Mark Kirk

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. I rise in very strong support of the Menendez-Kirk amendment. I wish to compliment the Senator from New Jersey for an outstanding performance in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today in which he called on the representatives of our government to move quicker on this. We saw the Baha'is radicals of Iran overrun the embassy of our allies in the United Kingdom. We saw the British Prime Minister just announce that he was removing all Iranian diplomats from the United Kingdom. We saw the Government of Italy announcing that they were suspending some diplomatic activities. We have seen a whole number of actions by the EU now to join with us on sanctions. I will just say with regard to this amendment that it has now been cosponsored formally by 46 Senators: Menendez, Kirk, Barrasso, Blumenthal, Blunt, Boozman, Brown of Massachusetts, Brown of Ohio, Cardin, Casey, Collins, Coons, Crapo, Feinstein, Franken, Gillibrand, Graham, Hatch, Heller, Johanns, Klobuchar, Kyl, Lautenberg, Lee, Lieberman, Manchin, Merkley, Mikulski, Moran, Murkowski, Nelson of Florida, Nelson of Nebraska, Portman, Pryor, Risch, Roberts, Schumer, Snowe, Stabenow, Tester, Thune, Toomey, Vitter, Warner, Whitehouse, and Wyden. These 46 Members are on the shoulders of the 92 who signed the Kirk-Schumer letter in August. When in these partisan times do we have all but eight Senators agreeing on a policy? I will just note, as Senator Menendez and Senator McCain pointed out, the administration is somewhat worried about this amendment, but Senator Menendez correctly provided flexibility to the administration by saying, No. 1, if the energy information agency says oil markets are tight and issues a report on the affected oil markets, these sanctions could be suspended for a time. On top of that one waiver, there is a second waiver for the national security of the United States that the President could have that kind of flexibility. So with flexibility, with bipartisan support, with outrageous activity by Iran, in the face of the IAEA report, moving toward a nuclear weapon, with the danger we see from that government and Hezbollah and Hamas against our allies in Lebanon and Israel, with the plot announced by the Attorney General of the United States to blow up a Georgetown restaurant in an effort to kill the Saudi Arabian Ambassador, with the plight of 330,000 Baha'is oppressed by that country, with someone like Nasrin Sotoudeh, the lawyer for Shirin Ebadi--the Noble Prize laureate's lawyer was thrown in jail just for representing that client--for all these reasons, this is the right amendment, at the right time, sending the right message in the face of a very irresponsible regime. I yield back and thank the Senator for offering this well-timed amendment.

Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, this Menendez-Kirk amendment is a strong, bipartisan amendment. Over half of the Senate has formally cosponsored it. I urge its adoption, especially after the bomb plot in Washington, DC, the IAEA report on nuclear development in Iran, and the overrunning of our British ally's embassy site by Iran 2 days ago. I yield the floor.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Menendez- Kirk amendment. I particularly thank my partner Senator Menendez, a member of the Banking Committee, who has been a leader regarding Iranian terror, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and repression of human rights for 20 or 25 years now. We are reaching a decisive point now in the relations of Iran to other countries and, most importantly, to the United States. I think this amendment comes at one of the final hours of how peaceful means and economic sanctions can be used to avoid a conflict. That is why it is so important for the Senate to adopt the Menendez-Kirk amendment, with the long-term goal of collapsing the Central Bank of Iran, so that country doesn't produce nuclear weapons that would destabilize the entire Middle East. We launched this effort, along with Senator Schumer, particularly in August when we called on our President to sanction the Central Bank of Iran. In these partisan times in which the two sides are far apart on many issues, we had 92 Senators--all but 8 Senators signed the letter-- saying: Collapse the Central Bank of Iran and use this as a tool in our diplomatic war chest to make sure we can remove one of the greatest dangers from the country, from one of the most dangerous regimes. The record is pretty clear. The International Atomic Energy Agency has ruled on the subject of Iran. We remember the IAEA because they, with regard to Iraq and the Saddam Hussein weapons of mass destruction program, were consistently correct and the Bush administration was wrong. The IAEA said in its intelligence estimate that the threat was overstated in Iraq. So with that level of credibility, we should listen to the IAEA on the subject of Iran. There, they have been extremely clear as well. They have outlined how Iran has a separate enrichment cycle, going way above the enrichment of uranium necessary to fuel a civilian reactor--5 percent--now toward 20 percent, where there is no civilian use, moving toward the 98 percent needed to power a nuclear weapon. They talked about undisclosed nuclear facilities, especially a brandnew one, which appears to be the final cascade necessary to enrich uranium to bomb-grade material. They most ominously talk about a warhead of a particular weight that would equate what would be in a nuclear weapon. Unlike a conventional warhead, which basically has a spark initiator and explosive material, this warhead has an electric generator aboard. That is only used to power and initiate a nuclear explosion. So it is clear from the statements of the independent United Nations agency that Iran--a signatory on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty-- is violating its obligation and is creating, as fast as it can, a nuclear weapons program. We also know that Iran has become the first space-bearing nation of the 21st century and that, unlike the North Koreans, who have failed in space launch time after time, Iran was able to orbit the Omid satellite aboard the Safir rocket and is the first nation to be able to accomplish that technological fete in this century. If you can orbit anywhere over the Earth, you can deorbit over the Earth--an ominous sign for the future of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, our allies in Turkey, but especially our friends in Israel, and, in the long term, the United States. The record of Iran with regard to its own citizens shows the character of its government. Long ago, we knew about 330,000 Baha'i citizens of Iran who have been forced to register their addresses, whose kids have all been kicked out of universities, and whose families are not allowed any contracting with the Government of Iran. The bureaucratic mechanisms of Kirstallnacht have formed. We have seen this movie in a different decade, wearing different uniforms, in a different country, but the ominous signs are that it may turn out in the same way. Many people on the international committee know about Neda, who was protesting the stealing of an election in Iran, and of her death simply for protesting that stolen election. We know about Hossein Ronaghi, the first blogger, who called for tolerance in Iran, who is now languishing in Evin prison. We know about Nasrin Sotoudeh, age 48, mother of two, whose sole crime was representing Shirin Ebadi, a Nobel laureate, and how she was thrown in jail. Beyond the nuclear program, beyond the missile program, beyond the repression of human rights in the country, we know about Iran's long record of terror; that Iran is the paymaster for Hezbollah. We have known that for a long time. They have tortured the poor country of Lebanon. But in some sense, there was a symmetry. We understood how this Shiite power would support a Shiite sect in Lebanon even though they spoke Arabic. But then, over the last decade, they jumped the Shiite-Sunni divide, and they also backed a new terror group called Hamas that was trying to surround our allies in Israel with missiles and the terror necessary to extinguish the Jewish people and the Jewish State. We know how the Iranian regime is now one of the central pillars of the Syrian dictatorship and how, as that dictatorship hangs onto power, it is somewhat on the back of Iranian money and Iranian weapons and expertise that allows them to repress their own people. Most recently, on the back of a bipartisan certification that Iran supports terror from President Reagan, President Bush, President Clinton, President Bush, and President Obama, we have seen a higher level of irresponsibility on behalf of the Iranian regime. According to our own Attorney General, the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard's Quds Force, Suliman, tried to contact and hire a Mexican drug cartel--one of the most dangerous, the Zetas--to assassinate the Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the United States at a Georgetown restaurant. It was only because the incompetent Iranians hired a DEA agent in Mexico that we found out about this. They would have, had they been able to accomplish their goals, lit off a car bomb in Washington, DC, paid for by the Government of Iran and briefed all the way to the top level of their government. Today, we find--after they had their Basij radical young person's movement overrun the British Embassy, seizing classified documents and holding, for a time, 50 British personnel--shades of the 1979 hostage crisis, when for 440 days Iranian radicals held Americans. Our allies in the United Kingdom have now made the decision to remove all Iranian diplomats from the United Kingdom. We have seen other calls, brave calls, of allied action. A man I admire greatly, the President of France, President Sarkozy, has called for seizing all purchases of Iranian oil. He has publicly called for the collapse of the Iranian Central Bank. So it is with this level of irresponsibility--on nuclear technology, on missiles, on the repression of human rights, on the support of terror, on the plot to kill Americans inside Washington, DC, and the overrunning of an embassy of our closest ally in Europe, the United Kingdom--that we come forward with the bipartisan Menendez-Kirk amendment. What does this amendment do? It basically says, in part, if you do business with the Central Bank of Iran, you cannot do business with the United States of America. It forces financial institutions and other businesses around the world to choose between the small and shrinking $300 billion economy of Iran and the $14 trillion economy of the United States. In that contest, we all know how just about everyone will choose, and we wish that choice to be made. We seek to break the stable financial intermediary in between Iranian oil contracts and the outside world so that it will just be easier to buy oil from elsewhere and, working with our allies, to make that oil more plentiful. We realize the concerns with this amendment. Some have said this amendment comes too quickly; that it is too soon. So that is where Senator Menendez and I have agreed, working with the administration, to give time and flexibility. Under this amendment, nothing happens right away. Several weeks and several months go by before any action is required. That is intended as a signal to oil markets that this requirement is coming, that we seek for them, as our allies--for example, in Japan or South Korea or in Turkey--to wind up their current contracts and supplies and meet their needs by other means. By the way, other means are coming. We are expecting Libyan production to double. We are also expecting Iraqi production to go way up. Of course, we know the swing production of Saudi Arabia--no love lost toward the Iranians after having tried to kill their ambassador here. We will be working with the oil suppliers to make sure that everyone's needs are met while funding to the Iranian regime is slowly choked off. We also provide two waivers in this amendment--and this is very important--at the request of the administration. We say if there is a temporary restriction of oil supply, this amendment can be suspended for a time. If there is some unforeseen national security disaster, some real problem the President can see, he has that flexibility. But the general picture is this: The Central Bank of Iran, the heart and financial soul of a web of terror, of nuclear production, of human rights abuse, and the oppression of other people--principally in Syria--is no longer acceptable to the international community, and so this regime should operate without the benefit of funding from the international community. I think this amendment is one of the last best hopes for peace and to bring effective economic sanctions to bear so that a burden doesn't fall on our friends in Saudi Arabia or our allies in Israel to do the far more tough military work that may be required to remove this common danger. Many people say we can't convince a country that is on a nuclear weapons course to reverse course. I say, well, we show our ignorance of history because we saw the Argentines give up a nuclear program, the Brazilians, and likely the South Africans detonated a weapon and then decided to give up their program. In Kazakhstan and Ukraine, nuclear weapons were given up. In Libya, nuclear weapons were given up. With effective pressure, my hope is that it can happen here. We know President Ahmadinejad is not popular. We know the regime in general does not enjoy the support especially of its younger citizens. We know at least half of Iranians, in a stolen election, voted for the other guy who was not allowed to take power. So this amendment comes forward with a solid bipartisan pedigree. It has been endorsed specifically by Senators Lieberman, Schumer, Kyl, Feinstein, Gillibrand, Manchin, Nelson of Florida, Nelson of Nebraska, Stabenow, and Heller under the leadership of Senator Menendez and myself. For us, it gives time for the oil markets to adjust and unhook from Iran. It gives flexibility to the administration. But, most importantly, it helps us deal in an economic and diplomatic way with one of the greatest dangers to our society. We think about the future ahead, and some people say this amendment could cause some disruption in oil markets. Yes, we are asking countries to unhook from the terror regime in Iran. But just think about the instability that would come if military conflict broke out between Iran and Israel or worse if nuclear weapons were loosed from Iran in the Middle East. If we do nothing, as soon as 2 years from now we could have a detonation of an Iranian nuclear weapon in the Middle East. If we show weakness and a lack of resolve, then countries in that region will decide they need nuclear weapons programs of their own. We will give birth to the Saudi nuclear weapon program, the Egyptian nuclear weapon program, and others. This amendment is an attempt to make sure that for young Americans the 21st century is not the most dangerous century they will face, and to use the full economic weight of the United States, working with our allies, to remove what is the greatest emerging danger. I think Senator Menendez is living in the spirit of those who watched the 1930s and worried about when America slept. Well, we are not asleep. We know exactly what is happening. By decisive bipartisan action of the Senate, we are bringing the best pressure to bear, of nonmilitary means, to make sure our kids inherit a much safer 21st century. With that, I commend my partner in this effort, and I urge the Senate to adopt the Menendez-Kirk amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, I will yield to Senator Feinstein in a minute. I appreciate the debate with my friends and mentors. The three of us who were just debating were all military officers, but we have different views. We are dangerously close to being similar to the House of Representatives, where they have face-to-face debate. I appreciate that. The law that should not be changed is the Constitution of the United States, and we realize the regulations of the United States have force, that the statutes of the United States have greater force, and the Supreme Court decisions have even greater force. But no document is above the actual words of the Constitution. I will say those words are our birthright as American citizens. The sixth amendment says you shall be secure in your person and that shall not be violated and no warrant shall issue except upon probable cause--meaning that a court has made that decision. Your first amendment rights say that no person--and there is no exception in the Constitution--shall be held to answer for capital or otherwise infamous crimes, unless presentment or indictment of a grand jury. By the way, I am talking specifically about a U.S. person inside the jurisdiction of the United States. Our sixth amendment right says that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right of a speedy and public trial. Our fourteenth amendment right says no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the United States. These are, without question, for U.S. citizens. There is a balancing act between the threats we perceive. We know the threats from foreign enemies and terrorists. That is well known to us, especially the new generation of Americans who witnessed the mass murders of September 11. The Founding Fathers were also wrestling with another threat--the threat of the state, the government itself, against its own individuals and the abuse of power. We would forget the lesson of history, unless we understood that is a threat as well. We are told there will be no intelligence benefit if a U.S. citizen who is arrested can't be interrogated by Homeland Defense or FBI people. And yet, I would say, as a member of the intelligence community, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security are part of the intelligence community and feed information into the intelligence community and can be used. One of the key ideas behind our American government is it is not what we do, it is how we do it. One of the things missing in section 1031 is who is the decider. The decider in this case is the suspicion of being part of the al-Qaida, the Taliban, or committing that belligerent act, but we have no court making the decision. As an American, you no longer have a right to the civilian court system, and those rights are inherent to you and are your birthright as an American citizen. We should make sure that what we do here and now is that we understand your rights; that as an American citizen you can only be incarcerated on indictment by a grand jury, which is by a preponderance of evidence; and then conviction is beyond the shadow of a doubt. Under this language, if you are accused of being part of al-Qaida or the Taliban, or of committing an act, you can be held subject to only one habeas review on a preponderance of evidence. Most Americans think you can only be convicted of a crime in the United States beyond the shadow of a doubt by a jury of your peers. But if this is passed, that is no longer true. We want to make sure the decider always is a civilian article III court. We are talking about a very specific definition here inside the jurisdiction of the United States among American citizens. I agree we can kill Anwar al-Awlaki, who is making war on the United States from a foreign jurisdiction. But when we are inside the United States, the whole point of the U.S. military and our establishment is to defend our rights, and those rights cannot be taken away from us by any executive action. They can only be taken away from us by action of a civilian court, by a jury of our peers and by their decision beyond a shadow of a doubt. With that, I yield for the Senator from California, whose amendment I so strongly support.

Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Feinstein amendment with regard to section 1031 of this legislation. I am particularly worried because, unlike the authorized use of force original doctrine and legislation passed by the Congress, we limited the authority of the President and the U.S. military to those connected directly to the September 11 mass murder of Americans. I think, in times of emergency, I understand that. But the legislation would be the first congressional authorization to go far beyond that, to say that any ``person who . . . substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces''-- undefined--`` . . . including any person who has committed a belligerent act'' would be allowed to be picked up by U.S. military authorities and held in U.S. military detention. While I am in favor of robust and flexible U.S. military action overseas, including action against American citizens waging war against the United States, such as Anwar Al-Awlaki, I think we all should agree on a special zone of protection inside the jurisdiction of the United States on behalf of U.S. citizens. I say this in support of the Feinstein amendment because I took the time--as we all should from time to time, serving in this body--to re- read the Constitution of the United States yesterday. The Constitution says quite clearly: In the trial of all crimes--no exception--there shall be a jury, and the trial shall be held in the State where said crimes have been committed. Clearly, the Founding Fathers were talking about a civilian court, of which the U.S. person is brought before in its jurisdiction. They talk about treason against the United States, including war in the United States. The Constitution says it ``shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. The following sentence is instructive: No person-- ``No person,'' it says-- shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. I would say that pretty clearly, ``open court'' is likely to be civilian court. Further, the Constitution goes on, that when a person is charged with treason, a felony, or other crime, that person shall be ``removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime''--once again contemplating civilian, State court and not the U.S. military. As everyone knows, we have amended the Constitution many times. The fourth amendment of the Constitution is instructive here. It says: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures-- Including, by the way, the seizure of the person shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, [except] upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Now, in section 1031(b)(2), I do not see the requirement for a civilian judge to issue a warrant. So it appears this legislation directly violates the fourth amendment of the Constitution with regard to those rights which are inalienable, according to the Declaration of Independence, and should be inviolate as your birth right as an American citizen. Recall the fifth amendment, which says: No person-- By the way, remember, ``no person''; there is not an exception here. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment-- Hear the words-- of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War-- Meaning there is a separate jurisdiction for U.S. citizens who are in the uniformed service of the United States. But unless you are in the service of the United States, you are one of those ``no persons'' who shall be answerable for a ``capital'' or ``infamous crime,'' except on ``indictment of a Grand Jury.'' The sixth amendment says: In all criminal prosecutions-- Not some, not by exception; in all criminal prosecutions-- the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed. . . . I go on to these because I regard all of these rights as inherent to U.S. citizens, granted to them by their birth in the United States. If we go on through the Constitution's amendments, we find in the fourteenth amendment that it says: No State shall make or enforce any law-- Any law-- which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. . . . I realize these powers have been defined by courts. But we would recall that even Abraham Lincoln ex post facto lost his ability to suspend the writ of habeas corpus pursuant to a Supreme Court decision; that in the case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the Court did recognize that under the 2001 statute, the President is authorized to detain persons captured while fighting U.S. forces in Afghanistan. But I will recall-- and, by the way, this included American citizens--I will recall that was in Afghanistan. Clearly, we see in the case where an American citizen has gone to a foreign jurisdiction, joined a terrorist organization or foreign military, and is waging war on the United States, they can be held as a detainee of the U.S. military. Why didn't this legislation say that? Why did it not restrict its purview to those provisions? In Padilla v. Hanft, the Fourth Circuit did allow the capture of a U.S. citizen, Padilla--by the way, arrested at O'Hare Airport, a U.S. citizen and held in military detention. The Fourth Circuit said because he had foreign training and a foreign connection that it was legal to hold him. But, remember, very soon thereafter the Bush administration surrendered this case. I think the Bush administration realized they were about to lose in the Supreme Court on the subject of whether the U.S. military could arrest and detain a U.S. citizen and to deprive them of their rights and subject them only to review under a petition of habeas corpus. I think they realized they had to kick Padilla into the civilian court system, and therefore they did. It is only in that context that we should read the Padilla decision. I think the bottom line is this: We funded a multihundred-billion- dollar Department of Defense, in the words of the movie, to put men on that wall, that we need on that wall, to defend us against foreign threats, and they must do hard and difficult things, including sometimes to U.S. citizens, such as Anwar al-Awlaki, who are waging war on the United States from a terrorist base in Yemen. But the whole purpose of this exercise and this institution is to defend the rights of the United States and U.S. citizens inside their own country. One of the first things a person does when they join the U.S. military is not to swear allegiance to a President or to a foreign leader but actually swear allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and to its rights. What is the whole purpose of the Constitution? It is to defend our rights against the government because we are one of those unique governments that ``posits'' a limited government and which rights are reserved according to the 10th amendment to the States or the individuals; that our rights supersede the government's. So we cannot say for an individual, for example, in Wisconsin, who has never been abroad, who may or may not have committed an act or may or may not have one association, that suddenly the U.S. military can roll in on that person, seize him or her, hold them in military detention, and only subject review of that case by one habeas corpus petition. I would argue, then, that all of our rights as American citizens hang on the decision of the President of the United States; that if the President of the United States decides a person is substantially part of al-Qaida, the Taliban, or associated forces engaged in hostilities against the United States or they have committed a belligerent act or supported such hostilities in aid of such forces, all of their rights as an American citizen are now forfeited. Clearly, that is not the case. The Founding Fathers understood the power of the state run amok under a distant king who did not regard the rights of the individual as worth much. We founded a republic and then wrote a constitution to defend those rights. While we face a very difficult and dangerous world overseas and have to do difficult and dangerous things, which I support, we should make sure there is a place for peace and justice and rights inside the United States. So for us, in looking at this provision, the Feinstein amendment clearly limits the scope of this legislation in an appropriate way-- that we do the difficult things overseas. But the whole purpose of the Department of Defense is to defend the United States and those rights inside our country, but that we as U.S. citizens, especially when we are inside this country, have inalienable rights which cannot be separated from us by any executive action; that we can only be held, incarcerated, that we can only have our liberties taken away from us on indictment of a grand jury, before a civilian court, and with a presumption beyond a reasonable doubt by unanimous vote of that jury. That is the essence of who we are as Americans, and it is a historic decision that we would make if we allow this power to go forward. I think that is why Senator Paul and I were the only two Republicans to vote against this. That is why so many e-mails and letters that I have received in the last few hours support this decision. I understand that others have a different view. They describe the United States as a battlefield. I would say that is on overly harsh determination of how cheaply our rights can be held; that we have a multihundred-billion-dollar Defense Department; that we have a substantial and capable FBI; that we have enormous State and city and local police establishments, all with the capabilities to investigate and prosecute crimes, but under the Constitution of the United States; and that if we hold U.S. citizens as capable of losing their rights on an executive branch decision, that not beyond the shadow of a doubt but on a lower standard of care, that in the executive branch's view a person is connected to one of those things, then our rights are not worth very much. I would say the whole purpose of the Constitution is to hold our rights higher than the government and subject only to review by a civilian court. That review, as described in the Constitution of the United States, is far more than a habeas corpus review. The text of the Constitution specifically refers to grand jury indictment. For those who have questions, I would urge them, first, take a moment to reread the Constitution, that first document which, as a member of the U.S. military or as an elected Member of this body, we have to swear allegiance to, and then make up their minds. I think when they do, they will support the Feinstein amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. KIRK

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

Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, last week we celebrated Thanksgiving, the time of year when we look back and we give thanks for our blessings. We are all grateful for our family, our men and women in uniform, and those who also defend our Nation in civilian life. I am particularly thankful this year, because 1 year ago today I had the honor of my life to be sworn in as the newest junior Senator for the State of Illinois to complete Senator Obama's term. And what a year it has been. Coming from the House of Representatives, I had to adjust to the measured place and pace of the Senate. But while Americans may have a dim view of what we do here, I remain an optimist. Americans have always faced tough challenges but then rose to the occasion more successfully than any other people in history. Although I believe there is much more to do to reduce debt, repeal burdensome regulations, and encourage job creation, I want to take a few minutes to lay out what my team has accomplished for the State of Illinois and the Nation in 1 year. In my first 30 days in office we moved three times, we hired a staff, and then voted to prevent the largest tax increase in history, while Congress extended tax relief for millions of Americans in that legislation. We also worked to block the transfer of al-Qaida terrorists from Guantanamo Bay to northwestern Illinois. Since then, Congress enacted the Budget Control Act, mandating about $2 trillion in reduced Federal borrowing over the next 10 years, which in my view is only a first step in addressing Washington's out-of-control spending. No one here would say that we have come near to solving the problem, but I am heartened by the bipartisan and bicameral support of the Gang of Six proposal, and now with the probable support of 45 Republican and Democratic Senators, I hope we will soon go big with their recommendations to find $4 trillion in savings. The Congress approved three free-trade agreements to boost U.S. exports to South Korea, to Colombia, and Panama, as both President Obama and Speaker Boehner wanted. The action will open markets for Illinois farmers and boost exports for companies and employers such as John Deere in Moline, Caterpillar in Peoria, ADM in Decatur, and Navistar in suburban Warrenville. Congress repealed the onerous requirement mandated by the health care law that required small businesses to document all payments over a few hundred dollars. This absurd 1099 rule was the first part of the health care law to be repealed, and it will soon be followed by the misnamed CLASS Act that even the Obama administration appears to have canceled by executive action. Additionally, Congress reformed our patent system by moving to a first-to-file, instead of a first-to-invent, system. This signals to inventors that they should quickly file their invention and allows us to innovate without endless and expensive litigation. Along with that effort, the Kirk amendment authorizing the patent office to have a small business fast lane became law. My office published a Great Lakes report card that gave our largest body of fresh water a C grade to draw attention to invasive species, to poor water quality, and beach closures, demonstrating the need for our legislation by myself and Senator Durbin to ban sewage dumping in the Great Lakes. To create more construction jobs in Illinois, I introduced the Lincoln Legacy Infrastructure Development Act which would unlock more than $100 billion in new revenue for roads, rail, transit, and airports, through more infrastructure funded by public-private partnerships. I have since met with Secretary LaHood, Chief of Staff Daley, and House Chairman Mica as a way to advance this legislation to restart our economy. We have also had an active year in protecting our allies and America's interests overseas. On the floor today, we may consider the Menendez-Kirk amendment pending to the Defense Authorization Act which would impose crippling sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran. This is a result of a collaborative effort involving 92 Senators who signed the Schumer-Kirk letter calling for the United States to collapse Iran's terror-sponsoring bank. In May, Senator Gillibrand and I introduced the Iran Human Rights and Democracy Promotion Act which establishes a special representative on human rights and democracy in Iran, imposing sanctions on companies that sell or service products that enable the Iranian regime to oppress its people. It would require a comprehensive strategy to promote Internet freedom in Iran and reauthorize the Iran Freedom Support Act. The bill is now part of the Iran, North Korea, and Syria Sanctions Consolidation Act. In February, the Senate passed a Kirk resolution condemning human rights abuses in Iran, and we founded the Iranian Dissident Awareness Program to make dissidents such as Hossein Ronaghi-Maleki, a blogger and human rights activist, and Nasrin Sotoudeh, a lawyer and human rights activist, household names now in America. We also fought for strict assurances that data collected from our new X-band radar in Turkey would be shared with our allies in Israel. In total, my office introduced 18 bills and resolutions and 11 amendments. We cosponsored 132 pieces of legislation. I am a member of four committees that have held more than 130 hearings and markups. This year we worked on the reform of No Child Left Behind, and those reforms passed the committee with bipartisan support. We also worked on legislation regarding flood insurance funding bills under the Appropriations Committee. Most Americans who watch cable news think all Democrats and all Republicans may hate each other. While Congress has grown more partisan, I am particularly proud of the bipartisan partnerships we have fostered in such a short time. I have continued a longstanding battle against the corrupt sugar program by working with Senator Shaheen of New Hampshire on S. 25 to Stop Unfair Giveaways and Restrictions Act, the SUGAR Act of 2011, which would eliminate sugar price supports and increased costs for consumers that destroy American manufacturing jobs. Senator Wyden and I introduced legislation targeting more than $60 billion in Medicare fraud every year by issuing new identify theft- proof medical ID cards, offering the same ID card protection our troops have for our seniors. I also joined Senator Wyden in his efforts to ensure your constitutional rights are protected with regard to your GPS data and cell phone and other location information. Senator Casey and I worked together on antibullying legislation to keep our kids safe at school. I joined Senator Whitehouse in an effort to criminalize the pointing of lasers against civil aircraft to keep that industry safe. In my capacity as the top Republican member of the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Subcommittee, we worked across the aisle with Chairman Tim Johnson to pass the first stand-alone appropriations bill out of the Senate since 2009. Since then, we have broken the logjam on appropriations bills, and I hope to quickly complete that legislation. I especially wish to recognize one of my first friends in the Senate, Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, for our collaborative effort on many issues, the latest being a bipartisan resolution calling for the Congress to go big on deficit reduction. When we first came to the Senate together, we saw that there were few opportunities for Republicans and Democrats to interact outside the Senate floor. That is why we began to have an open lunch together each Thursday instead of the regularly scheduled partisan lunches, to discuss ways to bridge the political divide in the Senate and in Washington. I also wish to highlight the partnership I have developed with my senior Senator from the State of Illinois. While we may not see eye to eye on many issues, Senator Durbin and I have worked closely on a whole host of issues for Illinois. Following in the footsteps of the late Senator Paul Simon, Senator Durbin and I have now held more than 25 joint constituent coffees here in Washington. It is like a townhall meeting, where we talk with Illinois families about what is going on at home and in the Congress. In March, Senator Durbin and I worked with Secretary of Transportation Ray Lahood to help the city of Chicago, American, and United Airlines come to an agreement to keep the O'Hare Modernization Program moving