Barack Obama

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise to extend my welcome to Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda of Japan, who is visiting Washington today. Japan is a critical ally and friend of the United States. I believe our alliance is fundamental to a peaceful and prosperous Asia-Pacific region. The Prime Minister's visit comes at an important time. It is crucial that our two countries maintain the positive momentum in our relationship and work closely together to accomplish shared goals, such as denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, stability in South Asia, nonproliferation in Iran, and political reform in Burma. As a long- standing ally, we must consult closely and respect Japan's perspectives, even as we contemplate next steps in our negotiations with nations like North Korea. Thousands of miles away from the Korean peninsula, we face the resurgence of the Taliban and al-Qaida in Afghanistan and in the border regions of Pakistan. We are all too familiar with the reports that suggest the Taliban and al-Qaida are gaining strength. We were reminded of this fact in an unsettling report in Tuesday's Washington Post, but the most troubling report of all was last July, when the declassified National Intelligence Estimate warned of a persistent and growing threat from a reconstituted al-Qaida sanctuary in northwest Pakistan. It is therefore critical that the U.S. and its partners in the international community, including Japan, maintain our focus and operations in this region. In particular, I wanted to extend to the Prime Minister my appreciation for the support that Japan's Self Defense Forces have offered U.S. operations in Afghanistan, and hope Japan's deployment of refueling tankers will quickly be reauthorized and be extended. Our half century alliance with Japan remains vital, based on common values and shared interests. There is ample room for improved efforts to forge an even stronger and enduring global security partnership. I hope that Prime Minister Fukuda's visit will continue the progress toward that goal.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the confirmation of Robert M. Dow, Jr. to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. I am very pleased that this nomination has continued the bipartisan approach to filling judgeships in the Federal district courts--an approach that has served Illinois well. Mr. Dow has an impressive record of professional achievement and an admirable commitment to public service. He has demonstrated fairness, decency, integrity, and a strong personal character that I expect will benefit the people of Illinois and all those with cases before the Northern District. Most recently, Mr. Dow was a partner at the Chicago law firm of Mayer Brown. He earned his B.A. from Yale University where he graduated Phi Beta Kappa in 1987, and his J.D. from Harvard Law School, where he graduated cum laude in 1993. Mr. Dow was also a Rhodes Scholar who received degrees in international relations from Oxford University. Mr. Dow has also distinguished himself in his professional career, where he has received a number of honors and accolades. Mr. Dow has been named a ``leading lawyer'' 5 years in a row by Chambers USA Guide to America's Leading Business Lawyers. He has been listed the past 2 years as an Illinois Super Lawyer in appellate law, and by the Best Lawyers in America in communications law. Mr. Dow also received an award for excellence in undergraduate teaching when he served as a teaching fellow at Harvard University. Importantly, Mr. Dow has also been an engaged member of the Chicago community. In 2003, he served as a fellow for Leadership Greater Chicago, which stresses the development of community awareness and partnerships among leaders in the city. He is also an active member in a number of legal and academic associations as well as in his church. Finally, Mr. Dow has a track record of personal commitment to pro bono service. Early in his career, he provided aid and advice to nonprofit organizations and a local court. Over the years, Mr. Dow has volunteered hundreds of hours to pro bono service, and continues to do so. He recently earned his firm's annual pro bono award. This kind of public service is essential to our legal system. When legal professionals provide voluntary expert legal counsel to those who cannot afford it, it shores up the integrity of our Nation's justice system. It is good news for Illinois that Robert Dow will be joining the district court. I thank him in advance for his service and congratulate him on his confirmation today.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, today President Bush is scheduled to meet with Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni. These heads of state have met before, but today's meeting comes at a pivotal time in Uganda's history. After more than 20 years of conflict in northern Uganda in which well over a million people have been displaced and tens of thousands of children abducted and terrorized, peace appears to be within reach. Talks between the Government of Uganda and the Lord's Resistance Army, LRA, have led to genuine improvements on the ground. However, there is still much more work to be done to ensure a lasting peace. The United States must become a more active peace partner with Uganda as it negotiates with the Lord's Resistance Army. The constructive mediation efforts of U.N. Special Envoy and former Mozambican President Joaquim Chissano deserve sustained, high-level U.S. diplomatic support. Two issues will be particularly difficult. First, Ugandans themselves will have to balance the imperative to make peace with the clear need to hold accountable those responsible for the horrifying abuses of the past. Second, leaders need to keep a spotlight on the vast development needs of the traumatized north. Paper plans and grand announcements will not be enough--the Government of Uganda must be committed to the north's development, and the donor community, including the United States, must be prepared to offer real resources to help. Sadly, as negotiations to end the threat posed by the LRA continue, a different source of instability--- that of lawless militias in Karamoja, and the Ugandan military's often counter-productive, abusive response to them has prevented a more complete consolidation of security in the country. The Ugandan people can never achieve their full potential when they feel targeted by both their own military and marauding criminals. This visit to the