Mark Kirk

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 20 minutes.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Madam President, this morning our former National Security Adviser, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Secretary of State Colin Powell will visit the White House, and I expect they will discuss the current mission against the Qadhafi dictatorship in Libya. When we look at this mission, I think it is important to review the wise words of General Powell in his recommendation in considering any military mission for the United States in her coming years. When we think about his advice--many times, it has been called the Powell doctrine, and it was memorialized in a 1992 article in Foreign Affairs magazine called ``U.S. Forces: Challenges Ahead.'' This article became known very much as the Powell doctrine, with two additions that the public and press often put on his thoughts about military missions for the United States. In short, the Powell doctrine includes answers to a number of questions that any President, Secretary of State, or Secretary of Defense should answer prior to or at the very least during a military mission involving the United States. Those questions are as follows: Is the political objective we seek important, clearly defined, and understood? Next, have all other nonviolent policy means failed? Third, will military force achieve the objective? Fourth, at what cost? Next, have the gains and risks been analyzed? Finally, how might the situation that we seek to alter, once it is altered by force, develop further and what might be the consequences? Added to this, the press and public have offered two more additions often called part of the Powell doctrine: Can we hit the enemy with overwhelming force, and can we demonstrate the support of the American people for the mission as shown by a vote of the U.S. Congress? When we look at the current Libyan mission and apply the Powell doctrine, we see a mixed picture, one that should be fixed by a rigid application of its questions and answers to them reported back to the American people. I support our mission in Libya, and I think the President's address to the Nation was a good start. But I think we would serve our troops well if we proceeded to answer the Powell doctrine questions rigidly. First, is the political objective we seek to achieve important, clearly defined, and understood? I think the end of the Qadhafi regime is important. I think the protection of civilians from an impeding massacre is also important. And I think it would be clearly understood by the American people. But in practical terms, we cannot protect, for example, the people of Benghazi unless we stop the killer, and the only way to stop him is to disarm him and remove him from power. I think that objective would be clearly understood, would be welcomed by our European and Arab allies, and would bring about the long-term protection of the civilian communities by which the administration first justified this action. Secondly, have all nonviolent policies means failed? There is a 30-year record of diplomacy with regard to the Libyan dictatorship. Muammar Qadhafi has shown himself to be one of the most violent, corrupt, and at times even crazy leaders from the continent of Africa. While the United States has had difficulties with him for three decades, while Secretary Gates has referred to the imposition of Jersey barriers here in Washington, DC, as early as 1983 when there were reports of potential Qadhafi threats to our President--at the time, President Reagan--it took several decades for the rest of the world to lose patience with Muammar Qadhafi. The decision by the United Nations and Arab League and surrounding nations not just to support resolutions in internal forums but then for some of those nations, numbering over a dozen, to take military action, shows that finally the international community has broken with Muammar Qadhafi and feels that diplomacy and nonviolent means no longer can work with regard to managing him and the threat he poses. Will military force achieve the objective? I think it can. But here is a situation that is somewhat mixed. If air power is only applied to a combat air patrol to enforce a no-fly zone, there is the potential for Libyan armor and artillery to overwhelm what is a very disorganized and rag-tag civilian army that initially made gains against Qadhafi, then lost them and stood at the gates of Benghazi, then retook key communities, such as al-Bayda, Brega, and came to the outskirts of Sirte, then relost nearly all of those gains this week. When we look at how we should support the end of this dictatorship and the final protection of civilians in Libya, we should understand that the provision of close air support to take out Libyan armor and artillery is essential to this mission and that we should develop the means to command, control, and direct this effort. I am concerned that today, I am unsure--maybe uninformed but unsure-- as to how the close air support mission is handled. Originally when this mission was undertaken, it was falling under the command and control of standard U.S. military doctrine. Since Libya is part of the AFRICOM combatant command area of operations, this operation, as I understood it, fell under the command of the President of the United States, to the Secretary of Defense, to GEN Carter Ham, commander of AFRICOM. As the United States then moved to more internationalize internalize the military effort, it sought to transfer command to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO, and its commander, who also happens to be an American, Admiral Stavridis, who stands not only as the commander of U.S. forces in Europe but as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO. I understand the administration has put forward a task force to be commanded potentially by a senior Canadian general who would command this operation. I understand that diplomacy went well with regard to the command of the anti-air operation in this endeavor, but the negotiations with regard to the provision of close air support were much more difficult. Today, I am not exactly sure who is in command of those operations. Is it General Ham at AFRICOM? Is it the Canadian general at the joint task force? Is it Admiral Stavridis, as the Supreme Allied Commander of Europe? My hope is that we identify one key allied commander who is not just in charge of combat air patrol enforcing a no-fly zone but also close air support to ensure that the rebels are not defeated, to attrite armor and artillery from Muammar Qadhafi's army, and to eventually achieve a lasting victory, which, in my