Joe Biden

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, earlier this year, Dr. David Roselle, a personal friend and longtime president of my alma mater, the University of Delaware, announced that he will retire in May. I have the greatest respect for Dr. Roselle and the tremendous job he has done at the institution I love. The average tenure of a university president, I am told, is a little over 6 years, about the term of a U.S. Senator. When Dr. Roselle leaves, he will have served 17 years, equivalent to almost a three-term Senator. That is staying power that has let him turn the University of Delaware from a very good regional school into a university, known nationally for its academic excellence. When constituents ask me: ``My child has gotten into this university or that university. Where should she go?'' I say go to that university they can get into now and are quite certain 10 years from now they would never be admitted. That certainly would have been my story at the University of Delaware. Back when I was a student in the early 1960s, we had 4,000 undergraduates, maybe 400 graduate students. Today, there are 15,000 undergraduates and 3,000 graduate students. They come from all over the country and world. But what is really different between then, and now, is not the quantity, but that even the highest caliber students must now worry about their ability to get in. During Dr. Roselle's tenure, the SAT scores of entering freshman has risen significantly. All of us in public service have the goal to leave the place better than how we found it, and Dr. Roselle has clearly done that, on many fronts. Physically, under his leadership, he oversaw the building and rebuilding of about two dozen structures, including a new sports/ convocation center, a new center for the arts that opened recently, new laboratories, new residences, and new academic buildings. He brought technology into the infrastructure, so all campus buildings are 21st century ready. Financially, he has nearly quadrupled the university's endowment, to $1.2 billion, far exceeding anyone's expectations. The number of endowed faculty positions has increased from 20 some 10 years ago to more than 100 today, allowing the university to attract excellent faculty members. Since he arrived, he increased student aid from $19 million to $56 million and started scholarship support so more students can study abroad. The University of Delaware started the first Study Abroad Program in the world 80 years ago, and today, 40 percent of undergraduates spend some time learning abroad, increasingly important preparation for a job in today's global economy. All of us in this Chamber should feel good about helping expand the university's scientific programs. During Dr. Roselle's tenure, Congress appropriated almost $90 million for defense work, primarily at the University's Center for Advanced Composite Materials. It has been put to good use. They have developed critical basic composite materials and production techniques to produce the lighter, more capable vehicles, guns, armor, and ships our military needs. We also should feel good about the millions of dollars Congress has directed to the university to help fight avian influenza, develop clean energy technologies, and for biotechnology research, among other activities. I also note that Dr. Roselle presided over Blue Hen football teams that combined had a 135-54-1 record and brought to Newark a national championship, a proud day for all of our alumni. The list of his accomplishments is long, and I could go on. But it is not so much what he has built, as what the 70,000 students who graduated during his tenure will accomplish with the quality education he had such a strong hand in giving them. Our alma mater has a wonderful line, ``We give thee thanks for glorious days beneath thy guiding hand,'' and it is certainly his hand as well as his head and heart that has guided the university into the wonderful institution it is today. I know I speak for all of my colleagues in extending Dr. Roselle our heartfelt congratulations.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I want to start by complimenting Senators Warner, McCain and Graham and the work that they did to improve this bill, particularly in two areas. First, our colleagues did the right thing by rejecting the attempt by the administration to reinterpret, by statute, Common Article III of the Geneva Conventions. That would have been an enormous mistake--and an invitation for other countries to define for themselves what the Geneva Conventions require. Second, our colleagues were right to reject the use of secret evidence in military commissions. Such a proposal is not consistent with American jurisprudence, and would not have satisfied the requirements of the Supreme Court decision in Hamdan. Overall, the bill provides a much better framework for trying unlawful enemy combatants than under the flawed order issued by the President. All this is positive, and our three colleagues deserve credit for their good work. But the bill contains a significant flaw. It limits the right of habeas corpus in a manner that is probably unconstitutional. Don't take my word for it. Listen to the words of a conservative Republican, Kenneth Starr, who used to sit on this nation's second highest court, and is now one of the country's leading appellate advocates, in a letter written to Senator Specter earlier this week: Article 1, section 9, clause 2 of the United States Constitution provides that ``[t]he privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.'' The United States is neither in a state of rebellion nor invasion. Consequently, it would be problematic for Congress to modify the constitutionally protected writ of habeas corpus under current events. Accordingly, I believe this bill is likely unconstitutional. I hope that I am wrong. But I fear that I am right, and that we will be back here in a few years debating this issue again. We had one chance to get this right--to ensure that we don't end up back here again after a new round of litigation. There was no reason to rush. No one challenges our right to detain the high-value prisoners the President just transferred to Guantanamo. We are not about to release them--nor should