White House follows by days a meeting between President Bush and President Kabila of the Democratic Republic of Congo. I hope President Bush uses both meetings to reassert U.S. support for regional dialogue and stabilization efforts. Uganda has an important part to play in ongoing efforts to bring lasting stability to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, particularly through participation in the Tripartite Plus mechanism. The U.S. should continue to foster dialogue through that process. Uganda is a major contributor to the African Union's peacekeeping efforts in Somalia. But the undermanned AU peacekeeping contingent cannot succeed in the absence of a broader political and economic strategy to stabilize Somalia. Right now, the Ugandan peacekeepers are in the hot seat, and the rest of the world is failing to advance the peace process and deliver the support that they need. The United States has a responsibility to lead effectively on this issue. I hope that the two Presidents have a frank discussion about what needs to be done to advance peace in Somalia. Of course, Uganda is deservedly admired around the world for its early efforts to speak frankly and act effectively to fight HIV/AIDS, and I have no doubt that the ongoing fight against the pandemic as well as global efforts to combat malaria will be on the agenda for President Museveni's meeting. Recent reports have found that a disturbingly high percentage of Uganda's young people do not have accurate information about AIDS and about how to protect themselves. Because of its renown, Uganda has a special leadership role to play in this struggle. Frank talk is needed today more than ever. Finally, I hope that President Bush will convey to President Museveni the sincere sympathies of the people of the United States for those affected by the recent severe floods in Uganda. As Americans cope with the terrible wildfires in California, we are all especially sensitive to the devastating human consequences of natural disasters wherever they occur.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, today, President Bush is meeting with President Joseph Kabila of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, DRC. This meeting is very important. The DRC symbolizes the hope that so many Africans have for the future of their continent. The country is also emblematic of so many of the challenges facing Africa. Stabilizing the DRC and fostering democracy are high priorities for American objectives in Africa. Given the country's size, efforts at political and economic reform, and wealth of natural resources, it is imperative that we support the Congolese Government to end more than a decade of warfare and several decades of unaccountable and nontransparent government. For this reason, I attached an amendment to the 2006 Iraq supplemental appropriations bill, together with Senator Leahy, that provided $13.2 million to the Congo, including $8.2 million for military reform and $5 million to support free and fair elections. In December 2006, the Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act passed into law. I was proud to have introduced this legislation, which authorized $52 million in U.S. assistance for the Congo, called for a special envoy to resolve ongoing violence, and urged the administration to strengthen the U.N. peacekeeping force. Unfortunately, the administration has ignored the call by Congress to appoint a special envoy, and it has done little to strengthen the U.N. peacekeeping force which is working to stabilize the eastern part of the Congo. Over the past several months, there have been reports of the mobilization of military forces in the eastern Congo. These reports are deeply disturbing. It is my hope that all Congolese leaders will recommit themselves to the search for peace in this part of the country. The pursuit of military solutions in the eastern part of the country will inevitably prove elusive and will only yield more bloodshed and misery for the civilian population. The seriousness of the situation in eastern Congo was recently highlighted by a devastating report about the escalation of sexual violence against women in the region. For this reason, I wrote a letter to Secretary of State Rice earlier this month to express concern about the escalation of sexual violence in eastern DRC. Specifically, I asked the Secretary to respond to nine questions concerning steps that the administration is taking to help end the sexual violence and make the perpetrators accountable. To date, I have not received a reply to my letter. For the DRC's transition to democratic governance to be successful, the U.S. and its partners will have to intensify their commitment to work with the Congolese Government to enhance security, resolve conflicts, and spur the country's social and economic reconstruction. Despite the success of last year's elections, the first in 40 years, the international community must be actively engaged in the country for the foreseeable future not only to bring an end to the conflict in the east but to assist in the emergence of institutions that will ensure accountability and economic development. It is a sobering fact that nearly 80 percent of the country's 56 million people live in absolute poverty and more than 70 percent are undernourished. At the same time, the Kabila government must be encouraged to adopt inclusive and transparent political processes, involving opposition parties and civil society organizations. Moreover, I welcome the return of American investors to the DRC, to help develop and add value to the country's natural resources. It is imperative, however, that American businesses, as well as investors from every other country, especially China, commit to a zero tolerance for corruption while implementing effective measures to preserve the nation's environment.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. I commend the chairman and ranking member on their work and congratulate them on passage of this bill. We all agree that every child with lead poisoning is a preventable and needless tragedy, and I look forward to working with both of them to identify additional funds for the CLPPP during conference. public charter school funding