mind, could only mean the end of the Qadhafi dictatorship. I am particularly concerned today about key weapons systems that are available to the United States and not to other countries, particularly the A-10 Warthog and the AC-130 gunship. These are unique assets, critical in the ability to take out Libyan tanks and artillery. If we internationalize this conflict and as I have heard potential talk of removing combat platforms of the United States from executing close air support missions, my question is, Would AC-130 gunships and A-10s be available for these missions? They are uniquely effective and would make this conflict shorter and more likely to end victoriously. And my hope is that they would continue to be provided to the allied commander so that the progress could move forward on eventually ending this conflict. General Powell also asked that we estimate the cost of this operation. My understanding this morning is that this operation has cost roughly about $500 million and would likely entail greater cost if it lasts for a long time. We should estimate this cost, and we should also tell the Congress how we are going to pay for it. My understanding right now is that the administration will not seek a supplemental and will take this out of the core budget of the Department of Defense. What implications does this have for procurement, for military construction, for pay and benefits, and for other critical operations of the United States, led, in order of importance, the Afghan mission, the Iraq mission, and the dozen-plus ships that are now providing the critical humanitarian relief and nuclear recovery of our allies in Japan? General Powell also asked us to ask the question, have the gains and risks been thoroughly analyzed? While they may not have been thoroughly analyzed, I am comfortable with the administration's answers to those questions. Had Qadhafi taken Benghazi, had he defeated the rebel government, I think he would have then moved, over time, to destabilize the new government in Egypt. An end to the Camp David peace accords would be a strategic reversal for the United States. It would put at jeopardy the operations of the Suez Canal. It would have increased the dangers to our allies in the State of Israel. And I think the administration was wise to see a tremendous additional risk had Qadhafi won this war. Now, at least we know the rebels are likely not to be defeated, but a stalemate is also not in our interest. And I would hope we would recall the advice of General Sherman, who said that we should make this as rough and as difficult as possible to the enemy so that, ironically, in most humanitarian terms, it ends, and it ends on the terms of the United States, our allies, and the new rebel government. Powell also asked us how we might see the situation, once it is altered by force, further develop and what consequences there are there. My hope is that we would quickly follow the direction of the French Government and recognize the Jalil government, to see that government as a growing potential partner for the United States and the allies so that the people of Libya would see who their potential transitional leaders are and so that we would have clear political authority for them. My hope is that a U.S. envoy would deal directly with the Jalil government and that we would follow the suit of our allies and we would make sure there are clear lines of authority, not just on the military side for combat air patrol and close air support but also political direction for the potential new leaders of Libya. Added to the Powell doctrine are the two other points often included. One is, can we hit the enemy with overwhelming force? I strongly support the administration's limitation on no combat boots on the ground. I think that is a wise decision by the United States, and I think we can still direct terrific, tremendous, overwhelming, and decisive force to end this conflict as quickly as possible. My understanding is that other allied governments may not be so completely constricted on their ability to provide especially the critical role of forward air controllers, who will direct allied air power to the most effective targets to attrite and eventually eliminate the Libyan military. My hope is, though, that we bring all combat assets to bear of the United States and our allies so that we quickly eliminate especially Qadhafi's armor and artillery force and so that this comes to a quick end on the military battlefield. Finally, the Powell doctrine often has included a final point, which is, Can the support of the American people be demonstrated? I think in this case we have fallen short. While the Congress and the Senate have adopted a resolution calling for a no-fly zone in Libya, cosponsored by myself and the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez, I think this is inadequate in fully demonstrating the American people's support for what our troops are doing over in Libya. I think it is clear that our mission is sustained, and the critical political will of the United States is enhanced if we can formally express support for what our men and women are doing overseas. This has been done in some pretty tough conflicts in the past, particularly Afghanistan and Iraq. For this conflict, the administration should call for a resolution of approval, and the elected representatives of the American people should vote. In general, I support the President's policy and would vote for this resolution. But I think it is essential for those who are on the field to understand that the Congress is formally with them in a vote cast up or down for this mission and for all of its unintended consequences, potential upsides or downsides. As Colin Powell leaves the White House today, I hope he carries this advice. I hope all of us recall the key points he laid out. He has wisely put forward for past Presidents and this President a key checklist that all of us as citizens, or those of us who are Senators, as policymakers, can have in reviewing the Powell doctrine. In the end, the Powell doctrine is a key checklist to use to make sure we resist the call for military action until absolutely necessary; but once necessary, that we hit the enemy with everything we have; that we make the conflict as short and, therefore, as humanitarian as possible; that we demonstrate the full support of the American people for the men and women of the Army, Navy, and Air Force; and that we give them a clear mission with one allied commander. I hope the President gets this advice directly from the general today. I hope the President and the Senate follow it. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KIRK

