Joe Biden

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator very much. The bottom line is, I do not, for a moment--and, again, because he is on the floor and he is my friend--I do not question the motivation, the intention, the desire, the intensity with which my friend from Pennsylvania feels about this issue. I believe he believes if this passes we are going to be doing the victims of asbestosis--and all other aspects of the exposure to asbestos--we are going to be doing them more good than harm. But I disagree. If the money were here, if the money were guaranteed, under no circumstances could it fall short, then, in fact, that would be the case. But the last piece I will mention here is, I heard my good friend from California talk about Goldman Sachs has a list. Isn't this amazing? We are about to vote on a bill that by some measure will cost at least $140 billion to somebody--I think a lot more--and there is a list that Goldman Sachs has. And we don't? I ain't for no deal I ain't in on. I ain't in on this deal. I am not for it. I am not for it. I thank the Chair and thank my colleague.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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 speak up to 5 minutes on an amendment that is not in the first package of amendments we will vote on, but since we will have no opportunity in the second and third package of amendments, I will speak to it now. I have an amendment that is fashioned to deal with the 9/11 Commission Report that came out less than 2 months ago, on December 5, 2005. It was the so-called report card where this prestigious bipartisan Commission, led by former Republican Governor Tom Kean and former Democratic Congressman Lee Hamilton, took a look at what we have done based on what they recommended in the 9/11 Report. It tells how little we have learned and how little we have done to actually make the homeland safer. Most Americans, at least in my State, believe at least the most obvious steps have been taken to close the gaps in our homeland defense. They believe, at the very least, we have a plan, that we have set priorities, and we know what the next step will be. Let me quote from the Commission's report, which is only 6 or 7 weeks old, on what we have done to assess the risks and vulnerabilities of our critical infrastructure--transportation, communications, industrial assets. Here is what they say: No risk and vulnerability assessments actually made; no national priorities established; no recommendations have been made on allocation of scarce resources. All key decisions [on homeland security] are at least a year away. We all remember September 11 when we discovered that local police, fire, and rescue units could not communicate with each other, could not communicate with Federal agencies. There was no way to coordinate the action, no way to share information. Things are no better today. It gets worse. Airline passenger screening, the one place most Americans think we have done pretty well, the 9/11 Commission gives that effort a grade of ``F.'' Regarding airline baggage screening, to check for explosives, from the report on December 5, 2005: Improvements have not been made a priority by Congress or the Administration. This is unacceptable. This administration tries to fill in the most obvious gaps in our homeland defense, but they have not done it. We have not done it. We simply have not done it. This amendment is designed to fill in the most obvious gaps. It begins with those areas where the Commission graded us and the President as ``F'' and ``D'' in the Commission Report. It addresses other issues such as the utter lack of a systematic program for rail security, passenger freight, stations, tunnels, rail yards, bridges. Every dime in this amendment is fully paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes. Frankly, this is a modest list. There is much more to be done. We will need more resources to make us safer. Wiretapping, even if it is legal, is not the sole homeland defense. This amendment focuses on the most glaring and dangerous shortcomings in our homeland defense. By closing these loopholes, this amendment actually returns $23 billion to the Treasury to improve our fiscal security and reduce our dependence on borrowing from other countries. I have been joined in this amendment--and I did not have time to notify her because I did not know until 2 minutes ago--by Senator Stabenow of the State of Michigan, who has worked tirelessly on dealing with this issue. It is pretty basic. We have done nothing much to deal with the problems most Americans know relate to homeland security. We are safer but not nearly safe enough. The bipartisan commission that got great grades from everybody in the Nation felt compelled on their own dime, with their own money, their own resources, not funded by the Government, to continue to issue reports and to hold hearings. And they issued a report on December 5 that is, quite frankly, embarrassing and dangerous. So our amendment is designed to fill some of the loopholes, not all of them, that, in fact, have been left by the President's failure to secure our national interest, our homeland defense, as well as by our failure as a Congress to step to the ball. We can and we have to marshal all our country's resources in this struggle. I will bet you $100, if you asked anybody in the public, from corporate CEOs to the average American out there, Would you rather us spend this money on securing our ports, our nuclear plants, our railroads, our cities, or would you rather us give it back in a tax break, I think it is just like the COPS bill years ago, given the choice, the American people said let's make our streets safer. I am confident they think we should make the country safer. This amendment will be voted on not in this first tranche of amendments but the second, but I am not going to get a chance to speak to it at the later date. There was a little opening in time, and I thank the staff for letting me know this time was available. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I will vote no on the nomination of Judge Alito to the Supreme Court for three reasons: first, his expansive view of Executive power; second, his narrow view of the role of the Congress; and third, his grudging reading of antidiscrimination law reflecting a lack of understanding of congressional intent and the nature of discrimination in the 21st century. First, Judge Alito's expansive view of Presidential power. In November 2000, Judge Alito said that ``the unitary executive theory . . . best captures the meaning of the Constitution's text and structure.'' Justice Thomas in his Hamdi dissent lays out his views on the power of an unchecked unitary executive to wage war and exercise foreign policy. Although Judge Alito said his interpretation of the unitary executive was much narrower and that he couldn't recall Justice Thomas using that term, I find Judge Alito's explanation not at all convincing. I understand the term ``unitary executive'' in the manner in which John Yoo--the administration's legal architect--conceives of executive power. I asked Judge Alito whether he agreed with Professor Yoo's reasoning that would allow the President under his absolute power--even in the absence of an emergency or imminent threat--to invade another country, to invade Iran tomorrow, no matter what Congress says. Judge Alito declined to answer this basic, fundamental question. Traditionally ``conservative'' Justices, such as Robert Jackson, strongly believed in the wisdom of checks and balances. Judge Alito was asked repeatedly at the hearing about Justice Jackson's famous concurring opinion in the 1952 steel seizure case. During the Korean War, President Truman attempted to nationalize the steel mills in order to avoid a labor work stoppage that would have had negative effects on the war effort. A 6 to 3 Supreme Court ruled against President Truman. Justice Jackson put it this way about what was at stake: [N]o doctrine that the Court could promulgate would seem to me more sinister and alarming than that a President whose conduct of foreign affairs is so largely uncontrolled, and often even is unknown, can vastly enlarge his mastery over the internal affairs of the country by his own commitment of the Nation's armed forces to some foreign venture. . . . That military powers of the Commander in Chief were not to supersede representative government of internal affairs seems obvious from the Constitution and from elementary American history. Justice Jackson also laid out a three-part framework for how to view subsequent cases in which the President is arguing he's doing something under his Commander in Chief authority--a framework the Rehnquist Court embraced as ``analytically useful'' in the 1981 case of Dames & Moore v. Regan. First, is the instance in which ``the President acts pursuant to an express or implied'' authorization of Congress. Second, ``when the President acts in absence of either a congressional grant or denial of authority.'' And third, when the President takes ``measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress.'' Judge Alito showed remarkably little appreciation and understanding of this framework, at one point confusing prong two and prong three of Justice Jackson's framework. Judge Alito's record and his answers at the hearing raise great concern that both individual freedoms and the separation of powers are in jeopardy. In 1984, Judge Alito wrote that he did not ``question the authority that the Attorney General should have absolute immunity'' in cases involving wiretaps. This again signifies a willingness by Judge Alito to give the President and his officers dangerously expansive powers. At his hearings, Judge Alito tried to distance himself from his previous statement, claiming he was only doing the bidding of his clients. But at the same time, he refused to definitively say that he did not personally believe his previous assertion. It is also useful to note that we are currently in midst of a potentially endless war. The war on terror is almost 5 years old; and, unfortunately, shows no signs of abating. Will these expansive Presidential powers become a permanent fixture? What kind of powers do we want our President to have in dealing with a war that may go on for decades? Should our courts have no role? In 1986, Alito drafted a proposal to make full use of presidential signing statements in order to ``increase the power of the Executive to shape the law.'' It was yet another way to increase the power of the executive at the expense of the other branches. Senator Leahy asked Judge Alito at the hearing, ``wouldn't it be constitutional for the Congress to outlaw Americans from using torture?'' This is exactly what the Senate attempted to do in voting overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis to support the so-called McCain anti-torture amendment. But when this legislation was signed into law by President Bush on December 30, 2005, he issued a ``Presidential signing statement'' stating basically that no matter what me legislation says on its face, he could still order torture in certain circumstances. Specifically, the statement read that the ``executive branch shall construe this [prohibition] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch. . . .'' That is what is at stake with ``Presidential signing statements.'' As my colleague Senator Leahy has pointed out, President Bush has cited the unitary executive 103 times in these ``Presidential signing statements.'' Judge Alito, at this hearing, responded to Senator Leahy's question about whether Congress could outlaw torture this way: Well, Senator, I think the important points are that the President has to follow the Constitution and the laws. . . . But, as to specific issues that might come up, I really need to know the specifics. To me this is a dangerous nonanswer and one that is entirely consistent with President Bush's use of a signing statement to override Congress's outlawing of torture. The implications are very troubling. Judge Alito's view of the Executive is what worries me most. He referred to Justice Jackson in the Steel Seizure case many times. But I want to read one, short quote by Justice Jackson. Justice Jackson said in 1952: With all its defects, delays and inconveniences, men have discovered no technique for long preserving free government except that the Executive be under the law, and that the law be made by parliamentary deliberations. Such limitations may be destined to pass away. But it is the duty of the Court to the last, not first, to give them up. I believe they'll be destined to pass away with this Justice. To allow the President--whether this one or any future one--to be unconstrained in his or her powers; to be able to pick and choose which laws he or she wants to follow, is unacceptable. The Supreme Court was intended by our Founders to serve as a bulwark against executive overreaching. Any nominee to the Court who doesn't agree is a nominee who should not be confirmed. Second, Judge Alito has a very narrow view of congressional power. Judge Alito will very likely join with the present members of the Court who have struck down three dozen federal laws in less than 20 years--laws which said, for example, you can't have guns within 1,000 feet of an elementary school; laws requiring a 5-day background check for a handgun purchase; laws battling violence against women; laws requiring the clean-up of low level nuclear waste; laws designed to ensure freedom of religion; laws saying states can't steal somebody's ideas and inventions. This recent level of ``conservative'' judicial activism is more than six times the rate over the history of our Republic. Over the first seven decades of the Court's existence, in comparison, only two federal laws were held unconstitutional. On his 1985 job application, Judge Alito wrote, ``I believe very strongly in . . . federalism''--the principle that has been used by this activist court to knock down Federal law after Federal law. In an October 27, 1986, draft