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I wish to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin. I appreciate his efforts, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, on the appropriations bill before us today. I commend his continual efforts over the years to expand educational opportunities and to provide adequate funding and resources for all students. The most important resource a school can offer is good teaching, which necessitates bringing more quality teachers into our classrooms, and making certain that when we recruit and prepare good teachers, we do so in a way that best ensures their success. This means providing them adequate preparation and ongoing support, especially in those pivotal first years in the classroom. And so, I am grateful for the work of Senator Harkin in our collaborative and bipartisan efforts on the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, to strengthen provisions to realign the teacher enhancement partnership grants in the Higher Education Amendments with what we know works best in preparing teachers. We must recruit the best talents to become teachers, and we must work to provide adequate preparation and support, so that when talented individuals become teachers, they are successful and want to stay in the classroom. Research shows that new teachers are often less effective than teachers with even a few years of experience. But recent experience also shows that good preparation programs can accelerate the rate at which novice teachers become effective. We must help new teachers get the preparation and mentoring they need. Teacher preparation too seldom provides the opportunity to learn under the guidance of expert mentors working in schools that effectively serve high-need students. Most new teachers lack this type of support, and so leave the profession before they experience the rewards of the profession. One effective way to provide such preparation is through teaching residency programs, which are established in partnerships among colleges or universities, school districts, and other community partners. It is essential that we provide support for such partnerships. Even as colleges realize the effectiveness of mentoring and induction in preparing teachers, and in working with high-needs school districts to tailor programs to prepare prospective teachers for the challenges they will face, it is regrettable that the President proposed eliminating support for the partnership grants that fund these needed and innovative approaches. I commend the Senator from Iowa for working to safeguard funding at $28.5 million, a level that ensures at least that current partnership grants can continue. But this level of funding is less than half of what was available last year, and $11.5 million below what our colleagues in the House proposed. It is clearly inadequate for encouraging the types of partnerships, such as residencies, that are developing at several sites across the country. So I hope the Senator from Iowa can continue his efforts to make sure that teachers get the training they need, and can meet the funding level proposed by our colleagues in the House.

Mr. OBAMA. I commend the work of the Senator from Iowa, and the Senator from Pennsylvania, in working to ensure that funding for education continues to be a priority. I look forward to continuing to work with them on this important issue. Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I wish to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished chairman from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, and ranking member Mr. Specter from Pennsylvania. I appreciate their continued efforts to ensure fair allocation of funding for the health programs outlined in the bill before us. I also understand the difficulties in making these determinations. However, the recent recalls of child products have highlighted the continued threat of lead poisoning to children, and I believe that child lead poisoning prevention activities at the Centers for Disease Control would benefit dramatically from increased funding. Lead is highly toxic, especially to young children. It can harm a child's brain, kidneys, bone marrow, and other organs. At high levels, lead can cause coma, convulsions, and death. The National Academy of Sciences has reported that comparatively low levels of lead exposure are harmful. Even low levels of lead found in blood of infants, children, and pregnant women have been associated with impaired cognitive function, behavior difficulties, fetal organ development, and other problems. In addition, low levels of lead in children's blood can cause reduced intelligence, impaired hearing and reduced stature. In the past 6 months, millions of products, primarily children's toys, have been recalled due to potentially harmful levels of lead. These sources of lead exposure are in addition to dangers of lead poisoning that already exist in the home from lead-based paints and lead plumbing. It is my belief that we should do more to support programs that target reduction of lead exposure and toxicity. Towards that end, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention through the National Center for Environmental Health has created the Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program. The CLPPP plays a major role in the Federal interagency mission to eliminate childhood lead poisoning by 2010. The efforts put forth by the CLPPP include assistance in completing and implementing a Federal strategic plan to eliminate nonessential uses of lead in consumer items and to support State and local efforts to identify and treat children exposed to lead. I thank the chairman for the increased funding this bill provides for the National Center for Environmental Health, and I hope he will work in conference to provide an increase for the CLPPP.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, the recent incident in which Blackwater USA reportedly killed at least 11 Iraqis and wounded several others has prompted a long overdue examination of the role that private security contractors are playing in Iraq. An article in today's Washington Post titled ``U.S. Pays Steep Price for Private Security in Iraq'' helps to highlight the exorbitant mark-up that private security contractors are reportedly charging the U.S. Government. Last week, the Senate accepted an amendment to the Defense Department authorization bill that I offered that will require Federal departments to report information to Congress on the total number of contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, the companies awarded these contracts, and the cost of the contracts. The provisions of the amendment are drawn from the Transparency and Accountability in Military and Security Contracting Act, S. 674, that I introduced in February. The American