we. But rush we did. In the last week, there have been two different versions of the legislation that emerged from closed-door negotiations with the administration. My colleagues may be willing to trust the legal judgment and competence of this administration. But I am not. Since 9/11, several major cases have gone to the Supreme Court that relate to the laws governing the war on al-Qaida and the President's powers. And the administration has been wrong too many times--wrong about whether habeas corpus rights applied to detainees in Guantanamo Bay, wrong about whether U.S. citizens detained as enemy combatants had a right to meaningful due process, and wrong about whether the military commissions the President established by order were legal. Simply put, I am not willing to trust the administration's legal judgment again. And it is clear that the administration has put its imprint on this legislation in several troubling respects, including in the stripping of habeas rights. In the struggle in which we are engaged against radical fundamentalists, we must be both tough and smart. This bill is not smart because it risks continued litigation about how we detain and try unlawful enemy combatants. It is also not smart because it risks continued harm to the image of the United States. The 9/11 Commission concluded that ``[a]llegations that the United States abused prisoners in its custody make it harder to build the diplomatic, political, and military alliances the government will need.'' The recently released National Intelligence Estimate made plain that there are several factors fueling the spread of the jihadist movement, including ``entrenched grievances, such as corruption, injustice, and fear of Western domination, leading to anger, humiliation, and a sense of powerlessness.'' The mistreatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib, and concerns about our policies governing detainees at Guantanamo Bay, undoubtedly fuel these grievances and anger against the United States. Our detainee policies have also made it harder for our allies to support our anti-terrorism policies. We have to get this right. Therefore, even though our colleagues achieved significant improvements, I cannot support this legislation.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Homeland Security Trust Fund Act of 2006. And, I do so because it is my sincere belief, that in order to better prevent attacks here at home, we must dramatically reorder the priorities of the Federal Government. This legislation, which I unsuccessfully attempted to attach to the port security legislation 2 weeks ago, will reorder our priorities by creating a homeland security trust fund that will set aside $53.3 billion to invest in our homeland security over the next 5 years. Through this trust fund we will allocate an additional $10 billion per year over the next 5 years to enhance the safety of our communities. Everyone in this body knows that we are not yet safe enough. Independent experts, law enforcement personnel, and first responders have warned us that we have not done enough to prevent an attack and we are ill-equipped to respond to one. Hurricane Katrina, which happened just over a year ago, demonstrated this unfortunate truth and showed us the devastating consequences of our failure to act responsibly here in Washington. And, last December, the 9/11 Commission issued their report card on the administration's and Congresses' progress in implementing their recommendations. The result was a report card riddled with D's and F's. And, to add to this, the FBI reported earlier this summer that violent crime and murders are on the rise for the first time in a decade. Given all of this, it is hard to argue that we are as safe as we should be. To turn this around, we have to get serious about our security. If we establish the right priorities, we can do the job. We can fund local law enforcement, which the President has attempted to slash by over $2 billion for fiscal year 2007. We can give the FBI an additional 1,000 agents to allow them to implement reforms without abandoning local crime. We can secure the soft targets in our critical infrastructure, to ensure that our chemical plants and electricity grids are protected from attacks. We can immediately re-allocate spectrum from the television networks and give it to our first responders so they can talk during an emergency. I know what many of my colleagues here will argue. They will argue that it is simply too expensive to do everything. This argument is complete malarkey. This is all about priorities. And, quite frankly this Congress and this administration have had the wrong priorities for the past 5 years. For example, this year the tax cut for Americans that make over $1 million is nearly $60 billion. Let me repeat that, just one year of the Bush tax cut for Americans making over $1 million is nearly $60 billion. In contrast, we dedicate roughly one-half of that-- approximately $32 billion--to fund the operations of the Department of Homeland Security. We have invested twice as much for a tax cut for millionaires--less than 1 percent of the population--than we do for the Department intended to help secure the entire nation. For a Nation that is repeatedly warned about the grave threats we face, how can this be the right priority? The Homeland Security Trust Fund Act of 2006 would change this by taking less than 1 year of the tax cut for millionaires--$53.3 billion--and investing it in homeland security over the next 5 years. By investing this over the next 5 years at just over $10 billion per year, we could implement all the 9/11 Commission recommendations and do those commonsense things that we know will make us safer. For example, under this amendment, we could hire 50,000 additional police officers and help local agencies create locally based counter- terrorism units. We could hire an additional 1,000 FBI agents to help ensure that FBI is able to implement critical reforms without abandoning its traditional crime fighting functions. We could also invest in security upgrades within our critical infrastructure and nearly double the funding for state homeland security grants. And, the list goes on. We continually authorize funding for critical homeland