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

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the deteriorating human rights situation in Iran. We understand that Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei--Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Chief of Staff will be arriving in the United States as early as tomorrow. Mr. Mashaei is a close friend and trusted adviser of President Ahmadinejad. Their kinship began in 1982 when President Ahmadinejad was governor of Khoy in West Azerbaijan and the Intelligence Ministry appointed Mr. Mashaei to the security team in the Kurdistan region next door. Since then, Mr. Mashaei has been a member of Ahmadinejad's inner circle. The world knows of President Ahmadinejad's public incitement against Jews and Israel--most infamously with his pledge to wipe Israel off the map. But the world may not know the virulent anti-Israel and anti- Semitic views of his trusted adviser. In 2008, Mr. Mashaei told Sudanese President Omar Hassan Ahmad al- Bashir: The corrupt and criminal Zionist regime is harming not only the Arab and Islamic world, but humanity in its entirety . . . in order to save humanity from its different crises, there is no other way other than the limiting of Zionist influence on human society, because the root and origin of most of the world's current crises are related to Zionism. Shortly after the discredited Iranian Presidential election in June 2009, Mr. Mashaei was appointed Presidential Chief of Staff--after a very brief and unsuccessful attempt to serve as the first Vice President of Iran. Since then, the persecution and repression in Iran has steadily increased. Thousands of peaceful protesters, dissidents and activists have been detained. Let there be no doubt, Mr. Mashei, like his President, is directly responsible for human rights abuses in Iran. He should not be granted a visa to enter the United States and he, like his President, should be designated under U.S. law as a human rights abuser in Iran. Mr. Mashaei's visit will come just 4 days after the United Nations Secretary-General released an interim report on the human rights in Iran. The report states: The human rights situation in Iran has been marked by an intensified crackdown on human rights defenders, woman's rights activists, journalists and government opponents. Concerns about torture, arbitrary detentions and unfair trials continue to be raised by UN human rights mechanisms. Additionally: Discrimination persisted against minority groups, in some cases amounting to persecution. A worrying trend is the increased number of cases in which political prisoners are accused of Mohareb--or enmity against God--offences which carry the death penalty. At least 22 people charged with Mohareb have been executed since January 2010. Journalists, bloggers, human rights defenders and lawyers continue to be arrested or subjected to travel bans. Blogs and Web sites are restricted and now more than 10 national dailies have been shut down for refusing to toe the official line. Concern remains over a lack of due process rights and the failure to respect the rights of detainees. Particularly, ``concerns were expressed at routine practice for incommunicado detention, use of torture and ill-treatment in detention, use of solitary confinement and of individuals without charges.'' Finally, ``concerns were expressed in public about people sentenced to death often do not have access to legal representation and their families and lawyers are not even informed of the execution.'' The report continues to detail the Iranian persecution of religious minorities, especially the Baha'i. The report notes concern for six members of the Baha'i community arrested by officials from the Intelligence Ministry in the months of June and July 2010--and the seven Baha'i community leaders recently sentenced to 10 years in prison. Regarding Iran's persecution of its Kurdish minority, the report notes: Members of the Kurdish community have continued to be executed on various national security-related charges including Mohareb. At least nine Kurdish political prisoners, including Jafar Kazemi, Mohammad Ali Haj Aghaei, and Ali Saremi were executed since January 2010, and several others remain at risk of execution. And regarding Iran's persecution of Christians, we read: Reports also continued to be received about Christians, in particular converts, being subjected to arbitrary arrest and harassment. The Secretary-General's report follows others by our own State Department and human rights groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. While we expect the State Department to release its 2010 country human rights reports on March 25, these are a few highlights from the 2009 report on Iran. Security forces were implicated in custodial deaths and the killings of election protesters and committed other acts of politically motivated violence, including torture, beatings, and rape. * * * The government administered severe officially sanctioned punishments, including death by stoning, amputation, and flogging. * * * Authorities responded to all the demonstrations with raids on opposition activists' offices. * * * Some prison facilities, including Evin Prison in Tehran, were notorious for cruel and prolonged torture of political opponents of the government. Authorities also maintained ``unofficial'' secret prisons and detention centers outside the national prison system where abuse reportedly occurred. The government reportedly used white torture--prolonged solitary confinement with extreme sensory deprivation-- especially on political prisoners, often in detention centers outside the control of prison authorities, including Section 209 of Evin Prison. * * * The government threatened, harassed, and arrested individuals who posted comments critical of the government on the Internet; in some cases it reportedly confiscated their passports or arrested their family members. Amnesty's 2010 report on human rights in Iran starts with the following summary: An intensified clampdown on political protest preceded and, particularly, followed the presidential election in June, whose outcome was widely disputed, deepening the long- standing patterns of repression. The security forces, notably the paramilitary Basij, used excessive force against demonstrators; dozens of people were killed or fatally injured. The authorities suppressed freedom of expression to an unprecedented level, blocking mobile and terrestrial phone networks and Internet communications. Well over 5,000 people had been detained by the end of the year. Many were tortured, including some who were alleged to have been raped in detention, or otherwise ill-treated. Some died from their injuries. Dozens were then prosecuted in grossly unfair mass `show trials.' Most were sentenced to prison terms but at least six were sentenced to death. * * * The election-related violations occurred against a background of severe repression, which persisted throughout 2009 and whose victims included members of ethnic and religious minorities, students, human rights defenders and advocates of political reform. Women continued to face severe discrimination under the law and in practice, and women's rights campaigners were harassed, arrested and imprisoned. Torture and other ill-treatment of detainees remained rife and at least 12 people died in custody. Detainees were systematically denied access to lawyers, medical care and their families, and many faced unfair trials. In its 2011 World Report chapter on Iran, Human Rights Watch writes: Iran's human rights crisis deepened as the government sought to consolidate its power following 2009's disputed presidential election. Public demonstrations waned after security forces used live ammunition to suppress protesters in late 2009, resulting in the death of at least seven protesters and, I would add, we all remember Neda, who was killed online. Authorities announced that security forces had arrested more than 6,000 individuals after June 2009. Hundreds--including lawyers, rights defenders, journalists, civil society activists, and opposition leaders--remain in detention without charge. Since the election crackdown last year, well over a thousand people have fled Iran to seek asylum in neighboring countries. Interrogators used torture to extract confessions, on which the judiciary relied on to sentence people to long prison terms and even death. Restrictions on freedom of expression and association, as well as religious and gender-based discrimination, continued unabated. The report continued: Authorities systematically used torture to coerce confessions. Student activist Abdullah Momeni wrote to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei in September describing the torture he suffered at the hands