people have a right to know how their tax dollars are being spent in Iraq and the role that security contractors are playing in that conflict. We need to make sure that security contractors in Iraq are subject to adequate and transparent oversight and that their actions do not have a negative impact on our efforts to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end. I ask to have printed in the Record the text of the article from the Washington Post. The article follows. [From the Washington Post, Oct. 1, 2007] U.S. Pays Steep Price for Private Security in Iraq (By Walter Pincus) It costs the U.S. government a lot more to hire contract employees as security guards in Iraq than to use American troops. It comes down to the simple business equation of every transaction requiring a profit. The contract that Blackwater Security Consulting signed in March 2004 with Regency Hotel and Hospital of Kuwait for a 34-person security team offers a view into the private- security business world. The contract was made public last week by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee majority staff as part of its report on Blackwater's actions related to an incident in Fallujah on March 31, 2004, when four members of the company's security team were killed in an ambush. Understanding the contract's details requires some background: Regency was a subcontractor to another company, ESS Support Services Worldwide, of Cyprus, that was providing food and catering supplies to U.S. armed forces in Fallujah and other cities in Iraq. And ESS was a subcontractor to KBR, a subsidiary of Halliburton, which had the prime contract with the Defense Department. So, Blackwater was a subcontractor to Regency, which was a subcontractor to ESS, which was a subcontractor to Halliburton's KBR subsidiary, the prime contractor for the Pentagon--and each company along the way was in business to make a profit. Under the contract, Regency was to pay Blackwater $11,082,326 for one year, with a second year option, to put together a 34-person team that would provide security services for the ``movement of ESS's staff, management and workforce throughout Kuwait and Iraq and across country borders including the borders of Iraq, Kuwait, Turkey and Jordan.'' Blackwater's personnel were to do more than just convoy security. They were also to run command centers in Kuwait and Iraq 24 hours a day, seven days a week, that were to control all ESS security operations; prepare risk assessments; develop security procedures; train ESS personnel in security; and even vet other Iraqi security forces hired by Regency. But their main role was to provide ``tactically sound and fully mission capable protective security details, the minimum team size [being] six operators with a minimum of two vehicles to support ESS movements.'' Blackwater's pricing was to be on ``a per person support basis, not including costs for housing, subsistence, vehicles and large equipment items,'' according to the contract. The team would be made up of two senior managers, 12 middle managers and 20 operators. Regency was to provide Blackwater personnel with housing and necessities, including meals, as well as office space and administrative support. In addition, Regency would provide basic equipment, including vehicles and heavy weapons, while Blackwater was responsible for purchasing individual weapons and ammunition. According to data provided to the House panel, the average per-day pay to personnel Blackwater hired was $600. According to the schedule of rates, supplies and services attached to the contract, Blackwater charged Regency $1,075 a day for senior managers, $945 a day for middle managers and $815 a day for operators. Acording to data provided to the House panel, Regency charged ESS an average of $1,100 a day for the same people. How the Blackwater and Regency security charges were passed on by ESS to Halliburton's KBR cannot easily be determined since the catering company was paid on a per-meal basis, with security being a percentage of that charge. Halliburton's KBR blended its security costs into the blanket costs passed on to the Defense Department. How much more these costs are compared with the pay of U.S. troops is easier to determine. An unmarried sergeant given Iraq pay and relief from U.S. taxes makes about $83 to $85 a day, given time in service. A married sergeant with children makes about double that, $170 a day. Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Baghdad overseeing more than 160,000 U.S. troops, makes roughly $180,000 a year, or about $493 a day. That comes out to less than half the fee charged by Blackwater for its senior manager of a 34-man security team.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to provide teachers an extra tool for the important work they do. This legislation will expand an approach that is successfully improving student behavior and the climate for learning in thousands of schools across the country: Positive Behavior Supports. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Durbin and Sanders in introducing the Positive Behavior for Effective Schools Act, and I urge other colleagues to join us. Good school climate supports good teaching. Positive Behavior Supports are already being used in my home State of Illinois, where there is a network to provide assistance for schools that adopt this approach. In these schools, students are taught about positive behavior, teachers and administrators are supported in learning motivational techniques, and adults set the same high standards for student conduct as they do for student achievement. Students are helped to see the importance of behaving in a way so that they and their classmates can learn. The components necessary to do this on a school- wide basis include an agreement by the entire staff to define and support appropriate student behavior. Although this seems simple, it is often more effective than surveillance cameras, zero tolerance or other get-tough approaches to school discipline. Positive Behavior Supports programs deal with discipline problems based on one simple premise: stop problem behavior before it starts. The specifics of the program are research-based, backed by both experiment and experience. With Positive Behavior Supports, learning time increases, and students do better. It makes sense that with fewer disruptions, with less time in the principal's office, or out of school, students can focus more, and so learn more. Positive Behavior Supports are already established in many places. Universities