Mark Kirk

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Gun Trafficking Prevention Act of 2013, which I am proud to have introduced with Senator Gillibrand (D-NY) this morning. There are an estimated 33,000 gangs with 1.4 million active members who live in our neighborhoods, towns and cities across the United States. With more than 100,000 gang members, the city of Chicago has more gang members who terrorize its residents than any other city in the United States. The Chicago Crime Commission also reported the existence of an additional 15,000 gang members operating in our suburbs. Gangs like the Vice Lords, Gangster Disciples and the Latin Kings are responsible for nearly 80 percent of the city's homicides, which just last summer amounted to 500 deaths in Chicago. These homicides are most often perpetrated with illegal weapons. Law enforcement officers in Chicago confiscate an average of 13,000 illegal weapons each year. It must end. That is why I have joined with Senator Gillibrand of New York to take serious action to prevent weapons trafficking and straw purchasing, where a third-party member legally purchases a firearm, then sells or trades it to a criminal who is legally barred from purchasing such a weapon. Our bill would be the first Federal law to criminalize the trafficking of illegal guns. This legislation also calls upon the sentencing commission to substantially increase the penalties for trafficking when committed by or in concert with gang members. The Gun Trafficking Prevention Act keeps Americans safe by giving law enforcement the tools it needs to crack down on straw purchases, organizers of trafficking rings, and those involved in the conspiracy of trafficking while protecting the constitutional rights of responsible, law-abiding gun owners. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting and quickly passing this critical legislation.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Gun Trafficking Prevention Act of 2013, which I am proud to have introduced with Senator Gillibrand (D-NY) this morning. There are an estimated 33,000 gangs with 1.4 million active members who live in our neighborhoods, towns and cities across the United States. With more than 100,000 gang members, the city of Chicago has more gang members who terrorize its residents than any other city in the United States. The Chicago Crime Commission also reported the existence of an additional 15,000 gang members operating in our suburbs. Gangs like the Vice Lords, Gangster Disciples and the Latin Kings are responsible for nearly 80 percent of the city's homicides, which just last summer amounted to 500 deaths in Chicago. These homicides are most often perpetrated with illegal weapons. Law enforcement officers in Chicago confiscate an average of 13,000 illegal weapons each year. It must end. That is why I have joined with Senator Gillibrand of New York to take serious action to prevent weapons trafficking and straw purchasing, where a third-party member legally purchases a firearm, then sells or trades it to a criminal who is legally barred from purchasing such a weapon. Our bill would be the first Federal law to criminalize the trafficking of illegal guns. This legislation also calls upon the sentencing commission to substantially increase the penalties for trafficking when committed by or in concert with gang members. The Gun Trafficking Prevention Act keeps Americans safe by giving law enforcement the tools it needs to crack down on straw purchases, organizers of trafficking rings, and those involved in the conspiracy of trafficking while protecting the constitutional rights of responsible, law-abiding gun owners. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting and quickly passing this critical legislation.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, we often hear and read about stories of young boys and girls in foreign countries forced into sexual slavery. Helpless children as young as 11 and 12 years old are threatened, abused, raped, and sold for sex. But we rarely hear about the child sex trafficking that happens here at home in Chicago, New York, Atlanta, Miami, and most major metropolitan cities in the United States. Experts estimate that each year as many as 300,000 children are at risk of commercial sexual exploitation in the U.S. An alarming 40 percent of incidents investigated by federally funded task forces on human trafficking between 2008 and 2010 involved the sexual exploitation of a child, according to a Bureau of Justice Statistics report. The numbers are rising, in part because it has become frighteningly simple to order a child prostitute on the Internet. One merely needs to look at the classified ads on Backpage.com, the leading Web site for prostitution advertising in the United States according to the Advanced Interactive Media, AIM, Group. The website's ``adult entertainment'' section generates more than 80 percent of total prostitution advertising revenue on the web. This section includes services such as ``escorts'' and ``body rubs,'' a thinly veiled code for prostitution. Just a few clicks on this site easily enables ``johns'' to purchase children for sex. Law enforcement believes that the existence of Backpage encourages the recruitment of victims for sexual exploitation because it allows traffickers to operate out of sight from police patrols. Backpage.com is owned and operated by Village Voice Media Holdings, the former parent company of the alternative weekly Village Voice publications. The company, which makes an estimated $26 million per year from these ads, claims it polices the ads on its site, but the statistics and devastating reports say otherwise. According to the National Association of Attorneys General, 23 States have cumulatively filed more than 50 charges against suspects trafficking minors on Backpage.com. In August 2011, nine members of the Vice Lords and other south and west side of Chicago gangs were charged with operating a major sex trafficking ring. Some of the girls forced into sexual slavery were as young as 12 years old. Victims suffered immense abuse, including beatings, branding, tattooing, death threats, being locked in car trunk, and forced to sleep outside even in cold Chicago winters. The gang members used Backpage.com to facilitate their operation. In August 2012, Marques Williams was arrested and charged with a Federal sex trafficking complaint for trafficking a 15-year-old girl in Rochester, NY. Advertising the young girls services on Backpage.com, Williams forced her to take up to 15 customers a day. In December 2012, Fernando Gonzales was sentenced to 20 years in prison for child sex trafficking. Fernando raped and impregnated a 16- year-old girl, then forced her into prostitution and advertised her services on Backpage.com. When the victim tried to escape, Fernando threatened to kill her and her