of jailers. At this writing no high-level official has been prosecuted for the torture, ill-treatment, and deaths of three detainees held at Kahrizak detention center after June 2009. We cannot allow these violations to go unnoticed. Nor can we continue to turn a blind eye to the countless prisoners of conscience fighting for basic human dignity in this brutal dictatorship. It is time we take a stand for people like Nasrin Sotoudeh, detained for her work as a human rights lawyer, women's rights activist, and defender of children who face capital charges; Hossein Ronaghi-Maleki, detained for his work as a blogger and human rights activist. He has been refused medical treatment for kidney failure; and Fariba Kamalabadi, Jamaloddin Khanjani, Afif Naeimi, Saied Rezaie, Behrouz Tavakkoli, Vahid Tizfahm, Mahvash Sabet--all detained for their leadership in the Baha'i community. As of today, the precise whereabouts of opposition leaders Mehdi Karroubi and Mir Hossein Mousavi, and their respective wives Fatemeh Karroubi and Zahra Rahnavard, remain unknown following their arrest and detention in February. Meanwhile, according to international human rights organizations, the whereabouts of hundreds of Iranians, including journalists and political activists, arrested just before the February 14 opposition protests remain unknown. To each of them, I echo President Reagan's words: ``I came here to give you strength, but it is you who have strengthened me.'' As we approach the Iranian New Year celebration of Nowruz, it is time for the President to demonstrate this administration's commitment to the Iranian people's struggle for human rights. We know that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iranian Presidential Chief of Staff Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei and other senior Iranian government officials are directly responsible for and complicit in ordering, controlling, or otherwise directing the commission of serious human rights abuses against the people of Iran on or after June 12, 2009. Pursuant to Executive Order 13553 and the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010, the President should designate these individuals as human rights abusers and reaffirm our core American values: freedom, democracy and human rights. I would just end by quoting from section 105 of the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions Accountability and Divestment Act of 2010, signed by the President into law last year. It requires that the executive branch produce a list of persons who are responsible or complicit in certain rights abuses. It says: Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a list of persons who are officials of the Government of Iran or persons acting on behalf of that Government (including members of paramilitary organizations such as Ansar-e-Hezbollah and Basij-e Mostaz'afin), that the President determines, based on credible evidence, are responsible for or complicit in, or responsible for ordering, controlling, or otherwise directing, the commission of serious human rights abuses against citizens of Iran or their family members on or after June 12, 2009, regardless of whether such abuses occurred in Iran. Clearly this official about to arrive in the United States meets the standard under section 105 of CISADA, and the U.S. administration should designate him as an abuser of human rights. He should not be admitted entry into the United States. We should call it the way we see it, which is, this is one of the most dangerous human rights-abusing officials that we know of. Comprehensive data now exists from Human Rights Watch, from Amnesty International, even from the United Nations on what this man has directed. He should not be given a visa, and he should be so listed under U.S. law. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, We are borrowing over $5 billion per day. That's $35 billion borrowed per week to run our government, totaling over $1.5 trillion in borrowed money just to run for a year. Harvard's great economic historian, Niall Ferguson, noted that the decline of a country can be marked when it pays its moneylenders more than its army. His classic case comes from the French monarchy of the 1780s who failed to make interest payments on their debt, causing the financial collapse that triggered the Revolution. Recently, Carmen Reinhard and Kenneth Rogoff wrote a brilliant book called ``This Time is Different, Eight Centuries of Financial Folly.'' Their vast study revealed that most government officials believe they are always unique and different, causing them to make the same mistakes that crippled past nations and empires. Using Ferguson's tipping point, where are we today? This year, the total cost of maintaining our army will equal $137 billion. This same year, we will pay $225 billion in interest to our money lenders for the use of $14 trillion borrowed from China, Japan and elsewhere. The startling conclusion is that we have already passed Ferguson's tipping point by paying America's money lenders more than our own Army. It gets worse. In just 6 years, the administration says that we will have to pay over $661 billion to our money lenders for interest on our rapidly expanding debt. With the expected cost of our Army at $195 billion, our Air Force at $201 billion and our Navy/Marines at $217 billion, the total cost of $613 billion to provide for our common defense will be smaller than the $661 billion due to the money lenders. In simple economic terms, we will be forced to pay our lenders their interest money first, before caring for our own safety, or risk seeing the value of the dollars in our own wallets disappear. Remember, these numbers are optimistic. They assume no severe spike in interest costs and no other war. Recently, the Senate agonized over a short-term, 2-week spending bill that made a $4 billion cut to spending. We should see that bill's cuts as modest knowing that we already pay $616 million daily in interest and over $4 billion per week. In sum, the cuts of the 2-week bill saved just 1 week of interest payments. As dire as this situation is, there is a bright side. Our country has seen this movie before. Washington, Lincoln and Roosevelt all accumulated economy-crushing debts as the fate of the United States hung in the balance. Our best example of what to do next comes from our own grandparents, rightly called the ``Greatest Generation.'' Tom Brokaw coined the title for Americans of the 1930s and 1940s who defeated the Depression, Japanese and Nazis simultaneously. I would add a fourth, largely unnoticed victory that Brokaw missed. After three great victories for freedom, our grandparents spent the next 20 years paying the debts incurred to win the contests of the Depression, Pacific and Europe. Their accumulated debts of 1946 totaled over 120 percent of our national income. Economists report that between economic growth and some inflation, the Greatest Generation reduced the crippling World War II debts that secured our victory during the late 1940s and 1950s. The return to more fiscally responsible government sparked an economic boom that built the super power called the United States of America. The lesson of history is clear. Each generation of Americans faces conflict, war and debt. Each generation is tested. The looming debt crisis facing this government is our generation's test. While some government officials and bankers may still counsel ineffective action saying ``we owe this money to ourselves'' or ``because the dollar is the reserve currency, we can owe this amount,'' we know that the crisis we face is not that different from the ones that crippled other nations. With spending cuts and discipline we can master this danger, as our grandparents did. The need to do the hard things, like entitlement reform, is similar to the dramatic moves our grandparents made to secure our future. But there is one difference between us and other nations. From the dawn of our revolution, the United States became the greatest force for human liberty and individual dignity ever known. The U.S. ended slavery, gave women the right to vote and spread freedom across Europe, Latin America and Asia. We are now challenged by 21st century world views in the Middle East and China that do not hold the western value of the individual as high as we do. It is therefore doubly important to do the work needed to reduce spending and balance the books so that we restore the vitality of a free people and their cause of expanding liberty and individual dignity. Next time you talk to a member of the Greatest Generation, do not just say thank you. Ask them for advice on how to trim budgets and restore growth in the face of extraordinary debts, just as they did. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KIRK