and resource centers work with over 6,700 schools in 38 States. To help teachers teach our children, today I propose that we expand this innovative program. The Positive Behavior for Effective Schools Act amends ESEA to allow Title I funds to be used for Positive Behavior Supports, and creates an office in the Department of Education to assist in these efforts. The act provides flexibility for schools and districts to use Title I funds, so that schools and teachers can choose to receive assistance to improve school climate and thereby support teaching and opportunities for students to learn. My good friend from Illinois, Congressman Phil Hare, has introduced companion legislation in the House, and I urge my colleagues to join our effort in the Senate. Let us give our teachers an additional tool to support their teaching. Let us give our children the benefit of high expectations and supports for good behavior. Let us give our schools the opportunity to adopt this approach. Let us help our kids by supporting Positive Behavior Supports.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to provide teachers an extra tool for the important work they do. This legislation will expand an approach that is successfully improving student behavior and the climate for learning in thousands of schools across the country: Positive Behavior Supports. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Durbin and Sanders in introducing the Positive Behavior for Effective Schools Act, and I urge other colleagues to join us. Good school climate supports good teaching. Positive Behavior Supports are already being used in my home State of Illinois, where there is a network to provide assistance for schools that adopt this approach. In these schools, students are taught about positive behavior, teachers and administrators are supported in learning motivational techniques, and adults set the same high standards for student conduct as they do for student achievement. Students are helped to see the importance of behaving in a way so that they and their classmates can learn. The components necessary to do this on a school- wide basis include an agreement by the entire staff to define and support appropriate student behavior. Although this seems simple, it is often more effective than surveillance cameras, zero tolerance or other get-tough approaches to school discipline. Positive Behavior Supports programs deal with discipline problems based on one simple premise: stop problem behavior before it starts. The specifics of the program are research-based, backed by both experiment and experience. With Positive Behavior Supports, learning time increases, and students do better. It makes sense that with fewer disruptions, with less time in the principal's office, or out of school, students can focus more, and so learn more. Positive Behavior Supports are already established in many places. Universities and resource centers work with over 6,700 schools in 38 States. To help teachers teach our children, today I propose that we expand this innovative program. The Positive Behavior for Effective Schools Act amends ESEA to allow Title I funds to be used for Positive Behavior Supports, and creates an office in the Department of Education to assist in these efforts. The act provides flexibility for schools and districts to use Title I funds, so that schools and teachers can choose to receive assistance to improve school climate and thereby support teaching and opportunities for students to learn. My good friend from Illinois, Congressman Phil Hare, has introduced companion legislation in the House, and I urge my colleagues to join our effort in the Senate. Let us give our teachers an additional tool to support their teaching. Let us give our children the benefit of high expectations and supports for good behavior. Let us give our schools the opportunity to adopt this approach. Let us help our kids by supporting Positive Behavior Supports.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the United Nations General Assembly. Today, as President Bush prepares to speak before the United Nations General Assembly, we are reminded both of the great potential of American leadership to enhance global security and prosperity and, tragically, of how much ground we have lost in recent years in fulfilling that potential. That ground can only be regained with new, bold, and visionary American leadership that acknowledges past mistakes, embodies and embraces change, and unifies our country to meet the challenges of the 21st century. America has surmounted far greater hurdles before, renewing itself and leading the world towards shared security and common progress. That is the story of the founding of the United Nations. Its original architect, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, died weeks before the U.N.'s inaugural meeting in San Francisco. Roosevelt never had the opportunity to address the U.N. General Assembly, but his legacy speaks volumes. As American power reached new heights and Allied forces swept across Europe and the Pacific islands to free the world from tyranny, Roosevelt laid the foundations for a new era of collective security by creating a new institution that aimed to guarantee the peace and protect the basic rights of all human beings. Stalin's obstruction created stalemate in the United Nations, but the United States was not deterred. American presidents created new institutions, like NATO, and encouraged others, including the European Economic Community, to advance the principles and mandate of the U.N. Charter. In the decades that followed, the United States led and listened, gained by being generous, and ultimately prevailed in the struggle with totalitarianism. Today, it is fashionable in some circles to bash the United Nations. This is all too easy to do, but it is also short-sighted and self- defeating. The United Nations is, we should recall, an American creation. It is also a commonsense vehicle to share global burdens and costs. Despite its evident flaws and failings, the U.N. remains essential to advancing U.S. interests, enhancing global security, spurring development, and providing food, medicine, and life-saving assistance to the world's most needy every day. The U.N.'s work in development addresses the dire needs of 1 billion people living in extreme poverty. It is the U.N., funded in part by the generosity of America's taxpayers, that prepares and monitors elections in more than 30 countries and assists fragile new democracies. It is the U.N., funded