forward. This is the single greatest job creation program in northern Illinois, and the agreement that we helped foster keeps thousands at work at O'Hare. We worked closely to bring high-speed rail to the State of Illinois, and together introduced legislation to expand charter schools, to improve access to EpiPens at schools for children with severe allergies, to ensure military families in North Chicago continue to receive their Federal education assistance. We fought to open a new Federal prison in Thompson, IL, but without al-Qaida detainees, to create jobs in northwestern Illinois, and address also flooding issues in southern Illinois and levee rehabilitation in the metro east area. We have also successfully confirmed four new judges for central and northern Illinois, and have an additional two nominations, one Democrat, one Republican, pending. But legislation is not all we do here. In my opinion, one of the most important things a Member of Congress can focus on is constituent service. We formed advisory boards for African Americans, Latinos, small business, agriculture, health care, education, and students. Since I first came to the House of Representatives in 2001, I have worked diligently as an advocate for Illinois before the Federal Government. In 1 year now, my staff has held more than 3,440 meetings with constituents and other officials and dignitaries. To be as accessible as possible, I have visited 50 out of Illinois's 102 counties and held 20 townhall meetings throughout the State. This month, my successor in the House of Representatives, Congressman Bob Dold, and I held the first ever live Facebook townhall meeting and answered questions we received via the social networking site and Twitter. My office has arranged 340 Capitol and White House tours for approximately 2,800 constituents. We received more than 85,000 phone calls and responded to 66,000 letters and e-mails. We have helped more than 4,000 constituents with casework details before the government, and written more than 200 letters in support of Illinois towns, counties, and organizations for Federal grants. I have convened eight constituent advisory boards and met a total of 18 times. My office helped process 122 passports and assisted 750 veterans and their concerns before the VA. We have accomplished quite a bit this year. I remain optimistic about the long-term future of our Nation. We can outinnovate and outproduce any nation on the planet if we create an environment that supports full job creation. But there is still a lot of work to do. The Illinois unemployment rate stands at over 10 percent. It seems each day we hear of a new company thinking of leaving our State. The health care law threatens a further drag on our economy. We face a global sovereign debt crisis in Europe and fears of future credit devaluations for the United States. U.S. troops continue to pursue enemies of freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq, and Iran continues its effort to develop nuclear weapons. Protests are accelerating in Egypt, and civil unrest in Syria. Piracy remains a concern off the coast of Somalia. As I have for the past year, I will spend the next 5 years making sure that America remains the best place on Earth for any individual to rise to their full potential, a place where your rights are protected against the government, whose main mission should be to defend us, and to foster higher incomes for our families. In these battles, I will advance the interests of the State of Illinois as the job engine at the center of the Nation's economy, protector of the Lake Michigan and Mississippi ecosystems, and the special place that sent Abraham Lincoln and hopefully future Lincolns for national leadership when America needs it most. Of course, my heart and soul will always be with the troops--their care, their mission, and their spirit of defending a place that is the greatest force for human freedom and dignity ever designed. I am truly grateful for the opportunity to serve my Nation twice--in the Navy and in the Senate. I thank the people of Illinois for this first year in the Senate and for the even bigger things we will do together in the years to come. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, I wish to speak on the pending amendment. I rise in support of the Kirk-Manchin-Heller and Blunt amendment regarding Iran. What we know with regard to Iran is that they have persecuted 330,000 Baha'is in their country, registered their houses, kicked their kids out of university, made sure that they can do no business with the Iranian Government. We know Iran is the chief sponsor of the terrorist group Hezbollah that has had a grip on southern Lebanon. We know Iran jumped the Shiite divide to also support the terrorist group called Hamas in the Sunni community. We know Iran has been a state sponsor of terror as certified by Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama. We know Iran recently sentenced an Iranian actress to 90 lashes for appearing in an Australian movie without a headdress. We know Iran recently arrested 70 of its fashion designers, for crimes I cannot even imagine that they would have committed. But, most importantly, we know the International Atomic Energy Agency has certified that now Iran has enriched uranium far beyond what it needs to run a civilian reactor program; that Iranian military personnel have been involved in acquiring information on the design of nuclear weapons; that the Iranians are working on the details of a warhead for their Shahab-3 missile that fits all of the profiles of a nuclear weapon. Finally, we know, according to the Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder, that Iran and its Iranian Revolutionary Guards Quds force established a bomb plot with the Mexican cartel, the Zetas, to blow up a Georgetown restaurant, to kill a number of Americans, even talked about possibly killing Senators, in an effort to assassinate the Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the United States here in Washington, DC. I think it is clear with this bipartisan amendment that we all recognize we are at a turning point and that we need new sanctions against Iran. Without crippling sanctions, I believe we have then turned the international community on the path toward war, likely between Iran and our allies, in Israel. This would cause a needless loss of life. It would lead to higher energy prices for the West, an increase in instability in Europe when we can least afford it. Therefore, we need to level crippling sanctions, especially against the Iranian center of gravity, the Central Bank of Iran. The Central Bank of Iran is the principal funder of the Ahmadinejad regime itself. It is probably the source of funds so substantially provided to terrorist groups by Iran to Hamas and Hezbollah. It is the Central Bank of Iran that is supporting operations in Afghanistan and Iraq against our allies there. It is the Central Bank of Iran that is the principal underlying financial support for the Iranian nuclear program, and the Central Bank of Iran that is the paymaster for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards force, especially their Quds force. Likely the money that was planned for the Zetas to carry out the bomb plot in Washington, DC, had its origin point with the Central Bank of Iran. That is why 92 Senators, Republicans and Democrats, despite these partisan times, have joined to say we should level this crippling sanction against the Central Bank of Iran. I thank the 92 Senators who signed the Schumer-Kirk letter. Indications are that the Obama administration is going to take further actions on the Central Bank of Iran. This amendment lays out the full roadmap for what we should do. What does the amendment do? It is patterned after the bipartisan amendment adopted under the authorship of Democratic California Congressman Howard Berman, unanimously adopted in the House Foreign Affairs Committee, that says for any business, if you do business with the Central Bank of Iran, you cannot do business with the United States of America. We know that world financial arrangements and especially oil markets are complicated instruments, so under this bipartisan amendment we have a 180-day timeclock to make sure that especially key allies and friends of the United States can unhook from Iranian oil and the financial ties that bind them to Iran. This is particularly important for Turkey, for Sri Lanka, for Italy, and for Greece, who would all use that time under this amendment to unhook from Iran. In this, I think we are going to have a very willing partner in the Government of Saudi Arabia, recently obviously focused on, because the Iranians tried to kill their Ambassador to the United States. I will be meeting with that Ambassador tomorrow. I think this amendment lays the groundwork not just to work with Israel, not just to work with Saudi Arabia, but our allies, to collapse the Central Bank. Without action, I think we turn the Middle East and especially the Persian Gulf toward war. That is why we should take every nonmilitary action possible to avoid that conflict, to collapse the Central Bank of Iran. There are a number of bipartisan heroes in this story--Senator Lieberman, who has been a key actor on these issues and a partner with me on many of these issues; Senator Gillibrand also who has helped out; obviously Senator Schumer, who was the coauthor of the 92-Senator letter on the Central Bank of Iran; Senator Menendez, who also has an outstanding idea on creating an Iranian oil-free zone; and obviously my bipartisan partner on this and best friend in the Senate, Senator Manchin, who joined me on this effort. Together, we can have a clear statement about what has happened with the IAEA and the Iranian nuclear program, with their record on human rights, with their record on support for terrorism and, most importantly, according to the Attorney General, with a brazen attempt to attack the United States directly with this bomb plot. I urge Members of this Chamber to vote for this amendment, which is now pending to the National Defense Authorization Act, because it puts a clear statement forward, levels the toughest nonmilitary sanction we had, helps reduce the chance for war or market and oil instability and higher prices, and has such a strong bipartisan pedigree behind it. I yield the floor.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with Senator Durbin to introduce a bill in support of New Philadelphia, the first town founded by a freed African-American. This bipartisan legislation would initiate a feasibility study in order to determine whether or not this area should be designated as a unit of the National Park System. The town of New Philadelphia, Illinois, established in 1836, became the first known town platted and officially registered by an African- American prior to the Civil War. New Philadelphia became a place where European Americans, free-born African-Americans, and formerly enslaved individuals could live together in community during a time of intense racial strife that transpired before, during, and after the Civil War. Frank McWorter, the founder of New Philadelphia and a former slave himself, saved money from neighboring labor jobs to purchase his own freedom and the freedom of fifteen other family members. Subsequently, Mr. McWorter purchased a sparse plot of land between the Illinois and Mississippi Rivers in Pike County, Illinois to establish the town of New Philadelphia, which also became a station along the Underground Railroad. In 2005, the town of New Philadelphia is designated a National Historic Place and more recently, it was designated a National Historic Landmark in 2009. Being designated a unit of the National Park System will preserve the historical significance of New Philadelphia and allow its legacy to continue to inspire current and future generations to understand the struggle for freedom and opportunity. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with Senator Durbin to introduce a bill in support of New Philadelphia, the first town founded by a freed African-American. This bipartisan legislation would initiate a feasibility study in order to determine whether or not this area should be designated as a unit of the National Park System. The town of New Philadelphia, Illinois, established in 1836, became the first known town platted and officially registered by an African- American prior to the Civil War. New Philadelphia became a place where European Americans, free-born African-Americans, and formerly enslaved individuals could live together in community during a time of intense racial strife that transpired before, during, and after the Civil War. Frank McWorter, the founder of New Philadelphia and a former slave himself, saved money from neighboring labor jobs to purchase his own freedom and the freedom of fifteen other family members. Subsequently, Mr. McWorter purchased a sparse plot of land between the Illinois and Mississippi Rivers in Pike County, Illinois to establish the town of New Philadelphia, which also became a station along the Underground Railroad. In 2005, the town of New Philadelphia is designated a National Historic Place and more recently, it was designated a National Historic Landmark in 2009. Being designated a unit of the National Park System will preserve the historical significance of New Philadelphia and allow its legacy to continue to inspire current and future generations to understand the struggle for freedom and opportunity. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, I rise today in honor of one of Illinois' most heroic sons, LCpl Larry Gene Bailey II of Zion. Lance Corporal Bailey joined the Marines in October 2007, and like his father, a Vietnam Veteran, he too wanted to serve his country. His parents and his country are very proud of his service and sacrifice. On June 23, 2011 in Helmand province, Lance Corporal Bailey ran to a rooftop to provide cover for his unit under heavy fire. An improvised explosive device took both of his legs and one of his arms. This young man's will to live and recover are an inspiration to us all. With the support of his parents Mary and Larry, he has made great strides in his recovery. This Veterans Day, our nation owes a great debt of gratitude to families like the Baileys, whose service to our nation continues to preserve our American way of life. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a poem penned in honor of Lance Corporal Bailey by Albert Caswell. Make My Father Proud IN HONOR OF AN AMERICAN HERO LANCE CORPORAL LARRY GENE BAILEY II. LIMA CO. \3/4\ BATTALION 7TH MARINES DIVISION THE UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS A son is born . . . Out of a love so very warm . . . His dad, an American hero . . . who for our Nation so wore the uniform . . . As day after day, a love built up . . . that which time could not so take away, or so harm! Until, like father like son . . . He too, would serve his country tis of thee one! As a United States Marine, all in those most magnificent shades of green! For in his heart, he so wanted to be . . . just like his Dad . . . his father he! His Dad, in the Navy, so served in Vietnam aboard a submarine . . . But, his fine son Larry . . . Hooo . . . rah! Became a United States Marine! And they have better uniforms Dad, all in his most heroic shades of green! And oh what a striking figure he'd so cast . . . As this quiet hero, stood tall . . . and so did all that they so asked! As into the face of hell, as Lance Corporal Bailey II . . . so stood fast! So strong, with combat ribbons on his chest! As he so wanted, to make his Father proud! When, on that fateful day . . . As a IED, almost took his fine life away . . . As this mountain of a man, so lost his arm and both of his legs . . . So close to death, as when this quiet hero's courage would so crest! As his new battle began on that day, but To Be The Best! As this quiet hero, so courageously so wiped all of those tears away! And his Father with tears in his eyes, and mother too upon their knees for his son so prayed! As this hero from Zion, his Father's son . . . got up that day! And ran all with his heart of courage full, and so made his way! A way of hope and courage, to so show us all! what faith in hearts can so nourish! For he is his Father's son, and Mother's child . . . as over the years so much from them he had so learned! But, now the tides have changed . . . as now its his Father, who so calls out his name! As he so wants to be, just like his son . . . you see! As now, he is the one who so makes his Father proud . . . and like his son wants to be! As to our nation, and our hearts . . . his Strength In Honor so speaks! As one of The Illini's, most courageous of all sons! This American Hero, his Father's Son! For some people are put on this earth, to so Teach us all in their great worth! To so make us all so very proud! To show us all, where faith and honor so lives now! And how a Father's and Mother's love, can so raise a splendid child so how! That's right Marine, you make us all so proud! As we watch you and your fine heart and soul, so rebuild so now . . . As to one and all, your most magnificent heart speaks so loud! Because, Marine's don't cry or pout! Because, Marines they get things done . . . as they move up and out! And if ever I have a son Larry, I wish he could make me half as proud, as you've made your parents my son! Because this Marine from Zion, even makes his fellow Marines cheer Hoo rah . . . so now! So keep you heard up my son, Because your Father is so Proud of you for all that you've done! And so too is our Lord, who'll one day up in Heaven with you he will run! Moments, upon this earth . . . are all we have! To make a difference with it all! To change the world! To go off with hearts of courage full, as so unfurled! As it's you Larry, who so makes us all so proud . . . Above us all, Lance Corporal Bailey . . . you stand so tall!

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Madam President, I wish to follow the remarks of my colleague in a colloquy, briefly, saying I agree with him which is why I voted to support restrictions on cross-State air pollution. Certainly coming from Maryland, I understand that one State can pollute another, especially given the prevailing westerly winds. But even in the State of Illinois we estimate that the rule will reduce pollution in Chicagoland by 7 to 13 percent and in high-ozone time, the highest pollution, 24 percent. We have also seen quite a number of our powerplants already reengineer their plants to control pollution, expecting this regulation which, by the way, comes from the Bush administration, the initial legislation, and pursuant to a Federal court order. I commend my colleague and say there is bipartisan agreement that we control cross-State pollution. This rule, by the data that was provided by the Congressional Research Service, has a significant amount of benefit in reducing particulate matter that would be in the State of Illinois and especially Eastern States.

