Joe Biden

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today, Senators Brownback, Boxer, Smith, Bill Nelson and I are introducing a bipartisan resolution. It states clearly what so many of us agree on, the need for a political settlement in Iraq. But then it offers what virtually no one has put forward: a policy to actually secure that political settlement. We propose that the United States actively support a political settlement among Iraqis based on the provisions of Iraq's constitution that call for creating federal system of government, with strong regions and a limited central government. And we urge the administration to bring in the international community, including the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Iraq's neighbors, to support a settlement based on federalism and to convene a conference with Iraqis to help them reach that settlement. Each of us recognizes this reality: when a country is caught in a cycle of self-sustaining sectarian violence as Iraq is today, there are only four ways to end it: First, a bloodletting that leaves one side victorious or both sides exhausted. In the case of Iraq, that could take years . . . years we do not have and should not accept. Second, an open-ended foreign occupation that America cannot sustain. Third, the return of a strongman, who is not on the horizon. Even if he were, it would be a tragic irony to replace one dictator with another. Or fourth, a political agreement to form a decentralized, federal system that separates the warring factions and gives them control over the fabric of their daily lives, including the police, jobs, education, marriage and religion. It's a model that worked in Bosnia. It offers the possibility, but not the guarantee, of a soft landing Iraq. The Bush administration has another vision for Iraq. But the entire premise of its policy is fundamentally and fatally flawed. It believes Iraqis will rally behind a strong central government that keeps the country together and protects the rights of all citizens equally. But there is no trust within the central government, trust of the government by the people, and no capacity by the government to deliver services and security. And there is no evidence that we can build that trust and capacity soon. Simply put, Iraq cannot be run from the center, absent a dictator or foreign occupation. If we want the country to hold together and find stability, we have to make federalism work. If we don't, there will be no political accommodation at the center. Violent resistance will increase. The sectarian cycle of revenge will spiral out of control. The result will be at best the violent break up of Iraq into multiple states--at worst the total fragmentation of the country. This resolution is part of a comprehensive strategy I have proposed to bring our troops home, to leave behind a stable Iraq and to protect our soldiers so long as a single one of them remains in Iraq. I believe that is the best way to end the war in Iraq responsibly.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to recognize the great sacrifices made by our Nation's veterans on the anniversary of D-day and to once again highlight the need for all of us to do more for those serving today. On this day 63 years ago, 3,393 American troops gave their lives on the beaches of Normandy defending the freedom of America and its allies. These brave young men sacrificed themselves to stop an empire born of hatred from consuming Europe and fought to prove that freedom and justice would never bow to terror and intolerance. Their valor and service will forever endure in our Nation's memory. Today, a new generation faces new challenges. The nearly 170,000 American troops currently serving in Iraq and Afghanistan exemplify the kind of courage and dedication that has defined the American military throughout our history. And for the sacrifices they are willing to make, we in the Senate, our colleagues in the House, the military leadership, the President, and the American people have an absolute moral obligation to provide our servicemen and women with the best possible protection when we send them to war. I know that when President Roosevelt sent his men into battle, he did not simply pay lipservice to their courage, he made sure that they had the strongest artillery, the best gear, and the most advanced equipment available. He did not worry that the landing craft he needed for D-day would not be needed when the war ended. He made equipping the force the entire Nation's top priority. Calling on the patriotism of American businessmen to ensure military needs were met before all else. And so I ask why--a half century later--we cannot do the same for our troops today. Today, improvised explosive devices, IEDs, are the single greatest threat to the lives of our troops, causing 70 percent of U.S. casualties in Iraq. The military has indicated that mine resistant ambush protected, MRAP, vehicles, which provide four to five times more protection than up-armored Humvees, will reduce casualties from IEDs by two-thirds. These vehicles have already been tested fully at Aberdeen Proving Center and our allies have been using similar technologies in the field for years. So why, then, are these critical vehicles not already in the field? We learned recently that in February of 2005, Marine commanders in Iraq realized that they needed vehicles designed specifically to defeat the IED threat and asked the Pentagon to build them. Yet 2 years later their request remains unfulfilled. Secretary Gates has indicated that MRAPs compete with other defense spending, which may make it difficult to produce all we need. I just don't get that logic. I can see no greater use of our dollars than getting American troops the best possible protection that exists today. This Nation can afford to do that and whatever else is necessary to do right by our military men and women and their families. At a later date we will get to the bottom of what happened in 2005, but our first order of business today should be making sure that we get our troops the technology they need as soon as possible. That will require a genuine assessment of how many MRAPs are needed in the field and how much it will cost to build that critically needed inventory. We also need to provide our troops with all the latest in tested technology to defend against the new weapons which insurgents are using in Iraq: shaped charges called EFPs, or explosively formed penetrators/ projectiles, those shaped-charges which hit our vehicles from the side with devastating effect. We cannot wait another 2 years to field technology to protect against these devices when Americans are dying today. Today I ask of my colleagues, of the President, of our military commanders, and of the American people, that we pay respect to American servicemembers with more than words. We have the ability and the obligation to do more and we must.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to proceed as in morning business for 3 minutes.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I compliment my friend from Illinois. He might be interested to know I met with the Secretary General of the United Nations on Monday in his office. I indicated I wanted to know what he was prepared to propose. As you know, there are three phases to the process whereby the Sudanese have agreed to the implementation of ultimately 21,000 troops made up of the African Union as well as United Nations forces. He indicated he would have an answer as to what he thought might be able to be done probably by the end of Memorial Day. My point to him was similar to my friend from Illinois. If, in fact, the Sudanese Government refuses to allow, on the basis of their sovereignty, the placement of U.N. forces on the ground, that it violates their sovereignty. I indicated I believed--and others believe as well--that the country forfeits its sovereignty when it participates and engages in genocide and that we, the United States, should push the Security Council to implement the placement of those troops on the ground regardless of what Khartoum says. Further, if they don't, it is my view the United States unilaterally should engage through a no-fly zone as well as the placement of 2,500 troops on the ground to take out the Janjaweed. That is not a political settlement, but the point I made to the Secretary General was, as we talk about the ultimate problem, the need for a political settlement, it is like talking about a patient who has cancer and on the way to the operating room falls off the gurney and slits his jugular vein and is bleeding to death. Everybody says: We have to take care of the cancer. But they are going to bleed to death. I have been in those camps in Darfur, actually on the border of Darfur. I have visited them in Chad. One camp with 30,000 women and children in it, over 300,000 in that region, deteriorating rapidly. It is a human disaster. I hope if, in fact, the United Nations doesn't act, the Senate will be prepared to act to support pushing the President to have the United States lead. The point I am making is, I compliment my friend for continuing to keep this in the consciousness of our colleagues and the public.