child and then carved his initial into her arm. Unfortunately, there are too many stories like these. As news reports of pimps and traffickers using Backpage.com to advertise sexual services by minors continue to increase, we cannot leave our children defenseless. The profit-first mentality at Village Voice Media, which prioritizes the rights of pimps, not children, must end. Fifty-one attorneys general, 36 clergymen, dozens of anti-trafficking organizations, columnists and editorial boards across the country, and 240,000 individuals through change.org have called on Village Voice Media to shutdown the ``adult entertainment'' section on Backpage.com. Even John Buffalo Mailer, son of Village Voice's co-founder, publicly urged Backpage.com to eliminate the section. Over the past year, I joined with several of my colleagues in a bipartisan fashion to work to prevent children from being exploited and trafficked on Backpage.com. In March 2012, 18 Senators joined me in a letter to the Chairman and CEO of Village Voice Media Holdings, demanding the elimination of the adult entertainment section on the classified advertising Web site. I then led an effort to bring to the attention of those advertising on Village Voice publications the kinds of activities supported by the company. As a result, eight companies and organizations responded to our letter announcing the end of their advertising relationship with the publications. This had a clear effect, as a number of then-executives at Village Voice Media Holdings spun off the weekly publications as a new company in an apparent effort to circumvent the public relations disaster Backpage.com rightly caused Village Voice Media. But children continue to be bought and sold on Backpage.com. Senator Blumenthal and I introduced S. Res. 439 as part of this effort to curb online child sexual exploitation. The legislation calls on Village Voice Media Holdings to eliminate the ``adult entertainment'' section of Backpage.com. By passing S. Res. 439, the U.S. Senate will present a united front in the fight against online child sex trafficking. We will be making it clear that the American public strongly condemns the facilitation and perpetuation of human trafficking by website operators. I want to especially thank Senators Blumenthal, Rubio, and Cornyn for their great partnership and leadership on this effort, hope the rest of our colleagues will join us and pass S. Res. 439.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, I offer my strong support for Thomas Durkin to fill one of the four vacancies on the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Illinois. Because of his outstanding experience and record of public service, I submitted Thomas Durkin's candidacy to the White House in July 2011, following the recommendation of my nonpartisan Judicial Review Commission. Senator Durbin had previously forwarded Mr. Durkin's name to President Obama in 2009, based on the recommendation of his screening committee. The judgeship for which Mr. Durkin has been nominated is considered a ``judicial emergency'' by the Judicial Conference of the United States. Confirmation of this qualified nominee will ease the backlog of cases and allow the dispensation of justice in a fair and timely manner. I thank Senator Durbin for his leadership, and I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan nomination and confirm Mr. Durkin to the Federal bench.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, I wish to offer my strong endorsement for the nomination of John ``Jay'' Tharp to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Jay Tharp will be an outstanding addition to the Federal bench. He made a name for himself as an assistant U.S. attorney whose cases included political corruption and money laundering. His impressive tenure in that office includes service in the General Crimes Division and the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force. Since leaving the U.S. Attorney's office in 1997, Tharp has worked at Mayer Brown LLP, where he was made partner in 1999. He is currently coleader of Mayer Brown's securities litigation and enforcement practice. I want to thank Senator Durbin for his continued dedication and hard work to ensure the Senate's timely confirmation of both Illinois judicial nominees, Jay Tharp and John Lee. Under Senate tradition for Illinois, the senator from the party not in control of the White House makes nomination recommendations to the White House for one Federal district court judgeship for every three of the party in power. The arrangement is intended to ensure the orderly filing of Federal judge vacancies on the Illinois bench. Under that tradition, John Tharp was my first recommendation. Jay served our country in the Marine Corps from 1982 to 1988, achieving the rank of Captain and earning the Navy Achievement Medal and the Navy Distinguished Midshipman Award. He subsequently attended Northwestern University Law School on a full merit John Henry Wigmore Scholarship. While at Northwestern, Jay served as book review editor of the Northwestern Law Review. He graduated magna cum laude in 1990. Last week, the Senate voted to confirm John Lee to fill one of the vacancies for the Northern District. Senator Durbin and I worked closely to recommend both Jay Tharp and John Lee and today's vote on Jay's nomination will hopefully conclude the process to fill these two vacancies. I would also like to thank my Judicial Review Advisory Board, chaired by Peter Baugher of Schopf & Weiss LLP, for their hard work in selecting Jay Tharp. In February 2011, I formed this 14-member bipartisan, Statewide screening committee and charged it with identifying ``the strongest applicants from Illinois for consideration by the President and U.S. Senate.'' My Advisory Board received nearly 50 applications, met five times, and spent over 300 man-hours to review judicial candidates. The Advisory Board's review process included personal interviews as well as calls to colleagues, opposing counsel, and judges. I urge my colleagues to support Jay Tharp's nomination.