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

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. With the cold-blooded murder of four Americans by pirates, our country faces a dangerous enemy as old as the second Washington administration and the earliest days of the U.S. Navy. This danger now stretches across our vital oil supply lanes and threatens not just Americans handing out Bibles at Indian Ocean ports of call but our vital supply of energy. I think it is time to recall the tough choices made by the Jefferson administration to suppress the 21st century's pirates in this new chapter. We may forget that as much as 10 percent of all Federal revenues were paid by the Washington administration to the Barbary pirates operating in what became Libya. Payments continued under the Adams and Jefferson administrations, but as always with kidnappers and pirates, ransoms only led to more danger on the high seas. In 1801, President Thomas Jefferson decided that payments of tribute to the Barbary States in exchange for the safe passage of American shipping vessels had gone far enough. Over the next 5 years, Jefferson sent the new U.S. Navy--ironically built over his objection--to attack and defeat the pirates. In the conflict that followed, new American heroes were made, especially Captain Stephen Decatur. Decatur's exploits were dangerous and involved close quarters in combat. In his honor, my State of Illinois named one of its major cities after him, placing his statue in the city's center. In the end, piracy was defeated and the flag of the United States was not strongly challenged by pirates until this century. In the wake of the murder of four Americans by Somali pirates, we need to recall Jefferson's policy under what I would call the ``Decatur Initiative'' against Indian Ocean pirates. Since 2006, pirates attacked more and more vessels. There were over 400 attacks just last year. According to the New York Times, the modern-day pirates of the 21st century currently hold 50 vessels and more than 800 hostages. According to the International Maritime Bureau, pirates murdered 379 people with an additional 199 individuals reported missing between 1993 and 2009. According to reports, the typical pirate ransom in 2005 was between $100,000 and $200,000. By 2008, the average ransom grew to between $500,000 ad $2 million. One year later, in 2009, the average ransom reportedly grew again to a range between $1.5 million and $3.5 million, In late 2010, ransoms now hover around $4 million per vessel. Ransom payments as large as $9.5 million for a tanker carrying crude oil have also been reported by the media. Recently, pirates captured a supertanker worth $200 million carrying 2 million barrels of oil bound for the U.S. Its ransom may become the mother load for pirates to extend their reach across the Indian Ocean and into the Red Sea and Persian Gulf. We would be naive not to expect profits from piracy will not be used to support terrorism against the West. The Horn of Africa is of crucial importance, not only to the U.S. economy, but also to the global market as it serves as a major artery of international shipping. The oil tankers that cruise these waters provide much of the world's energy supply and we cannot risk the safety of those shipments. This region is a potential incubator for the growth of two burgeoning al Qaida franchises: al Qaida in the Islamic Magreb, AQIM, and Somalia's al-Shabaab group, which has pledged its loyalty to Osama bin Laden. Yesterday, I raised this issue with our Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. She hinted that our policy may be changing and that is welcome news. I asked, ``if we can't be tough on pirates, who can we be tough on?'' Today, I am announcing the start of an effort here in the Senate to draft legislation and support administration action along the lines of Jefferson's policy on pirates. These legislative concepts shall be collectively referred to as the ``Decatur Initiative,'' Decatur, whose most daring mission involved recapturing the U.S.S. Philadelphia from pirates. The time has come for us to advance the following: 1. A defined ``Pirate Exclusion Zone'' that would allow the immediate boarding and/ or sinking of any vessel from Somalia not approved and certified for sea by allied forces; 2. an expedited legal regime permitting trial and detention of pirates captured on the high seas; 3. a blockade of pirate-dominated ports like Hobyo, Somalia; 4. broad powers and authority to on-scene commanders to attack or arrest pirates once outside Somalia's 12-mile territorial limit--this would include the summary sinking of pirate ships if a local commander deems it warranted. Additionally, I will explore actions to attack the financial links between pirates and the terrorist groups such as al Shabaab and target pirates with financial sanctions in the same way as other terrorist networks. In the wake of the recent tragedy in the Arabian Sea, where American missionaries were gunned down in cold blood, I am hopeful that many of my colleagues will be willing to join me in taking bold action against the pirates who have been operating in the waters off East Africa. It is ironic that the United States and our allies station substantial naval forces against pirates in this region but take little aggressive action against them. While the pirates have substantial strength on the ground in Somalia, once they're put to sea, we can be their masters and they have very weak means to oppose us. A set of vessels blockading pirate-dominated ports with aggressive orders to attack and sink any vessel leaving Somalia should make quick work of pirate operations. The cost of oil and the price of gas is high enough. Further increases could endanger our slowly recovering economy. As part of the effort to stabilize the price of gas in America, we need to recover Jefferson's policy and attack and defeat Somali pirates as soon as they leave Somalia's territorial waters. In addition, as this body begins to finalize spending legislation for the remainder of the year, I would like to highlight the growing danger to the U.S. economy and our country. We all know that the national debt now tops $14 trillion but we should note that this means we are adding $35 billion to our debts each week or over $5 billion borrowed each day. That $4 billion cut represents just .3 percent of this year's annual deficit or just three one-hundredths of 1 percent of the current money we owe. The famous Harvard economic historian Niall Ferguson said you can mark the decline of a country when it pays more money to its lenders than to its army. We have already crossed that point. This year the Congressional Budget Office estimates that interest payments we will pay to our money lenders will top $225 billion. That is more than the cost of our Army, which we currently estimate costs about $195 billion, or our Air Force, which we estimate costs $201 billion, or even our Navy, which will cost $217 billion this year. Our money lender costs now are higher than the entire gross domestic product of the country of Denmark, at $201 billion. We must pay $4 billion per week in interest or $616 million per day to our money lenders. What is worse, interest payments are expected to more than double over the next decade and will top $778 billion. That means soon we will have to pay our money lenders more than it costs to operate our Army, Navy, and Air Force combined at $623 billion. Remember also that interest payments on the debt are a form of wealth transfer from hard-working middle-class Americans who pay Federal taxes to wealthy lenders, many of whom live abroad. For those in the Senate who are opposing budget constraints put in by the House, we should force them to admit that they are either for higher taxes for the American people or more borrowing that transfers wealth from hard- working middle-class Americans to high-income money lenders, most of whom now live abroad. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KIRK. I withhold.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Madam President, I rise to support this continuing resolution. As we know, the Senate is set to pass a short-term funding bill, while negotiations continue on a longer term funding bill for the rest of the year. The administration has presented us with a request also to fund the government next year and is expected to ask for an increase in the Federal debt ceiling. This legislation cuts about $4 billion. Up against our annual deficit or the total debt, it is but a microdrop in the budget. The Federal Government is on track to spend about $3.7 trillion this fiscal year, while taking in only $2.2 trillion in revenue. If we compared this to a middle-class example, it would be as if someone was spending $37,000 a year, with an income of only $22,000. Replace ``thousand'' for ``trillion'' and you get a good idea of how fiscally irresponsible the Federal Government has become. We have a $14 trillion debt and, as we all know now, we are borrowing 40 cents of every $1 we spend. Clearly, there is a growing danger in the country from tremendous debt and runaway spending. It is this resolution that will help in a very small way to put us on a better track. I encourage us to use a multipronged approach as we move forward. We need to reverse the current spending trend of the Congress. We need to address long-term obligations and put statutory backstops into place to make sure it will be very difficult for future Congresses to do what past Congresses have done. As a very new member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I will be asking Federal agencies to identify further programs and ways to reduce Federal spending. The administration has been on the right track in several key areas. They have proposed to cut or terminate almost 150 discretionary programs that would save about $21 billion and defense programs that would save about $25 billion. But that savings should be put to reducing our total need to borrow and not bumped back into additional spending by the government. Additionally, we need to incorporate what we just learned from the Government Accountability Office about inefficient and duplicative areas of the Federal budget. GAO's recommendations for consolidations and eliminating programs should be fully reviewed and, in many places, implemented for next year's budget. Treasury Secretary Geithner will soon ask the Congress to increase the allowable Federal debt a fourth time for the last 2 years. In my judgment, Congress should say no unless such an increase is coupled with new and dramatic antispending reforms that would make any future additions to our debt nearly impossible. While defaulting on U.S. bonds is not an option, Congress must tie future debt limit extensions to reforms that produce much smaller and smarter government. As Indiana's Governor Daniels has said: ``You will never know how much government you won't miss.'' I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KIRK

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

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. That is correct.