letter on behalf of Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs, John Bolton, Alito urged President Reagan to veto the ``Truth in Mileage Act.'' Alito drafted these words for President Reagan: My Administration believes that the Constitution intended to establish a limited Federal government, one that would not interfere with the vast array of activities that have been in the states' traditional concern. Over time, Congress has taken steps to eviscerate that constitutional scheme by legislating in numerous areas that should be governed by State law. Judge Alito continued his federalist activism on the bench. As a judge, he has fully embraced--and even aggressively sought to broaden-- the Supreme Court's federalism opinions, most centrally in his sole dissenting opinion in the Rybar case. In that case, Judge Alito called federalism ``vital'' and said that ``even today, the normative case for federalism remains strong.'' The majority of his colleagues in that case sharply criticized Judge Alito's opinion: While the dissent writes in the name of `constitutional federalism' it recognizes that even Lopez abjures such a requirement . . . but overlooks that making such a demand of Congress or the Executive runs counter to the deference that the judiciary owes to its two coordinate branches of government, a basic tenet of the constitutional separation of powers. Nothing in Lopez requires either Congress or the Executive to play Show and Tell with the Federal courts at the peril of invalidation of a Congressional statute. At his hearings, Judge Alito did nothing to allay concerns that he would continue to push this activist federalism agenda if confirmed to the Supreme Court. For example, he refused to recognize the well- settled nature of some of the Court's bedrock Commerce Clause precedents. And as a Supreme Court Justice, he would no longer be bound to follow these precedents. When asked about these issues by Chairman Specter and others, Judge Alito provided answers that reinforced my view that he has a very low regard for Congress's power to legislate. When Chairman Specter asked Judge Alito whether he would ``overturn [] congressional acts because of [Congress's] method of reasoning,'' Judge Alito gave the following answer: I think that Congress's ability to reason is fully equal to that of the judiciary. On its face, that may sound like a good answer; but it's not. Under the rational basis test--a cornerstone of constitutional law--the Supreme Court has greatly deferred to Congress's judgment and reasoning ability. Under the rational basis test, the Supreme Court has historically and rightfully deferred to Congress's reasoning as to why it did what it did--after all, this is the branch that can hold hearings; the branch that can call witnesses; and the branch that can build a record . . . all things the Court can't do. Judge Alito's answer seems to question this bedrock principle. What does this mean? What is at stake here? Does Judge Alito agree with those on the intellectual right who are attempting to reverse a healthy consensus going back to the days of the Great Depression that our government can act as a shield to protect Americans from the abuse of powerful interests? Michael Greve of the American Enterprise Institute puts it straight forwardly: I think what is really needed here is a fundamental intellectual assault on the entire New Deal edifice. We want to withdraw judicial support for the entire modern welfare state. What is at stake if this view gains ascendancy in our Supreme Court? If the Court is allowed to second-guess congressional judgment, a broad range of vital Federal legislation could potentially hang in the balance. Can we protect the air we breathe? Can we keep arsenic out of our drinking water? Can we keep tobacco companies from targeting our kids? Can we establish minimum national standards to provide equal opportunity and human dignity for society's most vulnerable members-- our elderly, our disabled, women victimized by violence? That is all at stake. Listen to the debates going on behind these constitutional issues. It's about devolution of government. It is about stripping--as a matter of law--the right of the Federal Government to do much of anything other than provide the national defense. Justice Thomas has voted to strike down over 65 percent of the Federal laws that have been challenged before the Supreme Court. Justice Thomas wrote in one of his opinions recently, ``If anything, the wrong turn was the Court's dramatic departure in the 1930s.'' What most view as a ``healthy consensus,'' Judge Thomas and others call ``a wrong turn.'' What is at risk if this view of the Constitution ever gained full ascendancy? The Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act, all rely on the Congress's commerce clause power. The intellectual right is also determined to elevate private property at the expense of protecting our safety, well-being, and communities. Under their reading of the appropriate language in the Constitution-- the takings clause of the fifth amendment--the only way to keep a chemical plant out of your neighborhood would be to compensate the chemical plant to not build because you are taking their property. Our bedrock civil rights laws are also based on post-1937 constitutional interpretations. There also could be no Federal minimum wage and no maximum hour laws. We wouldn't be having a debate about increasing the minimum wage because there wouldn't be one. The consequence of this judicial philosophy is to shift power to the already powerful and eliminate the ability of the less powerful to use the democratic branches of government to rebalance the playing field. And the intellectual right understands that in order to shift power, you need to focus on the courts. In 1988, a Reagan Justice Department document stated: There are few factors that are more critical to determining the course of the nation and yet are more often overlooked than the values and philosophies of the men and women who populate the third co-equal branch of the government, the federal judiciary. Obviously, every judge could impact the course of the Nation; but most important are the nine Justices on the United States Supreme Court. And that is why Judge Alito was selected to our highest Court, a consequence of which will be to threaten Congress's power to protect the American people. Third, Judge Alito lacks an understanding as to how prejudice plays out in the real world and has a very restrictive view of the antidiscrimination legislation Congress has passed. Earlier this month, I was thinking about my vote as I was preparing to speak before a Martin Luther King, Jr., event. And I reread his letter from the Birmingham jail. Everybody was telling him, ``We won. Give it up. Give it up.'' And here is what he wrote, laying out a standard by which to measure ourselves. Dr. King wrote: When you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact you are Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you [are] forever fighting a degenerating sense of `nobodiness,' then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. We shouldn't wait. We should own up to the fact that prejudice is still around and has evolved. It's not the prejudice of the '60s when they would say, ``we don't want any blacks here,'' or more descriptive terms. Now it's more subtle. They say, ``we're not sure you'd fit in.'' New words, for old sins. All public officials, including judges, must understand prejudice still lurks in the shadows. Judge Alito's record demonstrates that he does not look into the shadows. There is no question Judge Alito has ruled a number of times for the little guy, women, and minorities, but it's mostly in cases where the outcome was clear. When it was a close call, time and again Judge Alito ended up almost inevitably on the other side, many times dissenting from every one of his colleagues looking at the case. Judge Alito disagreed with all 10 of his colleagues and would have overturned the jury in Barbara Sheridan's case, stating that an employer ``may not wish to disclose his real reasons'' for making personnel decisions. In another solo dissent, he would have deferred to a corporation's ``subjective business judgment.'' His other colleagues said his approach would ``eviscerate'' antidiscrimination law. Our courts are where the less powerful are supposed to get a fair shake. Our courts are supposed to safeguard individuals against powerful institutions; they are where a single individual--even one who's not wealthy or well-connected--is on the same footing as a powerful corporation. I focused on discrimination cases to try to find out how Judge Alito reasoned. What I found troubled me, as did how he reasoned in other cases I asked him about, including the Family and Medical Leave Act case. Judge Alito told me that he ``can't know everything about the real world.'' So, in this case, he discounted any gender-related connection to the sick leave provisions, despite the fact that one in four people taking sick leave under the Act were women with difficult pregnancies, and one of the reasons we wrote the law was because we know about the stereotyping of women. Now, I don't think Judge Alito is a bad guy, but it is clear he has a blind spot; a dangerous blind spot for millions of Americans who still suffer from discrimination and stereotypes--however subtle or sophisticated. To my colleagues who would say it is inappropriate to look at the judicial philosophy or substantive rulings of our nominees to the Supreme Court, I would ask the following rhetorical question. Can you imagine on that hot, steamy Philadelphia summer in 1787, with the Founders sitting on the second floor so no one could hear what they were doing; can you imagine them saying, by the way, we are going to have three coequal branches of government. Two of them will be scrutinized by the American people, and the presumption will be that they are not entitled to the office unless a majority of the people conclude they should hold the office. But as for the third branch, all we want to know is are they honorable, decent, and straightforward? It is also useful to point out that it is right to subject nominees to the Supreme Court to more exacting standards than nominees to the lower courts, for as the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court dictates the judicial precedents that all lower courts are bound to respect. As a result, there are hundreds of lower court nominees I would neither have personally nominated nor would have voted for confirmation to the Supreme Court, but whom I did support for lower courts. But the Supreme Court is different. Because the Supreme Court is not bound by precedent in the way lower courts are--a point Judge Alito agreed to at his hearing--the judicial philosophy of Supreme Court nominees is not only fair game; it is crucial. This is the reason I have voted against a much higher percentage of Supreme Court nominees than lower court nominees during my time in the Senate, from Bork to Thomas, from Rehnquist to Roberts. It is also important to remember that we currently have a Justice serving on the Supreme Court nominated by President Ford. We even have judges still serving in the lower courts appointed by Presidents Kennedy and Eisenhower. From the early 1800s, in fact, the average time federal judges spend on the bench has increased from 15 years to 24 years. By that count, a Justice Alito may still be handing down decisions in the year 2030. Judge Alito, like Justice Thomas before him, has supported the theories of strict construction and originalism. He stated: I think we should look to the text of the Constitution and we should look to the meaning that someone would have taken from the text of the Constitution at the time of its adoption. According to originalist logic, many Supreme Court decisions that are fundamental to the fabric of our country are simply wrong. Perhaps even more importantly, how would a Justice Alito deal with the big issues of the future: for instance, can microscopic tags be implanted in a person's body to track his every movement? Can patents be issued for the creation of human life? Can brain scans be used to determine whether a person is inclined toward criminal behavior? What about the questions we can't even conceive of from this vantage point? Twenty or 30 years into the future, what would a Justice Alito be saying about important issues of the day? That is what makes today's vote so momentous. And when I look at all the evidence before us--Judge Alito's writings, his statements, his judicial records, his opinions, and the little we learned about him in these hearings--I am forced to conclude that he should not serve on the Supreme Court. That is why I am voting no. I yield the floor and thank my colleague.