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, I am in support of S.J. Res. 36 and thank the Senator from Wyoming for introducing it. I worry that the recent direction of the National Labor Relations Board is killing American jobs, not creating them. This resolution concerns a new rule regarding ambush or quickie union elections. But this action is just the latest in a number of other anti-job creation activities at the NLRB. The case last year against the Boeing Corporation is a perfect example of where the NLRB actions threatened to kill thousands of new U.S. jobs. By threatening to shut down a new plant producing the new 787 Dreamliner in South Carolina, the NLRB's actions would have cost Boeing billions of dollars. This case has made U.S. companies reconsider building new plants at home, costing high-quality American jobs. I am particularly worried about a proposed rule by the NLRB that would require employers to turn over employee personal contact information to unions, including personal e-mail addresses and cell phone numbers. This is a blatant violation of an individual's privacy. No one should have access to that type of information, unless you want to provide it. As a Congressman, I fought for easy access to opt into the Do Not Call List, so that you will not be disturbed by unwanted telephone calls. This rule would allow unions to have access to that very same information that the overwhelming majority of Americans do not want to be public. The NLRB is completely out of touch with what is important to Americans. The resolution on the floor of the Senate specifically addresses the new NLRB rule that would shorten the time frame for a union election to as little as 10 days. The new rule is set to go into effect on April 30. These ambush elections rush workers into making quick decisions, which are often uninformed ones, on an issue that directly affects their every day life in the workplace. Forcing workers to make this quick decision runs against the heart of our democratic system, based on the principles of fairness and justice. Quickie elections will be particularly harmful to small businesses. Small businesses are the engine of our economy and our greatest job creators. Small business owners have a range of responsibilities and fewer resources than larger corporations. They will struggle to respond to the new, accelerated timeframe for elections. Their compliance costs will almost certainly rise; taking money that could have been put into enhancing their business, growing the economy, and creating jobs. The NLRB continues to find ways to prevent job growth and inhibit our economy instead of enhancing it. This new rule on ambush elections is no different. I thank the Senator from Wyoming, my ranking member on the HELP Committee, for this resolution and I urge its passage.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Madam President, I wish to rise in support of the Feinstein-Leahy-Lee legislation. We are taking up the Defense authorization bill with the controversial provisions in it, somewhat protected already by the Feinstein language. But this legislation locks in a fundamental truth that I think is important for our country, and that is as a U.S. citizen inside the territory of the United States, you have inalienable rights under our Declaration of Independence. We are protected pursuant to the U.S. Constitution. Our Constitution says all crimes, and prosecution thereof, shall be pursuant to a grand jury indictment. There is no exception in the Constitution for that. The Constitution grants a U.S. citizen a trial in the State in which the crime was committed, I think clearly envisioning a civilian trial. We, as Americans, have a right to a speedy trial, not indefinite detention. We as Americans have a right to a jury of our peers, which I would argue is not enlisted or military personnel sitting in a jury. You cannot search our persons or our places of business or homes without probable cause under the Bill of Rights. You cannot be deprived of your freedom or your property without due process of law, and that, I would say, is not indefinite detention. All due process guarantees under law are granted to you by the 14th amendment. I would actually argue that no statute and no Senate and no House can take these rights away from you. It is very important to pass this legislation to prevent needless litigation against constitutional rights, which I regard already as your birthright as an American citizen. It is very important to talk about what the Feinstein legislation does and does not do. I think it is very narrowly crafted to defend the rights of American citizens and resident aliens inside the United States. We agree that aliens who are engaged or captured on foreign battlefields can be subjected to rough justice, battlefield outcomes, or detention and prosecution by the U.S. military. We even agree that a U.S. citizen such as Anwar al-Awlaki, who took up arms against the United States from his terrorist base, Yemen, is then the proper subject of U.S. military action, and he received that proper attention. Illegal aliens, even inside the United States--we are not engaging on that subject. If they are part of jihad or other warfare against the United States, they can be subjected to military jurisdiction. But with regard to U.S. citizens and resident aliens on U.S. soil, I would argue that the entire point of the Department of Defense is to defend our constitutional rights and to make sure they are honored. If you read the Constitution--and I would urge all Members in this battle to reread it; it is only 5,000 words long--you will see that the rights provided are without qualification and are part of your birthright. What is the first thing a U.S. Senator, a Member of Congress, or the President does? They swear an oath to the Constitution of the United States. What is the first act any American or resident alien joining the U.S. military does? They don't swear allegiance to a President or a leader or a territory; they swear allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, and that is the mission which they are undertaking to protect. We see a number of cases cited--as I noted, Ex parte Quirin, the German spy, or U.S. nationals who landed in Long Island and were summarily executed under U.S. military justice. I would say at least they were part of a foreign military and trained in that mission and trying to carry out that mission when that rough justice was put in place. With regard to Jose Padilla, he was a U.S. citizen--sometimes when I was at the State Department, people would ask me who our Ambassador to Puerto Rico was. Puerto Rico is part of the United States. He was a full member of the country, with U.S. citizenship. He was arrested at O'Hare Airport, but pursuant to executive action was immediately taken into military custody and held in a brig. I regard all of his constitutional rights were then violated. In the subsequent litigation, I think eventually the Bush administration realized they were about to lose this case, which is why they kicked him back into civilian court. In the Hamdi case, which is so often cited, even there we at least had a foreign connection, foreign training as part of another battlefield. What we are talking about here is very narrow, to make sure at the very least that you, as a U.S. citizen in U.S. territory, are not going to be subjected to indefinite military detention and military justice, that all of your constitutional rights are adhered to. I would simply ask this--also as a reserve naval officer--what U.S. military officer wants the duty to roll in, for example, to Peoria, IL, and arrest