Mr. KIRK. I actually rose to speak on several other topics which I will do in turn. First, I wish to say tomorrow we are going to honor generations of veterans who wore the uniform of the United States. As a Member of the House, I worked to help save my congressional district's veterans hospital in north Chicago, IL, after Washington bureaucrats recommended its closure by the Department of Defense, by the Department of Veterans Affairs. We actually arranged to bring the Department of Defense and the VA together in a naval hospital and a VA hospital, to combine them in what became the Captain James A. Lovell Federal Health Care Center, building on synergy and seamless care for Active Duty and veterans alike. It became the first combined VA-Navy hospital in the Nation. It is a world-class facility that delivers medical care to about 4,000 Active Duty at Great Lakes and about 42,000 recruits and a equivalent number of veterans in the region. I like to think about the waiting room of this hospital in which grizzled veterans from--one I remember meeting from the battle of Savo Island, 1942, World War II right next to the rawest new recruits to the Navy, in the same waiting room about to receive care from the same nurses and doctors at this now combined Navy-VA hospital. In the Senate, I became the new ranking member of the Military Construction and VA Affairs Appropriations Subcommittee. Now we are going to see if we can expand this model of care, not just to one part of northern Illinois but to the country. We should go to the next level, not just integrating one set of hospitals but for the whole country. Here, the greatest potential is in medical records. It should be the policy of this Congress, the Appropriations Committee and our subcommittee, that we create in the end one military VA health record so there is a seamless continuum of care for the men and women who have joined to protect our country from the first day they sign up as a recruit until their sunset years as a veteran. I shared a draft of this speech with the chairman of our subcommittee, Chairman Johnson, and also Chairman Culberson of the House subcommittee, and the administration, to hopefully drive consensus in the House and Senate forward on this issue. I think we all now agree there should be more Defense Department and VA collaboration on health care but especially focused on health records. With Chairman Johnson, we held a March hearing on the progress of moving forward to a military veteran--what is called--fully integrated electronic health record or IEHR. The system will provide servicemembers with a single medical record from their enlistment through their final days as a veteran. I wish to applaud Secretary Shinseki, Secretary Gates, and Secretary Panetta, his successor, for pushing the very separate Department of Defense and VA bureaucracies into a single common record system. The integrated health record developed jointly by VA and DOD is a very large and necessary IT project. It will encompass quite a lot of effort to be caring for around 15 million servicemembers, veterans, and eligible families each year. For more than 20 years, these two executive departments built entirely separate health care systems, but the taxpayer did pay for both. A 20-year marine leaving Active-Duty health care would then, potentially, today, have three separate health care records--a military one, a veterans record, and a civilian care record through TRICARE. This meant that information on medical treatment or service-connected disabilities could easily be split between these records. VA doctors or VA benefits personnel would not have the complete information in assessing care for this American in uniform or just out of uniform. The new system will hopefully eliminate paper records, missing files, and replace them all with a common record, complete with Active-Duty medical history that the VA medical care providers can access in all hospitals and clinics throughout the country. A project of this magnitude, 6 years of work, several hundred million dollars in expense, is not without risk. It is our responsibility to make sure both departments, DOD and VA, make the right cost-effective decisions to defend the hard-working taxpayer. In past years, normal practice inside Washington would be to give a project such as this to a massive government contractor that would hijack it into an unwieldy and proprietary system which rapidly became outdated, with technology that was only licensed to that contractor. In the Congress we cannot let that happen with this project. In times of physical austerity it is critical that the government work carefully with Chairman Johnson in the Senate and Chairman Culberson in the House to look beyond their own walls to cooperate and innovate and deliver more efficient and effective services. It is imperative that VA and DOD ensure that it gets this right and not replicate problems associated with past developments of so many large IT systems. One of the most positive developments is the joint VA-DOD approach that will embrace best commercial practices by leveraging technology already used in the private sector through commercial off-the-shelf systems, and especially open-source coding so that the electronic health record can be billed at the lowest cost. This will ensure that the new system will benefit from innovative and new solutions being used by major medical systems and health care providers across the country. An open source--that is an open computer-code approach--will, most importantly, prevent us, the government, from being locked into one single vendor. Instead the approach will allow not only innovation but will require a private firm to integrate their technology into the joint VA-DOD system. It will also encourage real competition as every vendor bidding on a new contract will have full, public access to the product completed by the previous vendor. This approach should ensure that the taxpayer is defended, that their dollars are well spent, and that servicemembers and veterans are well served by the system that we then develop. I commend the VA and DOD on their willingness to break down the walls between their respective departments and work together on this project, especially on the eve of Veterans Day. If successful, this approach could serve as a model for cooperation between other government agencies serving similar communities, making the government smarter and leveraging private sector innovation and developing cost-saving technologies--like open source coding, like commercial off-the-shelf requirements--which is exactly the mindset we need to embrace in the cost-conscious environment we are in today. In closing, I want to, once again, thank Secretary of Veterans Affairs Shinseki, our previous Secretary of Defense Gates, and our current Secretary of Defense Panetta for their vision in bringing this tough problem together. I will tell each one of these Cabinet Departments that Chairman Culberson and I are looking forward, in about 2\1/2\ months' time, to meeting with their teams to assess the project and progress on developing a fully integrated, complete joint DOD and then VA health record to care for that American from the time they enlist until their final days as a veteran. Hiring Veterans On November 11, 1919, exactly 1 year after the end of World War I, President Wilson designated Armistice Day to honor those who served during the great war. In 1954, Congress changed the name of the holiday to honor the service of all men and women in uniform that we now know as Veterans Day. For the last 22 years, it has been the honor of my life to serve in the U.S. Navy Reserve. I have seen firsthand the sacrifice of men and women who wore the uniform and, quite frankly, provided the freedoms that we enjoy as Americans. This week we remember those who sacrificed everything in the defense of our Nation, and I am proud to support legislation that provides a new employment opportunity for those veterans. The VOW to Hire Heroes Act of 2011 is bipartisan legislation that the Senate has just passed to give our veterans the opportunity to learn new skills and reenter the workforce. Too often employers overlook the experience of our professional veterans. These men and women are typically highly effective, organized leaders who have been part of a team in a difficult environment. They have undertaken responsibilities few could imagine under extreme conditions--especially at young ages. Across Afghanistan and Iraq, veterans are saving lives and using state-of-the-art medical equipment in austere conditions. When they return, these skills they have obtained do not necessarily quickly translate into civilian certifications that first responders need to qualify for a job. As a result, governments subsidize expensive training for veterans who are already, in many cases, substantially overqualified. The bill just passed in the Senate requires the Department of Defense, Veterans Affairs, and Labor to identify equivalencies between military service and private sector competencies. This change will translate military experience and certifications into civilian qualifications opening new career opportunities for veterans. The legislation also reforms and improves the Department of Defense Transition Assistance Program to assist retiring servicemembers with resume development, educational options, and tools for separating from the military. The legislation will identify potential positions and industries in the private sector for our new veterans. For unemployed veterans the legislation establishes a retraining educational benefit allowing veterans to go back to school for high- demand skill development and to obtain a technical certificate or degree that prepares them to reenter the workforce. This bill also engages the private sector and expands the tax credit for hiring our returning heroes. The legislation is particularly important to my home State where we have over 700,000 veterans. Across Illinois they enthusiastically take on new challenges and become teachers and corporate executives or public servants. In 1901, a Knox County native and Illinois veteran, Charles Walgreen, built the foundation of one of our Nation's largest pharmacy chains. Chicago native George Halas served twice in the Navy and then spent 63 years at the helm of the Chicago Bears and helped found the NFL. Countless other citizens of our State served in the military but then made invaluable contributions to our Nation and its economy. Despite what most Americans see on TV, Chairman Murray in the Senate and Chairman Miller in the House demonstrated that Republicans and Democrats across the Senate and House can work together, and this legislation just passed as a result of that bipartisan cooperation. Today our Nation's veterans are facing different adversities and are overcoming new challenges both in the field and when they come home. We owe these men and women everything, and this measure--a bipartisan measure--is one of the ways we can say thank you. Europe's Debt Crisis I also want to take a moment to speak briefly on the subject of the European debt situation. I am concerned that we are now eyewitnesses to history, but few in the Senate are even watching major events that could hurt the incomes of Americans at home. Margaret Thatcher once said: Socialists eventually run out of other people's money. We witnessed the end of communism in 1991 when Russia ran out of money. In 2011 we may be witnessing the end of European socialism as many of their economies go bankrupt. Events in Europe offer an immediate warning to our own banking system and is a long-term lesson to our society. I thank my friend David Malpass for his work in helping to develop my view on these issues. In our view, Europe's approach to the run on Greek debt and then Italian debt and possibly this afternoon French debt shows that Europe's leaders are not addressing the problems squarely that they face. The current approach they have is unsustainable. Yesterday we witnessed the interest rate Italy must pay to borrow funds rising to over 7 percent from the 6.4 percent on Tuesday and the 5 percent they had to pay at the beginning of the month. Germany's Finance Minister suggested that Italy consider drawing on EFSF funds, implying that Germany doesn't recognize the true magnitude of the systemic problem they face, still focused on Plan A when Plan A no longer is viable. As Malpass commented, this compares a popgun versus the charging financial rhinoceros that is needed. German Chancellor Angela Merkel talked about a new European Union and new EU treaty structures. The United States should support increased financial restraints--tougher ones than the Maastricht Treaty provided. It is hard to see how Europe could undertake an entirely new treaty and then ratify it in the middle of