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, in March of this year, I--along with Senator Lugar--introduced S. 559, the Protection of Vulnerable Populations During Humanitarian Emergencies Act of 2005, a bill to make vulnerable people, especially women and children, a priority of our foreign assistance programs. The Committee on Foreign Relations approved the bill in March as part of its omnibus authorization bill, S. 600. Unfortunately, S. 600 was pulled from floor consideration in April, and remains stalled. In the last few days, I have attempted to add the provisions of S. 559 as an amendment to H.R. 972, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, which was approved by the other body just last week. I support the trafficking bill, which addresses a serious problem in many parts of the world, including this country. I have been told, however, by my friends on the other side of the aisle that my amendment is not acceptable at this time. Several reasons have been given, foremost among them that it will unduly delay enactment of the trafficking bill, because the other body has essentially closed up shop for the year. But as my colleagues know we have another problem--victims of sexual exploitation and abuse who are not trafficked--such as those who are forced to seek sanctuary in refugee or internally displaced camps. The trafficking bill deals with people who are trafficked from those camps. But it does not address the need to protect those left behind. Last May, I visited a refugee camp in Chad where nearly 30,000 refugees from Darfur had settled. I have seen and heard the problems they are facing first hand. Over the last 2 years, civilians have been targeted by Khartoum in one of the most horrific genocides the world has ever seen. Villages have been bombed, government-sponsored militia have destroyed crops and have fouled the water supply. They have burned homes, leaving mothers no choice but to flee for their lives and their children's lives. Civilians forced to flee during war find their way to camps, but instead of relative safety, what do they find? They find more suffering. The camps become virtual prisons. Women and girls are beaten and raped if they venture outside the camps for firewood. Sudan is not the only part of the world where such travesties are occurring. A report by a United Nations investigatory team released earlier this year states that a number of U.N. peacekeepers--U.N. peacekeepers, mind you--deployed to protect civilians from ethnic violence in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo were sexually exploiting girls as young as 13 years old. The peacekeepers were asking these children for sex in exchange for small sums of money or food. And the report found that the abuse continued even while UN investigators were on the ground. Reading that report and others reinforced my belief that we cannot stand by any longer. More must be done, and S. 559 provides an important framework to do so. I firmly believe that the objective of my legislation is entirely consistent with the objectives of the trafficking bill--to protect vulnerable people, whether they are trafficked from one country to another, or left behind in a refugee camp. It enhances the U.S. Government's ability to see that women and children are protected before, during, and after a complex humanitarian emergency. It directs the Secretary of State to designate a special coordinator for protection issues who will be charged with making sure our embassies are made aware of the warning signs that an emergency which may put the lives and safety of women and children at risk is imminent. It directs the coordinator to compile a watch list of such countries and regions so that the Agency for International Development can plan to meet potential need for protection programs. It prohibits U.S. funding for relief agencies that do not sign a code of conduct that outlaws improper exploitative relationships between aid workers and recipients. It calls upon the United States Executive Director of the International Bank of Reconstruction and Development to try to make sure World Bank demobilization, disarmament, and reintegration programs extend the same benefits provided to ex-combatants to the women and children who were associated with them. As it now stands, women and children who were used as cooks and porters and so-called ``wives,'' a euphemism for women who were kidnaped to serve as sexual slaves, may well not be given benefits through these programs--nothing with which to rebuild their lives despite the fact that they were not there by choice. Yet the very people who forced them into such conditions receive assistance without conditions. Finally, it amends the Foreign Assistance Act to authorize programs and activities specifically aimed at making vulnerable people-- especially women and children--who are affected by humanitarian emergencies safer from further exploitation and abuse. In recent days, some supporters of the trafficking bill have suggested my bill is about abortion. My response is this: my bill has nothing to do with abortion, but I am willing to make any changes that are necessary to make clear that abortion-related restrictions in foreign aid laws are not affected. I sincerely hope that people who have a legitimate sense of moral outrage about victims of trafficking will support my objectives and work with me to pass my bill early next year. The Senator from Kansas, Senator Brownback, who is one of the chief sponsors in the Senate of the trafficking bill, has pledged to work with me on approval of S. 559. I am grateful to him for that commitment. In the meantime, I am pleased that today the Senate will approve the Trafficking in Persons legislation and it will proceed to the President. It is a very important bill and I commend the sponsors in both chambers for their good work.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise to express my surprise and deep- seated opposition to the so-called Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, which is included in the Defense Department Appropriations bill. This provision would give the Secretary of Health and Human Services authority to provide almost total immunity from liability to the makers of almost any drug, and to those who administer it. While the measure's proponents portray it as a simple tool to make sure we have sufficient vaccine available in the case of an avian flu pandemic, the actual language of the provision is far broader than that, and it therefore poses a danger to all Americans. The actual provision permits immunity for the makers of virtually any drug or medical treatment. All the secretary need do is declare that it is a ``countermeasure'' used to fight an epidemic. One solitary person gets to decide what is a countermeasure and what is an epidemic. There is nothing to prevent the declaration of immunity for, say, Tylenol. There is nothing to prevent a declaration that, say, arthritis is an epidemic. What's more, this is no typical grant of immunity. No, the breadth of this provision is staggering. A drug maker can be grossly negligent in making or distributing a drug, and still escape liability. It can even make that drug with wanton recklessness and escape scott-free after harming thousands of people. In fact, under this provision, the only way a victim could still recover compensation from a drug maker for a dangerous drug or vaccine would be to prove ``willful misconduct,'' and then only by ``clear and convincing evidence.'' What this means is that, for a victim to be able to be compensated by the company that harmed him, he must prove that they committed a crime. And even if he can do that, the company can still avoid liability simply by notifying the authorities within 7 days that someone was harmed by their product. In other words, so as long as you ``confess'' to your bad behavior, you can get away with it! Is this the sort of justice system that Americans desire? The answer to this question seems clear from the way this provision was inserted in the larger bill. No hearings were held on this language; no Committee vote was taken; no bill passed the House or the Senate. Not even the House and Senate conferees had a chance to give input on this provision. Indeed, I'm told it was inserted in the dead of night, after conferees had already signed the conference report! Perhaps the folks who secretly inserted this provision in the dead of night knew that it was overly broad, as I've discussed; perhaps they knew that it was constitutionally suspect, as has been noted by at least one prominent law professor; or perhaps they just knew that, if this provision ever saw the light of day, the American people would not stand for such secrecy and injustice. This should not be how we conduct the business of the American people, and we will all suffer if this provision is permitted to go forward.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, according to the Book of Mark, Jesus asked this question: ``For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?'' Mark 8:36. I would ask the President of the United States a similar question-- what good is it to expand the power of the President, if in the process you erode the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution? Last week, we learnd--from a New York Times report and then from President Bush himself--that since September 11, 2001, the President of the United States has authorized the National Security Agency to conduct electronic surveillance of American citizens on American soil without resort to the procedures of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Today we learn, contrary to assurances by administration officials, that the NSA has also conducted warrantless surveillance of purely domestic phone calls because of the technical difficulties of determining the physical location of a particular telephone. There is still much that we do not know about this secret program and much that we do not know about the purported legal basis for it. In briefing the press on Tuesday, the Attorney General noted that people criticizing the administration are proffering opinions based on ``very limited information,'' and that such critics ``probably don't have the information about our legal analysis.'' But we do know this: for the past 4 years, the Bush administration has aggressively sought to expand the power of the President beyond recognition. In the face of this campaign, a Republican Congress has largely stood idle, reluctant to exercise its constitutional duty of oversight. The Framers provided for a system of checks and balances in the Constitution for one simple reason: to protect against abuse of power by any branch of government in order to protect our personal freedoms. In its zeal to expand the power of the President, the Bush administration's actions have threatened the fabric of the Constitution. These are hardly the actions of a self-described conservative who professes to want to reduce the power of the National Government. It would be one thing if the President's actions to expand Presidential power reflected sound judgment and wisdom. But again and again, the President's overreaching in the name of security has been profoundly misguided, and has undermined support for the war against al-Qaida at home and abroad; in his decision to create special military tribunals for al-Qaida suspects held in Guantanamo Bay, a system that has yet to produce a complete trial, in his decision to authorize secret prisons abroad holding terrorist suspects--including, apparently, using facilities once operated by Soviet Intelligence agencies; in his decision to play fast and loose with time-tested standards against torture; and now in his decision to unilaterally authorize secret wiretaps of Americans without a court order. Without more information from the Executive, it is difficult to judge the legality of the President's secret spying program. I call on the Attorney General, therefore, to provide the necessary information by promptly releasing the legal opinions governing this program--so that the Congress and the American people can assess the propriety of the President's actions. And I call on the Director of National Intelligence to promptly provide full and complete briefings to the appropriate congressional committees on the scope and operation of this program. What is clear today is that the President of the United States decided to create a new system outside the framework of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978--a framework that Congress designed to be comprehensive for electronic surveillance of foreign powers and agents of foreign powers. It is this framework on which I will focus my remarks today. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, was enacted in 1978 after a 3-year effort to do so. As stated in the report of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the purpose of the law was to provide regulation for ``all electronic surveillance conducted within the United States for foreign intelligence purposes'' in order to provide a check against abuses that had been revealed by the investigation of the Church Committee. The bill was a bipartisan product; in the Senate, the original version introduced in 1977 that served as the basis of the 1978 law was sponsored by Senators across the ideological spectrum--including Birch Bayh, Ted Kennedy, Mac Mathias, James Eastland, and Strom Thurmond. The Senate ultimately adopted the bill on April 20, 1978, by a strong, bipartisan vote of 95 to 1. At the time the bill was approved in the Senate, I stated that it ``was a reaffirmation of the principle that it is possible to protect national security and at the same time the Bill of Rights.'' I was also a member of the conference committee that produced the final version of the law that was enacted with broad support in October 1978. Here is what we did in 1978. FISA was designed to govern our collection of ``foreign intelligence.'' Typically, in the criminal context, search warrants can only be issued if the Government can demonstrate to a neutral judge that probable cause exists to believe a crime has been committed. Under FISA, surveillance orders are issued so long as probable cause exists that someone is an ``agent of a foreign power.'' That term has been expanded in the last year to even include a lone wolf terrorist; in other words, someone not affiliated with a known terrorist organization. Not only is the standard different under FISA, but the FISA process is done in secret, with a special court known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. This is a court made up of Federal judges who sit on U.S. district courts. I should parenthetically note that we learned today that one of the 11 judges on this court just resigned in reaction to President Bush's unilateral domestic spying program. When we wrote FISA, we knew there could be times when the President would have to act quickly. We knew there would be times when probable cause would have to be demonstrated to the FISA court after the surveillance began. We contemplated emergencies and wrote the law so that it could deal with them. First, we addressed emergency situations in section 105(f) of the act, which provides that if the Attorney General reasonably determines