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. But, Mr. President, the reason I rise today is to speak because there was not time for me to speak on the supplemental we just voted for. Earlier this month, Congress sent the President an emergency spending bill for Iraq. It provided the President with every single dollar our troops needed and the President requested, and then some. It also provided the American people a plan to bring this war to a responsible end, including the language Senator Levin and I wrote, which required to start to bring American troops home within 120 days, have the bulk of our combat troops out of Iraq by March--it turned out to be April 1 of 2008, and to, most importantly, limit the mission of the smaller number that would remain to fighting al-Qaida and training Iraqi troops. In vetoing that bill, the President denied our troops funding they needed and the American people the plan they want. When the President did that, I urged, like others, that we send the bill back to him again and again and again. But the hard reality is, we found out we did not have the 53 votes we had the first time, that we did not have even 50 votes, that we would not be able to send it back. And ultimately, even if we had the 50 votes, we probably did not have 60 votes to stop a filibuster. We clearly do not have 67 votes to overcome another veto. We do not have those votes either. I do not like the bill we just voted on, the one I voted for. It denies the American people a plan for a responsible way out of Iraq. It would also start to cut off funds for the Iraqis if the benchmarks are not met. What a silly idea. That would be self-defeating. We are trying to build the Iraqi Army so we can get out of harm's way, and we are going to tell the Iraqis, who have no possibility of getting themselves together, if they do not, we are going to stop training them. I would like nothing better than to have voted against this bill, but I think we have to deal with the reality. The reality is, first, for now, those of us who want to change course in Iraq do not have the 67 votes to override a Presidential veto. As long as the President refuses to budge, the only way we can force him to change his policy in Iraq is with 67 votes. Well, we have 49 Democrats and one Independent on our side. We need to bring 17 Republicans along all the way to our thinking, to the way a strong majority of the American people are thinking. We are making progress, but we are not there yet. So it is nice to talk about taking a stand on this, but we do not have the votes, though. We do not have the votes yet to turn our rhetoric into reality. That is the reality. Secondly, I believe as long as we have troops on the front lines, it is our shared responsibility to give them the equipment and protection they need. The President may be prepared to play a game of political chicken with the well-being of our troops, but I am not, and I will not. For example, if we do not get the money this bill provides into the pipeline right now, we are not going to have a chance to build and field the mine-resistant vehicles that are being so dearly sought after by the Marine Corps and the rest of the services, and that I have been fighting for. If we build these mine-resistant vehicles, the facts show we can cut the deaths and casualties on the American side as a consequence of these bombings by two-thirds. We just voted earlier on this bill--because we were going to drag out for 2 years the construction of these vehicles. In 2 years, another 2,000 people could die. They need to begin to be built now, and they all must be built by the end of this year. Under anyone's plan for Iraq--even those who advocate pulling every single troop out of the country tomorrow--there is a reality: It would take months to get them out. In the meantime, our troops are riding around in humvees that are responsible for these roadside bombs: 70 percent--70 percent--70 percent--of the deaths and 70 percent of the casualties. As long as there is a single soldier there, I believe we have an obligation, and speaking for myself, I will do everything to make sure he or she has the best protection this country can provide. That is my reality. Third, I am prepared to cut funding to get our troops out of the sectarian civil war in Iraq and to start bringing most of them home, while limiting the mission of those who remain. That is why I voted for the Reid-Feingold amendment last week. But I am not prepared to vote for anything that cuts off 100 percent of the funding for all troops in Iraq because everyone in this room knows there is going to be a requirement--no matter what happens--to leave some troops in Iraq for a while. So what are we going to do? Cut funding off for them to satisfy what is a very difficult--difficult--thing to explain to the vast majority of the American people who do not understand why we are not out of this war? We can and we must get most of our troops out by early next year. But we still need a much smaller number. That is my reality as well. I know this supplemental bill is a bitter pill to swallow for so many Americans who believe, as I do, this war must end. I must tell you, in my present pursuit, it is not a smart vote for me to make because it requires explanation. But I do not believe people fully understand how it is that the people voted in the Democratic Party in November of last year, in large part to end this war, but we have not been able to do so yet. Well, like it or not, we have a system that protects the rights of the minority and puts the burden on the majority in order to have its way. It also creates a balance of power between the President and the Congress. That is why it takes 60 votes in the Senate--not 51--to get something done if the minority is determined not to have it done. That is why it takes 67 votes in our Constitution to override a President's veto. That is a reality. Not my reality--that is a constitutional reality. So where do those of us who are determined to end this war go from here? Well, day after day, vote after vote, we must, and we will, work to keep pressure on the Republicans to stop reflexively backing the President and start supporting a responsible path out of Iraq--make them vote against it again and again because, quite frankly, I do not expect to change the President's mind. But I believe we can change the mind of 17 Republicans. Until that day comes--until that day comes--as long as this President is President, the carnage and chaos and stupidity in the conduct of this war is likely to continue. So I believe with every funding bill, we are going to have to come back at every juncture and require people to vote time and again against the will of American people in order to change the attitude of my colleagues on the Republican side. That is the reality. That is the reality that will bring this war to an end. Like the most distinguished Member who serves in this body, the Senator from West Virginia, I was here during the Vietnam war, at the end. We all talk about how we cut off funds. We did not cut off funds until the vast majority of the troops were already out. We did not cut off funds until 1975. The reality was--the reality was--we did not do it. It is an incredibly blunt instrument. So I would have felt better, I would have had less to explain, and it would have been easier, because I have been such a persistent critic, I think most of my colleagues will acknowledge, for the 4\1/2\ years of this war, to vote to cut off the funding. But as we head into the Memorial Day recess, I want to remind my colleagues it is clearly time for us to do our part as well to support our troops. We in the Senate, and our colleagues in the House, and the military leadership, the President, and the American people have an overriding, overarching moral obligation to provide our forces, who are in the middle of a war, with the full weight of this Nation's productive capacity, and all that is humanly possible, as we send citizens to war, to protect them. We have not done that. This administration has not done that and has not asked for the money to do that. But we have to, and we must. We must speak to one specific situation which I fear, if I do not raise today and every day--as I have in the last 3 weeks--it will not come to pass, it may not get done. It goes back to why I felt I had to vote for this funding. The issue is these mine-resistant vehicles, but it is bigger than that. The issue is giving the men and women on the front lines a dramatically better chance to survive. It is totally, completely within our power to do that. We have the technology to do that. We have the capacity to do that. We have the money to do that. We need only the will to do that. We have proven technically that our technology can, in fact, meet this glaring deficiency that is killing so many of our troops. When I say proven, I mean it. Let me be specific. At the Aberdeen Proving Center, those folks have been working 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for the past 3 months to fully test every design and variation of the so-called MRAPs, mine-resistant ambush- protected vehicles, vehicles that are out there. By next week, I am told, they will have concrete test data that will back up the purchasing decision the military will have to make. We already know these mine-resistant vehicles give four to five times more protection than uparmored HMMWVs. We already know the casualty and death rate will go down by two-thirds if we have these mine-resistant vehicles, which means we know we should be doing everything possible, as rapidly as possible, because every day we waste one more life is in jeopardy. We can save two-thirds of the lives being lost there--3,400 dead plus, and almost 24,000 severely wounded. But why did these amazing test efforts only begin to happen this year? Why are we only now starting to build these mine-resistant vehicles? And why are we building them in such small quantities? We learned this week the Marine commanders in Iraq in February of 2005--February of 2005--realized they needed these vehicles that have a V-shaped hull. They are designed specifically to defeat what everybody in America, unfortunately, has come to know about: IED, improvised explosive devices. They are the roadside bombs and mines that we know cause 70 percent of all the casualties and deaths. Now, in February of 2005, the first characteristic these commanders asked for--and I am quoting from the statement they sent to the Pentagon called a Universal Needs Statement--they said: We need a vehicle to ``protect the crew from IED/mine threat through integrated V-shaped monocoque hull designed specifically to disperse explosive blasts and fragmentary effects.''

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be able to proceed for 3 more minutes.