this crisis. After all, the EFSF was hard enough. Merkel's party also discussed ways to allow countries to exit the euro. This would be an immediate and severe threat to the current outlook, but her party is now no longer in the ascendency. It is losing strength to coalition parties that are more committed to the euro. On Tuesday, French President Nicolas Sarkozy raised the possibility of what he called a two-speed Europe in a speech in Strasbourg, meaning that the eurozone countries would have different rules than non-euro EU members. These issues would all be fine to discuss if we were not immediately in a current financial crisis. There are many steps the United States should encourage to prevent this situation from jumping across the Atlantic. Unfortunately, none of them appear to be underway. First, Italy should undertake major growth-oriented structural reforms in their labor market, but there appears to be little chance of that. Next, Europe could temporarily back away from the Basel III mark-to- market and the bank capitalization levels they require, removing for now the threat their banks face: that they will be taken over or forced to excessively dilute their equity at the market bottom. Recall that the United States provided critical relief in this regard by reinstructing the FASB in March of 2009 to do this launching the equity market surge. European Nations could also begin guaranteeing new liabilities at their banks. Remember, also, the United States took this step in October of 2008 through a fee-based FDIC guarantee of new bank issuance. The ECB could also purchase Italian bonds in the size needed in the secondary market with the goal of lowering the current yield. Remember, the Fed bought American mortgage-backed securities in December of 2008 instantly helping recover and resuscitate that market. Unfortunately, right now none of these positive developments seem likely. The news tonight from Europe is fairly dismal, and I recall the collapse of German credit in July of 1931. It was that collapse that turned the recession of 1929 into the Great Depression. Our Congress right now is rightly focused on the need to cut our own spending, but, unfortunately, the news that I have seen is the crisis abroad could become the No. 1 economic story in the United States as early as next month. Americans should watch this situation very closely. We should encourage Europe to take the actions I outlined above, and most importantly, we should make sure the supercommittee does its job and that we kick our own spending habit before we face the same future. Iran's Nuclear Program Lastly, I want to touch on a subject that I think most concerns me for the future of the country, especially next year. When the history of the Iranian nuclear program is written, November 2011 is likely to be marked as the turning point toward conflict regarding Iran's nuclear weapons program. Recall that Iran has signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and her government claims they are taking no action in violation of that treaty. Recall also in 1979 Iran embraced supporting terror as government policy. Iran was then certified as a state sponsor of terror by Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama. Recall also that Iran now has become the top financier for two major terror groups in the Middle East, Hamas and Hezbollah. Iran has transferred nearly every type of weapon in its inventory-- including cruise missiles--to Hezbollah. Recall also that Iran has started the massive refining of uranium, far above the 3 percent necessary to fuel a reactor--upwards of 20 percent--moving to the 98 percent needed to run an atomic weapon. This week, the IAEA released a landmark report. It said the Iranians were accelerating their uranium enrichment. It said they had received design information through military personnel on nuclear weapons. But, most importantly, it showed how step by step the Iranians were working on a nuclear warhead for their long-range SHAHAB-3 missile to include the density and weight of a nuclear weapon as well as the inclusion of an electric generator inside that weapon--unnecessary for a conventional munition but absolutely required for a nuclear munition-- that there were no submunitions, that the entire package was to go off at once, and that the critical design information behind that all pointed to a nuclear warhead. Our response should be, in my view, nonmilitary but the strongest nonmilitary means necessary. For many years as a House Member I worked on what I thought was the critical sanction, which was to take advantage of the key vulnerability of Iran; that the mullahs had so mishandled their economy since 1979 that this oil-producing nation totally depended on foreign gasoline for their energy supplies. Our idea was to cut off Iran's supply of foreign gasoline and then to ensure that their signature under the nuclear nonproliferation treaty was genuine, real, and verifiable. After working many years on this legislation, eventually the House of Representatives voted, with over 400 positive votes, for this legislation to help cut off Iran's gasoline supply. In fact, the bill was unanimous in the Senate, and last year President Obama signed this bill into law. But the record now shows, according to Reuters this morning, that gasoline deliveries, despite the Obama sanctions, now have gone up 21 percent to Iran. Despite the comprehensive sanctions the United States has leveled against Iran, the International Monetary Fund reports that the Iranian economy grew faster than the U.S. economy last year. So, many of us, looking at the sorry record of sanctions enforcement, have gathered together on the idea of one last sanction that we think could avoid a conflict, that we think would deliver the decisive diplomatic weight to solve this problem, and that is to sanction the Central Bank of Iran itself. We would say any entity which does business with the Central Bank of Iran cannot do business with the United States, and we would force every financial and business interest in the world to choose between the $300 billion Iranian economy and the $14 trillion American economy. We know the Central Bank of Iran is the central paymaster of Hezbollah and Hamas, two organizations Secretary of State Clinton has highlighted as sponsors of terror. We know the Central Bank of Iran is the central paymaster for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps and especially their subunit, the Quds force, which Attorney General Holder highlighted, which tried to launch a plot through a Mexican drug cartel to blow up a Washington, DC restaurant. They talked about killing dozens of Americans--they even talked about killing Senators--in an effort to kill the Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the United States. We know the Central Bank of Iran also is the likely paymaster of the nuclear program of Iran itself. This summer, something unique happened in the life of the Senate. In these partisan times, with so many differences expressed between Republicans and Democrats, 92 Senators joined in the Kirk-Schumer letter saying that we should sanction the Central Bank of Iran, that we should cripple the Iranian currency. For God's sake, at least we can have Iranian economic growth as slower than U.S. economic growth for 2012. It was a unique moment of bipartisan consensus, and the Obama administration even leaked to the New York Times that this action was under consideration. All indications are now that the Obama administration will take no major action against Iran, despite a United Nations report and despite a plot revealed by the Attorney General himself. Recall that the IAEA was the organization that downplayed Bush administration accusations against Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction program, and that following the fall of Saddam Hussein we consistently found that what the IAEA said about Iraq was exactly correct. So when the IAEA reports that the Iranians are working toward a nuclear weapon and a warhead aboard their SHAHAB-3 missile; when we learn that the Iranians are supporting terror through Hezbollah and Hamas with a plot to kill Americans at a Washington, DC restaurant; when we learn that Iranians have registered the names of every Baha'i family, all 330,000 in their country, that they have removed all Baha'is from universities, that they have kicked all Baha'i children and prohibited all Baha'i businesses from doing business with their government, we are worried that this is a government--probably the only member of the United Nations--where the head of state regularly talks about wiping another member of the United Nations off the planet, it seems as though we should take action. I recall a famous quote from President Kennedy long before he was elected President when he wrote an essay called ``Why America Slept'' in which he talked about all the signs of a coming catastrophe in Europe and no action by the U.S. Government. This week is the turning point for Iran. If the United States takes no action, then we set the Middle East on a course for conflict likely involving our allies in Israel, potentially also Saudi Arabia. The simple course of history right now I think would be improved if we leveled this sanction in a bipartisan fashion, giving our diplomats decisive weight to stop this program and, therefore, avoiding conflict. By taking the easy way out--by leveling no action against Iran--we actually are empowering those who would go to conflict more quickly. I am dumfounded as to the reason we are doing this. Senators on this floor told me they suspected there was so much insecurity about the current price of oil that the administration will do everything possible not to have conflict or stress in the Middle East in order to ensure its reelection and keep prices low. But I would argue that nuclear weapons in the hands of the Iranians will automatically raise energy prices in the United States. I would argue that with the record of the Iranians transferring cruise missiles to Hezbollah, there is no doubt in my mind that the Iranians, once they build a sufficient stockpile of nuclear weapons, will transfer some of those to Hezbollah. We also see hostile intent by the Iranians not just at the Israelis but at the Saudi Arabians, and that the path to further instability and danger is in not taking action rather than taking action. This, on a Friday night in November, is the turning point on the Iran crisis. Many bureaucrats inside the administration would prefer we not know this is the turning point. They would prefer we not realize the Iranian program is receiving decisive weight, and that according to experts the Iranians will have nuclear weapons either next year or, by their latest estimate, the year after. They would prefer we not realize that according to my scenario, they would build a sufficient stockpile so that we envision a possible future where by 2014 or 2015 the Iranians will have a sufficient number to begin transferring weapons to Hezbollah. And we certainly know that the moment the Iranians detonate a weapon, we will witness the launch of nuclear programs in Saudi Arabia and likely in Egypt. The bottom line is this: Without decisive action on economic sanctions, we condemn the Middle East to a conflict that eventually may involve weapons of mass destruction. With action similar to action called for by those who saw history correctly in the 1930s, we could help protect the coming generation from such a conflict. A world in which the Iranians have nuclear weapons is one that we grant to our kids in a far more dangerous environment than the 21st century, rather than the one we should grant to them. The Senate, hopefully, will vote on an amendment next week that I hope to offer to level this sanction on Iran. If opposed by the Obama administration, then I think we are condemning this region to an awful conflict, and I think we should protect the next generation from such a future by taking good, solid, decisive, nonmilitary sanctions action now. With that, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, I rise to talk about two entirely different subjects; first, on the subject of Iran, the subject of a critical International Atomic Energy Agency report that will be issued likely tomorrow. Credible press reports on the United Nations document tell us an important thing. Remember, it was the IAEA that urged caution with regard to the weapons of mass destruction program in Iraq. The record shows that the IAEA was largely correct on its determination there. Based on that credibility, we should listen to the IAEA and what they say in this groundbreaking report. Their report makes six very important conclusions according to credible press reports: No. 1, the Islamic Republic of Iran has used military people to procure dual-use nuclear