that an emergency situation exists--and that his investigators need to target a wiretap against an agent before an application can be made to the FISA Court--he may do so for 72 hours. The original act provided for only a 24-hour emergency period, but Congress expanded that period to 72 hours in December 2001--after the attacks on 9/11. Similarly, in enacting the Patriot Act in 2001, Congress provided other changes to FISA. It is therefore difficult to accept the contention of the Attorney General that Congress has been unwilling to help the President meet the challenges we now face. The law is clear on the steps the Attorney General needs to take to wiretap suspects without first obtaining a warrant: he must tell a FISA Court judge at the time of the authorization that he has taken such emergency measures, and he has to apply for post-hoc approval as soon as is practicable but not later than 72 hours after the surveillance has commenced. We envisioned another emergency that could authorize warrantless intelligence searches: a declaration of war. Section 111 lets the Attorney General authorize electronic surveillance without a court order to acquire foreign intelligence information for up to 15 calendar days following a declaration of war by Congress. Although the ``Authorization for the Use of Military Force'' approved just after 9/ 11 was not, technically speaking, a declaration of war, it was the constitutional equivalent under the war clause to permit the use of force in Afghanistan, and the President would have been justified to exercise these extraordinary surveillance powers in the first 2 weeks after enactment of the joint resolution. It is also important to note that FISA, on its own terms, set up a comprehensive and exclusive system for domestic wiretapping. Section 2511(2)(f) of Title 18, United States Code, states that FISA, when combined with wiretap authority for domestic criminal investigations, is the ``exclusive means by which . . . the interception of domestic wire, oral and electronic communications may be conducted.'' That is why George Will recently had this to say about the administration's tortured legal reasoning, ``The President's authorization of domestic surveillance by the National Security Agency contravened a statute's clear language.'' It is also worth looking at how the FISA system has operated throughout its 27 years of existence. I would submit that it has served us well. To those who would say it is too restrictive on our ability to gain intelligence, I would respond that the FISA Court has only rejected 5 applications out of approximately 19,000. To those who would say that the system is too lenient, I would respond that the important piece of the equation with FISA is that it has some independent review of the executive branch--in this instance, by an independent Article III judge. And yet, even with a history of a FISA court that approves the overwhelming majority of applications, and even with the two emergency exceptions, there are some who still argue that the administration needs additional flexibility. For example, there are some who would say that FISA wouldn't allow us to tap the phone numbers found in the cell phone of a top al-Qaida target. With all due respect, a phone number found in a top al-Qaida operative's cell phone would seem to me to comfortably satisfy the ``probable cause'' standard outlined above. And if there were an urgent need to tap these phone numbers promptly--as I am sure there would be-- no one has explained why this couldn't be done under the 72-hour emergency exception. Rather, we have the disturbing spectacle of the Deputy Director of National Intelligence, General Hayden, complaining that ``FISA involves marshaling arguments . . . FISA involves looping paperwork around.'' Exactly right. FISA isn't a high hurdle--but it does require the executive branch to justify the extraordinary surveillance of American citizens to a judicial officer. Isn't this the rule of law that we are fighting to defend? And when FISA has needed updating over its 27-year existence, Congress has, time and time again, stepped up to the plate. When we first enacted FISA, its scope was limited to wiretapping and other electronic eavesdropping. It has since been amended to authorize pen/trap orders and business record orders; in reaction to the Zacarias Moussaoui case, Congress created the so-called ``lone wolf'' provision; after 9/11, we extended the emergency period from 24 to 72 hours; and the list goes on and on. If additional changes need to be made to FISA, this Senator stands ready and willing to engage in that exercise. The alternative is the course on which the President has embarked, directly contravening a specific statute and relying on a dangerously expansive view of his Commander in Chief authority--a view that would potentially expose thousands of Americans who make a phone call abroad to surveillance of this sort. This is a course that we tried to avoid when we drafted the FISA Act in the first place. As I said in 1978 when FISA was originally passed, ``it is not necessary to compromise civil liberties in the name of national security.'' I hope the lessons from 1978 and the real story about what FISA allows can inform the debate going on today. This debate is just beginning. Congress must stand up to this Presidential overreaching, examine what occurred, and provide corrective action. Senator Specter, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has promised to hold hearings on this matter. I commend him for that. But we will need the full cooperation of the Executive in this undertaking, and the administration can start by coming clean with the full legal reasoning for the President's domestic spying program. There will be much more to say--and learn--in the second session of the 109th Congress. The executive branch's program must be subjected to close scrutiny by this Congress to ensure that in pursuit of terrorists or suspected terrorists, we are not sacrificing essential freedoms that we hold dear.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my appreciation to my colleagues for passing for the second time this session, the Violence Against Women Act of 2005. Once again the Senate has spoken loudly and clearly that domestic violence and sexual assault are serious, public crimes that must be addressed. Today's bill is a tremendous compromise measure that merges the comprehensive, Senate- passed Violence Against Women Act, S. 119, with the House of Representative's Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act bill, H.R. 3402. This merger followed hours of bipartisan, bicameral negotiations. Compromises and edits were made, and what emerges is a balanced bill that strikes the right balance between rejuvenating core programs, making targeted improvements, and responsibly expanding the Violence Against Women Act to reach the needs of America's families. The enactment of the Violence Against Women Act in 1994 was the beginning of a historic commitment to women and children victimized by domestic violence and sexual assault. While not the single cause, this commitment has made our streets and homes safer. Since the Act's passage in 1994, domestic violence has dropped by almost 50 percent incidents of rape are down by 60 percent and the number of women killed by an abusive husband or boyfriend is down by 22 percent. Today, more than half of all rape victims are stepping forward to report the crime. And since we passed the Act in 1994, over a million women have found justice in our courtrooms and obtained domestic violence protection orders. This is a dramatic change from a decade ago. Back then, violence in the household was treated as a ``family matter'' rather than a criminal justice issue. Because we took action, the criminal justice system is much better equipped to handle domestic violence, and it is treated for what it is--criminal. The goal of the legislation passed here today is to usher the Violence Against Women Act into the 21st century. With this bill we attempt to look beyond the immediate crisis and take steps to not only punish offenders, but to also help victims get their lives back on track, and prevent domestic violence and sexual assault from occurring in the first place. The bill contains much to commend. To that end, I will ask unanimous consent to include at the close of my statement a thorough section-by- section summary of H.R. 3402, but in the meantime, I would like to highlight some of the bill's provisions. Title I, the bill's backbone, focuses on the criminal justice system and includes provisions to: (1) renew and increase funding to over $400 million a year for existing, fundamental grant programs for law enforcement, lawyers, judges and advocates; (2) stiffen existing criminal penalties for repeat federal domestic violence offenders; and (3) appropriately update the criminal law on stalking to incorporate new surveillance technology like Global Positioning System, GPS. Notably, our bill reauthorizes the Court Appointed Special Advocates, ``CASA,'' a nationwide volunteer program to help children in the judicial system. Children are doubly impacted by family violence--both as observers of, and recipients of abuse. Court Appointed Special Advocates fit uniquely into the mix of services for victims of violence. Judges overwhelmingly report that children and families are better served by the involvement of a CASA volunteer on their cases. I hope that my colleagues see fit to fully appropriate this effective program, and in the future, raise the program's authorization level. The Violence Against Women Act has always included measures to help law enforcement and victim service providers reach underserved communities. Today's bill goes even further by creating a new, targeted culturally and linguistically specific service grant program. This provision is intended to ensure that the Act's resources reach racial and ethnic communities grappling with family violence and its enormous ramifications. The Violence Against Women Act crafts a coordinated community response that seeks the participation of police, judges, prosecutors, and the host of entities who care for the victims. Title II helps victim service providers by: (1) creating a new, dedicated grant program for sexual assault victims that will strengthen rape crisis centers across the country; (2) reinvigorating programs to help older and disabled victims of domestic violence; (3) strengthening and expanding existing programs for rural victims and victims in underserved areas; and (4) removing a current cap on funding for the National Domestic Violence Hotline. Sexual violence is a crime that affects children and adults across our country. Unfortunately, rape has been a crime shrouded in secrecy and shame. Sexual assault survivors can experience physical and emotional problems for years. Approximately 1,315 rape crisis centers across the country help victims of rape, sexual assault, sexual abuse, and incest rebuild their lives by providing a range of vital services to survivors. But unfortunately, many rape crisis centers are under funded and understaffed. They are constantly in a crisis mode, responding to the needs of all victims--male, female as well as children--and are incapable of undertaking large-scale prevention efforts in their communities. In response to this overwhelming need, our bill will provide increased resources to serve sexual assault victims. It includes, for the first time, a dedicated Federal funding stream for sexual assault programs through the proposed Sexual Assault Services Program, SASA. SASA will fund direct services to victims, including general intervention and advocacy, accompaniment through the medical and criminal justice processes, support services, and related assistance. Reports indicate that up to ten million children experience domestic violence in their homes each year. The age at which a female is at greatest risk for rape or sexual assault is 14. Two-thirds of all sexual assault victims reported to law enforcement are under 18, and national research suggests that 1 in 5 high-school girls is physically or sexually abused by a dating partner. Treating children who witness domestic violence, dealing effectively with violent teenage relationships and teaching prevention strategies to children are keys to ending the cycle of violence. This reauthorization takes bold steps to address the needs of young people by renewing successful programs and creating new programs to: (1) promote collaboration between domestic violence experts and child welfare agencies; and (2) enhance to $15 million a year grants to reduce violence against women on college campuses. Critical prevention initiatives are contained in title IV, including programs supporting home visitations for families at risk, and initiatives that specifically engage men and boys in efforts to end domestic and sexual violence. We can no longer be satisfied with punishing abusers after the fact and trying to help a woman pull her life back together--we must end the violence before it ever starts. We must end it, not just mend it. Violence against women is a health care issue of enormous proportions with one in three women expected to experience such violence at some point in their lives. It also has enormous health consequences for women and children, leading to serious injuries and disease, including substance abuse, chronic, serious pain and sexually transmitted infections including HIV/AIDS. We know pregnant women are particularly at risk for violence with increased levels of abuse accounting for injuries to the mother and developing fetus. In fact, homicide is a leading cause of death for pregnant and recently pregnant women. Consequently, doctors and nurses, like police officers on the beat, are often the first witnesses of the devastating aftermath of abuse. Unfortunately, most health care providers are not currently trained on how to screen for, identify, document and treat or refer for violence- related illnesses or injuries. That's why the new health care programs