in part by the generosity of America's taxpayers, that feeds the famished and shelters 20 million refugees fleeing conflict and natural disaster. It is the U.N., funded in part by the generosity of America's taxpayers, that has convened the world's leaders on the urgent issue of climate change. It is the U.N., funded in part by the generosity of America's taxpayers, that strengthens global health and has helped reduce child mortality to its lowest level in history. Today, the U.N. has more peacekeepers than ever--over 100,000-- deployed in 18 missions around the world. Only a small handful are Americans. Since September 11, 2001, more than 700 men and women have lost their lives serving on U.N. peace operations to protect fragile post-conflict transitions in the Great Lakes region of Africa, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Haiti, Sudan, and elsewhere. We should not forget that one of the first terrorist attacks in Iraq targeted the U.N. compound in August of 2003 and resulted in the murder of 22 people, including U.N. Envoy Sergio Vieira de Mello. No country has a greater stake in a strong United Nations than the United States. That is why it is particularly painful when the U.N. falls short not only of its potential but also of the principles expressed in the U.N. Charter. All too often, member states use U.N. processes as a means to avoid action rather than a means to solve problems. In recent years, U.N. member states have failed to act swiftly or decisively to end the genocide in Darfur. The Human Rights Council has passed nine resolutions condemning Israel, a democracy with higher standards of human rights than its accusers, but none condemning any other country. The Council has dropped investigations into Belarus and Cuba for political reasons, and its method of reporting on human rights allows the Council's members to shield themselves from scrutiny. The oil-for-food scandal revealed the extent of corruption in the institution and the extent of member states' willingness to tolerate it. Although U.N. operations are often greeted as legitimate, their inefficiencies or misdeeds can turn local people against them. Progress and renewal will come from reform, not neglect. In the 1940s, the international community with American leadership created the United Nations to meet the needs of their times, but its leaders well understood that time would not stand still. Today, we face a world that is dramatically different than that of 1945. Decisionmaking procedures designed for a world of some 50 nations must now accommodate almost 200. Some of the old rules are harmless. The General Assembly meets when it does because this was when the steamships used to arrive in New York harbors. But some of the procurement and hiring rules have slowed and encumbered multifaceted peace operations that depend on nimbleness and efficiency for success. Most of the gravest threats faced by the United States are transnational threats: the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, climate change, and global pandemics like HIV/ AIDS. These threats are bred in places marked by other transnational challenges: mass atrocities and genocide, weak and failed states, and persistent poverty. By definition, these are challenges that no single country can manage. America's national security depends as never before upon the will and capacity of other states to deal with their own problems and to take responsibility for tackling global problems. A strong and competent United Nations is more vital than ever to building global peace, security, and prosperity. The United States must champion reform so the United Nations can help us meet the challenges of the 21st century. The United Nations must step up to the challenge posed by countries developing illicit nuclear programs. The largest test of our resolve on this grave matter is in Iran, where leaders appear resolved to ignore their responsibilities to the international community. The United Nations must send a clear message to Tehran that if Iran verifiably ends its nuclear program and support for terrorism, it can join the community of nations. If it does not, it will face tougher sanctions and deeper isolation. To this end, all U.N. sanctions against Iran must be fully enforced in order to ensure their effectiveness in pressuring Iran to halt its illicit nuclear program, which has all the hallmarks of an attempt to acquire nuclear weapons. Governments willing to brutalize their own people on a massive scale cannot escape sanction by the international community. The U.N., joined by the United States, has endorsed the responsibility to protect--the right and responsibility of the international community to act if states do not protect their own people from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. But, there is a huge gap between words and deeds. Governments must replace their willingness to talk about the abstract ``responsibility to protect'' with an actual willingness to exercise that responsibility. And they should start in Darfur. The United States should seek to reform the U.N. Human Rights Council and help set it right. If the Council is to be made effective and credible, governments must make it such. We need our voice to be heard loud and clear, and we need to shine a light on the world's most repressive regimes, end the Council's unfair obsession with Israel, and improve human rights policies around the globe. We need ambassadors to the U.N. who will represent all of America, not an ideological fringe, who will forge coalitions with others, not isolate America, and who will work tirelessly to strengthen the U.N.'s capacity, not revel in weakening it. The U.S. needs to lead the effort to reform and streamline the U.N.'s bureaucracy, increase efficiency and root out corruption. Managing urgent and high-stakes transnational challenges will be difficult under the best of circumstances. Just as we must demand professionalism, rigor, and accountability from officials in our own government, we must not ask less of those who serve the global good. Congress needs to support the U.N. with the resources it deserves and abide by the commitments we have made. The Bush administration's record on the payment of dues is uneven, which has depleted the U.N.'s capabilities and sent a signal that this administration does not respect its purpose or its promise. We must guarantee full and prompt payment of our U.N. dues. At the same time, the U.N. and its member states have to uphold their end of the bargain. Too often, we have seen resources wasted or spent to protect parochial interests. It is time to ensure that the U.N.'s money is well spent. We should not merely react to crises once they occur. By working through the U.N., as well as other multilateral agencies and private organizations, the United States can do more to prevent mass violence from occurring in the first place. Combining effective diplomacy and economic assistance or, when necessary, sanctions can help forestall crises that undermine regional and international security. The U.N. is ultimately an instrument of its member states. Its future is in our hands. Let us provide bold and effective leadership to reinvigorate it so it finally achieves the potential that Roosevelt envisioned and on which our common security and common humanity depend.