material; No. 2, they have developed an undeclared nuclear material production line separate from their commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; No. 3, they have now acquired outside international information on the development of nuclear weapons; No. 4, they have begun work on an indigenous design for a nuclear weapon; and, No. 5, they are already substantially in excess of the 3-percent enrichment for uranium-235 necessary to run a nuclear reactor as they originally claimed. The sixth conclusion, though, appears to be the most important. The International Atomic Energy Agency concludes they may have also begun work on a new payload for their Shahab-3 missile. This is a missile that largely comes from North Korea called the No Dong and is able to hit U.S. bases in the Persian Gulf and our allies in Israel. According to the reports on this U.N. document, it says the Shahab-3 payload has the correct mass for a nuclear weapon; it has a generator aboard the warhead that would be necessary to initiate a nuclear detonation; it is designed for an airburst to make that detonation most effective; the weapon has multiple detonators in it--I think this is a key conclusion because a conventional munition only requires one detonator, but a nuclear weapon requires multiple detonators; and this has it--it does not issue any submunitions, all the warhead is contained in one critical mass; and the Iranians have now prepared a 400-meter test shaft likely for a nuclear test shot. If this is not a smoking gun, I do not know what is. I do not know what the word for ``smoking gun'' in Farsi is, but clearly the United Nations, not known for speaking clearly on many topics, is now telling us one clear thing: the Islamic Republic of Iran is designing and moving toward building nuclear weapons. If we look at their record, we will see the Islamic Republic of Iran has transferred nearly every one of its advanced munitions it currently owns to terrorist organizations, including antishipping cruise missiles, which the Iranians transferred to Hezbollah. We have also known several dangerous--actually, dangerously weird-- things going on in the Islamic Republic of Iran, such as sentencing an Iranian actress to 90 lashes for appearing in an Australian film simply on the crime of not having her head covered--luckily, because the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran called attention to this, apparently that sentence may be in abeyance--or credible reports this weekend that the Islamic Republic of Iran, under President Ahmadinejad, has arrested 70 fashion designers for anti-Islamic activity. What we know for a fact is that the Islamic Republic of Iran has been a state sponsor of terror, as certified by Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush 2, and President Obama under Secretary of State Clinton. We know they are the leading paymasters for Hezbollah and Hamas. What we can see clearly from this report is that this year, or likely the year after, they will have nuclear weapons. I think it is quite likely they would then transfer those nuclear weapons directly to Hezbollah and Hamas. This is something we cannot allow to happen, which is why action in the Senate and in the executive branch should occur on collapsing the Central Bank of Iran. We already have 92 Senators who have agreed, even in these partisan times, to collapse the Central Bank of Iran. Ninety-two Senators have signed on to the Kirk-Schumer letter to call for this action. This action was also just recommended in an overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion in the House Foreign Affairs Committee under the leadership of Congressman Berman to recommend this also in the House. I think the administration--that has leaked several times to the New York Times that they have this under consideration-- should move in this direction. For those countries that substantially purchase oil from the Islamic Republic of Iran, we should work with our Saudi allies to make sure their needs are met so we can go ahead and collapse the Central Bank of Iran and the Iranian currency, especially in the wake of this report. Remember, this is the government that, according to Attorney General Eric Holder, led a plot to blow up a Georgetown restaurant, possibly involving the death of many Americans, including, they described, Senators, in an effort to kill the Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the United States. This is singularly irresponsible activity and one that now, coupled with this IAEA report on nuclear weapons, should not be tolerated. Protecting Privacy Rights Mr. President, I also rise to speak about another topic; which is that today the Supreme Court has agreed to hear oral arguments on the case of United States v. Jones. The case concerns our rights to privacy as American citizens. As an American, I believe our government is the greatest government for the potential of every human being and the dignity of that human being. Under our Constitution, we had the first of any major government in the world to begin to protect that right of privacy, even against the government. It is enshrined in the fourth amendment to the Constitution. As the Founding Fathers defined it, I think our 18th century fourth amendment privacy rights--which are covered, including our house and our place of business--are well defined and well protected under our law. The question is this: What about our rights to privacy in the 21st century? What about the mobile device we carry, the tablet computer, the GPS in our car, and the various other computer devices we have? Do we have a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to this data or can the government access this data and decide they can find out where we have been, whom we have been with, and how long we have been there without a warrant? Given the fact that the Supreme Court has just taken up oral arguments in this case, I think it is important for the Senate to back the Wyden-Kirk GPS Act. This is an act that basically says we should protect our rights of privacy in the 21st century as well as the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, that we should not only be secure in our house and our papers, but we should be secure in our GPS data as well; that if the government seeks to find out where we have been and whom we have been with, at least it needs a warrant--our right as an American citizen protected in that privacy before having access to that information. I hope we consider this legislation as early as next year because I think we rise to our greatest potential in the Senate when we update our rights as Americans, to protect them not just in the 20th century but in the 21st century. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, I rise today to thank the Government of Kenya and its President Kibaki for the difficult decision he and his government have made with regard to Somalia. We all recall Somalia as the site of the Black Hawk Down tragedy in 1993. As much as Americans might wish to ignore that troubled country, I do not think we can. Somalia is a country whose government collapsed in 1991 but has now given rise to what is arguably the second largest terror presence on planet Earth, called al-Shabaab. The country also represents a new 21st-century threat of piracy across America's Persian Gulf oil supply lines. On October 16, at the invitation of the Somali Transitional Federal Government, the Kenyan Government launched Operation Protect the Country against the al-Shabaab terrorist organization based in Somalia. We all recall that al-Shabaab is an al-Qaida affiliate that has been designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the United States since 2008. It is responsible for multiple attacks in Somalia, Kenya, and Uganda, including a suicide bombing in July 2010 in Kampala that killed 76 people, including an American citizen, 25-year-old Nate Henn of North Carolina who worked for the Invisible Children nonprofit organization. Also, on October 25, al-Shabaab kidnapped and is still holding another American citizen, 32-year-old Jessica Buchanan of Virginia. About 4,000 Kenyan troops are now approaching the critical Somali port city of Kismayo where al-Shabaab makes most of its money and is headquartered. The success of the Kenyan operation would mean a significant weakening of al-Shabaab's ability to plan and execute terrorist attacks and would greatly support the security of the region and the United States. Also joining in the fight against al-Shabaab are prominent local tribal militias, including the Ahlu Sunnah Waljamaah, the ASWJ; the Raas Kaambooni Front; and the Jubaland militia formed under the former TFG defense minister, Mohamed Abdi Mohamed. I commend the Kenyan Government and the allied groups for their action, and the United States and NATO should support this Kenyan action. Al-Shabaab poses a significant threat to America's national security and to Kenya's safety. Since 2009, al-Shabaab has conducted at least 10 attacks on Kenyan soil and the territorial seas along her coastline. In a particularly heinous crime, on October 1, al-Shabaab kidnapped a disabled French woman on Kenyan soil and dragged her to Somalia, where she later died. Last week, al-Shabaab militants also threw a grenade into a Nairobi nightclub. Because of al-Shabaab's refusal to allow access for humanitarian organizations to relieve famine, Kenya is also now home to 600,000 Somali refugees. In many ways, the famine and distress that is now evident in Somalia should be called the al-Shabaab famine. Al-Shabaab also poses a direct threat to the United States by actively radicalizing and recruiting American citizens. On October 29, a suicide bomber attacked an African Union base in Mogadishu, killing himself and 10 other human beings. The suspect, Abdisalan Hussein Ali, was a 22-year-old American citizen who grew up in Minneapolis and studied to be a doctor before he suddenly disappeared to join al-Shabaab in 2008. The recording he allegedly made before his death contained a disturbing message aimed at young Americans. He said: Today, jihad is what is most important. It's not important that you become a doctor, or some sort of engineer. According to the FBI, Ali was one of 30 American citizens who have now joined al-Shabaab. In August of 2010, the FBI arrested 2 and charged 12 more individuals in Minnesota, Alabama, and California ``with acts of terrorism that include providing money, personnel, and other material support to the Somali-based terrorist organization al Shabaab.'' At the time, Attorney General Eric Holder called it ``a deadly pipeline that has routed funding and fighters to al Shabaab from cities across the United States.'' On July 27, an investigation by the House Committee on Homeland Security found the following: Al-Shabaab has an active recruitment and radicalization network inside the U.S. targeting Muslim-Americans in Somali communities. It also ensnared a few non-Somali Muslim- American converts, such as a top Shabaab commander: At least 40 or more Americans-- According to the House-- have joined Shabaab; So many Americans have joined that at least 15 of them have been killed fighting with Shabaab, as well as three Canadians; Three Americans who returned to the U.S. were prosecuted, and one awaits extradition from The Netherlands; At least 21 or more American Shabaab members overseas remain unaccounted for and pose a direct threat to the U.S. homeland. The House said: Al-Shabaab has the intent and capability to conduct attacks or aid core Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen with striking U.S. interests and the U.S. homeland. They said that al-Shabaab has openly pledged loyalty and support to al-Qaida and al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen and has cemented an alarming set of operational ties to both groups. The House report also points out that after the successful U.S. operation to kill Osama bin Laden, al-Shabaab's leadership eulogized bin Laden and vowed revenge against the United States. Omar Hammami, another al-Shabaab leader raised in the United States, said he ``swore [a] blood revenge against his own homeland for the May 1 killing of Osama Bin Laden.'' Al-Shabaab poses a grave threat to regional stability and to our own national security. I thank the Kenyan Government and their allies in Somalia for taking action. Our administration and our NATO allies should support Kenya. We should also make sure that in this support we have the objective to collapse al-Shabaab in Somalia. With luck, while al-Shabaab may have found a recruit or two among American citizens to wage jihad against their own country, there, hopefully, will be no al- Shabaab to fight for if they ever reach Somalia. Mr. President, I yield back.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 3 minutes.

Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, we all saw the news, yet to be confirmed, that General Qadhafi is dead. This is a victory for our men and women in uniform, for the United States, for the administration, but, most importantly, for the people of Libya. Senators McCain, Graham, Rubio, and I had the privilege 20 days ago of traveling to Tripoli. I was quite surprised at what I saw. Considering other war zones, Tripoli did not appear to be one of them. The rebels took the capital largely intact. Only the Qadhafi compound was blown away. There was anti-Qadhafi graffiti--obviously spontaneous--everywhere, and some of the most popular people in the city were U.S. citizens. While many people in Libya do not fully know the position of Senator McCain, they knew he was an American leader. Throughout our visit, they came out to thank him for the aircraft they saw overhead that they felt equalized the battle between them and their government, between the professional army of Muammar Qadhafi, the people of Misrata, the people of Tripoli, and the people of Benghazi. We have the makings of a very pro-U.S. ally. Millions of Libyans right now are very thankful for the United States. They feel the aircraft overhead that equalized this battle were almost all American. In reality, many of those aircraft were British and French from our NATO allies. But because of that pro-American feeling, the new government there is likely to be overwhelmingly pro-American. As we look to a now-secure post-Qadhafi environment, we have to make several points. First, when we were there, leaders were obviously afraid that as long as he lived, Qadhafi could make a comeback. That now no longer looks possible at all. Second, to head off Islamists who may try to form a party, Prime Minister Jibril wanted to call for early elections. We should help him call early elections because right now the rebel TNC government is overwhelmingly popular and would be elected. Next, we have to unify military authority with the new rebel government. We were briefed that there are 28 separate militias in Tripoli. We should unify military command under them to make sure any sectarian violence does not break out with the victory that has come at hand. Libya is a unique country that does not need foreign assistance from the United States. We have seized 34 billion of their dollars and over $100 billion in a seized account worldwide. They need assistance. They need medical backup, training for their army, support for their elections, but they can pay for it. One thing they asked of us that we should provide is a hospital ship. USNS Comfort should be allowed to go to Libya to care for those who were wounded in this battle. We were told 25,000 citizens of Libya died in this revolution and 60,000 were wounded. The United States should help care for them, and the Libyan Government should reimburse us for that effort. When we look to the future, we also have a couple of key challenges. We were briefed that Qadhafi's chemical weapons stockpile was secure, and I think it is, but we need to keep it that way. We were also briefed that the arsenals of Libya were looted, including thousands of handheld surface-to-air missiles. It should be a top priority of the United States to buy or gain custody of those missiles again before they become a threat to civil aircraft around the world. In the end, as I said, this is a victory for the administration, for the men and women of the U.S. military, but especially for the people of Libya. If we take the steps I just outlined--security for the chemical weapons arsenal, recovery of the surface-to-air missiles, support for early elections, and medical care with the provision of a U.S. hospital ship--I think we will lock in the winning of a new, very pro-U.S. ally in the Middle East. With that, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the bi-partisan International Travelers Bill of Rights of 2011 with my colleagues Senators Scott Brown, Ben Cardin, and John Kerry. It is critical that consumers are able to make fully informed decisions, especially with regard to health and safety, as more Americans use the Internet to book overseas travel. This effort is on behalf of my constituent, Nancy Midlock of Shorewood, Illinois, whose family suffered a great tragedy when her 8- year old son, Brent, drowned in a hotel pool, while on vacation in Mexico. If Ms. Midlock had been aware that this particular hotel did not offer adequate emergency care, perhaps she would have chosen to stay at another location where such services were offered. Because of this, I feel strongly that websites must do their best to make sure travelers are aware of the available onsite health and safety services before they book. If a hotel can provide details about their fitness center, golf courses, and high speed Internet, it can certainly indicate if there is a lifeguard on duty. This bipartisan legislation requires website operators to display the available health and safety information of their overseas destinations. This includes Department of State travel warnings, the availability of a nurse or physician on the premises, and the presence of a lifeguard on duty. Additionally, the Department of State is required to update the record of Deaths of US Citizens Aboard by Non-Natural Causes on a monthly basis with increased granularity. Finally, several provisions will ensure that the travel industry is not burdened with impractical regulations. Website operators will have one year to request and display the necessary information, if available, and are protected from unfair lawsuits. Online travel websites provide an important service to many of us, and I look forward to working with them on behalf of all Americans. This bill is an important first step to ensure Americans are informed, prepared, and ultimately more aware, global travelers. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. With regard to our policy toward Iran and the recent revelation of a potential attack involving not just foreign embassies and ambassadors but Americans, potentially Senators, being killed by a plot hatched by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and Quds Force, there should be consequences, not just concerns expressed from the administration. We have witnessed a growing aggressiveness by the Iranian regime toward the United States and toward their own people. For example, recently, an Iranian actress who appeared uncovered in an Australian film was then sentenced to 90 lashes for her so-called crime. With regard to the 330,000 Baha'is, a religious minority in Iran, first they were excluded from all public contracting, then they were told all their children had to leave Iranian universities, and then all their home addresses were registered in secret by the Iranian Interior Ministry. I would suggest we have seen this movie before in a different decade wearing different uniforms. But this is the bureaucracy necessary to carry out a Kristallnacht in Farsi. We have seen, for example, the Persian world's first blogger, Hossein Ronaghi, who was thrown into jail simply for expressing tolerance toward other peoples and other religions. Probably most emblematic, we saw the jailing of Nasrin Sotoudeh, a young mother and a lawyer, whose sole crime was to represent Shirin Ebadi, a Noble Prize winner, in the courts of Iran. We hear and have watched unclassified reports of an acceleration of uranium enrichment in Iran. We even have the irony, according to the International Monetary Fund, that despite comprehensive U.N. and U.S. sanctions--according to the IMF--Iran had greater economic growth last year than the United States and the Iranian indebtedness is only a fraction of U.S. indebtedness. According to the IMF, the United States owes about 70 percent of its GDP in debt held by the public. For Iran, it is only 5.5 percent. Now the United States has enacted a new round of sanctions against Iran. President Obama signed it into law last year. There were 410 votes in the House, and it was unanimous in the Senate. I worked for many years on a predecessor to that legislation when I was a Member of the House. The record of the administration, and especially our very able Under Secretary of the Treasury David Cohen, has been very good at implementing that bill. He has been very successful in reducing formal banking contacts between American, European and Asian banks and Iran. It is very important, when we look at the situation of how to deal with Iran, that we not see it from Washington's view, looking toward Iran, in which we see an awful lot of banks and an awful lot of transactions shut down, but look at it from Tehran's view, looking back from the United States, and we will see a quickly growing Iranian economy, a growing record of brazen oppression, actresses sentenced to 90 lashes, Noble Prize-winning attorneys thrown in jail, an accelerating nuclear program, and then a decision by the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, Quds Force, to attack the United States. Long ago, I thought it was a mistake to have the Drug Enforcement Agency left outside of the U.S. intelligence community. Luckily, we reversed that decision and we brought DEA back into the intelligence community. It was a lucky strike that the person who was contacted by the Quds Force to carry out an attack on the United States actually contacted a confidential informant working for the DEA. It was on that lucky break that we had the ability to break this plot. But if we read Attorney General Holder's complaint against the defendant involved, we will see--I believe it is on page 12--a rendition of how, if they could not kill the Ambassador outside the restaurant, it was perfectly OK with the Quds Force operator that a bomb go off involving dozens--if not over 100--of Americans killed. The bonus, he thought, maybe a large number of Senators would be involved. If that was necessary to kill this Ambassador, all the better. The Treasury Department has designated, finally, the head of the Quds Force under our law. But it is ironic that when we look at the comprehensive record of designations, the Europeans, who actually are not known for their strong-willed backbone on many international questions, have a more far-reaching effect on calling it the way they see it in Iran. Both Europe and America now have a regime to bring forward sanctions and designations against Iranians who are ``comprehensive abusers of human rights.'' Currently, our government has only designated 11 Iranians, where the European Union has designated over 60. One of the people missed by our administration is the President of Iran, Mahmud Ahmadinejad, who often talks about ending the state of Israel. Probably the only head of state of a member of the United Nations who regularly talks about erasing another member of the United Nations from the planet. We also have not designated President Ahmadinejad's chief of staff. We have not designated dozens of people that even the European Union has designated as comprehensive abusers of human rights. So what should we do when we have uncovered a plot to attack the United States in which the highest levels of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Quds Force was involved? Thank goodness for the DEA and the rest of the law enforcement and intelligence community of the United States, the plot was foiled, and so no attack was carried out. In my mind, we should take the toughest action possible, short of military action. Is there consensus in the Congress behind what that action should be? I would argue yes. Senator Schumer and I, this summer, put forward what we feel is one of the real, most crippling sanctions the United States could deliver against Iran; that is, to ensure that any financial institution that has any contact with the Central Bank of Iran be excluded from the U.S. market. Because the United States is the largest economy on Earth, we believe nearly every financial institution on the planet will cut its ties to the Central Bank of Iran. That, most likely, would cripple Iran's currency and cause chaos within their economy. You know what. Iran might actually suffer a recession, which it currently is not in, and I think that would be an appropriate price to pay. When Senator Schumer and I reached out to the Senate to ask for support, I was very surprised at the answer because all but eight Senators signed our letter. There were 92 Republicans and Democrats who signed the letter stating it should be the policy of the United States to collapse the Central Bank of Iran, to cripple its currency. After what we learned this week of a plot to kill Americans and to carry out terrorist attacks on the Capital City of the United States, I think that represents appropriate consequences, not just concerns. We heard from the administration this morning--and while I was encouraged by the diligent work, especially of the Treasury Department, I was concerned about another thing. There are press reports that the administration learned about this plot in June and only revealed it to us the day before yesterday. So the administration has had months to understand what this plot meant and plan for the consequences. Yet except for minor actions against a small airline in Iran called Mahan Air, except for actually finally designating the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards' Quds Force, we have no comprehensive action by the United States. My recommendation to this House and to the administration is we should take yes for an answer. With 92 Republicans and Democrats all standing behind an effort to collapse the Central Bank of Iran, this is the appropriate sanction. On top of that, we have the Menendez bipartisan legislation to close loopholes in the sanctions already cosponsored by 76 Senators. This is a tough time of partisanship in Washington. We don't get bipartisan issues such as this that often. I am surprised, it having known about this plot since June, the administration has not already put forward action, but I would urge them to do so. This was not a multilateral attack by a collection of countries on the United States; therefore, I don't think we should wait for multilateral approval before the United States acts against the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and the highest levels of the Iranian Government. We should designate the full list of comprehensive abusers of human rights the way the EU has done. We should exclude any financial institution from the United States that does business with the Central Bank of Iran. We should make sure that in the case of high- level Iranian officials who have plotted an attack, potentially involving dozens of American deaths right here in the Capital City of the United States, there should be severe consequences, they should be fairly swift, and our inaction should not be mistaken for weakness in the face of what is one of the most brazen international acts we have seen in recent times. I yield the floor.