in the Act are so essential--they provide an opportunity to intervene much earlier in the cycle of violence, before it becomes life threatening, and they provide a chance to reach out to children who may be growing up in violent homes. In some instances, women face the untenable choice of returning to their abuser or becoming homeless. Indeed, 44 percent of the nation's mayors identified domestic violence as a primary cause of homelessness. Efforts to ease the housing problems for battered women are contained in Title VI, including (1) $20 million grant programs to facilitate collaboration between domestic violence organizations and housing providers; (2) programs to combat family violence in public and assisted housing, including new requirements that domestic violence victims may not be evicted or cut off from voucher services because of the violence; and (3) enhancements to transitional housing resources. In some instances, victims of domestic violence who apply for or reside in public and subsidized housing are evicted or turned away because of the violence against them. A scream for help, a shot being fired, or the sound of police sirens is cited as a ``disruptive sound'' justifying eviction. In a recent nationwide survey, local housing and domestic violence attorneys across the country reported over 500 documented cases where victims were evicted because of the domestic violence committed against them. Sections 606 and 607 of the Act provide important protections in public housing and the Section 8 program for victims of domestic violence and stalking. These sections prohibit denial of housing assistance based on the individual's status as a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, or stalking. With certain exceptions, they also prohibit terminating a victim's tenancy or rental assistance because of the violence against him or her. When women know they may lose their homes if their housing provider learns about the violence, they will seek to keep the abuse secret at all costs and thus, will often be unable to take the steps necessary to keep themselves and their families safe. While protecting victims against retaliation, Sections 606 and 607 permit public housing authorities and private landlords to evict or end voucher assistance to perpetrators of domestic violence. It also ensures that landlords and housing providers can effectively manage their properties and maintain important discretionary authority. The Act allows landlords to bifurcate a lease to remove a perpetrator while maintaining a victim's tenancy and evict victims who commit other lease violations or if the tenancy creates an actual and imminent threat to the public safety. Further, the Act clarifies that landlords should not be held liable simply for complying with the statute. Sections 606 and 607 benefited greatly from the input by the national associations representing landlords and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, including the National Association of Realtors, the National Multi-Housing Council, and the National Leased Housing Association. It may be useful if the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development issues guidance or regulations to assist with the implementation of these sections. Certain nonprofit organizations and other government agencies that have expertise in domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault or stalking, or in housing law and policy, could provide valuable guidance to HUD in creating such guidance and regulations. Title VII helps abused women maintain economic security by establishing a national resource center to provide information to employers and labor organizations so that they may effectively help their employees who are victims of domestic violence. I had hoped that provisions from Senator Murray's Security and Financial Empowerment Act, SAFE, would have remained in the bill. This amendment would provide some fundamental economic protections for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. Just as the Family Medical Leave Act protects individuals caring for a sick loved one, the SAFE Act would allow domestic violence victims to take time off from work to appear in court cases and other judicial proceedings without jeopardizing their employment at a time they need it the most. It is my hope that the Senate will revisit this issue soon. Immigrant women often face a difficult time escaping abuse because of immigration laws, language barriers, and social isolation. Title VIII of today's bill builds on the progress of VAWA 1994 and VAWA 2000 to remove obstacles hinder or prevent immigrants from fleeing domestic abuse and participating in prosecutions. Further, the bill expands VAWA relief to: (1) elder abuse victims who have been abused by adult U.S. citizen sons or daughters; and (2) victims of child abuse or incest who are less than 25 and would have qualified as child self-petitioners. It will allow adopted children who have been abused by an adoptive parent to obtain permanent residency without having to reside with the abusive parent for 2 years. In an important move to help battered immigrant women achieve desperately-needed economic stability, the bill permits employment authorization to battered women and abused spouses of certain nonimmigrants. Title VIII enhances immigration protection for victims of trafficking by removing barriers that block some victims from accessing to T and U visas. Title VIII also facilitates the reunion of trafficking victims with their family members abroad who are in danger of retaliation from international traffickers, and will increase access to permanent residency for victims of severe forms of trafficking who are cooperating in trafficking prosecutions. Finally, title VIII will arm foreign fiancees with background information about their U.S. citizen fiance, and will educate foreign fiancees about U.S. domestic violence laws and resources. In an effort to focus more closely on violence against Indian women, title IX creates a new tribal Deputy Director in the Office on Violence Against Women dedicated to coordinating Federal policy and tribal grants. It also authorizes the Office to pool funds available to tribes and tribal organizations in various VAWA programs. In addition, Title IX authorizes tribal governments to access and upload domestic violence and protection order data on criminal databases, as well as create tribal sex offender registries, and strengthens available criminal penalties. No doubt, today's bill is comprehensive; it speaks to the many complexities presented by domestic violence and sexual assault. I am indebted to a whole host of groups who worked on this measure and/or voiced their support throughout the journey from introduction to passage, including the American Bar Association, the National Association of Attorneys General, the International Association of Forensic Nurses, the American Medical Association, the National Sheriffs Association, the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the National Congress of American Indians, the National Network to End Domestic Violence, the Family Violence Prevention Fund, Legal Momentum, the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, the National Center for Victims for Crime, the National District Attorneys Association, the National Council on Family and Juvenile Court Judges, the National Association of Chiefs of Police, and many others. I am grateful for the work each of you does each day to make our families safer and healthier. The legislation being passed today also demonstrates Congress's commitment to the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, COPS. This program has been widely credited for helping to reduce crime rates over the past 10 years. It was deemed a ``miraculous success'' by Attorney General Ashcroft, and law enforcement experts from top to bottom, including Attorney General Gonzalez, police chiefs, and sheriffs, have all testified to its effectiveness at combating crime. While many politicians have argued this point, the Government Accountability Office conclusively established a statistical link between COPS hiring grants and crime reductions. We know that the COPS program works, and the legislation we are passing today recognizes this fact by re-authorizing the COPS program for the next 5 years at $1.05 billion per year. In addition, this legislation also updates the COPS program grant making authority by providing more flexibility for local agencies in applying for assistance. It still includes many of the hallmarks that attributed to its success, such as reducing redtape by allowing local agencies to apply directly to the Federal Government for assistance, and providing grants on a three-year basis to facilitate long-term planning. The major improvement is that agencies will now be able to submit one application for its various funding needs, including hiring officers, purchase equipment, pay officers' overtime, and other programs that will increase the number of officers deployed in community oriented policing services. Originally, agencies had to make separate grant applications for the various purpose areas of the program. In addition, it allows the COPS program to award grants for officers hired to perform intelligence, anti-terror, or homeland security duties. Providing local agencies with this type of flexibility is a step forward. While re-authorizing the COPS program is important, the next step is for the appropriators to fund the program at authorized levels. Back in the nineties, we invested roughly $2.1 billion for state and local law enforcement each year. We are safer today because of these investments. Over the past 5 years, we have adopted a wrong-headed approach of cutting funding for our state and local law enforcement partners. And, the recently passed Commerce, Justice, Science budget allocated less than $800 million for state and local law enforcement assistance, and it zeroed out the COPS hiring program. I agree with the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the National Sheriffs Association that these cuts leave us more vulnerable to crime and terrorism. In this bill, the Congress demonstrated its support for the COPS program, but the real test will come when we make funding decisions in the future. For the safety and security of the American people, I will be fighting for the Congress to fully fund the COPS program at the newly authorized levels of $1.05 billion per year. I have many partners here in the Senate and in the House of Representatives who have worked tirelessly on this bill. Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers were committed to reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, and spent countless hours working on a resolution. Our negotiations were model ones--I wish bicameral relations were always so easy. Senator Reed and Senator Allard were very helpful on the act's housing provisions, and Senator Enzi helped craft some of the victim service providers. I appreciate their assistance and help to move this bill forward. With respect to the Native American provisions, Senator McCain and Senator Dorgan provided instrumental guidance. Since 1990, Senator Hatch and I have worked together to end family violence in this country, so it is no great surprise that once again he worked side-by-side with us to craft today's bill. I am also deeply indebted to Senator Kennedy for his unwavering commitment to battered immigrant women and his work on the bill's immigration provisions. Senator Kennedy's staff, particularly Janice Kaguyutan, have been invaluable to this process. I also thank Senator Leahy who has long- supported the Violence Against Women Act and, in particular, has worked on the rural programs and transitional housing provisions. As Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy has consistently pushed forward reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, and his staff, chief counsel Bruce Cohen, Tara Magner, and Jessica Berry have worked hard for passage. My final appreciation is for my very good friend from Pennsylvania for his commitment and leadership on this bill. It is a pleasure to work with Chairman Specter, and his staff Brett Tolman, Lisa Owings, Joe Jacquot, Juria Jones and chief counsel Mike O'Neill. From day one, Chairman Specter has been one of this bill's biggest champion. Chairman Specter is the reason a bipartisan, bicameral compromise measure is being passed today and I thank him. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the section-by-section analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, October 30, 2005, marked the 75th birthday of Clifford Benjamin Brown, one of this Nation's great jazz musicians. Born into a large, middle-class, African-American family in Wilmington, DE, Clifford Brown was the youngest of eight children and inherited his love and passion for music from his father, Joe Brown. He began to show interest in the trumpet at a young age, and by the time he turned 12, he was engaged in private lessons. He attended Howard High School in Wilmington, where he was encouraged to play music by ear. He studied math at the University of Delaware and music at Maryland State College. His career as a jazz trumpeter was monumental. He performed alongside such music legends as Miles Davis and Fats Navarro, while combining his sounds and style with those of Art Farmer, Dizzy Gillespie and Dinah Washington. Clifford played in Chris Powell's Blue Flames Band and the Brown-Roach Quintet. Sadly, Clifford Brown's promising and extraordinary career was tragically cut short when a car accident took his life on June 26, 1956. He was only 25 years old. But the legacy of Clifford Brown extended far beyond his years through the efforts of his wife LaRue, whom he had married in 1954. LaRue helped to launch the Los Angeles Jazz Heritage Foundation's program which served underprivileged children, and founded the Clifford Brown Jazz Foundation. LaRue Brown Watson passed away on Sunday, October 2, 2005 at the age of 72. She is survived by her children, Clifford Brown, Jr., Adrienne Traywick and Brian Watson, her son-in-law Clarence Traywick, and many grandchildren, cousins, nieces, nephews and friends. Today, I stand and lead the Senate in paying tribute to the life of the great Clifford Brown and in lamenting the passing of his widow, LaRue Brown Watson.