Mr. BIDEN. The bottom line, in simple English, for nonphysicists is, no matter how much you reinforce a flat-bottomed vehicle, when a bomb goes off under the vehicle, it either penetrates the vehicle or penetrates the vehicle, bounces back, and comes back up off the ground again. With these V-shaped vehicles, what happens is, when the blast goes off--other than the very point of the V--it takes the blast and, instead of it bouncing back on the ground and bouncing back up, it shoots it off to the side, thereby increasing by two-thirds the likelihood of survival. No one should give us any of the malarkey I have heard from some in the military and the administration about how any uparmored humvee might have satisfied the need. The bottom line is, they cannot do what these V-shaped vehicles can do. Now, not only have these mine-resistant vehicles been fully tested at Aberdeen, but our allies have been using similar technologies for years. We are going to get down to the bottom of what happened in 2005. But for now, let me get right to the chase. We have an overwhelming moral obligation to build as many of these vehicles as rapidly as possible and get them to the field as soon as possible--even if we are pulling out every single troop in January. Between now and January, we have an obligation to save lives. It is within our capability and within our power to do so. One more thing I would bring to the attention of my colleagues. I also learned today--and we will soon find out--I learned today they have also developed, out at the Aberdeen Proving Center, the capacity to be able to thwart the ability of these things called EFPs, explosively formed penetrators. That is going to cost a lot of money. I hope I do not hear from anyone on this floor or anyone in the Congress that, notwithstanding the fact we now have the technology, we are going to wait down the road because it costs too much money to do it now or it will take too much time, and we may have to leave--as one military man said to me: We don't want to build all these. We are eventually going to be coming home. We will have to leave them behind. That is a little like Franklin Roosevelt saying, when asked to build landing craft for the invasion of D-Day: We don't want to build too many of these, it costs too much money, because we are going to have to leave some behind. I say to my colleagues and to the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, Secretary Gates ended his press conference today by saying there were competing interests for dollars. That may be true. But when it comes to the life of an American soldier we know--we know--we know for a fact we can protect, there is no other competing interest. There is no other competing interest. Competing interests may exist, but there is only one interest, and that is as this foolish war continues under this President, our sons and daughters are being killed, and we have the capacity right now to begin to build vehicles that will diminish by two-thirds the casualty rate. There are no other competing interests. So I am going to continue to talk about this, I say to my colleagues, and I hope once we get the final call from the Pentagon, no one here on this floor will rise to tell me we can't afford to do this. I thank my colleague from West Virginia for his extreme courtesy, as always. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the President of the United States has recently stated that we are remaining in Iraq in order to defeat al- Qaida--a summary of a statement he made yesterday. Well, I wish to briefly state what I think the facts are. Iraq has become a Bush-fulfilling prophecy. Al-Qaida was not there before the war, and it is there now. It is a problem, but it is not the primary problem. In my view, the President of the United States is inadvertently handing al-Qaida a propaganda victory here by vastly exaggerating its role in Iraq. The sectarian war--the war between Sunnis and Shias, Sunnis and Shias killing each other--is the core problem, and our troops are caught in the middle of that war. New statistics from Iraq make it absolutely clear that sectarian violence is getting worse and now exceeds the levels immediately prior to the surging of American forces over a month ago. The focus of the President of the United States on al-Qaida and Iraq, ironically, supports exactly what I have been arguing for. We need to dramatically limit the mission of U.S. troops in Iraq, getting them out of the middle of this sectarian civil war and refocusing their mission, which should be battling al-Qaida from occupying territory in Anbar Province and training Iraqi troops. That would require far fewer troops and allow us to begin to remove American troops immediately and get the vast majority of our combat troops out of Iraq early next year, consistent with the Biden-Levin provision that was in the bill the President vetoed. Our troops cannot end the sectarian war. Mr. President, 500,000 American troops will not end the sectarian war. What is required is a political solution, even as we continue to take on al-Qaida, which is a growing but not the primary problem in Iraq. The President continues to bank on a farfetched hope. His hope is well-intended, but it is farfetched that the Iraqis will rally behind a strong democratic central government in Baghdad. But there is no trust within the Government in Baghdad. There is no trust of the Government in Baghdad by the Iraqi people. And there is no capacity by that Government in Baghdad to deliver either services or security. Instead, the President should throw his full weight--the full weight of his office--behind the solution based upon federalism in Iraq, allowing the Iraqis to have control over the fabric of their daily lives, helping them bring into reality the Iraqi Constitution, where article 1 says: We are a decentralized federal system. We should not impose this. We do not need to. It is already in the Iraqi Constitution. The President should call for a U.N. summit to get the world's major powers and Iraq's neighbors to push for a political agreement. It is not an answer to put up a straw man and say we remain there because of al-Qaida. What is an answer is to call for the permanent five of the United Nations to call for a regional conference; make Iraq the world's problem. I met with the Security Council permanent four, with us being the fifth, in New York on Monday. It is like pushing an open door. They are ready to respond to the President's request to do that. This is doable. This is necessary. The President should begin to focus on the facts, not the fiction of al-Qaida being our rationale for being there. I will end where I began. Al-Qaida's presence in Iraq has become a Bush-fulfilling prophecy. They were not there before. They are there now. But they are not the primary problem. It is the vicious cycle of sectarian violence. It must end.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, for the Committee on Foreign Relations I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Foreign Service nomination of Ross Marvin Hicks. Foreign Service nominations beginning with Patricia A. Miller and ending with Dean L. Smith, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on March 7, 2007. (minus 1 nominee: Mitchell G. Mabrey) Foreign Service nominations beginning with Edward W. Birgells and ending with Andrea J. Yates, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on March 22, 2007.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing with my good friend from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, an innovative bill that will help the lives of domestic violence victims. Sadly, domestic violence remains a reality for one out of four women in our country. Experts agree a pivotal factor to ending domestic violence is meaningful access to the justice system. Recent academic research finds that increased provision of legal services is ``one likely significant factor in explaining the decline [of domestic violence] . . . Because legal services help women with practical matters such as protective orders, custody, and child support they appear to actually present women with real, longterm alternatives to their relationships.'' Stopping the violence hinges on a victim's ability to obtain effective protection orders, initiate separation proceedings or design safe child custody. Yet thousands of victims of domestic violence go without representation every day in this country. A patchwork of services do their best to provide represent domestic violence victims, law school clinics, individual State domestic violence coalitions, legal services, and private attorneys. But there are obvious gaps and simply not enough lawyers for victims and their myriad legal needs due to the abuse, including protection orders, divorce and child custody, immigration adjustments, and bankruptcy declarations. Experts estimate that current legal services serve about 170,000 low-income domestic violence victims each year and yet, there are at least 1 million victims each year. At best then, less than 1 out of 5 low-income victims ever see a lawyer. I believe there is a wealth of untapped resources in this country, lawyers who want to volunteer. My National Domestic Violence Volunteer Act would harness the skills, enthusiasm and dedication of these lawyers and infuse 100,000 new volunteer lawyers into the justice system to represent domestic violence victims. We should make it as smooth and simple for volunteer lawyers. My bill creates a streamlined, organized and national system to connect lawyers to clients. I can't overemphasize the importance of having a lawyer standing shoulder-to-shoulder with a victim as she navigates the system. We must match a willing lawyer to a victim as soon as the victim calls the Hotline, walks into a courtroom or involves the police. It is at that crucial moment a victim needs to feel support, and if she doesn't, she may retreat back into the abuse. To enlist, train and place volunteer lawyers, my bill creates a new, electronic National Domestic Violence Attorney Network and Referral Project that will be administered by the American Bar Association Commission on Domestic Violence. There are five components of my legislation. First, it creates a National Domestic Violence Volunteer Attorney Network Referral Project to be managed by the American Bar Association Commission on Domestic Violence. With $2 million of new Federal funding each year, the American Bar Association Commission on Dometic Violence will solicit for volunteer lawyers and then create and maintain an electronic network. It will provide appropriate mentoring, training and technical assistance to volunteer lawyers. And it will establish and maintain a point of contact in each State, a statewide legal coordinator, to help match willing lawyers to victims. Second, it enlists the National Domestic Violence Hotline and Internet sources to provide legal referrals. The bill will help the National Domestic Violence Hotline to update their system and train advocates on how to provide legal referrals to callers in coordination with the American Bar Association Commission on Domestic Violence. Legal referrals may also be done by qualified Internet-based services. Third, it creates a Pilot Program and National Rollout of National Domestic Violence Volunteer Attorney