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, I rise in support of the three free-trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea that will be before us shortly here in the Senate. Few States need these agreements more than the State of Illinois. This week, I released a report on the State of Illinois's debt. We now have the worst credit rating in America. Our State has fallen to 47th for a healthy business climate, with only half of the State's pension and health care promises actually funded. Instead of continuing our State's debt spiral, these agreements will help the bottom line of Illinois exporting employers who hopefully will create thousands of new jobs without adding to the borrowing of our State or any new taxes. Since 1997, Illinois exports to Colombia have increased by 164 percent, and exports to Panama have increased by 196 percent. Collectively, the three nations represented more than $1 billion worth of Illinois export sales in 2010. We will see the benefits of these agreements across a wide spectrum of jobs--from high-tech companies to manufacturers to farmers. Illinois-based Caterpillar, in Peoria, which in 2010 exported $13 billion worth of products to other countries, will see tariffs reduced by hundreds of thousands of dollars on goods through these free-trade agreements. The Panama Canal expansion project alone represents a $300 million opportunity for Caterpillar. The trade deals are particularly important for Illinois-based Navistar, which has one of the best named truck brands in Colombia and Panama. Illinois agriculture also reaps a windfall from the pending free- trade agreements. Trade deals are expected to create about $2.5 billion in new agricultural exports and over 22,000 jobs nationwide. Expanding export markets for Illinois farmers and the increased demand for agricultural products and equipment manufactured in Illinois will allow employers such as ADM in Decatur, John Deere in Moline, and, as I mentioned, Caterpillar in Peoria to reinvest in their companies and to hire more citizens of our State. Illinois farmers and ranchers are expected to see about $90 million in increased direct exports as a result of the Senate's approval of these trade deals. These deals represent the direction the Senate should take overall on job creation--no tax increase, no borrowing, but opening new markets for American-made products. I think next the Congress should build on this bipartisan job- creating vote and move to reduce regulatory burdens on small businesses and reform the Tax Code so U.S. businesses can better compete globally. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, I want to talk briefly about the breaking news today that the Justice Department and Attorney General Eric Holder announced that a plan was conceived, sponsored, and directed from Iran to conduct bombings in Washington, DC, and potentially also in Buenos Aires, Argentina. This is from a government that Secretary of State Clinton designated as a state sponsor of terror. It is what I would think of as a very audacious, forward-leaning plan to attack the United States, its people, and foreign embassies in the Nation's capital. Tomorrow, in the Senate Banking Committee, we will meet with our Under Secretary of the Treasury, a very able man named David Cohen. I urge the administration to look at what is the most effective sanction currently pending on our docket against the terrorists in Iran. Earlier this year, we had 92 Senators--just about the entire Senate-- sign a letter to the President calling for the Treasury Department to execute a strategy to collapse the Central Bank of Iran. These are the pay masters of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and the intelligence service of Iran--the MOIS--that appear to be involved in the plot that the Attorney General revealed today. It is that action--to cut the Central Bank of Iran off from the central payment backbone of the Federal Reserve; obviously, to do it in cooperation with Saudi and Israeli officials, and given indications from London, from Paris, and from Berlin, probable action by our NATO allies as well--to cripple Iran's currency, to make sure what is called Bank Markazi has no access to the payment mechanisms of the West that will lead to a collapse of its currency. I applaud David Cohen for designating at least five individuals as sponsors of terror who were part of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard's force--Quds Force--but I think this doesn't go far enough. With the Attorney General of the United States directly blaming the Government of Iran for this bomb plot against targets in the capital city of the United States, it is clear, with overwhelming bipartisan support and 92 Senators behind the effort to collapse the Central Bank of Iran, that would be an effective nonmilitary way to address what is clearly an utterly irresponsible and largely out of control IRGC and MOIS, who were seeking to attack American targets. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, I would like to take this time to talk on the pending legislation with regard to China. In these times of deficit and debt, I think we should not launch a trade war with China. We are here because we borrowed too much. We have a spending habit that has weakened our economy. That spending habit was aided by China, but we can only blame ourselves for much of the economic weakness the United States now faces. A trade war with China would put in jeopardy a number of jobs from my State of Illinois. Illinois exports to China in 2000 totaled about $533 million. Roughly 2,500 people received their employment by virtue of sales to China 10 years ago. Today, exports to China total about $3.18 billion. The number of people employed by sales to China has grown from around 2,500 jobs to 15,000. In a State with a higher than average unemployment, where unemployment is growing faster than almost any other region of the country, I do not think we should put these jobs at risk with an unnecessary trade war with China. When we look at Illinois very directly, we see a major Peoria employer like Caterpillar, whose sales to China last year totaled about $3.2 billion roughly related to about 10,000 jobs in the direct and contractor and subcontractor area for sales to China. With Motorola, based in Schaumburg, sales totaled about $2 billion directly to China, impacting about 7,000 jobs. For Boeing, headquartered in Illinois, sales to China totaled about $3 billion--around 10,000 jobs directly related to sales into the Chinese market. This bill would seek to blame all of our economic ills on a power overseas despite so much of the weaknesses related to our own overregulation, a flawed health care bill, and too many taxes that are causing small employers--the engine of employment in our country--to hold back on hiring an American full time. I believe this bill places the blame in the wrong place and diverts the needed attention of the Senate from where it should be placed in fixing our economy. For 10 years, I served in the House of Representatives. In 2005, during that rendition of anti-Chinese legislation, I decided to form a bipartisan caucus, the China Working Group, with Democratic Representative Rick Larsen of Washington. We decided to bring together the three warring China tribes of the House of Representatives. That would be the panda huggers, a very small number of Members; the dragon slayers, a very large number of Members, especially on my side; and the panda slayers, who are growing in number, who dislike almost anything related to China. We welcomed everyone to discuss China because of its growing role in the world because, according to one of our leading banks, China could be the largest economy on Earth, replacing a status that the United States had until our policy was misplaced and that we have had since around the 1870s. Should we trigger a trade war with the coming largest economy on Earth? I would say we should not. In the 21st century, China can be the source of the greatest ill or greatest good for the United States, depending on how we manage this relationship. One of the key audiences I listened to, as chairman of the China Working Group, with Congressman Larsen, was Americans who actually sold American-manufactured goods in China. Oftentimes, we would ask: Is your No. 1 concern with regard to selling more goods in China related to the currency? Overwhelmingly, they would say it was not their No. 1 concern. Their No. 1 concern instead was the comprehensive theft of intellectual property by Chinese entities from U.S. patent holders. This is most clearly evidenced in the Hollywood DVD industry but also elsewhere. When you look at this issue in a serious way, you find currency is not the No. 1 issue, although I admit it polls rather well. But our job is to actually add employment to the United States, and one of the key audiences we should listen to is people who sell U.S. goods in China. If you delve into the intellectual property issue and the comprehensive theft of intellectual property, you will find that China has some fairly reputable intellectual property laws, but they are not enforced. A common thing you hear about China is a phrase that is often used in the Chinese language. It goes something like this: The mountains are very high and the Emperor is far away, meaning despite laws that may be on the books in Beijing, they are not enforced in the provinces where so much theft of intellectual property happens. I would argue that a bipartisan agenda that would add to jobs and strengthen our relation with China would be a greater enforcement of intellectual property laws between the United States and China. There, we would actually have allies, such as the man who is most likely to become President of China, Xi Jinping, who wants China to be a strong innovator, and he knows China cannot be an innovative nation if it represents a comprehensive theft of intellectual property worldwide. He knows China's intellectual property law has to be actually enforced in the provinces if they are to have technological development. His interests are actually in line with the interests of U.S. exporters, and here we could have a very productive dialog which actually stops the theft of intellectual property in China and enhances the export potential of Americans. I worry that we are diverting the time of the Senate from the big game, which is the joint committee and its work on reducing the deficit. I have heard that the President of the United States has called Senators, asking that this bill not come up. When you look at the prospects for this legislation in the House, you will learn the prospects for this legislation are dim at best. What should we do rather than trigger a trade war with a country that is about to be the largest economy on Earth? What should we do rather than trigger job losses at Caterpillar and Motorola and Boeing, at Schaumburg and Peoria and in Chicagoland? I think instead we should focus the Senate legislation on passing the Gang of 6 legislation that would reduce the net borrowing of the United States by $4 trillion. We should adopt the Collins moratorium on job-killing regulations costing over $100 million to reassure the engine of our job economy--small businesses--that they should go ahead and begin to hire Americans again. We should do the big idea that is in the bipartisan deficit commission report of tax reform, wiping out all special interest tax provisions and then using the money, A, to lower the deficit and, B, to lower the top rate from 39 percent to 29 percent. We should also rapidly pass, as has now been proposed, the Panama and Colombia and South Korea Free Trade Agreements that open new markets for the United States. Particularly in the case of Colombia, the markets would be opened for Illinois corn growers. For South Korea, I think it would end the beef impasse we have had and also open high-technology aviation markets for the United States. When I talk about the Gang of 6, when I talk about the Collins amendment, when I talk about tax reform, when I talk about free-trade agreements--these are all positive agreements on which large numbers of Democrats and Republicans in the Senate can agree and which would pass the House of Representatives, rather than the underlying legislation which the President of the United States has indicated he would rather not come up, which has a dismal future in the House of Representatives, and which directly puts at risk any job subject to Chinese retaliation from this legislation. I also note that when you read the basic text of this legislation, it is not serious because it has a big waiver in it. Even if it made it to the President's desk, given his calls to legislators on this issue, there is no doubt in my mind that the President would execute the waivers in this legislation. So what are we doing? We are probably advancing a well and poll- tested piece of legislation in the Senate. I imagine some people would want to take advantage of that dialog. But have we made it into enacted law? Overwhelmingly, likely no. Are we actually going to take any legitimate action? Even by the terms of the legislation and its waiver, it would be exercised by the chief executive officer of the United States, and therefore no action would be taken. But we would open the very people whom we want to crawl this economy out of recession--U.S. exporters--to vulnerabilities for retaliation by the Chinese. Sometimes you have to think about the basic principle of medicine when you look at legislation; that is, first, do no harm. As Europe crumbles in a wave of outdated and out-of-gas socialism, threatening our economy, as we teeter on the edge of a new recession because of too many regulations--10 new taxes in the health care bill-- and an uncertain political future for deficit reduction under the bipartisan joint committee, ladling onto that--and our markets and the future of our retirement savings--a trade war with the second largest economy on Earth would be unwise at best and put the jobs of many Americans at risk at worst. That is why I oppose this legislation. That is why, regardless of the action in the Senate, I do not think it is going anywhere in the House. Certainly, given the action and calls of the President to certain legislators, it doesn't appear to have any real future in enforcement if it ever even did make its way to the White House. With that, I yield the floor.