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to ensure that the United States does create new arrears at the United Nations. At a time when our Government is seeking important reforms at the United Nations, it would be a mistake for us to fall short on our dues at the U.N. But unless Congress acts promptly, that is what we are about to do. Here's why. In 1994, Congress passed a law limiting U.S. payments for U.N. peacekeeping at 25 percent after 1995. At the time, the United States was assessed by the U.N. at a rate of about 31 percent for peacekeeping. Thus, the United States incurred arrears because of the 25 percent limitation--that is, the gap between the 25 percent and 31 percent. In 1999, Congress approved the Helms-Biden law. It authorized the repayment of U.S. arrears to the U.N. conditioned on certain reforms in the U.N. system. One of those reforms was a negotiated reduction in the United Nations of the U.S. peacekeeping rate down to 25 percent. Through negotiations in 2000, U.S. Ambassador Holbrooke succeeded in reducing the U.S. assessments for peacekeeping to just over 27 percent. In 2001, Congress amended the Helms-Biden law to allow the arrears payments to be provided to the U.N. at the higher rate--27 percent-- that Ambassador Holbrooke negotiated. But the original 1994 law limiting our payments to 25 percent was never repealed. In the past few years, Congress has amended the 1994 law on a temporary basis by raising the 25 percent limitation to conform it to the rate negotiated by Ambassador Holbrooke. That temporary change in law lasted through fiscal year 2005. But it has now expired. Therefore, the law today is this: the United States may not pay more than 25 percent for peacekeeping--even though the United Nations assesses the United States at the rate of roughly 27 percent. In the coming weeks, we are scheduled to pay a bill of about $344 million that has come due since October 1. Under U.S. law, we will only be able to pay about $319 million, leaving a shortfall of about $25 million. At a time when our diplomats are in the final stages of negotiating important reforms in the U.N. system, it would be a mistake unilaterally to withhold payments to the U.N. Rather than encourage reform, it may cause an adverse reaction by other nation and undermine our reform agenda. Earlier this year, the Bush administration recognized this coming train wreck. On March 1, the Department of State transmitted to Congress its official request for the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for fiscal year 2006 and 2007. Section 401 of that legislation would amend current law and raise the limitation on U.S. payments to 27.1 percent through calendar year 2007. The summary of the request said as follows: ``Without further relief, the U.N. peacekeeping cap would revert to 25% and the United States would go into arrears. The proposed section would . . . enable the United States to pay U.N. assessments at the rate assessed by the U.N. up to a rate of 27.1% . . . [t]his would allow the United States to pay its peacekeeping assessment in full, including funding for a new peace support operation in Sudan . . .'' Since then, however, the administration has done little to secure enactment of this provision. On December 1, 2005, the Secretary of State requested by letter to the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations several ``critical legislative proposals that are of a time sensitive nature and warrant enactment prior to the Congress' adjournment in mid-October.'' The request contains four provisions but does not include the provision required to assure full payment of U.N. peacekeeping assessments. Mr. President, I realize that the Congress has a lot on its agenda in the final days of the first session. But we have a responsibility to ensure payment of our obligations to the United Nations--and to ensure that we do not undermine the negotiations on U.N. reform now underway.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to ensure that the United States does create new arrears at the United Nations. At a time when our Government is seeking important reforms at the United Nations, it would be a mistake for us to fall short on our dues at the U.N. But unless Congress acts promptly, that is what we are about to do. Here's why. In 1994, Congress passed a law limiting U.S. payments for U.N. peacekeeping at 25 percent after 1995. At the time, the United States was assessed by the U.N. at a rate of about 31 percent for peacekeeping. Thus, the United States incurred arrears because of the 25 percent limitation--that is, the gap between the 25 percent and 31 percent. In 1999, Congress approved the Helms-Biden law. It authorized the repayment of U.S. arrears to the U.N. conditioned on certain reforms in the U.N. system. One of those reforms was a negotiated reduction in the United Nations of the U.S. peacekeeping rate down to 25 percent. Through negotiations in 2000, U.S. Ambassador Holbrooke succeeded in reducing the U.S. assessments for peacekeeping to just over 27 percent. In 2001, Congress amended the Helms-Biden law to allow the arrears payments to be provided to the U.N. at the higher rate--27 percent-- that Ambassador Holbrooke negotiated. But the original 1994 law limiting our payments to 25 percent was never repealed. In the past few years, Congress has amended the 1994 law on a temporary basis by raising the 25 percent limitation to conform it to the rate negotiated by Ambassador Holbrooke. That temporary change in law lasted through fiscal year 2005. But it has now expired. Therefore, the law today is this: the United States may not pay more than 25 percent for peacekeeping--even though the United Nations assesses the United States at the rate of roughly 27 percent. In the coming weeks, we are scheduled to pay a bill of about $344 million that has come due since October 1. Under U.S. law, we will only be able to pay about $319 million, leaving a shortfall of about $25 million. At a time when our diplomats are in the final stages of negotiating important reforms in the U.N. system, it would be a mistake unilaterally to withhold payments to the U.N. Rather than encourage reform, it may cause an adverse reaction by other nation and undermine our reform agenda. Earlier this year, the Bush administration recognized this coming train wreck. On March 1, the Department of State transmitted to Congress its official request for the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for fiscal year 2006 and 2007. Section 401 of that legislation would amend current law and raise the limitation on U.S. payments to 27.1 percent through calendar year 2007. The summary of the request said as follows: ``Without further relief, the U.N. peacekeeping cap would revert to 25% and the United States would go into arrears. The proposed section would . . . enable the United States to pay U.N. assessments at the rate assessed by the U.N. up to a rate of 27.1% . . . [t]his would allow the United States to pay its peacekeeping assessment in full, including funding for a new peace support operation in Sudan . . .'' Since then, however, the administration has done little to secure enactment of this provision. On December 1, 2005, the Secretary of State requested by letter to the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations several ``critical legislative proposals that are of a time sensitive nature and warrant enactment prior to the Congress' adjournment in mid-October.'' The request contains four provisions but does not include the provision required to assure full payment of U.N. peacekeeping assessments. Mr. President, I realize that the Congress has a lot on its agenda in the final days of the first session. But we have a responsibility to ensure payment of our obligations to the United Nations--and to ensure that we do not undermine the negotiations on U.N. reform now underway.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, yesterday the U.S. Senate approved the conference report to accompany H.R. 2862, the Science-State-Justice appropriations bill. I voted for this legislation because it provides critical funding for the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the Drug Enforcement Administration. However, I rise to explain that I am voting for this bill reluctantly because I feel that some of the funding priorities set forth in the bill will leave our communities more vulnerable to terrorist attacks traditional crime. In particular, this bill continues the wrongheaded trend of slashing Federal funding for State and local law enforcement and important criminal justice programs. This bill slashes funding for the Justice Assistance Grant and the COPS Program. And, for the first time, the Congress has decided to zero out the COPS hiring Program. I believe that this decision is a terrible mistake on so many levels, and I fear that our Nation's citizens will be less safe from traditional crime and terrorism as a result. Further, the bill slashes Federal assistance for the effective and cost-efficient drug court program by an astounding 75 percent. Back in 1994 when we passed the legislation that created the COPS Program, our crime rates were at all-time highs. At that time, we made a commitment to our State and local law enforcement partners. During those years, we invested roughly $2.1 billion for State and local law enforcement each year and substantially upgraded our ability to combat crime. We added over 100,000 officers to patrol our neighborhoods, and we expanded crime prevention programs such as community policing programs across the Nation. What was the ultimate result? Crime rates for violent crime, murder and rape were all reduced, and today they remain at all-time lows. Many law enforcement experts and local officials credit the COPS Program for helping to achieve these results. In fact, no one, to my knowledge, with law enforcement expertise has argued otherwise. The International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Sheriffs Association, the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Association of Police Organizations, and other local law enforcement groups all support the COPS Program. Attorney General Ashcroft has stated that the COPS Program was a miraculous success, and Attorney General Gonzalez stated that the COPS Program put officers on the street and we reduced crime. Moreover, a recent report by the Government Accountability Office concluded that COPS hiring grants had an impact on reducing crime rates. Why would the Congress eliminate a program that is strongly supported by local law enforcement officials and has been proven effective by statisticians at the Government Accountability Office? Well, it has its basis in ideology. Some of my Republican colleagues argue that local crime is a local problem and the Federal Government should not be funding these local efforts. I completely disagree. How can it be a local responsibility when roughly 60 percent of all the crimes committed in America relate to drugs, abuse of drugs, and the sale and trafficking of illicit drugs? These drugs are smuggled across our national borders from State to State and city to city by sophisticated drug cartels and street gangs. How does a local sheriff prevent drugs that start out in a foreign country from being trafficked into his or her county? How does a police chief prevent the recruitment of local kids into international street gangs? In my opinion, crime is a national problem, and it requires a national response. The COPS Program demonstrated the Federal Government's commitment to approach crime as a national problem--and it worked. I would also point out that State and local law enforcement forms our first line of defense against terrorism. Homeland security experts have pointed out the value that community policing programs can have in combating terrorism. This only makes sense--it is the local officer who knows the neighborhood who will be able to provide the types information necessary to help infiltrate a local terror cell. In addition, it will be a local officer walking the beat who happens to catch a suspect trying to pump sarin gas into the local mall air- conditioning ducts. It won't be a brave Special Forces agent with night vision goggles; it will be a local cop walking the beat. In this era of uncertainty, we need to be providing more support for our local police agencies to help make their efforts against terrorism and crime as robust as possible. And by cutting the drug court program--one of the most effective programs to reduce substance abuse in the criminal population--we are sending a devastating message to the 16,000 individuals that graduate from drug courts each year. We are telling them that we don't care that diversion programs are successful at helping people overcome addiction to reenter society as productive citizens, holding down jobs, and regaining custody of their children. We are sending a message that we would prefer to revert to the bad old days of locking up nonviolent drug offenders in prisons where most will get no drug treatment and they will most likely just sink deeper into a life of crime. And what message are we sending to the 70,000 people currently enrolled in drug courts who are working hard to live sober, crime-free lives? By slashing funding for the drug court program we are telling them that we are not invested in their recovery and we are putting their future in drug court programs in jeopardy. It makes absolutely no sense to me that we are cutting this cost- effective program by 75 percent. By enrolling nonviolent drug offenders in drug courts, States save an enormous amount of money. One study showed that California's drug courts save the State $18 million a year. Another study showed that every dollar spent on a drug court program saves the city of Dallas, TX, $9.43 over a 40 month period. It is inconceivable to me that we would choose to cut this program. The National Association of Drug Court Professionals estimates that our actions here today will result in more than 13,000 individuals losing access to drug court services. These 13,000 people will likely continue their lives of crime and drugs and being a threat to public safety instead of getting enrolled in a tough-love program that will help them to turn their lives around and get sober. It is truly a tragedy. It is my opinion that we found a winning formula when we made the decision to invest in our State and local law enforcement partners and smart on crime initiatives in the nineties, and I believe that we are making a terrible mistake when we reduce funding for them. There is no greater responsibility of the Federal Government than the protection of its citizens. This is true whether the threat comes from international terrorist or from a thug down the street, and I strongly believe that we are taking the wrong approach when we cut funding for our State and local law enforcement partners. Sheriff Ted Sexton, the president of the National Sheriffs Association, got it right when he stated that ``cuts of this magnitude will seriously inhibit our ability to protect our communities and secure the homeland.'' And, the president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police was correct in pointing out that ``demanding that we play a central role in our Nation's homeland security efforts, while at the same time cutting the resources we need to do our job, is both hypocritical and irresponsible.'' I hope that the Republican-led Congress and President Bush will heed the call of these brave men and women and fully fund these critical programs next year.