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

Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, the Kirk-Pryor amendment seeks to assist some of our greatest innovators by providing a fast lane within the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for small businesses to receive information and assistance regarding their patent applications. Small businesses are the economic engine of the American economy. According to the Small Business Administration, small businesses employ just over half of all private sector employees and create over 50 percent of our nonfarm GDP. Illinois alone is home to 258,000 small employers and more than 885,000 self-employers. Small businesses are helping to lead the way on American innovation. These firms produce 13 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms, and their patents are twice as likely to be among the most cited among all patents. Small business breakthroughs led to the development of airplanes, FM radio, and the personal computer. Unfortunately, the share of small-entity patents is declining, according to a New York University researcher. While S. 23 takes great strides in reforming our patent system, it can still be daunting for a small business owner or inventor to obtain a patent. In many instances, the value of a patent is what keeps that new small business afloat. It is vital for America's future competitiveness, her economic growth, and her job creation that these innovators spend their time developing new products and processes that will build our future, not wading through government redtape. Our amendment would help small firms navigate the bureaucracy by establishing the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Ombudsman Program to assist small businesses with their patent filing issues. The provision was first conceived as part of the Small Business Bill of Rights, which I introduced in the House, to expand employment and help small businesses grow. The Small Business Bill of Rights and this amendment are endorsed by the National Federation of Independent Business. I am proud to have this as part of a 10-point plan to be considered here in the Senate. I wish to thank Senator Mark Pryor of Arkansas, who is the lead Democratic cosponsor of this amendment. He is a strong and consistent supporter of small business, and I appreciate his partnership on this important program. I also thank Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Grassley and their staffs for working with us on this amendment and for preserving this critical legislation. Our Founding Fathers recognized the importance of a strong patent system that protects and incentivizes innovators. I look forward to supporting S. 23, which will provide strong intellectual property rights to further our technological advancement. In sum, we should help foster innovation by protecting innovators, especially small business men and women, and I urge adoption of the amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up the Kirk-Pryor amendment No. 123.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a bipartisan resolution with my colleague Senator Durbin condemning the government of Iran for its state-sponsored persecution of the Baha'i minority. Founded in Iran in 1844, the Baha'i faith now has more than 5 million adherents in 236 countries and territories. The Baha'is comprise the largest religious minority in Iran. The Baha'is preach tolerance, diversity and equality. Yet since the Islamic Revolution of 1979, the Baha'is have faced brutal and unrelenting persecution in Iran. According to the U.S. State Department, more than 200 Baha'is have been killed since 1979. The Baha'is are regularly denied employment, access to higher education, and face multiple forms of discrimination and harassment. In August 2010, the Iranian government sentenced seven leaders of Iran's Baha'i community to 20-year prison terms on charges of ``spying for Israel, insulting religious sanctities, propaganda against the regime and spreading corruption on earth.'' Their lawyer has been denied all access to the Baha'i prisoners and their files. Last month, the Revolutionary Court in Tehran sentenced a Baha'i human rights activist, Navid Khanjani, to a 12-year prison term on charges that included ``propaganda against the regime by publishing news, reports, and interviews with foreign TV and radio.'' The United States and the international community need to act now. The bipartisan resolution condemns the Iranian regime's continued persecution of its Baha'i minority, calls on the regime to release Baha'i political prisoners and urges President Obama and Secretary Clinton to designate Iranian officials and other individuals directly responsible for egregious human rights violations in Iran. The plight of Baha'is in Iran should be deeply personal to all Americans. I call on the administration to elevate human rights in Iran, including the plight of Iranian Baha'is, to the top of the international agenda.

Mr. KIRK

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

Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, we are spending money that we do not have. The administration's budget proposes taxing the American people to the tune of $2.6 trillion, spending $3.7 trillion, and borrowing $1.1 trillion. Under the budget, interest payments on the debt are set to quadruple from $200 billion this year to $900 billion in 10 years. The great Harvard economic historian, Naill Ferguson, has stated that the decline of a country can be measured when it pays its money lenders more than its Army. We will hit that level in the next few fiscal years. Now, in response today, I am announcing our first Silver Fleece Award. It is not a Golden Fleece Award because in this time of austerity, we can no longer afford that. We pay homage to Senator William Proxmire of Wisconsin that put forward the Golden Fleece Award in the late 1970s and 1980s. Working with Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, we feature what is in his ``Wastebook'' on a new site called ``Wastebook on Facebook.'' There, the Silver Fleece Award is being proposed in three parts for a vote by people who wish to participate. This month we had three nominees for the Silver Fleece Award. The second runner up was a pair of National Science Foundation grants worth $456,000. These grants went to studies on why political candidates make vague statements and how Americans use online dating. The first runner up was for $615,000 in a grant to create a library archive about the Grateful Dead, a well-known rock-and-roll band. However, neither of these two projects were voted on as the worst of the current waste we see. Instead, the inaugural winner of the Silver Fleece Award is for a nearly $1 million grant going to fund signs to display poetry in zoos. The organization administering the program, Poets House and Public Libraries, states that the goal of the program is to ``deepen public awareness of environmental issues through poetry.'' I would add, using borrowed taxpayer funds. Thanks to this nearly $1 million program, a visitor to the Little Rock Zoo in Arkansas can now read the words of author Hans Christian Andersen saying: Just as living is not enough, said the butterfly. One must have sunshine, freedom and a little flower. I would argue that future generations would be far more interested in a life without debt, and taxpayers should not pick up the bill for such projects. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the 2008 Readers' Digest article, the Poets House and Public Libraries statement on the Language of Conservation, and the April 15, 2010, article from the Arkansas Democrat Gazette.

Mr. KIRK. I would also like to now announce the new nominees for the next March Silver Fleece Award. First, we will have the opportunity to vote to give the Silver Fleece Award for a $150,000 transportation grant to create a ``wildlife crossing'' at Monkton, VT. This is a technical term for a tunnel that will allow salamanders and other animals to cross below a road. Our second nominee is a $46,000 grant from the National Science Foundation to study why people lie in text messages. Third, we will nominate funding for a videogame called WolfQuest which was funded by a $508,253 grant from the National Science Foundation to a Minnesota zoo. We invite your votes and your feedback on ``Wastebook on Facebook'' to decide what next month's silver fleece award winner will be. The sad thing is, the only loser currently is the American people. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KIRK

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

Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join Senator Whitehouse, Senator Boxer and a growing list of my colleagues in support of the Whitehouse-Kirk-Boxer amendment that will improve airline safety throughout the Nation. Most individuals are familiar with laser pointers that are often used in presentations. What you may not know is the growing danger these devices pose to pilots. Last month, the FAA released nationwide data on lasers pointed at aircraft. From 2009 to 2010, incidents nearly doubled from 1,527, to 2,836. To show how quickly this has become a problem, when the FAA first began to track this problem in 2005, incidents were under 300. Transportation Secretary LaHood has acknowledged this is a serious safety issue. Lasers can temporarily blind pilots, which is incredibly dangerous, but even more so during the critical time of takeoff and landing. Advancements in laser technology also are making the problem worse. Certain color variations, such as green lasers, are 35 times brighter than comparable red lasers. This is a particular worry for me and for my State's busiest airport--O'Hare. According to the FAA, last year O'Hare had the second- highest number of laser events in the Nation at 98. The Whitehouse-Kirk-Boxer amendment creates new penalties for knowingly pointing a laser pointer at an aircraft, or at the flight path of an airplane. Commonsense exemptions are provided to allow further research and testing activities. Current law has not kept up to date with this new threat. It is time we give law enforcement and prosecutors additional tools to reduce the likelihood of a tragedy. The amendment is supported by the Air Line Pilots Association and the National Association of Police Organizations which includes the Federal Flight Deck Officers Association. I thank Senator Whitehouse and his staff for their leadership on this issue, and I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan proposal to help make our Nation's pilots, and especially their passengers, safer. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KIRK