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I applaud the Senator from California, Ms. Boxer, for her leadership and hard work in passing the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) conference report yesterday. Had I been in Washington, DC, yesterday, I would have enthusiastically voted for the conference report on final passage. Typically these critical water infrastructure authorizations are enacted by Congress every two years. For almost eight years, however, these priorities have languished under the watch of the previous Senate leadership. At the beginning of the 110th Congress in January, when the Senator from California became Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, she pledged that the Water Resources Development Act would be completed by the Senate in a timely fashion. She kept that pledge, and I applaud her commitment. By comparison, during the 109th Congress, those of us who supported swift enactment of this bill encountered considerable obstacles. As a member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, I was the only Democrat on the Committee to be an original cosponsor of the bill; when the bill passed out of committee in March 2005, I called upon then- Majority Leader Frist to schedule floor time for the bill that summer. It did not occur. In September of 2005, the Senator from Missouri, Mr. Bond, and I worked together on a bipartisan letter, signed by 40 of our colleagues, calling upon Senate Republican leadership to schedule floor time for this bill. We were informed that the support of 40 Senators was insufficient, that 60 signatures would be necessary. So we gathered 80 signatures. It was not until September 2006 that the Senate finally scheduled debate on WRDA, too late for the bill to be conferenced before the end of the 109th Congress. I will ask that the text of those letters be printed in the Record. Now it is September 2007, and at long last, the conference report has been completed. This bill authorizes almost $2 billion for upgrades to locks and dams along the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers. Illinois is the largest shipper of corn and soybeans on these rivers, and the 70 year old system of locks and dams needs these upgrades to ensure swifter access to export markets--something, by the way, that competitors like Brazil are doing right now. A significant part of the farm economy is about reducing transportation costs, so if we are to strengthen our agriculture markets, we need to strengthen waterway transportation, and that means upgrading these locks and dams. The bill also authorizes funding for a number of noteworthy Illinois projects, including the Keith Creek dam to prevent flooding in Rockford, Illinois, a third-party review of the disagreement in reconstructing Promontory Point in Chicago, and dredging at the Beardstown, Illinois harbor. Remarkably, the President has proposed a veto of this bill, which includes approval for nationwide funding of critical flood control, navigation, environmental restoration, and storm damage reduction initiatives; the importance of such funding was tragically highlighted by Hurricane Katrina. I urge the President to drop that veto threat and support these long-delayed upgrades to our national infrastructure that were approved overwhelmingly by the House and Senate. Mr. President, I ask unanimously to have the letters to which I referred printed in the Record.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 19, 2007, at 9:30 a.m., to hold a nomination hearing.

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 19, 2007, at 3 p.m., to hold a hearing on protecting natural treasures through international organizations.

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, September 19, 2007, at 9:30 a.m., in room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing on the process of Federal recognition of Indian tribes.

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 19, 2007, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing on S. 1905, the Regional Presidential Primary and Caucus Act of 2007, to provide for a rotating schedule for regional selection of delegates to a national nominating convention, and for other purposes.

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the Committee on Veterans' Affairs to be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 19, 2007, in order to conduct an oversight hearing on information technology within the Department of Veterans Affairs. The Committee will meet in Dirksen 562, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Joint Economic Committee be authorized to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Evolution of an Economic Crisis?: The Subprime Lending Disaster and the Threat to the Broader Economy'', in Room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building, on Wednesday, September 19, 2007, from 9:30 a.m. to 1 p.m.

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet on, Wednesday, September 19, 2007, from 10:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m., in room SD-106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law, be authorized to conduct a hearing entitled ``The `Material Support' Bar: Denying Refuge to the Persecuted?'' on Wednesday, September 19, 2007 at 2:30 p.m., in the Dirksen Senate Office Building room 226.

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Transportation Safety, Infrastructure Security, and Water Quality be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 19, 2007, at 10 a.m., in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in order to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Meeting America's Wastewater Infrastructure Needs in the 21st Century.''