an American citizen for actions that citizen has only done in the United States, not connected to a foreign military or training, and then to put that person through military detention and justice? I would say for the long-term interest of the U.S. military and to protect the U.S. military, we do not want to give that mission to our Armed Forces. A point of common sense should prevail here as well. We spend billions of dollars on the Department of Homeland Security, which is fully under the fourth and sixth amendments of our constitutional protection. We have an extraordinarily able FBI, ATF, DEA, et cetera, the whole panoply of Federal law enforcement, which, quite properly, is not under the administration of the Pentagon but is instead under the administration of the Department of Justice. We have a vast array of State and local law enforcement all dedicated to protecting the United States but, most importantly, to uphold the very oaths they also take in their first minute as law enforcement officers to protect the U.S. Constitution. So on this day that we pass the NDAA, which has a murky provision regarding this--somewhat protected by the Feinstein legislation--it is very important for us then to rally behind the further legislative protections here. I think this is strong, bipartisan legislation. I commend Senator Feinstein, Chairman Leahy, and Senator Lee for bringing it forward. No. 1, this will help protect the U.S. military from missions that it should not undertake. No. 2, we will make sure there is clear delineation between the Department of Justice, Homeland Security, and its whole panoply of agencies, and our military, which protects our rights from threat overseas. But, most importantly, No. 3, to defend the U.S. Constitution, your birthright as an American citizen to have these rights to make sure we do not subject any U.S. citizen apprehended inside the United States to indefinite detention under U.S. military authority, knowing they have inalienable birthrights that were granted to them by the U.S. Constitution. With that, I commend the Chair.

Mr. KIRK. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. KIRK. Madam President, we have two other provisions that are in the National Defense Authorization Act that I want to briefly mention. First, we have a modified Brooks amendment in the conference report that says if there is any plan to deliver classified missile defense data to the Russians, the administration has to have a 60-day clock expire and then certify to the Congress that none of this data could end up in the hands of third parties, particularly the Iranians or Syrians. I wish to put the administration on notice that that certification probably cannot be made. Dmitry Rogozin, the lead negotiator on the missile defense for their government, has a close and continuing relationship with Iran. He is going to Iran next month. When we see the intelligence sharing and cooperation on missiles and on other weaponry, but especially discussions about a second nuclear reactor in Iran, I think we should all realize that any classified data on U.S. missile defense going to the Russians would be given to the Iranians. Remember, in missile combat between enemies of the United States and ourselves, everything would be over potentially in a matter of hours. If the Russians accomplish by diplomacy what they have failed to do by espionage, which is getting critical details of U.S. missile defense, and especially missile defenses of Poland and other key allies, we give only a few minutes to a few hours to the U.S. commander to be able to diagnose the problem, understand how he has been penetrated or fooled, and to correct that. I think that weakens the defenses of the United States significantly. I had a hold on the nominee for the U.S. Ambassador to Moscow, Michael McFaul. Because of the passage of the modified Brooks amendment and a written letter of assurances given to me by the administration, I have now lifted that hold. I will be supporting his nomination also because he will be good in working with the opposition and human rights communities in Russia. But I think everyone is now on notice that we should not move forward with any plan to provide classified missile defense data to Russia because it will be shared with the Islamic Republic of Iran, and that is one of the principal threats for which the U.S. and NATO missile defenses are arrayed against. A second provision which is in the National Defense Authorization Act concerns Iran itself. Senator Menendez and I teamed up on an amendment that also says: If you do business with the Central Bank of Iran, you may not do business with the United States. But we provided critical flexibility to the administration. The amendment is not imposed for weeks, if not months, and two critical waivers are put in the amendment which say, No. 1, if we find a critical shortage in oil markets because of Iran's leading role, sanctions could be delayed if not suspended. Also, there is a general national security waiver put in if something unexpected happens. But, in general, the rule goes forward that we are moving forward on a comprehensive plan to collapse the Central Bank of Iran. Despite Secretary Geithner opposing the Menendez-Kirk amendment, this body voted 100 to 0 to support that amendment because we know of the International Atomic Energy Agency's report that they may be getting close to having enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon. We know of Iran's support for Hezbollah and Hamas. We know of their oppression of minorities, especially 330,000 Baha'is, who have been prohibited from contracting with the Iranian Government. Kids are not allowed to be in university. We even know of one poor Iranian actress who was sentenced to 90 lashes, later suspended, for simply appearing in an Australian film without a head dress. The time for action on Iran is now. With the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act and the signature that we now expect from the President, a set of clocks begins, 60- and 180-day clocks. I will be teaming with Senator Menendez and others--in fact, with the entire U.S. Senate that supported this--to make sure we have the toughest action possible to collapse the Central Bank of Iran, which the Treasury Department noted is the central money launderer for that government to support terror and nuclear proliferation. With that, I yield the floor. Actually, I yield to my colleague from New Hampshire.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, too often we have set-piece speeches in the Senate without any resort to the traditional debate, where two sides are equally dividing time without a set script on a critical issue before our country. I would like to restart the true Senate tradition of debate with a debate with my colleague from Delaware. I will yield to him right now.