Network and Referral Project. The bill designs a pilot program to implement the volunteer attorney network in five diverse States. The Office on Violence Against Women in the Department of Justice will administer these monies to qualified statewide legal coordinators to help them connect with the ABA Commission on Domestic Violence, the National Domestic Violence Hotline, and the volunteer lawyers. After a successful stint in five States, the bill will rollout the program nationally. Fourth, the measure establishes a Domestic Violence Legal Advisory Task Force to monitor the program and make recommendations. Fifth, the bill mandates the General Accounting Office to study each State and assess the scope and quality of legal services available to battered women and report back to Congress within a year. A terrific roundtable of groups reviewed and contributed to this legislation, including the National Network to End Domestic Violence, the Legal Resource Center for Violence Against Women, the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, the American Bar Association, WomensLaw.org, the National Domestic Violence Hotline, the Legal Services Corporation, the American Prosecutors Research Institute, National Legal Aid and Defenders Association, National Center for State Courts, National Association for Attorneys General, Battered Women's Justice Project, National Association of Women Judges, National Association of Women Lawyers, National Crime Victim Bar Association and National Center for the Victims of Crime. I want to end today with a story about an American hero, a woman who has been to hell and back and now is a tremendous advocate for domestic violence victims, Yvette Cade. I want to tell it to you because I think it serves as such a powerful message about why battered women should have legal assistance. Yvette Cade, a Maryland resident, was doused with gasoline and set on fire by her estranged husband while she was at work. Half of her upper body, including her entire face, suffered third-degree burns, the most serious level. Just three weeks before the attack, a judge dismissed the protective order Yvette had against her husband, despite her protests that he was violent. At the hearing in which the judge dismissed Cade's protective order, the judge told Cade he could not be her advocate, only the ``umpire.'' Cade told him that she no longer wanted to be married to her abusive husband. The judge replied, ``well, then get a lawyer, and get a divorce. That's all you have to do,'' I believe that today's National Domestic Violence Volunteer Attorney Network Act would make getting a lawyer a reality, not just good advice. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing with my good friend from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, an innovative bill that will help the lives of domestic violence victims. Sadly, domestic violence remains a reality for one out of four women in our country. Experts agree a pivotal factor to ending domestic violence is meaningful access to the justice system. Recent academic research finds that increased provision of legal services is ``one likely significant factor in explaining the decline [of domestic violence] . . . Because legal services help women with practical matters such as protective orders, custody, and child support they appear to actually present women with real, longterm alternatives to their relationships.'' Stopping the violence hinges on a victim's ability to obtain effective protection orders, initiate separation proceedings or design safe child custody. Yet thousands of victims of domestic violence go without representation every day in this country. A patchwork of services do their best to provide represent domestic violence victims, law school clinics, individual State domestic violence coalitions, legal services, and private attorneys. But there are obvious gaps and simply not enough lawyers for victims and their myriad legal needs due to the abuse, including protection orders, divorce and child custody, immigration adjustments, and bankruptcy declarations. Experts estimate that current legal services serve about 170,000 low-income domestic violence victims each year and yet, there are at least 1 million victims each year. At best then, less than 1 out of 5 low-income victims ever see a lawyer. I believe there is a wealth of untapped resources in this country, lawyers who want to volunteer. My National Domestic Violence Volunteer Act would harness the skills, enthusiasm and dedication of these lawyers and infuse 100,000 new volunteer lawyers into the justice system to represent domestic violence victims. We should make it as smooth and simple for volunteer lawyers. My bill creates a streamlined, organized and national system to connect lawyers to clients. I can't overemphasize the importance of having a lawyer standing shoulder-to-shoulder with a victim as she navigates the system. We must match a willing lawyer to a victim as soon as the victim calls the Hotline, walks into a courtroom or involves the police. It is at that crucial moment a victim needs to feel support, and if she doesn't, she may retreat back into the abuse. To enlist, train and place volunteer lawyers, my bill creates a new, electronic National Domestic Violence Attorney Network and Referral Project that will be administered by the American Bar Association Commission on Domestic Violence. There are five components of my legislation. First, it creates a National Domestic Violence Volunteer Attorney Network Referral Project to be managed by the American Bar Association Commission on Domestic Violence. With $2 million of new Federal funding each year, the American Bar Association Commission on Dometic Violence will solicit for volunteer lawyers and then create and maintain an electronic network. It will provide appropriate mentoring, training and technical assistance to volunteer lawyers. And it will establish and maintain a point of contact in each State, a statewide legal coordinator, to help match willing lawyers to victims. Second, it enlists the National Domestic Violence Hotline and Internet sources to provide legal referrals. The bill will help the National Domestic Violence Hotline to update their system and train advocates on how to provide legal referrals to callers in coordination with the American Bar Association Commission on Domestic Violence. Legal referrals may also be done by qualified Internet-based services. Third, it creates a Pilot Program and National Rollout of National Domestic Violence Volunteer Attorney Network and Referral Project. The bill designs a pilot program to implement the volunteer attorney network in five diverse States. The Office on Violence Against Women in the Department of Justice will administer these monies to qualified statewide legal coordinators to help them connect with the ABA Commission on Domestic Violence, the National Domestic Violence Hotline, and the volunteer lawyers. After a successful stint in five States, the bill will rollout the program nationally. Fourth, the measure establishes a Domestic Violence Legal Advisory Task Force to monitor the program and make recommendations. Fifth, the bill mandates the General Accounting Office to study each State and assess the scope and quality of legal services available to battered women and report back to Congress within a year. A terrific roundtable of groups reviewed and contributed to this legislation, including the National Network to End Domestic Violence, the Legal Resource Center for Violence Against Women, the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, the American Bar Association, WomensLaw.org, the National Domestic Violence Hotline, the Legal Services Corporation, the American Prosecutors Research Institute, National Legal Aid and Defenders Association, National Center for State Courts, National Association for Attorneys General, Battered Women's Justice Project, National Association of Women Judges, National Association of Women Lawyers, National Crime Victim Bar Association and National Center for the Victims of Crime. I want to end today with a story about an American hero, a woman who has been to hell and back and now is a tremendous advocate for domestic violence victims, Yvette Cade. I want to tell it to you because I think it serves as such a powerful message about why battered women should have legal assistance. Yvette Cade, a Maryland resident, was doused with gasoline and set on fire by her estranged husband while she was at work. Half of her upper body, including her entire face, suffered third-degree burns, the most serious level. Just three weeks before the attack, a judge dismissed the protective order Yvette had against her husband, despite her protests that he was violent. At the hearing in which the judge dismissed Cade's protective order, the judge told Cade he could not be her advocate, only the ``umpire.'' Cade told him that she no longer wanted to be married to her abusive husband. The judge replied, ``well, then get a lawyer, and get a divorce. That's all you have to do,'' I believe that today's National Domestic Violence Volunteer Attorney Network Act would make getting a lawyer a reality, not just good advice. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Early Federal Pell Grant Commitment Demonstration Program Act of 2007. This legislation addresses some of the disparities in our current system with an innovative way to clear the hurdles that lack of information and high costs often form to prevent low-income students from planning for a college education. A recent report by the Urban- Brookings Tax Policy Center concluded that grant programs ``that are well targeted and have more predictable and larger awards tend to have larger impacts on college-going rates.'' This bill, I am pleased to say, establishes such a program. Right now, students do not find out if they are eligible for Federal aid until their senior year, much less how much they will receive. If you have ever put kids through college, like I have, you know that this time frame doesn't allow much leeway for planning ahead. An earlier promise of Federal aid will begin the conversation about college early and continue it through high school. That way, students and their families can visualize college in their future, and this goal can sustain them through the moment they open their letter of acceptance. This promise can be especially important in changing the expectations of low-income students whose future plans often don't include college. My bill would provide funding for a demonstration in four states, each of which would work with two cohorts of up to 10,000 eighth grade students; one in school year 2007-2008, and one in school year 2008- 2009. By using the same eligibility criteria as the National School Lunch Program, students would be identified based on need in the eighth grade. Eligible students would qualify for the Automatic Zero Expected Family Contribution on the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, FAFSA, guaranteeing them a maximum Pell Grant. Local educational agencies with a National School Lunch Program participation rate above 50 percent would be eligible for the program. The Early Federal Pell Grant Commitment Demonstration Program would also provide funding for states, in conjunction with the participating local educational agencies, to conduct targeted information campaigns beginning in the eighth grade and continuing through students' senior year. These campaigns would inform students and their families of the program and provide information about the cost of a college education, State and Federal financial assistance, and the average amount of aid awards. A targeted information campaign, along with a guarantee of a maximum Pell grant, would allow families and students to plan ahead for college and develop an expectation that the future includes higher education. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Early Federal Pell Grant Commitment Demonstration Program Act of 2007. This legislation addresses some of the disparities in our current system with an innovative way to clear the hurdles that lack of information and high costs often form to prevent low-income students from planning for a college education. A recent report by the Urban- Brookings Tax Policy Center concluded that grant programs ``that are well targeted and have more predictable and larger awards tend to have larger impacts on college-going rates.'' This bill, I am pleased to say, establishes such a program. Right now, students do not find out if they are eligible for Federal aid until their senior year, much less how much they will receive. If you have ever put kids through college, like I have, you know that this time frame doesn't allow much leeway for planning ahead. An earlier promise of Federal aid will begin the conversation about college early and continue it through high school. That way, students and their families can visualize college in their future, and this goal can sustain them through the moment they open their letter of acceptance. This promise can be especially important in changing the expectations of low-income students whose future plans often don't include college. My bill would provide funding for a demonstration in four states, each of which would work with two cohorts of up to 10,000 eighth grade students; one in school year 2007-2008, and one in school year 2008- 2009. By using the same eligibility criteria as the National School Lunch Program, students would be identified based on need in the eighth grade. Eligible students would qualify for the Automatic Zero Expected Family Contribution on the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, FAFSA, guaranteeing them a maximum Pell Grant. Local educational agencies with a National School Lunch Program participation rate above 50 percent would be eligible for the program. The Early Federal Pell Grant Commitment Demonstration Program would also provide funding for states, in conjunction with the participating local educational agencies, to conduct targeted information campaigns beginning in the eighth grade and continuing through students' senior year. These campaigns would inform students and their families of the program and provide information about the cost of a college education, State and Federal financial assistance, and the average amount of aid awards. A targeted information campaign, along with a guarantee of a maximum Pell grant, would allow families and students to plan ahead for college and develop an expectation that the future includes higher education. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, we are about to vote on a bunch of amendments. The two amendments on the Democratic side, one having been withdrawn, are designed to do one thing that is straight forward: Instead of focusing our military on the much more--on being engaged in this civil war, they are intended to focus on a limited mission, a much more limited mission that is in our national interest that we can achieve with far fewer troops: Combatting al-Qaida and like-minded terrorist groups and continuing to train Iraqi troops. I am not crazy about the language in the Feingold amendment. But I am crazy about the fact that we have got to keep the pressure on. The fact is, with every passing day, the situation in Iraq gets worse, and the President refuses to change course, continuing to dig us deeper and deeper and deeper in a hole. The most important thing we can do, and I compliment the Democratic leaders for this, is keep pressure, keep pressure on the President. Now, why pressure on the President? Quite frankly, he is not going to change. The only way, with all due respect to my Republican friends, is to put pressure on them so they start voting for the troops and not for the President. The fact is, as a number of my colleagues have mentioned in the news on the Republican side--I will not name any of them--they basically told the President: Mr. President, you have got until September. Well, between now and September, a lot more people are going to die in the midst of a civil war that don't have to die in the midst of a civil war if we change the mission. So this is all about keeping pressure. So every single day the public picks up the paper and sees that we are trying to change the President's course of action in Iraq. In turn, hopefully, they will speak to their Democratic and Republican Senators and Representatives and say: Make him change. Because until we get 67 votes, we are not going to be able to change his God-awful war. This war is a disaster. So what my friend, Senator Feingold, is doing is making a very valuable contribution. I am going to vote for cloture so we can continue to debate this issue and continue to put pressure on. Starting to get our troops out of Iraq and getting most of them out by early next year is what we have in the original legislation the President vetoed, which is the preferable way to go, in my view. But obviously we do not have the votes to overcome that veto, so we are trying to put something else on the table. But as important as beginning to bring our troops home, with a reasonable prospect of ending their presence in Iraq, it is equally important to have a plan for what we are going to leave behind, so we do not trade a dictator for chaos in a region that will undermine our interests for decades. So we have to have a plan to bring stability to Iraq when we leave, and that requires a political solution. In the interests of time, I will not attempt to discuss that, I will do it at a later date. But I compliment my friend from Wisconsin for continuing to keep the pressure on. This is all about, in my view, getting the 67 votes to be able to override the President's veto and ending this God-awful mess that he has us in and continues to dig us deeper and deeper and deeper and deeper into. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the College Affordability and Creating Chances for Educational Success for Students Act of 2007, or College ACCESS Act. It will make a 2-year or 4-year college degree affordable for every student. The United States is the largest economy in the world, and our skills, our brains, are the foundation of our economic strength. However, if we do not substantially expand access to higher education, we will not be able to count on continued dominance. Consider the facts: China and India both produce twice as many engineers a year as we produce. One out of five U.S. scientists and engineers are foreign- born. An Indian engineer costs only 20 percent of an American engineer. By 2010, the U.S. will produce about 15 percent of the world's science and engineering doctorate degrees. This is down from 50 percent, half the world total, in 1970. High-speed access to information has leveled the playing field, radiologists in India are reading x-rays from American hospitals. This is a global economy. In a world where America's competitive advantage gap is closing fast, we should be ensuring guaranteeing that every student can pursue higher education. The importance of a college degree has never been greater, but over the next decade 2 million students will forgo college because of cost. The price tag of a degree at a four year public college has risen 35 percent in the last 5 years, the largest increase in tuition and fees in any 5-year period in the last 30 years. We can not approach college as if it is a luxury, rather than a necessity. And we should be worried about the rising costs that are putting college out of reach for more and more Americans. We aren't giving students and their families enough financial support to obtain their educational goals, it is that simple. We need to act, and we need to act now, and that is why I am introducing the College ACCESS Act. This legislation addresses some of the disparities in our current system with innovative new ways to help Americans pay for college. First, my College ACCESS Plan fully covers the average cost of tuition and fees at a 2-year public college and covers more than half of the average cost of tuition and fees at a public 4-year college. Right now, students and their families can take advantage of either the Hope Credit or the tuition and fees deduction, obtaining a maximum benefit of $1,120 or $1,650, respectively. Although these incentives help to make college more affordable, they fall far short of providing the level of relief needed to ensure that all students can afford college. By replacing the Hope Credit and the tuition and fees deduction with a single $3,000 credit, the equivalent of a $12,000 deduction, and making it refundable, middle class and low income families will get real help with college costs. My College ACCESS tax credit simplifies this process and is indexed annually for inflation. So, when the cost of college goes up, the amount of assistance goes up as well. Second, my College ACCESS proposal increases Pell Grants. When this program was established, it covered most of the cost of tuition at a 4- year public college. This is no longer the case. Currently, the maximum annual Pell Grant award is $4,310, and the average annual cost of tuition and fees at a 4-year public college is $5,800. Students are seeing their tuition costs rise every year while the levels of Federal funding fail to keep up. This reality is one that more and more students are facing every day, a reality that says, you can go to college, but only if you can afford it, and you won't get much help from us. My College ACCESS Act seeks to remedy this by raising the maximum Pell Grant award to $5,100 for 2007-2008, followed by increases of $300 per year for the next 5 years, for a maximum Pell Grant in 2011-2012 of $6,300. Finally, the College ACCESS Plan would provide funding for a demonstration program in four states that would commit a maximum Federal Pell Grant award to eligible 8 grade students so they know they're going to get this assistance when they graduate. By using the same eligibility criteria as the National School Lunch Program, students would be identified based on need, and then provided with information on the Pell Grant program, the costs of college, and what Federal and State financial assistance is available to them. Right now, students don't find out if they are eligible for Federal aid until their senior year, much less how much they will receive. If you've ever put kids through college, like I have, you know that this time frame doesn't allow much leeway for planning ahead. An earlier promise of Federal aid will begin the conversation about college early and continue it through high school. That way, students and their families can visualize college in their future, and this goal can sustain them through the moment they open that acceptance letter. My mother has an expression that I think rings true in the larger scope of America: ``Children tend to become that which you expect of them.'' I want a country where we expect much from America's children. Our future, and our economic security, depend on it. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of this bill be included in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to speak in morning business under the time that is allotted to me postcloture.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, last week, the Congress sent the President an emergency supplemental spending bill for Iraq. That bill provided every dollar our troops need and every dollar the President requested and then some. It also provided what a majority of Americans expect and that is they expect a plan to start to bring home American troops, to bring this war to a responsible end, and to not escalate it indefinitely as this President is doing. In vetoing the bill, the President not only denied our troops the funding they needed, but he denied the American people what they have clearly stated they want: a responsible path out of Iraq. That is what the 2006 election was about. That is what every poll is about. That is what the Senator from West Virginia, whom I see on the floor, and I and others have been saying for some time now. I might add, that is also what I think an awful lot of our Republican colleagues want. I raised a few eyebrows when I said a month ago that I don't think there are more than a dozen members of the opposition who truly believe this policy of unrelenting escalation with no end in sight in Iraq is one they support. The question is: What do we do in the face of the President's recalcitrance? We all know, and again I refer to my friend from West Virginia, the most learned person in the Senate--I don't go back as far as he does, but I go back to trying to end the war in Vietnam. I remember how painfully long that process was. Once the whole Nation and the Senate had turned against the war, it was still painfully difficult to end. So if it were up to me, I would send the same emergency spending bill back to the President and have the votes, with the money for our troops and the plan that is in that legislation to end the war, which the people expect. I would send it back to him again and again and again and again and let him veto it again and again and again and again. Any reasonable person listening to my speaking might ask: Why would you do that, not a fool's errand? I believe the more we keep this front and center, the more we relentlessly push on this President to abandon his flawed policy, the more pressure will be brought upon our colleagues who, in their hearts, know this is not the right policy but are voting with the President instead of with the troops. I must admit straight up, this is about building pressure. We are going to need 67 votes to end this war--67 votes in the Senate. So that means, although I had a great conversation with Tim Johnson last night--I might say, he sounded wonderful--although that means until Senator Johnson comes back, we need 17 Republican Senators to change their minds. That is why we have to keep pushing. We have to let the President demonstrate time and again that he is totally out of touch with what our troops need, what the American people want, and where America's interests lie. In a sense, this reminds me a little bit of Richard Nixon. He seems divorced from reality. He seems divorced from what is going on around him. I don't quite understand it. I have been here 34 years. It reminds me of Nixon during Watergate. Here we had the Attorney General testify before our Judiciary Committee with a terrible appearance, and the President says he did wonderfully. The President says the war is going well. The President said the response to Katrina initially was great. There seems to be a disconnect here. So the only thing I know to do is to continually force him to demonstrate again and again, until he changes his mind, how out of touch he is, to build pressure in the Congress. The truth is, votes matter. We need the votes to stop this war because I am convinced this President has made a decision with his Vice President to keep this from completely blowing up and hand it off to the next President. The problem is, in the meantime, a lot of people are going to lose their lives--a lot of Americans and a whole lot more Iraqis. But I recognize, as I said, the reality that it takes 60 votes to send the same supplemental back to the President, as it would take 60 votes to formally deauthorize the war, as my friend from West Virginia is attempting to do, as I and Carl Levin talked about, and we introduced legislation similar to that, to deauthorize the war and reauthorize a more limited mission. We need, though, 60 votes. It is just as people talk about cutting off funding, we still need 60 votes. It would take, obviously, 67 votes then to overcome a Presidential veto. The reason I say this is we all are frustrated on this floor. Right now, we don't have those votes. We don't have the votes right now to send back the same supplemental. What should we do next? In my view, first, anything we send back to the President must and will provide every dollar the troops need. As long as we are on the frontlines, I will vote for the money to protect them. That money must include funding for additional Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles, so-called MRAPs. The amendment I offered was overwhelmingly adopted. The vast majority of deaths and injuries are from roadside bombs. They are responsible for 70 percent of our casualties in Iraq. These new V-shaped hull vehicles that will take the place of heavily armored humvees have a four to five times greater prospect of protecting troops inside those vehicles. They can literally cut our casualty rates by two-thirds. As a matter of fact, depending on what we do send back to the President, it is my intention, if somehow we make no progress, to take this money out for those vehicles and move it separately because it literally, literally, literally can change the lives of our soldiers in the field. Our military wants them; our soldiers need them. Defense Secretary Gates said MRAPs are ``the highest priority acquisition program. Any and all options to accelerate the production and fielding of this capability should be identified, assessed, and applied.'' I am happy to hear him say that because originally they didn't ask for this money to fast-forward the funding of these vehicles. The Secretary is right. I think it would be unconscionable not to get as many of these new vehicles as possible in the field as fast as possible. Second, if we don't have the votes now for a hard timetable, which is what is in the bill that was vetoed, a hard timetable that came out of the language Senator Levin and I worked on putting in the bill, if, in fact, we don't have the votes now for that hard timetable to start getting our troops out of Iraq, any bill we send back to the President must limit dramatically the mission of the troops in Iraq. We must get our troops out of the middle of this sectarian civil war that we cannot end militarily. Having 15,000, 20,000, 30,000 troops in a city of 6,200,000 people knocking on doors in the middle of a civil war is just foolhardy. Instead, we should focus our military on a much more limited mission that is in the national interest, that we can achieve with fewer troops, and that is doable; that is, training the Iraqi Army, preventing al-Qaida from occupying territory in parts of Anbar Province, and--and--force protection. If we limit the mission in that way, the President will not be able to justify keeping 160,000 troops in Iraq, especially at a time when our military is dangerously overstretched, threatening the readiness of our troops and the ability to retain those now serving, to recruit those who may wish to serve in the future, and--and--to provide a National Guard at home that is needed for natural disasters at home, as we have recently seen in Kansas. Just this week, we have seen how overstretching is hurting us at home. When a tornado wiped 80 square blocks of Greensburg, KS, off the map, the State's National Guard was slow in responding. Why? Because much of its manpower and equipment is in Iraq. Across the country, our Governors have been warning for months that their National Guards are not prepared for the next local disaster because they are tied down overseas; or, even if they are home, because they took their equipment overseas when they were deployed and were unable to bring it back, they are ill prepared in terms of manpower and/or equipment. So if we limit the mission of our troops in Iraq to a more rational mission, the President will have to start bringing troops home now, with or without a hard timetable. He will have to start listening to our Governors. He will have to start listening to our troops and their families who have told so many of us about the strain of going back to Iraq on third and fourth tours, about being ordered to stay longer each time they go, about not having the year at home between deployments that they were promised. He will have to start listening because he won't have an excuse not to. Third, if we can't get a hard timeline into this emergency spending bill, we should add it to the next bill we vote on, and to the one after that, and to the one after that. We have to be relentless. Sooner or later, our colleagues will stop voting with the President and start backing what the American people want: a responsible end to this war. Until we have the votes to force the President to change course, we have to keep the pressure on for change every single day. That is what I have been doing, and that is what I will continue to do until this policy levee that the President has erected breaks. The fact is, the fundamental strategy under which the President has operated is flawed. The idea that through force we are going to be able to establish a strong central democratic government in Baghdad is simply not possible. It is simply not possible. It is not going to happen in the lifetime of any Member of this Senate. Starting to get our troops out of Iraq, and getting most of them out by early next year, is the first step toward bringing this war to a responsible end. Just as important, we have to have a plan for what we leave behind so we do not trade a dictator for chaos in Iraq and the region that undermines our interests for decades. I don't want my son going to Iraq, but I also don't want my grandson going to that part of the world in the next 15 years. How we leave and what we leave behind will impact on that second question. We have to have a plan to bring stability to Iraq as we leave, and that requires a political solution. Everyone--everyone--from the President on, says there is no military solution to Iraq; there is a political solution only. But he hasn't offered a political solution. I know my colleagues have heard me talk about my plan for a political settlement in Iraq for more than a year now. It calls for separating the warring factions, giving them breathing room in their own regions, as their constitution provides, with control over the fabric of their daily lives--such as police protection, education, marriage, jobs, religion--and a limited central government that would be responsible for distributing oil revenues, which should be the glue that holds this country together, responsible for the army and responsible for the borders. Every passing day makes my plan, the Biden-Gelb plan, more urgent and more relevant. Look at what is happening in Ramadi, where al-Qaida has a stronghold. The administration rightly points to some successes in getting Sunni tribal leaders to turn on al-Qaida in Iraq and getting thousands of young Sunni men to sign up for the Ramadi police force and protection forces. Listen carefully to how this happened, as described by the Los Angeles Times: Fed up with the insurgents' killings and their acts of intimidation in Ramadi, the Sunni sheiks came to the coalition in September to tell the U.S.