security programs, but a look back at our recent appropriations bills tells us that the funding rarely matches the authorization. Just this July we passed the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Budget. In that legislation, the Senate allocated only $210 million for port security grants--which is just over one-half of the amounts authorized in the bipartisan port security legislation that passed the Senate 2 weeks ago. Yet, another example of this problem is our shameful record on providing funding for rail security. For the last two Congresses, the Senate has passed bipartisan rail security legislation sponsored by myself, Senator McCain and others. This legislation authorizes $1.2 billion to secure the soft targets in our rail system, such as the tunnels and stations. Notwithstanding, we have only allocated $150 million per year for rail and transit security with less than $15 million allocated for intercity passenger rail security. So, while it is critical that we have acknowledged the need for increased rail security funding by passing authorizations, unless we invest the money, it doesn't really mean much. Unfortunately, this is an example that is repeated over and over. We know that the murder rate is up and that there is an officer shortage in communities throughout the Nation. Yet, we provide $0 funding for the COPS hiring program and we've slashed funding for the Justice Assistance Grant. We know that our first responders can't talk because they don't have enough interoperable equipment. Yet, we have not forced the networks to turn over critical spectrum, and we vote down funding to help local agencies purchase equipment every year. We know that only 5 percent of cargo containers are screened, yet we do not invest in the personnel and equipment to upgrade our systems. We know that our critical infrastructure is vulnerable. Yet, we allow industry to decide what is best and provide scant resources to harden soft targets. The 9/11 Commission's report card issued last December stated bluntly that ``it is time we stop talking about setting priorities and actually set some.'' This legislation will set some priorities. First, we provide the funding necessary to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Next, we take the commonsense steps to make our Nation safer. We make sure that law enforcement and first responders have the personnel, equipment, training they need, and are sufficiently coordinated to do the job by providing $1.15 billion per year for COPS grants; $160 million per year to hire 1,000 FBI agents; $200 million to hire and equip 1,000 rail police. $900 million for the Justice Assistance Grants; $1 billion per year for interoperable communications; $1 billion for Fire Act and SAFER grants. In addition, we could invest in new screening technologies to protect the American people by providing $100 million to improve airline screening checkpoints and $100 million for research and development on improving screening technologies. We also set aside funding to soften hard targets by setting aside $500 million per year for general infrastructure grants; $500 million per year for port security grants, and $200 million per year to harden our rail infrastructure. And the list goes on. I will conclude where I started. This is all about setting the right priorities for America. Instead of giving a tax cut to the richest Americans who don't need it, we should take some of it and dedicate it towards the security of all Americans. Our Nation's most fortunate are just as patriotic as the middle class. They are just as willing to sacrifice for the good of our Nation. The problem is that no one has asked them to sacrifice. The Homeland Security Trust Fund Act of 2006 will ask them to sacrifice for the good of the Nation, and I'm convinced that they will gladly help us out. And to those who say this won't work, I would remind them that the 1994 Crime Bill established the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund, specifically designated for public safety, that put more than 100,000 cops on the street, funded prevention programs and more prison beds to lock up violent offenders. It worked; violent crime went down every year for 8 years from the historic highs to the lowest levels in a generation. Our Nation is at its best when we all pull together and sacrifice. Our Nation's most fortunate citizens are just as patriotic as those in the middle class, and I am confident that they will be willing to forgo 1 year of their tax cut for the greater good of securing the homeland. The bottom line is that with this legislation, we make clear what our national priorities should be, we set out how we will pay for them, and we ensure those who are asked to sacrifice, that money the government raises for security actually gets spent on security. This legislation is about re-ordering our homeland security priorities. I realize that it will not be enacted this year, but I will introduce this legislation again in the next Congress and I will push for its prompt passage and I hope to gain the support of my colleagues in this effort.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, earlier this month, the Wilmington community lost Julianne Hammond--one of our most prominent lawyers and a good friend to my wife Jill. She was the 28th woman ever admitted to practice law in Delaware and worked for 30 years in real estate finance and land use law, changing the landscape of our city with many redevelopment efforts. Juli was a very outgoing, optimistic, happy person, who never let her illness get her down even as she battled breast cancer for 18 years. She literally worked until a week or so before she passed away, never talking about how sick she was. She also was a very caring person and wanted to help others in their battles with cancer. That is how we got to know Juli. In 1994, she became a founding board member of the Biden Breast Health Initiative to help educate young women on the importance of breast self-exam and early detection. She would assist Jill with special events and raising funds, doing everything and anything to help others. I don't know how she had the time and energy, but Juli also served as vice president of the board of the Wilmington Economic Development Corporation, a board member of the Land Use Committee for the Committee of 100, and secretary of the board of the Wellness Community of Delaware. Wilmington and New Castle County will not be the same without Juli. I know my colleagues join Jill and me in extending our deepest sympathies to her family.