Mr. KIRK. What I would like to do now, in sort of a chess clock style, is take 10 minutes, with unanimous consent, to be equally divided between me and the Senator from Delaware on the subject of the balanced budget amendment.

Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, the United States needs to adopt a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. It was a good idea when Thomas Jefferson backed it and it is an even more important idea today. What we are seeing in Europe is a collapse of government finance because they have spent too much, taxed too much, and borrowed too much. Not only do they have a crisis of their government debt, but they have higher taxes and lower economic performance because of that philosophy. We cannot repeat that mistake. That is why the Senate should have adopted a balanced budget amendment. I will speak in bipartisan fashion--any of the balanced budget amendments we considered today would have been better, rather than to subject our country to a rising tide of debt and an economic model which is already, we are seeing, failing in Europe.

Mr. KIRK. What we see now, today, though, is that we are awash in $15 trillion in debt and that since the creation of the triple A credit rating by Standard & Poor's, the United States has now lost that rating. When young Americans are born today, they already owe the Federal Government $40,000. So they will have a lower income and a higher tax burden throughout their working lives because of the debts put on them. The biggest reason for a balanced budget amendment, though, is we have a structural inability to represent young Americans. They cannot vote until they are age 18. Yet the representatives of their parents can transfer tremendous burdens onto that young generation of Americans. The essence of the American dream is that our children's lives will be better than our own. But given the weight of the debt we are now transferring onto the backs of the next generation, that may no longer be possible. We absolutely have to have a structural way to prevent one generation from transferring new spending and new debt to the new generation so the American ideal is preserved and so they have a fighting chance to have a better life than their parents.

Mr. KIRK. The job of each generation is to make sure the Constitution deals with critical problems facing the country, so we amended the Constitution so we could prohibit slavery. We amended the Constitution so we could grant women the right to vote. We should amend the Constitution to prevent one generation from encumbering the next generation. America is the greatest experiment in self-government and, more important, the underlying value of self-rule ever designed. But we have seen in recent days that self-control disappear. We work in the Senate, now well onto I think 900 days, without a budget. This is the most successful corporation, the most successful enterprise on Earth, representing the real aspiration for human dignity and freedom. Yet that is in danger if we become indebted to China and other countries in ways that no previous generation of Americans have done. This country has regularly amended the Constitution to fix inequities in our society, and the growing inequity we see today is debt and deficits, especially to other countries. Therefore, we should amend the Constitution to protect those who cannot yet vote from an economic fate that would otherwise befall them.

Mr. KIRK. I would close by saying the Senator and I agree. I think the Simpson-Bowles plan is the right way to go, and my hope is that we join together on a bipartisan basis to reduce expected Federal borrowing by $4 trillion along the lines of that bipartisan Presidential commission. But, unfortunately, the Simpson-Bowles plan is gathering dust. The supercommittee that was given procedural powers to possibly put that forward also collapsed. We have not been able to do our job, and we are now encumbering the next generation with even greater amounts of debt--historic amounts. I think the Founding Fathers did not contemplate the ability to borrow as much from other countries as we now have, and with the United States as the center of freedom and democracy around the world there is a lot riding on the credit of the United States. My colleague from Delaware talks about a very vital future-- especially for people like my own mother--of Social Security and Medicare, but I think she understands that a bankrupt country cannot support Social Security and Medicare. We have to defend the credit of the United States, and therefore I think a balanced budget amendment is essential to the long-term future of the United States. With that, I thank my colleague. Mr. President, we have just finished. I hope we do return to a tradition of actual debate, and I thank my colleague for the chance to carry out this debate.