-led force that they were ready to cooperate and would urge their tribes to supply recruits for the Iraqi army and police. Even the most optimistic U.S. colonel was not prepared for the flood of recruits once the sheiks got the word out that joining the Army, police, and provincial forces had their approval. Recently, 1,500 Iraqi youths showed up to enlist in the police, more than the recruiters could take. Continuing to quote. Another change that helped recruiting was a policy introduced in February promising recruits from Al Anbar that they would be based close to home if they enlisted. Within 2 days of that switch, 400 youths had signed up. So you have Sunnis joining the police and army in their own regions, staying in their regions to deal with Sunni extremists in the midst of their own region, and becoming part of the anti-al-Qaida solution. What is that all about? It is what I have been saying for a long time: give them local control and they will have the prospect of bringing this country to a peaceful settlement. That is a whole lot better than having them take the fight to the Shiites and becoming part of the sectarian nightmare. It makes sense for our troops to be in Anbar, helping local Sunnis defeat al-Qaida. That is what we should limit their mission to. It does not make sense for them to be going door to door in Baghdad, a city of 6.2 million people, and getting caught in the crossfire of a self- sustaining civil war. It makes sense for us to focus on a political settlement by bringing problems and responsibilities down to the local level, giving each group an opportunity to advance its interests peacefully, not with bombs and death squads but with a political compromise. It does not make sense to send more and more troops into Iraq in pursuit of a strategy that has virtually no prospect for success. The administration hopes the surge will buy time for Prime Minister Maliki's government to get its act together. But there is no trust within that government, no trust of the government by the people it purports to serve, and no capacity on the part of the government to deliver the services or security that is needed. There is little prospect that the government will build that trust and capacity any time soon. In short, the most basic premise of the President's approach, and that of some of my colleagues on this side of the aisle, is that the Iraqi people will rally behind a strong central government that looks out for their interests equally and is fundamentally fair. That whole notion, I have been saying for over 4 years, is fundamentally flawed. It is not achievable. So instead of escalating this war with no end in sight, we have to start bringing our troops home with the goal of getting most of them out by early next year. As the President rails against those of us who have been proposing that, I remind him his former Secretary of State Baker, his father's former Secretary of State Eagleburger, were part of a commission that said we should get our troops out by March of 2008. The British, in Basra, did essentially what I am suggesting. They redeployed their troops out of the cities, did not engage in the civil war, and began to draw them down. Are they abandoning? Instead of escalating this war, we have to start to bring our troops home, and we have to help Iraq make the transition to the decentralized federal system that is called for in their constitution. Making federalism work for all Iraqis is a strategy that can still succeed and allow our troops to leave without leaving chaos behind. This war must end, but it is still within our power to end it responsibly. That is a mission that can unite Americans and protect our interests, and that is a mission that is long overdue. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I wish to honor Wes Wilkins, of Middleton, DE, who will on May 2, 2007, receive the Dr. Gary Burch Memorial Award, given annually to the railroad worker who has done the most to improve the safety of railroad passengers. For more than 30 years, Wes has worked on our Nation's railroads. As one of Amtrak's most talented and innovative maintenance of way employees, he helped design the Switch Exchange System and provided input on every operational procedure involved with this new system of switching. The result of his talent helped to ensure reliable and safe train travel on virtually every mile of track between here and Boston, as well as across the Nation. Wes also formed the Production and Construction Safety Committee, whose purpose is to help ensure safe practices throughout Amtrak's Production Unit, which oversees installations. He is known for his countless hours of double- and triple-checking, of traveling to trouble spots, and of helping teach others about safety. His ability to operate almost every piece of maintenance equipment Amtrak uses and his success in instilling safety in the minds of his coworkers make him quite worthy of this award. As someone who rides Amtrak to work, I can testify to the importance rail transportation plays in providing affordable, reliable, safe transportation and I feel safer knowing someone like Wes is working on the front lines. Delaware is home to two of Amtrak's most important maintenance shops, and I congratulate all of the Amtrak employees of Delaware who helped Wes earn this award. Wes should be proud of all he has done to make this possible and I wish him the best as he continues a distinguished career of public service.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, President Bush has spent the last 2 weeks talking up the ``progress'' we are making in Iraq and talking down the Democrats and some of our Republican colleagues for trying to bring this war to a responsible end. But sometimes that is a problem because you have to deal with the facts. The facts are not as the President wants them to be but as they exist on the ground. The fact is, the President is totally out of touch with reality. He is out of touch with the American people and with America's interests in the region. I have been here a while, and I can say I have never seen a President as isolated since Richard Nixon. The President appears to be totally removed from reality. He tells us that Attorney General Gonzales has done a great job, when anybody who watched it views it as one of the least impressive appearances of an Attorney General. He tells us that the President of the World Bank, an American, is doing a great job, oblivious to the damage being done to America's reputation around the world. And against the advice of some of the most gifted military men and women in a generation, he has adopted a policy in Iraq that is a disaster. The President argues that the surge is succeeding, but with every welcome development he cites there is an equally unwelcome development that gives lie to the claim that we are making any progress. For example, while death squad violence against Iraqis is down in some Baghdad neighborhoods where we have surged, suicide bombings have increased by 30 percent over the last 6 weeks. Violence is up dramatically in the belt ringing Baghdad. The civilian death toll has increased 15 percent from February to March. When we squeeze a water balloon in one place, it bulges somewhere else. Moqtada al-Sadr has not been seen, but he has been heard, rallying his followers with anti- American messages and his thugs to take on American troops in the south. Last week, he pulled his ministers from the coalition government, and intelligence experts believe his militia is simply waiting out the surge. Closing markets to vehicles has precluded some car bombs, but it also has prompted terrorists to change tactics and walk in with suicide vests. The road to the airport to Baghdad may be safer, but the skies above it are more lethal; witness the ironic imposition of ``no-fly zones'' for our own helicopters. Tal Affar is the most damaging evidence of the absolute absurdity of this policy. The President cites it as progress. Architects of the President's plan called Tal Affar a model because in 2005 we surged about 10,000 Americans and Iraqis to pacify the city. Then we left, just as our troops will have to leave the Baghdad neighborhoods after calm is established, if it is. But what happened in Tal Affar? It was the scene of some of the most horrific sectarian violence to date. A massive truck bomb aimed at the Shiite community led to a retaliatory rampage by Shiite death squads, aided by Iraqi police. Hundreds were killed. The population of Tal Affar, which was 200,000 people just a year or two ago, is down to 80,000. There is an even more basic problem with the President's progress report, and it goes to the heart of the choices we now face in Iraq. Whatever tactical progress we may be making will amount to nothing if it is not serving a larger strategy for success. The administration's strategy has virtually no prospect for success, and his strategy, in a nutshell, is the hope that the surge will buy President Maliki's government time to broker the sustainable political settlement that our own military views as essential, and that is premised upon the notion of a central government in Baghdad with real power. But there is no trust within the government, no trust of the government by the people it purports to serve, and no capacity on the part of the government to deliver security or services. There is little, if any, prospect that this government will build that trust and capacity any time soon. How many times have colleagues heard, beginning in January, how there is an oil agreement, that they have gotten that deal? Has anybody seen that deal, after we heralded it time and again as essential to pulling this country together? In short, the most basic premise of the President's approach--that the Iraqi people will rally behind a strong central government, headed by Maliki, in fact will look out for their interests equitably--is fundamentally and fatally flawed. It will not happen in anybody's lifetime here, including the pages'. If the President won't look at a program that is different than he is now pursuing if his plan doesn't work, what will he do? History suggests there are only a couple of ways, when there is a self- sustaining cycle of sectarian violence, to end it, and it is not to put American troops in the middle of a city of 6.2 million people to try to quell a civil war. Throughout history, four things have worked. You occupy the country for a generation