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

Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, as the junior Senator representing the State of Illinois, and one who will lead a celebration of President Reagan's life in Chicago Saturday night, for Sunday, the 100th birthday of our native Illinoisan, our 40th President, Ronald Reagan, I want to talk for a moment about his life and what he has meant to the United States, now on the 100th anniversary of President Reagan's birth. On February 6, 1911, in Tampico, IL, with a population of 820, John and Nelle Reagan welcomed a child who would one day change the direction not just of our country but the world. According to the Reagan family lore, when he first gazed upon his son, John Reagan prophetically quipped: ``He looks like a fat little Dutchman. But who knows, he might grow up to be President someday.'' His father was a strong believer in the American dream and Nelle Reagan passed on to her son her penchant to always look for the good in people, regardless of their current position. It was those early lessons in perseverance and faith that would inspire Ronald Reagan to pursue his dream of becoming a Hollywood actor. He signed his first professional acting contract in 1935 and went on to enjoy a successful career on the silver screen. But by 1946, after serving 3 years in the Army Air Force Intelligence Corps during the height of World War II, he began to have ambitions beyond Hollywood. A 5-year stint as the president of the Screen Actors Guild laid the foundation for Ronald Reagan's political career. During the turmoil of the Hollywood communism craze, Reagan proved himself to be a skilled dealmaker and an influential leader as he successfully navigated the upheaval in the Hollywood community. In 1964, Ronald Reagan was thrust into the national spotlight as he gave his televised speech entitled, ``A Time for Choosing,'' in support of the Presidential nominee Barry Goldwater. Following his speech, a group of influential citizens became convinced that Ronald Reagan should become the next Governor of California. After winning in the primary and enduring a very hard- fought campaign, Ronald Reagan unseated the two-time Governor of California, Pat Brown, to become the 33rd Governor in California's history. During his 2 terms as Governor, Californians enjoyed a smaller, less costly, and more efficient State government. Governor Reagan returned $5 billion to the taxpayers and used his line-item veto authority 943 times to ensure that the State's budget matched its priorities. Ronald Reagan had once again proved himself a determined and capable leader in difficult times, but soon the American people would learn that his best days were very much ahead of him. After an unsuccessful Republican Presidential attempt in 1976, he knew that he wanted to be President but would only enter the race if the people of the United States actually wanted him to run. In the years following the 1976 primary, Ronald Reagan became increasingly concerned about the direction the country was headed, especially in the areas of national security, unemployment, and the economy. More than anything, Reagan sensed that Americans had lost their sense of confidence, not just in themselves but also in the country. Interestingly, the concerns Mr. Reagan felt as he weighed the decision to run for President are not unlike many of the challenges we face today. Ronald Reagan was confident that he was the man who could lead the country out of a dark recession and into the light of a new prosperity and national pride. After winning a landslide election in November, Ronald Reagan was sworn in as our 40th President on January 20, 1981. He immediately went to work on repairing a broken economy by enacting the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, with his solid belief being that if people had more money in their pockets and confidence to invest, the country would get back on a sound financial footing. During his first months in office, Reagan was as much to thank for the new found economic stability as he was for a heightened sense of optimism that was returning to the United States after very hard times. He thoughtfully guided the country through a series of national tragedies and terrorist attacks on our military forces abroad. Yet through it all, President Reagan's resolve never wavered, his confidence that the American people would meet the myriad challenges they faced never faltered. This was a man who, after surviving an assassination attempt, continued to meet with congressional leaders in his hospital room as he recovered because he believed it in the best interest of the American people that he continue working to the extent his body would allow. It was that type of steadfast determination that allowed the negotiations with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to move forward and eventually led to the tearing down of the Berlin Wall, the signing of the I.N.F. Treaty and eventually the end of Soviet oppression in Eastern Europe. The issue that got him into politics, ending the spread of communism, became the crowning achievement of his Presidency. His constant refrain throughout his time in the White House was that government was becoming too big, too inefficient, too unresponsive and too wasteful. As Governor, Reagan demonstrated the ability to exercise fiscal restraint and he urged leaders in Congress to do the same thing. I think it appropriate that we are celebrating Reagan's 100th birthday at a time when national debt and the deficit are at an all-time high. While we know that Reagan possessed the willingness to tackle such issues, I believe the lesson we can learn most from his Presidency is the endlessly optimistic attitude he had that the United States and its people would meet challenges of the day and emerge stronger because of the struggle to overcome. His assertion that America was ``the shining city on a hill'' guided him, as it should us. A hard-nosed, gritty politician, Reagan would have jumped at the chance to take on the responsibility of leading this country out of this recession, just as he did in 1981. So as we celebrate Ronald Reagan's 100th birthday, let us take a moment to reflect upon the life of a man who, as President, always did what was necessary to move the country forward in the way he felt was most beneficial to those who mattered most, the people. I know his legacy is most associated with the people of California, but as the junior Senator for Illinois, we will claim our right to note his birth in Tampico, his childhood in Dixon, and his college years at Eureka College. We will be very happy to mark the 100th birthday on Saturday in Chicagoland and through celebrations in other parts of the State, one of our great Presidents who very much changed the course and direction of this country and this world for the better. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Madam President, I wish to talk about two topics today, first on this health care bill and then on the situation in Egypt. I rise today in support of the amendment to repeal the health care law. We made a mistake last year in passing this law, and a large majority of American people know it. In the face of the largest debt in our history, it was the height of folly to create a new spending program, offering subsidized health care to 30 million Americans. It is a promise we cannot afford to keep and one that our lenders may force us to retract. Before losing our credit rating or suffering the humiliation of foreign lenders denying us new loans, we should take the decisive action now to end this entitlement. Congress should replace this mistaken law with bipartisan reforms that prohibit the government from overriding the decisions you make with your doctor, that defend your right to buy insurance from any State in the Union, and to make lawsuit reforms to lower the costs of defensive medicine. The failed health care law now ruled as unconstitutional by two Federal courts uses the commerce clause of the Constitution to create an unlimited government that could require Americans to buy what they do not want. The very heart of the Constitution was the creation of a limited government that could only accomplish its defined missions, leaving all else to the people and to the States. These courts are right, the law is unconstitutional. It spends over $2.6 trillion, it hurts small businesses, it cuts senior health care under Medicare, and levies billions in new taxes against our economy in the teeth of the great recession. Recently, I visited Decatur Memorial Hospital in Decatur, IL. Their president, Ken Smithmier, warned me that the Medicare cuts required by the new health care law would cut $10 million annually from their hospital, resulting in the loss of over 200 jobs. Decatur is not alone in its troubles. In nearly half of my State's counties, hospitals are among the top three employers. They are the backbone of our local economies, and their employment would be greatly harmed by this health care law. We made a promise to seniors who depend on Medicare that we would take care of them. This law cuts Medicare and hurts them. We should honor, instead, our promises to defend the Nation, to support seniors on Social Security and who depend on Medicare before making an extravagant promise that is irresponsible and cannot be kept under the health care law. Egypt Madam President, I also wish to take this time to speak on an entirely different subject, which is what is going on in Egypt. I entitle this discussion ``The Muslim Brotherhood: Its Leaders in Their Own Words.'' Will Egypt follow Poland or Georgia to foster a new democratic government or will it follow Iran's revolution, converting Egypt into a state sponsor of terror? While U.S. policy should support human rights and democracy, we face the risk that the Muslim Brotherhood, the al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun, could seize power. Who is part of the brotherhood and what are its political objectives? A detailed study shows why these questions should command the attention of the Congress and the President. With so much at stake in the Middle East, Americans must be clear-eyed about the Muslim Brotherhood and its radical Islamic agenda with a pledge of jihad against the West and the State of Israel. The Muslim Brotherhood is the largest Islamist movement in the Middle East and is widely described as the most organized political force in Egypt. Its membership is estimated at over 600,000. Although it claims to be nonviolent, this conservative organization, the Muslim Brotherhood, has profoundly influenced Islamic terrorist organizations such as al-Qaida, Islamic Jihad, and Hamas. One of its disciples was the prominent Islamist theologian Sayyid Qutb who provided the intellectual underpinnings of al-Qaida. Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaida's second in command, was once a member of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood. As recently as 2004, the organization's motto was as follows: Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope. The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna. Banna is famously quoted as saying that ``it is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law in all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet.'' The Muslim Brotherhood has a violent history. Back in 1946, the U.S. Army issued an intelligence report stating that the Muslim Brotherhood ``maintains commando units and secret caches of arms.'' Throughout the 1940s, the paramilitary branch of the movement carried out targeted bombings and assassinations. In 1948, the Muslim Brotherhood was implicated in the murder of Egyptian Prime Minister Mahmoud Naqrashi. In 1954, the group allegedly tried to assassinate then-Prime Minister Gamal Abdel Nasser. The government banned the brotherhood as a political party that very same year. The Muslim Brotherhood went underground only to resurface during the 1980s. It claimed to disavow violence and attempted to win political power as a religious and social organization. It was increasingly successful with allied candidates, winning 17 seats in the Parliament in 2000 and then a stunning 88 seats, or 20 percent of Egypt's Parliament, in 2005. The Muslim Brotherhood is not a monolithic organization, but it does maintain a leadership structure and a core set of beliefs. Its leader is called the general guide. He has several deputy guides. Below them is a guidance council, comprised of 15 to 16 senior leaders as well as a broader body, the Shura, comprised of roughly 100 members. Mohammed Badi was elected as the eighth general guide of the Muslim Brotherhood in January of 2010. As noted by the U.S. Government's Open Source Center, Badi is ``influenced by the writings of famous Muslim Brotherhood idealogue Sayyid Qutb, and is known for his conservative views.'' In an April interview in 2010, Mr. Badi said: We will continue to raise the banner of Jihad and the Koran in our confrontation with the enemy of Islam. The Muslim Brotherhood still considers the Zionists to be its main and only enemy. The Jews who occupy Palestine have their eyes set on Egypt. Two days ago, a leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood, Muhammed Ghannem, reportedly told Al-Alam Iranian news network that he ``would like to see the Egyptian people prepare for a war against Israel,'' adding that the world should understand ``the Egyptian people are prepared for anything to get rid of this regime.'' He went on to say that the Suez Canal should be ``closed immediately'' and that the flow of gas from Egypt to Israel should cease ``in order to bring about the downfall of the Mubarak regime.'' In 2007, the Muslim Brotherhood released a political platform which contained a number of indications on how this organization would govern Egypt if it came to power. According to the Congressional Research Service, the platform called for ``the establishment of a board of religious scholars with whom the President and the legislature would have to consult before passing laws.'' As noted by Mohamed Elmenshawy--the editor-in-chief of Taqrir Washington and Arab Insight: Reminiscent of Iran's Guardian Council, this undemocratically selected body could have the power vested by the state to veto any and all legislation passed by the Egyptian parliament and approved by the president that is not compatible with Islamic Shari'a law. The same document raises the important question of the Muslim Brotherhood's commitment to a pluralistic society. Despite pledges to treat minorities and women as equals, the platform allows neither to hold high public office. As stated in the platform: ``Nonmuslims are excused from holding this mission.'' For women, the post of President or Prime Minister would ``contradict her nature, social and other humanitarian roles.'' The draft also cautions against ``burdening women with the duties against their nature or role in the family.'' The people of Egypt and apparently its army are mandating the fall of the Mubarak regime. While we support human rights and democracy, we must heed the growing warnings about the Muslim Brotherhood, their leaders, and plans for taking Egypt all the way back to the 13th century. We, as Americans, have seen this movie before--in Iran, in Lebanon, and in Gaza. To prevent a strategic reversal on the scale of what happened in Iran, the United States and her allies should do all they can to support Egypt's armies and secular leaders, ensuring no future for the Muslim Brotherhood. Egypt, locked under Shari'a law and oppressing women, Christians, and Jews, would be a catastrophic setback for progress in the Middle East. Such a state could renounce the Camp David peace accords or even start yet another war with Israel. Decisive action and influence now will benefit the national security and economy of the United States later. The defeat of the Muslim Brotherhood and victory for Egyptian secular nationalists would be the best way to avoid war and restore economic confidence in the Middle East and the wider world.

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