Mr. KIRK

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

Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the balanced budget amendment. It is obvious America's government is spending, taxing, and borrowing too much. That is why Congress should approve the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. It was a good idea when Thomas Jefferson supported it, and it is an even better idea today. America is a great experiment in self-government. Self-government requires self-control. Early thinkers about America's democracy worried about the capacity of the government to borrow in a way that would cripple our freedom. Children cannot vote, but the Congress of their parents can put our kids into debt. We should fight fiscal child abuse by ending such borrowing that hurts our kids' long-term economic future. In recent days, we witnessed clear warning signs that the days of big borrowing are ending, not because Congress has changed its free- spending ways but because lenders are increasingly worried that they will never be repaid. This summer, America lost its triple-A credit rating, according to Standard & Poor's. This loss of confidence mirrors a crisis in Europe reflecting a collective judgment that Greece and Ireland and Portugal and Spain and even Italy may not be able to repay the amount of money they have borrowed. As Prime Minister Thatcher reportedly said, ``Eventually governments run out of other people's money.'' In this environment, it is important to show how we are different from Europe. If we approve the balanced budget amendment and cut spending, we will restore confidence in the Federal debt, in America's economy, but most important, in the ideal of self-government. America owes $15 trillion or about $40,000 for each new American born. For their sake, we need to restrict the ability of the current generation to obligate young Americans to pay their debts. Should this amendment fail, we will wound the long-term credit of the United States. More deeply, we will hurt the ideal of self-government and self-control that is the foundation of our freedom. Egypt I would like to take this moment to talk about another issue; that is, we as Americans support freedom and democracy and the rights of all peoples. But, as Gaza taught us in 2006, free elections by themselves do not make up a democracy. There are times when people are offered a chance to elect party leaders who offer them only one election to affirm a dictatorship. We can also learn from the year 1938 that the dangers of ignoring developments abroad are huge. Now, in the wake of the Arab Spring, we turn away from that region at our own peril. On November 28, the first stage of the Egyptian elections began, which will inaugurate a new electoral system forming a bicameral legislature. This first stage determines about 30 percent of the 498 seats for the government's lower chamber, called the People's Assembly. Before Egyptians arrived at the polls, protesters filled Tahrir Square in Cairo. As a result, over 40 Egyptians were killed. Many are objecting to the military's interference in the electoral process and the decision to force elections well before secular parties had time to build their capacities. According to public polling and sources on the ground, this will likely hand an electoral victory to the Muslim Brotherhood and more radical Islamist elements within the Egyptian society. Although elections will last until March of 2012, the prediction of a Muslim Brotherhood victory is already becoming a reality. Early data shows an alarming trend of Islamist domination of the Egyptian Parliament. On December 5, the High Electoral Commission announced that leaders of the Freedom and Justice Party, the political arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, had received a plurality of 36 percent of the vote, while the secular Egyptian Bloc had gained less than 12 percent. When we include the runoff elections, which took place last week, it appears that the Muslim Brotherhood has won 73 out of 150 seats or 49 percent of the currently contested outcomes. This is the same party that led a pre-election rally of 5,000 chanting ``one day we shall kill all the Jews'' and ``Tel Aviv, Tel Aviv, Judgment Day is coming.'' While many expected the Brotherhood to do well, there were other surprises. Salafist parties, made up of anti-Western hardliners who follow a particularly radical version of Islam, are also faring particularly well. Surpassing predictions, they received 24 percent of the vote in the first round. Importantly, these elections also included the so-called liberal districts of Cairo and the Mediterranean port city of Alexandria. The weakness of liberal parties--namely, their inability to reach out to voters effectively with a serious agenda--is now fully exposed. Islamists are taking full advantage of deeply rooted networks that extend from the mosques into Egypt's poor districts. Their grip in the traditionally conservative areas of Alexandria proved particularly tight, and these areas are also home to a majority of the Coptic Christian community. It is clear that if Islamist parties and candidates continue their currently won gains in other elections, they will capture 60 percent of the national vote in Egypt. This will situate the new Egyptian Parliament around deep ideological differences between Salafis, the Muslim Brotherhood, and liberal groups, making the Brotherhood the power brokers between Egyptian left and right. What does this all mean? By January, the United States could face an Egypt defined by a hatred of Israel and many of the freedoms we hold dear--a freedom of expression, of women's rights, and the right to practice any religion. This Egypt counts Iran as a friend and poses a threat to the Camp David Peace Accords, which have served as the cornerstone for Egypt's strategic position for 30 years. Do we expect that an Islamist-led Egypt will prevent weapons from arriving in the hands of Hamas? Will an Islamist-led Egypt help preserve a free South Sudan? Will an Islamist-led Egypt act to protect Coptic Christians who make up about 10 percent of Egypt? Will we see continued violence, as we saw on October 9 in Maspero, which killed 27 civilians and injured hundreds? Will an Islamist-led Egypt do what we expect with more than $1 billion of U.S. foreign assistance? Will they continue to share intelligence and to work against terrorism? These are all questions that may become critical issues for the national security of the United States very shortly. All of this instantly prevents foreign investment and tourism that would help the Egyptian economy. The IMF has forecasted a little over 1 percent growth for the Egyptian economy next year. They said inflation will top 11 percent, while almost 12 percent of Egyptians will be out of work. Recently, the Egyptian pound traded at its lowest level against the dollar in 7 years. This time last year the region was on the threshold of exciting change, but today Egypt sits instead on the threshold of a very dangerous path. The United States--and especially our State Department in particular--should do what it can to keep Egypt attached to peace and good relations with the West. The United States is now on the verge of a historic defeat and reversal of American interests in