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 19, 2007, at 10 a.m., to mark up H.R. 835, the Hawaiian Homeownership Opportunity Act of 2007; S. 1518, the Community Partnership to End Homelessness Act of 2007; and an original bill entitled the FHA Modernization Act of 2007.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, let me begin by expressing my utmost support for Senator Warner. I am absolutely convinced of his commitment to our troops. I do not think there are many people in this Senate Chamber who understand our military better or care more deeply about our military. So I have the highest regard for him. I have to say I respectfully disagree on this issue and must rise in strong support of the amendment offered by Senator Webb to require minimum periods between deployments for members of our armed services who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. This amendment protects our brave men and women in uniform and ensures that our Armed Forces retain their ability to meet any challenge around the world. That is something that ultimately all of us have to be concerned about. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this amendment. I opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning and have called repeatedly for a responsible end to the foreign policy disaster that this administration has created. Over 3,700 American service men and women have died in this war. Over 27,000 have been seriously wounded. Each month, this misguided war costs us a staggering $10 billion. When all is said and done, it will have cost us at least $1 trillion. There are different views of the war in this Chamber, but there is no disagreement about the tremendous sacrifice of the men and women who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have performed valiantly under exceedingly difficult circumstances. They have done everything we have asked of them. But they have also been stretched to the limit. The truth is, we are not keeping our sacred trust with our men and women in uniform. We are asking too much of them, and we are asking too much of their families. We owe it to our troops and their families to adopt a fair policy that ensures predictable rotations, adequate time to be with their families before redeployment, and adequate time for realistic training for the difficult assignments we are giving them. Our service men and women will always answer the call of duty, but the reality is extended deployments and insufficient rest periods are taking their toll. The effects of the strain are clear: Increasing attrition rates, falling retention rates among West Point graduates, increasing rates of post-traumatic stress disorder and unprecedented strain on military families. This amendment is a responsible way to keep our sacred trust while restoring our military to an appropriate state of readiness. It ensures that members of our Armed Forces who are deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan have at least the same amount of time at home, before they are redeployed. It would also ensure that members of a Reserve component, including the National Guard, cannot be redeployed to Iraq or Afghanistan within 3 years of their previous deployment. After 4\1/2\ years of fighting in Iraq and almost 6 years of fighting in Afghanistan, we owe it to our troops and their families to provide them with a more predictable schedule with sufficient time home between deployments. As the Military Officers Association of America, which represents 368,000 members, has stated: If we are not better stewards of our troops and their families in the future than we have been in the recent past, the Military Officers Association of America believes strongly that we will be putting the all-volunteer force at unacceptable risk. There are scores of anecdotes that bear out the strain on our families. One woman from Illinois recently wrote my office telling me how her husband was facing his fourth deployment in 4\1/2\ years. She described how her husband had spent so much time in Iraq that, in her words: ``He feels like he is stationed in Iraq and only deploys home.'' That is not an acceptable way to treat our troops. That is not an acceptable way to treat their families. This amendment is not only important for military families, it is also important for our national security. Our military simply cannot sustain its current deployments without crippling our ability to respond to contingencies around the world. This is all the more important since the administration has squandered our resources on the war in Iraq and neglected to address serious threats to our safety. According to the National Intelligence Estimate in July, al-Qaida has ``protected or regenerated key elements of its homeland attack capability,'' including a safe haven in Pakistan's tribal areas, operational lieutenants, and its top leadership. Ensuring the readiness and capabilities of our troops will be crucial to confronting the threat of al-Qaida in Afghanistan and other parts of the world and deterring other threats to America's national security. Over the coming months, I will continue to push for a new course in Iraq that immediately begins a safe and orderly withdrawal of our combat troops, that changes our military mission to focus on training and counterterrorism, that puts real pressure on the Iraqis to resolve their grievances, and that focuses our military efforts on the real threats facing our country. I believe this amendment is an important part of that new course. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this proposal. I yield the floor.

Mr. OBAMA

Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the DC voting rights bill that the Senate just voted on. I am disappointed that this measure failed to receive the necessary 60 votes in order for the bill to be considered. This is a bill that seeks to protect the most fundamental right of citizens in our democracy the right to vote. Different generations in our Nation's history have struggled to gain and safeguard this universal right--from the 15th amendment, which extended the right to vote to newly freed slaves, to the 19th amendment, which guaranteed the right to women, and finally to the Voting Rights Act, which gave real substance to voting laws that had been previously abused. Yet, as we speak, this most basic right in a democracy is denied to the citizens of the District of Columbia. Our brave civil rights leaders sacrificed too much to ensure that every American has the right to vote for us to tolerate the disenfranchisement of the nearly 600,000 residents of the District of Columbia. Those who live in our Nation's Capital pay taxes like other Americans. They serve bravely in the Armed Forces to defend our country like other Americans. They are called to sit on Federal juries like other Americans. Yet they are not afforded a vote in Congress. Instead, they are granted a nonvoting Delegate who can sit in the House of Representatives and serve on committees but cannot cast a vote when legislation comes to the floor. As a community organizer in Chicago and as a civil rights attorney, I learned that disenfranchisement can lead to disengagement from our political system. In many parts of DC, you can look down the street and see the dome of the U.S. Capitol. Yet so many of these streets couldn't be more disconnected from their Government. If we are to take seriously our claim to a government of, by, and for the people, Washington shouldn't be just the seat of our Government, but it also should reflect the core values and fundamental promise of our democracy. Denying the right to vote to citizens who are equally subject to the laws of this Nation undermines a central premise of our representative Government. The right to vote belongs to every American, regardless of race, creed, gender, or geography. For these reasons, I fully support this important legislation. Although today's vote is a disappointment, I will continue to work with Mayor Fenty, Congresswoman Norton, and the sponsors of this bill until the residents of the District of Columbia achieve full representation in Congress.