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Full Strength Bureau Initiative Act of 2005. This is a piece of legislation that I think is critically important to our national security. Over the past four years, we have had numerous debates here in the Senate about what we need to do to protect ourselves from international terrorists. While I have disagreed with many of the specific decisions this Congress and President Bush have made, I do agree that we face a grave threat from radical fundamental terrorists. And, it should be a primary focus of our national security efforts. However, it simply makes no sense for us to spend all of our time worrying about terrorism if we turn a blind eye to traditional crime and the threat that it poses to our citizens. We simply have to be able to do both, and the legislation that I am introducing today will help do that. Part of the response to address this threat has been to shift the primary function of the Federal Bureau of Investigation from investigating and capturing criminals to the prevention of terror attacks. I don't disagree that this is an appropriate shift in priorities, but, we haven't made the investments necessary for the FBI to shift priorities and meet its commitment to combat traditional crime. To address this concern, I am introducing legislation that will authorize funding for the FBI to hire an additional 1,000 agents. These agents will replace the ones that have been reassigned to counterterrorism cases and will help keep our communities safe. The cost--$160 million per year--is minimal when compared to the benefits it will provide. Its passage will help ensure that the FBI has the resources to achieve its counterterrorism priorities without neglecting its traditional crime fighting functions. A 2004 Government Accountability Office found that the number of overall agents at the FBI has increased by only seven percent since 2001. During the same time, the overall percentage of agents dedicated to counterterrorism by twenty five percent--with 678 agents being permanently shifted from drug, white collar, and violent crime cases to counter-terror activities. In addition, we know that many agents are working on counterterrorism cases even if they have not been ``officially'' dedicated to that effort in a process know within the FBI as ``overburning.'' Ultimately, the GAO concluded, as it often does, that the impact on traditional crime was statistically inconclusive; however the report demonstrated many concerns. First, the report found that the FBI referred 236 counterterrorism matters to U.S. Attorneys for prosecution in fiscal year 2001, which ended three weeks after September 11. Two years later, in fiscal year 2003, the FBI referred 1,821 counterterrorism cases to U.S. Attorneys for prosecution--this is a 671 percent increase. During the same period of time, referrals for drug, whitecollar, and violent crime matters all declined by 39 percent, 23 percent, and 10 percent respectively. This statistically demonstrates that the reprogramming effort--while critical--has had an impact on the FBI's traditional crime fighting efforts. In addition to investigating Federal crimes, the FBI also provides critical assistance to State and local law enforcement. Quite simply, the FBI has technical expertise and resources that are not available to many State and local agencies--especially smaller jurisdictions. These local agencies rely on the FBI to assist them on technical matters, and as the FBI continues to divert resources from criminal cases, a gap in overall law enforcement capabilities is developing. In order to preserve public safety and national security this is a gap that must be filled. Unfortunately, local budget woes are making it impossible for local agencies to fill the slack. A recent survey indicated that 23 of 44 police agencies are facing an officer shortfall. The USA Today and the New York Times have reported officer shortages in New York, Cleveland, Los Angeles, Houston and others. In addition, I recently attended a Judiciary Committee hearing in Philadelphia and we heard testimony from the Philadelphia Chief of Police that he had lost 2,000 officers in recent years, and the Pittsburgh police chief reported that she had lost nearly \1/4\ of her officers and had to suspend her community policing programs and other crime prevention programs due to budget cuts. In addition to local budget woes, the U.S. Congress continues to slash Federal assistance for State and local law enforcement. In this year's Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill, the Congress cut roughly $300 million from the Justice Assistance Grant and completely eliminated the COPS hiring program. Any local sheriff or police chief will tell you how important this funding assistance is to their efforts, and the investments that we made in them over the past ten years helped drive down crime rates from all-time highs to the lowest levels in a generation. In addition, the COPS program has been statistically proven to reduce crime by the Government Accountability Office, and the Justice Assistance Grants are the primary grant programs used by local agencies to combat illegal drug use in their communities. I voted for this spending bill because it provided critical funding for the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Agency, but I remain very critical of the cuts to state and local law enforcement assistance and hope that the President and the Republican-led Congress will change course. Unfortunately, these cuts and the FBI reprogramming of agents from crime to counter-terror cases is creating a perfect storm that I'm afraid will contribute to rising crime rates in the future. The good news is that the 2004 Uniform Crime Reports show that crime rates remain at historic lows. But, many criminologists have pointed out that many crime indicators should caution against complacency. Last year, there were over 16,000 murders throughout the United States, and police chiefs and sheriffs are reporting worrying signs of local youth violence. Indeed, a 2005 report by the FBI on youth gangs shows that gang activity is on the rise. Rather than pull-back, we need to re- double our effort to ensure that crime rates don't rise in the future and to push them even lower. I've often said that the safety of Nation's citizens should be the top priority of our Federal Government--this applies to combating international terrorists and traditional crime. We spent a bulk of the nineties creating a Federal, State, and local partnership that helped make our Nation safer than it has been in a generation. This partnership is breaking down because the President and many in Congress feel that local crime is not a national priority. I couldn't disagree more. The safety of the American people is the most important priority that we have. It doesn't matter whether the threat comes from international terrorists, drug traffickers, or from the thug down the street. In my opinion, it is a terrible mistake to use the successes of the past ten years and the new focus on terrorism as an excuse to abandon our critical anti-crime responsibilities. We can--and we must do both. The American people are counting on us, and the legislation that I am introducing today will help ensure that we meet our commitment to the American people to make sure that they are safe from crime and terrorism.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Full Strength Bureau Initiative Act of 2005. This is a piece of legislation that I think is critically important to our national security. Over the past four years, we have had numerous debates here in the Senate about what we need to do to protect ourselves from international terrorists. While I have disagreed with many of the specific decisions this Congress and President Bush have made, I do agree that we face a grave threat from radical fundamental terrorists. And, it should be a primary focus of our national security efforts. However, it simply makes no sense for us to spend all of our time worrying about terrorism if we turn a blind eye to traditional crime and the threat that it poses to our citizens. We simply have to be able to do both, and the legislation that I am introducing today will help do that. Part of the response to address this threat has been to shift the primary function of the Federal Bureau of Investigation from investigating and capturing criminals to the prevention of terror attacks. I don't disagree that this is an appropriate shift in priorities, but, we haven't made the investments necessary for the FBI to shift priorities and meet its commitment to combat traditional crime. To address this concern, I am introducing legislation that will authorize funding for the FBI to hire an additional 1,000 agents. These agents will replace the ones that have been reassigned to counterterrorism cases and will help keep our communities safe. The cost--$160 million per year--is minimal when compared to the benefits it will provide. Its passage will help ensure that the FBI has the resources to achieve its counterterrorism priorities without neglecting its traditional crime fighting functions. A 2004 Government Accountability Office found that the number of overall agents at the FBI has increased by only seven percent since 2001. During the same time, the overall percentage of agents dedicated to counterterrorism by twenty five percent--with 678 agents being permanently shifted from drug, white collar, and violent crime cases to counter-terror activities. In addition, we know that many agents are working on counterterrorism cases even if they have not been ``officially'' dedicated to that effort in a process know within the FBI as ``overburning.'' Ultimately, the GAO concluded, as it often does, that the impact on traditional crime was statistically inconclusive; however the report demonstrated many concerns. First, the report found that the FBI referred 236 counterterrorism matters to U.S. Attorneys for prosecution in fiscal year 2001, which ended three weeks after September 11. Two years later, in fiscal year 2003, the FBI referred 1,821 counterterrorism cases to U.S. Attorneys for prosecution--this is a 671 percent increase. During the same period of time, referrals for drug, whitecollar, and violent crime matters all declined by 39 percent, 23 percent, and 10 percent respectively. This statistically demonstrates that the reprogramming effort--while critical--has had an impact on the FBI's traditional crime fighting efforts. In addition to investigating Federal crimes, the FBI also provides critical assistance to State and local law enforcement. Quite simply, the FBI has technical expertise and resources that are not available to many State and local agencies--especially smaller jurisdictions. These local agencies rely on the FBI to assist them on technical matters, and as the FBI continues to divert resources from criminal cases, a gap in overall law enforcement capabilities is developing. In order to preserve public safety and national security this is a gap that must be filled. Unfortunately, local budget woes are making it impossible for local agencies to fill the slack. A recent survey indicated that 23 of 44 police agencies are facing an officer shortfall. The USA Today and the New York Times have reported officer shortages in New York, Cleveland, Los Angeles, Houston and others. In addition, I recently attended a Judiciary Committee hearing in Philadelphia and we heard testimony from the Philadelphia Chief of Police that he had lost 2,000 officers in recent years, and the Pittsburgh police chief reported that she had lost nearly \1/4\ of her officers and had to suspend her community policing programs and other crime prevention programs due to budget cuts. In addition to local budget woes, the U.S. Congress continues to slash Federal assistance for State and local law enforcement. In this year's Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill, the Congress cut roughly $300 million from the Justice Assistance Grant and completely eliminated the COPS hiring program. Any local sheriff or police chief will tell you how important this funding assistance is to their efforts, and the investments that we made in