort. The bottom line is our challenges with Iran are plain too serious to be making foreign policy on the fly in an amendment to an appropriations bill without hearing and without even adequately understanding fully the terms within it. The committees of jurisdiction have not debated this approach. They haven't had any votes on this approach. There may well be a time and place for this kind of a provision. Maybe this provision will fit into a series of escalating sanctions which we have already been talking about within the Foreign Relations Committee. But we ought to do that not in this ad hoc way but in a thoughtful and disciplined way, and I think we will have a much stronger policy if we do that. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY. Does the Senator have time left?

Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. KERRY. I appreciate the Senator doing that. I wish to point out a couple things to the audience. First of all, we have had 3 days of hearings in the Foreign Relations Committee on Iran. Today, GEN Brent Scowcroft and Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski made it clear this is the not an advisable way to approach the current situation in Iran; that we need to think carefully about the overall record of the type of sanctions we develop or that will be interpreted, as a result, as taking an effort unilaterally by the Senate outside the administration's review process and outside its foreign policy. Moreover, the Foreign Assets Control Office, which is responsible now for rooting out Iran's program, actually loses money under this amendment and would, therefore, not be able to do the job it is doing today with respect to it. Thirdly, there is no definition here of what a business presence is. The fact is, the administration right now is working with a bunch of moderate Arab countries, as well as some of our allies in Europe, in order to put together a sanctions regime that has bite, if we need it. This, in fact, could prevent some of those countries from feeling good about joining in that effort or ultimately joining in it. I would ask my colleague if he would be willing to come together with us. There isn't anybody in this body who doesn't understand the seriousness of what Iran is doing. We had classified briefings on it yesterday. But we owe the administration the opportunity to decide what it believes is the proper regime for sanctions, and so I ask my colleague if he would consider that it might be better, rather than even having a vote, to give us the opportunity to do that, and we will work together and see if we can't come up with a sensible, unified bipartisan approach to Iran.