or more. Well, that is not in our DNA. We are not the Persian Empire or British Empire. You can install a dictator, after having removed one. Wouldn't that be the ultimate irony for the U.S. to do that after taking one down. You can let them fight it out until one side massacres the other--not an option in that tinder box part of the world. Lastly, you make federalism work for the Iraqis. You give them control over the fabric of their daily lives. You separate the parties, you give them breathing room, and let them control their local police, their education, their religion, and their marriage. That is the only possibility. We can help Iraq change the focus to a limited central government and a Federal system, which their constitution calls for. I cannot guarantee that my strategy will work, but I can guarantee that the road the President has us on leads to nowhere with no end in sight. We have to change course to end this war responsibly. That is what we are trying to do in Congress. Later this week, we will send to the President an emergency supplemental bill on Iraq that provides every dollar our troops need and more than the President requested. It also provides what the majority of Americans expect and believe is necessary: a plan to start to bring our troops home and bring this war to a responsible end, not escalate it indefinitely. If the President vetoes the emergency spending bill, he is the one who will be denying our troops the funding they need. He is the one who will be denying the American people a path out of Iraq. The President's double talk on Iraq is reaching new heights of hypocrisy. I don't say that lightly. On April 16, the President claimed that setting a timetable to start bringing our troops home would ``legislate defeat.'' Just 2 days after that, 2 days later, his own Secretary of Defense had this to say: The push by Democrats to set a timetable for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq has been helpful in showing Iraqis that American patience is limited . . . that this is not an open- ended commitment. Then, in arguing against the supplemental, the President claimed that by sending him a bill he would somehow be forced to veto, the military would run out of money for Iraq in mid-April--which is not true, by the way--and as a result, he would have to extend the tours of duty of the troops already in Iraq. Extending those tours, the President said, ``is unacceptable.'' ``It's unacceptable to me, it's unacceptable to our veterans, it's unacceptable to our military families, and it's unacceptable to many in this country.'' Unacceptable? The very next day, the administration announced its plans to do the ``unacceptable'' and extended the tours of every American ground troop in Iraq by 3 months. Talk about hypocrisy: Telling us the path out of Iraq is a way which is forcing him to veto a bill that will require him then to extend tours because of that veto and that is unacceptable, and the very next day he extends the tour of every person on the ground. Once one gets over the hypocrisy, that announcement is an urgent warning that the administration's policy in Iraq cannot be sustained without doing terrible long-term damage to our military. If this administration insists on keeping this many troops in Iraq until next year, we will have to send soldiers back for third, fourth, and fifth tours, extend deployment times from 6 months to a year for marines, from 12 months to 16 to 18 months for the Army. The military will also be forced to end the practice of keeping troops at home for at least 1 year between deployments, to fully mobilize the National Guard and Reserve, and to perpetuate this backdoor draft. This President is breaking--is breaking--the military. We don't have to guess at the impact on this relentless readiness, its impact on retention and recruitment. This month, we learned that recent graduates of West Point are choosing to leave Active-Duty service at the highest rate in more than three decades. This administration's policies are literally driving some of our best and brightest young officers out of the military. Instead of working with Democrats in Congress in a way forward, this President, divorced from reality, is accusing us of emboldening the enemy and undermining our troops. I have a message for you, Mr. President: The only thing that is emboldening the enemy is your failed policy. Mr. President, the only mission you have accomplished is emboldening the enemy with your failed policy. Instead of escalating the war with no end in sight, we have to start bringing this to a responsible conclusion. If the administration insists on keeping this many troops next year, we are in serious, serious jeopardy. I conclude by saying that I believe it is my obligation as a Senator--and I hope the obligation of everyone else--to keep relentless, unending pressure on this President to come to grips with reality, to continually push every single day to say: Mr. President, stop; stop this policy of yours. It is my hope, even though he is likely to veto this bill, that we will keep the pressure on and ultimately convince at least a dozen of our Republican colleagues it is time to stop backing the President and start backing the troops. It is time, Mr. President, to begin to responsibly bring this war to an end. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN

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

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I will proceed in morning business. I believe I have time allotted to me.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I wish to honor one of the great inspirations to the young people of my hometown, Bishop Aretha E. Morton, who will be retiring this week from the Tabernacle Full Gospel Baptist Cathedral in Wilmington. On this day, 48 years ago, she preached her trial sermon; 24 years later she was ordained, becoming the first woman to pastor a Baptist Church in Delaware. She has now served longer than any pastor in her church's almost 90-year history. She also made history in 1993 by becoming the first woman, and the first African-American, to be a chaplain for the Wilmington Fire Department. Around Wilmington, where everyone knows Bishop Morton, she is affectionately called ``Mother''--and for good reason. She has spent her career reaching out to my city's youth, inspiring students to achieve and offering something that those in trouble don't have enough of--hope. For all of us in this Chamber, she is an example of what the country needs more of right now, someone with a lot of love in her heart, who teaches tolerance and respect. I wish Bishop Morton the very best and hope that she has more time to spend with her children, Lorraine Gaskins and Dr. Donald Morton, seven grandchildren, and eight great-grandchildren.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, this Sunday communities across the globe will mark Yom Hashoah, Holocaust Memorial Day. As we mourn the millions who were lost at the hands of the Nazis, how can anyone justify denying victims and historians access to files documenting the Nazis' atrocious acts? Yet, that is exactly what is happening. Last December, I wrote to the ambassadors of nine countries about an issue of utmost importance--the opening of the Bad Arolsen Holocaust archives. Unfortunately, the response from many of these countries has been disappointing. Thousands of Holocaust survivors, historians, and researchers are still being denied access to files that tell the story of unspeakable crimes committed by the Nazis. Many of the files are about the survivors themselves; still, they cannot view them. The story of how this unacceptable state of events came about goes back 60 years. After the Allies won the Second World War, they took possession of millions of files and documents, penned by the Nazis themselves, which chronicled every aspect of their horrific Final Solution. To maintain this catalogue of atrocities, the Allies established an archive called the International Tracing Service, in the town of Bad Arolsen, Germany. Today, Bad Arolsen contains some 30 to 50 million pages that record the individual fates of over 17 million victims of Nazi persecution. The Tracing Service was established to unify families and help survivors learn the ultimate fate of their lost loved ones. Yet, access to the records remains severely limited and very few survivors have ever been allowed direct, much less prompt access. The justification for this delay was supposedly privacy concerns, logistical problems associated with making the records widely accessible, and fears of new legal claims. None of these can justify the tragic result--thousands of elderly survivors have passed away in recent years, never knowing what happened to their families, even though the answer may be sitting on a shelf in Germany. This is simply tragic. Eleven countries serve on the International Commission that supervises the Tracing Service. Last May, after years of delay, they commendably agreed to make these archives public for the first time. They also agreed to place digitized copies at Holocaust research centers in other countries, but only after each of the 11 countries-- the United States, Israel, Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, and the United Kingdom--completed their own ratification procedure. In light of the advanced age of the remaining survivors, all committed to make ratification an urgent priority, with the goal of concluding the process by the end of 2006. But as of December, when I wrote my letters, only the United States and Israel had ratified the agreement. Since then, the United Kingdom, Poland, and the Netherlands have joined the United States and Israel in completing ratification. However, Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Italy and Luxembourg have not done so. Today, I am submitting a Senate Resolution calling on the Senate to join people around the world in observing Yom Hashoah, Holocaust Memorial Day, commending the countries that have completed ratification of the agreement to make the Bad Arolsen archives public, calling on those countries yet to complete ratification to do so immediately, and calling on the International Commission to approve immediate distribution of electronic copies of the documents from Bad Arolsen to research centers around the world, including the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, so that survivors will be able to document their experience, and learn the fates of their lost loved ones. Last fall, the Government of Iran hosted a conference; its absurd and outrageous premise was that the Holocaust did not occur. At a time when dangerously deluded efforts to deny the Holocaust are on the rise, how can we keep the Nazis' own records from proving their horrors to the world? And how can we deny the Nazis' victims--who have suffered enough for a thousand lifetimes--the truth they so clearly deserve? Yom Hashoah reminds us of one of the greatest evils that has ever befallen the human race, and it mourns the millions who were lost as a result of that evil. The countries of the International Commission have an opportunity to do a little good by shedding light on that evil. That is the best way they could observe Yom Hashoah this year.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 739.