them over the past ten years helped drive down crime rates from all-time highs to the lowest levels in a generation. In addition, the COPS program has been statistically proven to reduce crime by the Government Accountability Office, and the Justice Assistance Grants are the primary grant programs used by local agencies to combat illegal drug use in their communities. I voted for this spending bill because it provided critical funding for the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Agency, but I remain very critical of the cuts to state and local law enforcement assistance and hope that the President and the Republican-led Congress will change course. Unfortunately, these cuts and the FBI reprogramming of agents from crime to counter-terror cases is creating a perfect storm that I'm afraid will contribute to rising crime rates in the future. The good news is that the 2004 Uniform Crime Reports show that crime rates remain at historic lows. But, many criminologists have pointed out that many crime indicators should caution against complacency. Last year, there were over 16,000 murders throughout the United States, and police chiefs and sheriffs are reporting worrying signs of local youth violence. Indeed, a 2005 report by the FBI on youth gangs shows that gang activity is on the rise. Rather than pull-back, we need to re- double our effort to ensure that crime rates don't rise in the future and to push them even lower. I've often said that the safety of Nation's citizens should be the top priority of our Federal Government--this applies to combating international terrorists and traditional crime. We spent a bulk of the nineties creating a Federal, State, and local partnership that helped make our Nation safer than it has been in a generation. This partnership is breaking down because the President and many in Congress feel that local crime is not a national priority. I couldn't disagree more. The safety of the American people is the most important priority that we have. It doesn't matter whether the threat comes from international terrorists, drug traffickers, or from the thug down the street. In my opinion, it is a terrible mistake to use the successes of the past ten years and the new focus on terrorism as an excuse to abandon our critical anti-crime responsibilities. We can--and we must do both. The American people are counting on us, and the legislation that I am introducing today will help ensure that we meet our commitment to the American people to make sure that they are safe from crime and terrorism.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, before my friend from Connecticut leaves, I point out it is not partisanship that has caused the American people to leave this war; it is the incredible gap between the rhetoric of the administration of the last 2 years and the reality on the ground. Before we ever got into the open debate, the American people in droves were leaving this not just because Americans are dying, as tragic as that is, but because they do not think we have a plan. What I think all Democrats and Republicans are deciding is, Tell us the plan, Stan. Tell us, Mr. President, what is the plan? It is the first time this has happened. The purpose of the amendment is as clear as it is critical: to require the Bush administration to lay out what we need to do to succeed in Iraq. For the first time, our Republican colleagues have joined Democrats in insisting on a clear Iraqi strategy from this administration, a schedule to achieve it, and real accountability. Let me be clear about what the amendment does not do. It does require the administration to explain in detail, in public, its plan for success--it has not been public, and that is why the American people have left this outfit--and do it with specific goals, a realistic schedule for achieving those goals, and the relationship between achieving the goals and redeploying U.S. forces. It does not set a deadline for withdrawal. In providing the plan, both Democrats and Republicans are saying: I hope the administration will start by being realistic and state specifically what the mission is. Is the mission to protect every Iraqi, or is the mission different? As the military will tell, and no one knows better than my friends on the Committee on Armed Services, the mission dictates the force structure, and the more realistic mission calls for less force. We have to refocus our mission on preserving America's fundamental interests in Iraq. What are they? First, we have to ensure that Iraq does not become what it was not before the war: a haven for jihadist terrorists. Second, we have to do what we can to prevent a full-blown civil war that turns into regional war. I predict if there is a civil war, there will be a regional war. To leave Iraq a stable and a united country with representative government, posing no threat to its neighbors, we need to proceed on three tracks at the same time: a political diplomatic track, an assistance track, and a security track. We cannot succeed in Iraq without all three of those succeeding. On the diplomatic track, nothing is more important than getting Iraq's three main groups--Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds--to agree to changes in a constitution by next spring so that there is a consensus constitution. My friend, the chairman of the committee, says without a political solution, we cannot do this. He is right. We need to know exactly what the administration is doing to convince each community to make the compromises necessary for a broad and sustainable political settlement. We also need to know that the administration plans to engage the world powers and regional powers in this effort, as we did in the Six Plus Two Plan in Afghanistan, as we did in Bosnia. Iraq's neighbors have real influence with these different communities, and we need them to use that influence to arrive at a political settlement. On the assistance track, the whole house of cards will collapse if Iraqis have no capacity to govern themselves, and if the Iraqi people cannot turn on the lights, drink the water, and walk out their front doors without wading into sewage. So we need to know what specific steps the administration is taking to strengthen the capacity of Iraq's governmental ministries. We all know none of them can function now--none. Not a single Iraqi ministry is capable of functioning. The administration rejected the British plan to adopt these ministries. So what is the plan? What are you going to do, Mr. President, to make them able to function? How many regular police do we have to keep? What are the basic law-and-order requirements before we can draw down? We need to stop this silliness about having trained 179,000 troops. Stop this silliness. Tell us what the facts are and tell us the relationship between the facts and our ability to draw down. What is the plan to ensure that these local ministries are able to move on their own and coordinate Iraqi security forces? Our amendment lays this out. The fact that our Republican colleagues have signed on to a very similar amendment makes it clear that all of us in this body are tired of not being told the facts. So, Mr. President, the gap between this administration's rhetoric on Iraq and the reality on the ground has created a huge credibility gap. And I would have never thought this: Only this President could unite the Senate. He has united the Senate on a single point: What is the plan? That is what our amendment does.

Mr. BIDEN. I thank the Chair and I thank my colleague.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, if it is possible, for 1 minute for my friend from California.

Mr. BIDEN. Yes.

Mr. BIDEN. Yes.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, will the chairman yield for a question?

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I have no debate or disagreement about what the Senator said. I was wondering whether the chairman and the cochair, the Democratic chair, would object to--maybe this is not the appropriate place to do it--a second-degree amendment, or an additional amendment, whatever form it would take, that would require not the intelligence community but the State Department to report to the Foreign Relations Committee on the status of their judgment as to whether we are in compliance with international treaties--their view on that matter. I don't want to be the skunk at the family picnic. I am not trying to cause any difficulty. But it seems to me that such an approach would not in any way fly in the face of the intelligence community reporting to the Intelligence Committee. The Senator is right--historically, the various committees, including the Foreign Relations Committee, have been represented on the Intelligence Committee. I have no argument with that. I wonder whether any of my friends could respond to that concern I have raised.

Mr. BIDEN. Parliamentary inquiry: If we dispense with the second- degree amendment, is there any ability to further amend this legislation? This is a substitute or a second degree?

Mr. BIDEN. If it is adopted, and I am not saying I will, but will the Senator from Delaware have an opportunity to amend the substitute?

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I will vote in favor of the Ensign amendment to this bill, relating to the use of riot control agents, and I want to make clear to my colleagues why a steadfast supporter of the Chemical Weapons Convention can do so in good conscience. Senator Ensign is concerned that current interpretation of U.S. policy and of U.S. obligations under international law might be hampering U.S. forces in Iraq. I gather that not everybody shares that belief, but I do not doubt that some people have this concern, and I appreciate Senator Ensign's desire to make sure that people in the military fully understand what they can and cannot do when it comes to using riot control agents in Iraq. What is important about the Ensign amendment, in my view, is that it will in no way modify either U.S. policy or U.S. international obligations regarding the use of riot control agents. The statement, in subsection (a) of the amendment that ``riot control agents are not chemical weapons'' is fully consistent with the Chemical Weapons Convention, in which ``riot control agent'' is defined as a chemical, not listed in any of the Convention's three lists of chemical weapons or their precursors, ``which can produce rapidly in humans sensory irritation or disabling physical effects which disappear within a short time following termination of exposure.'' That definition is quite different from the definition of a ``toxic chemical'' in a chemical weapon, ``which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals.'' So the Ensign amendment is correct in that a riot control agent, as defined in the Chemical Weapons Convention, would not be a chemical weapon as defined in that convention. Similarly, the Ensign amendment now before this body accurately reflects U.S. policy as established by President Gerald Ford in Executive Order 11850 of April 8, 1975. That Executive order, signed by a Republican President and implemented by six subsequent Presidents of both parties over the last 30 years, states: ``The United States renounces, as a matter of national policy . . . first use of riot control agents in war except in defensive military modes to save lives. . . .'' It goes on to give four examples of such defensive military modes, only two of which relate to combat zones: ``(b) . . . in situations in which civilians are used to mask or screen attacks and civilian casualties can be reduced or avoided''; and ``( c) . . . in rescue missions in remotely isolated areas, of downed aircrews and passengers, and escaping prisoners.'' Executive Order 11850 then orders implementation, as follows: ``Sec. 1. The Secretary of Defense shall take all necessary measures to ensure that the use by the Armed Forces of the United States of any riot control agents and chemical herbicides in war is prohibited unless such use has Presidential approval, in advance. ``Sec. 2. The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe the rules and regulations he deems necessary to ensure that the national policy herein announced shall be observed by the Armed Forces of the United States.'' As far as I can tell, Senator Ensign does not intend that anything in Executive Order 11850 be changed, nor that there be any change in the U.S. policy and obligation to fully obey the Chemical Weapons Convention, which binds each state party ``not to use riot control agents as a method of warfare.'' It is standing U.S. policy that if somebody is using human shields, as occurred in Somalia in the early 1990s, our Armed Forces may use riot control agents ``in defensive military modes to save lives'' without violating our obligations as state party to the Chemical Weapons Convention. In light of my view that the Ensign amendment will not change U.S. policy and will not call into question the requirement to comply with our international obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention, I see no reason to oppose this amendment. I do urge, however, that the limited nature of this amendment be made more explicit in conference.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, on November 1, the Committee on Foreign Relations conducted a business meeting to consider several matters. The motion to report the nomination of Roland Arnall to be U.S. Ambassador to the Netherlands failed on a 9-to-9 tie. The chairman then ruled that the nomination was ordered reported by an 8-to-2 vote, which reflected the vote of those physically present. With all respect to my friend and chairman, Senator Lugar, I disagree with his ruling, which negated the proxy votes cast by me and several of my colleagues; I believe it to be inconsistent with the rules of the Committee on Foreign Relations. So that the record of the proceedings at the meeting will be available to all members, I ask unanimous consent that the relevant portion of the transcript of that meeting be printed in the Record.