Egypt. Currently, if there is an Obama administration plan for handling a new Islamist Egypt that rejects peace with Israel and allies with Iran, I don't know it, and I don't know if anyone does. We must keep our finger on the pulse of this process. Liberal voices in Egypt must work to preserve the democratic goals of the January revolution. Recently, I had the privilege of meeting some of Egypt's best and brightest young liberal leaders. They would like to build a free Egypt that respects women's rights and religious minorities and the rule of law. I was encouraged in meeting with them but only hope that the coming election is not like a 1930s election in Germany, where people in Egypt are given one choice--to affirm a dictatorship--and then that is the end. If a radical Islamic government arises in Egypt--one that disavows the Camp David Peace Accords and no longer acts as a stable strategic partner in the Middle East--then we will look back on the recent election in Egypt and its successors in December and January as the turning point for a historic reversal of the United States. My hope is that the State Department watches this very carefully. My hope is that we have a plan to make sure this critical country stays within the U.S. orbit. But my fear, given the recent elections in Egypt, is that we have already lost quite a bit of ground. If current trends continue, then by the middle of next year we will have a Muslim Brotherhood government in command of the Suez Canal, in charge of Cairo--the second center of learning in the Arab world--along the border of our Israeli allies, friendly to Hamas, friendly to Iran, and hostile to Europe and the United States. My hope is that over the holidays we will work very hard and diligently with our allies--and especially liberal forces in Egypt--to make sure that reversal doesn't happen. With that, Mr. President, 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. President, I wish to speak as in morning business to talk about the big issue pending before the Senate, which is the potential legislation by Republicans or Democrats to cut contributions to Social Security. I am very worried because in the legislation we considered last week, we had proposals to cut contributions to Social Security by $250 billion. This was legislation proposed by Democratic leaders and then a separate piece of legislation by Republican leaders. I think that legislation was a mistake on both sides. We have precious few bipartisan institutions or contacts in this Senate. Senator Manchin and I--one Democratic and one Republican Senator, both freshmen--meet every Thursday for lunch. At our Thursday lunch last week, Senator Manchin initially said: I am having difficulty. I don't think I am going to be able to vote for the Democratic bill to cut Social Security contributions. I said: I join you in that because I am not going to be able to vote for the Republican bill that cuts Social Security contributions. So the two of us voted pro-Social Security and against the legislation before us. I am very worried that we are forgetting the lessons that are currently playing out in Europe on this subject. As Margaret Thatcher said, ``Eventually socialists run out of other people's money.'' The collapse of European socialism underscores the lesson that you cannot run a retirement system without contributions. We know already that the Social Security system is running slightly in the red. Contributions into the system are going to run $10 billion behind the cost of honoring benefits to seniors. But under this legislation we would underfund Social Security by $250 billion. We would increase the tide of red ink to Social Security by 20 times. I think that is a mistake. AARP tells us that Social Security is not a welfare program, it is a retirement security program paid by the contributions of workers and we should run this program with the contribution of workers. Remember, if we make this decision to cut contributions to Social Security, we replace those contributions with government bonds, but the government bonds we would ask seniors to trust no longer have a triple- A credit rating from Standard & Poor's. It is basically asking seniors to trust us. When you look at the details of the Democratic bill and the Republican bill, you see another disturbing trend. The Democratic and Republican bills both depend on revenue streams that take many years to repay what is lost to Social Security. Under the Republican bill, there are promised cuts which could be reversed by a future administration or Congress. It takes until 2018 to repay the senior citizens what has been lost in Social Security contributions under the trust fund. Under the Democratic bill, there was a political tax on millionaires, and it takes until 2021 to repay seniors. The message that Senator Manchin and I had, as one Democrat and one Republican, is, how about not charging seniors? How about not causing a tide of red ink to Social Security? How about making sure we maintain contributions to that program? Seniors have enough to worry about right now. They should not have to worry about the future solvency of Social Security. One analyst described how, under the legislation, it requires temporary borrowing of an additional $240 billion for the Federal budget. I am worried that kind of borrowing could trigger an earlier loss of the debt limit of the United States, so we could trigger the battle we all expect for next January to actually happen--ominously for the President, prior to the election--if this legislation would pass. Common sense should prevail, that we should run a retirement security system with adequate contributions to maintain benefits, that we should agree on a bipartisan basis that Social Security is one of the most successful Federal programs ever signed, that we should say to seniors: Among all the other worries you have, you should not worry about Congress underfunding the trust fund for Social Security. We should say to seniors: We are not replacing solid contributions coming in from workers with bonds that no longer have a AAA credit rating from Standard & Poor's. I urge members of AARP to reach out to their leaders and say: We urge you to forcefully advocate for maintaining adequate contributions to Social Security; that we don't think promises of a millionaire's tax that repays the debts until 2021 or spending cuts that repay the debts until 2018 are something we can fully trust. So I urge Members of this body to maintain adequate contributions to Social Security, to defeat both the Republican and Democratic bills, to learn the lessons of Europe that we need to maintain a retirement security system with adequate contributions, and that we should not sink the Social Security trust fund in a wave of red ink on gimmick legislation which already would impinge the credit of the United States to a degree that it should not be impinged any further. With that I yield the floor, and I thank my senior colleague from New York.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, I rise in tribute to an American hero and Illinois resident who was laid to rest at Arlington National Cemetery on December 2. Reginald Cooper Augustine, Jr. was born on October 12, 1913 in Decatur, IL. His parents, Reginald and Pauline, were prominent members of the community, both serving at different times on the Decatur school board. Reginald was an all American kid growing up in Illinois during the Great Depression. As a teenager in the 1920s, he spent his Saturdays at the silent moving pictures. In junior high, he spent a year delivering the Decatur Herald--getting up every morning at 3 a.m. and returning to bed by 5 a.m. During high school, he played football and participated in the school band, while also working at the Biflex Bumper Company. After graduating from Decatur High School in 1931, Reginald attended Northwestern University as a member of the third entering class of Austin Scholars. This program, launched in September 1929, provided full room, board, and tuition for 4 undergraduate years, plus a year of all-expenses paid study and travel abroad. He received his bachelor's degree from Northwestern in 1935, with a major in Latin and a minor in German. These language skills proved pivotal in the direction of the rest of his life. After college, Reginald spent 16 months touring Europe and North Africa on a Harley-Davidson motorcycle that he acquired in Rotterdam, perfecting his knowledge of German, French, Italian, Dutch, and Spanish. During an extended stay in Germany, he witnessed a Nazi party rally in Heidelberg that he later described as akin to a Fourth of July celebration with scarlet swastika banners and leather-booted storm troopers. He returned to the U.S. in late September 1937, never forgetting what he had witnessed. The Selective Service Act of 1940 required all U.S. residents between the ages of 21 and 35 to register, and in 1940, Mr. Augustine was 27. He was to be drafted in February, 1942, but after the Japanese Empire bombed Pearl Harbor, he went straight to the enlistment center in Peoria to sign up and serve his country in the U.S. Army Air Corps. During the Second World War, Mr. Augustine was selected to join an elite detachment of linguists, spies and scientists by COL Boris Pash, who headed a mission code-named Alsos. This mission was led by LTG Leslie R. Groves under the Manhattan Project. Groves suspected German physicists were engaging in a similar nuclear program and feared that they would complete a bomb first. The Alsos mission was tasked with determining whether the Nazis had developed an atomic bomb. Mission operatives moved into newly liberated areas just behind advancing Allied lines to find Nazi scientists, capture and interrogate them, as well as confiscate and secure stocks of refined uranium that were urgently needed by the Manhattan Project. Reginald was selected as an ideal candidate and put in charge of field operations for this elite detachment because of his knowledge of French and German, as well as his extensive experience in Europe. During one operation in search of uranium in September 1944, he and Colonel Pash entered a plant located near Antwerp, Belgium where fighting was still going on between British and German forces. There, they found approximately 70 tons of refined uranium. Far more difficult was a mission to southern France, which at that time was a dangerous no man's land, occupied by 2 competing resistance movements--one Communist, the other non-Communist. According to Reginald's memoirs, ``no British or American forces, and not even any units of the regular French army'' were present in the area. As part of a group of 6 Alsos officers, he conducted the negotiations with partisans and officials. At a French arsenal in Toulouse, armed with a Geiger counter, he discovered a major cache of uranium. Reginald, Colonel Pash, and a well-armed U.S. military contingent later returned to remove the uranium by force. Reginald accompanied the shipment of uranium back to the U.S. on a U.S. Navy ship. This uranium was eventually used in the Little Boy bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Reginald went on many other critical missions, including one to recover the international radium standards from a small eastern German town only hours before it was handed over to Soviet forces. He oversaw the safe transfer of Nazi scientists, as well as American scientists, from one place to another. On one occasion, he found himself face-to- face with a Nazi checkpoint, manned by an armed German crew, but escaped unharmed. Another mission that Reginald described as ``a grand climax to all Alsos operations in the war,'' was the seizure of a strategic German atomic research center near Stuttgart. Once the area had been secured, he escorted several captured German scientists to American territory, including Otto Hahn, discoverer of the nuclear fission principle, Nobelist Max von Laue, and physicists Karl Wirtz, Erich Bagge and Carl von Weizsacker. Robert Norris, author of the 2003 book Racing for the Bomb: General Leslie R. Groves, the Manhattan Project's Indispensable Man, noted that ``Alsos was one of the most successful intelligence operations of the war.'' Reginald was promoted to the rank of captain by the end of the war. He was decorated for his service, including the Bronze Star and Order of the British Empire, which he received personally from King George VI. After the war, he continued to serve his country for over two decades as a member of the Central Intelligence Agency. This included postings in Munich and Frankfurt during the 1950s and 60s, and to Saigon in 1968. Reginald Augustine passed away on June 30 at the age of 97 and will be laid to rest today at Arlington Cemetery. He is an example of our nation's Greatest Generation of heroes that grew up during the Depression, responded to their country's call to arms during World War II, and continued to serve during the long Cold War against communism. As President Franklin D. Roosevelt described, ``This generation of Americans [had] a rendezvous with destiny.'' Mr. Augustine is survived by his wife of 61 years, two daughters, two sons-in-law, and two grandchildren. We owe him and his family, as well as his generation, a debt of gratitude.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. If I could engage the Senator in a colloquy, this is a chart that shows the legislation we are considering today. What it shows is the tremendous hit to the tax that supports Social Security. This is the Old Age Survivors Disability Act. It is a $240 billion hit to the funding to support Social Security. We both are going to vote no on both pieces of legislation today because we do not think seniors should take this level of hit. In the Casey-Reid legislation--this is where the so-called millionaires' tax comes in--it only refunds what Social Security needs to the level of 7 percent in 2013. In fact, according to one analysis, we may trigger the end of the debt limit before the election if we pass this because of the $246 billion we will have to borrow temporarily until the long stretch of this revenue comes in.

Mr. KIRK. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KIRK. I would say, this is a very long payout, both under the majority and minority piece of legislation. I am hoping enough Members say no to both pieces of legislation so we defend Social Security, and I commend the Senator.

Mr. KIRK. With that, I yield and commend the Senator. We are hoping for two ``no'' votes because we think those are the votes that support Social Security and its continued revenue.