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding time to me.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, last Thursday I introduced a bipartisan resolution urging the President to take immediate action to avert a looming tragedy in Darfur, Sudan. I urge the Senate to pass it today. The Government of Sudan has launched an all but military offensive in Darfur that could result in hundreds of thousands of deaths. The United States must lead the international community to save those lives. It is urgent that we act. Over the past 2 years the situation in Sudan has remained dire. As many as 400,000 people have died. Two million people have been displaced from their homes, over 200,000 are refugees in Chad, and 3 million rely on international aid. Those numbers haven't diminished over time, they have gotten worse. And now, they may be on the brink of becoming even more catastrophic. In May of this year, the Government of Sudan and rebels in Darfur-- specifically the Minni Minawi faction of the Sudan Liberation Army-- signed a peace agreement. Tragically, instead of improving the security situation, the Darfur Peace Agreement has made things worse. The agreement never had the support of the entire SLA, or the other major rebel movement in Darfur, the Justice and Equality Movement. Nor did it have the support of people living in displaced persons camps in Darfur. In the days and weeks after news of the agreement spread, violence in camps increased either because people misunderstood what was in the agreement, or they felt the agreement was flawed. And violence on the ground became worse, as the rebel factions split and fighting erupted between those who had signed the Darfur Peace Agreement and those who had not. Tens of thousands of people have been displaced in fighting since May--50,000 in the last 2 months alone. Many of them have taken refuge in camps for the internally displaced. Attacks on humanitarian aid convoys have increased by a factor of more than 10 compared to this time last year. Twelve humanitarian workers have been killed in the past 4 months--more than during the entire previous year. Two hundred internally displaced women have been raped and another 200 violently assaulted over the course of the past 5 weeks. The United Nations, after months of delay, finally extended the mandate of the U.N. Mission in Sudan--UNMIS--to Darfur at the end of August. And, through U.N. Security Council Resolution 1706, it authorized the deployment of over 17,000 peacekeepers and 3,000 civilian police to Darfur. However, the Government of Sudan has categorically rejected the deployment of the U.N. force. In fact, the Sudanese Government has launched a military offensive in the region. Khartoum has sent over 10,000 troops to Darfur and has resumed aerial bombardments. Seven villages--villages, not military targets--were bombed just this weekend. African Union officials have stated that they will not extend the mission in Sudan past the end of this month. I understand that the African Union Peace and Security Council will meet in New York on September 18, just before the U.N. General Assembly meeting takes place. But it is unclear if the AU will reverse its decision to terminate its mission in Sudan. If it does terminate it, ``Katey, bar the door,'' all the carnage going on now will be increased multifold. Even if the impediments I just mentioned did not exist, it would be months--we are talking January--before a U.N. mission could fully deploy, so we need the AU to stay in place a while longer. In the mean time, Khartoum is doing its level best to be sure that no U.N. force comes to Darfur. The Government of Sudan's tactic seems to be to scorch enough earth--and people--such that there will be no need for the peacekeeping force because there will be no one left to protect and no peace to keep. At this point in time, right here today, we are at a pivotal moment. Hundreds of thousands of Sudanese are in camps, vulnerable to aerial and ground attacks from government forces. We cannot stand by and do nothing. This resolution is very straightforward. It calls on the President to undertake three key actions, some of which the Senate has asked him to do before: First, it once again calls on him to pursue the imposition of a no- fly zone through the U.N. NATO or NATO allies. The Senate asked the President to propose that NATO consider how to implement and enforce such a no-fly zone in March of this year. If anything the need to enforce a no-fly zone has increased. Second, it asks that the President secure the necessary support from United Nations member states to schedule a special session on Sudan in the United Nations Human Rights Council. The international community must speak out on the atrocities which continue to unfold in Sudan--and it must act. Third, it asks the President to appoint a Special Envoy to Sudan to head the office that Senator DeWine and I established at the State Department through the supplemental appropriations bill signed into law in June. The administration has avoided naming a Special Envoy to Sudan for years, and our diplomatic efforts have suffered as a result. I am under no illusion that these actions alone will stop the Sudanese Government's murderous actions in Darfur. The international community must put a credible international force on the ground as soon as possible. NATO should be prepared to help the AMIS hand-off to the United Nations. The U.S. should impose targeted financial, travel, and diplomatic sanctions against the Sudanese leadership, rebel forces, and others determined to be responsible for the atrocities and pursue the immediate imposition of similar sanctions by the U.N. Security Council and the European Union as called for by U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1556 and 1564. It is long past time for the Security Council to take such action. If the Council cannot act because of threats of a Russian or Chinese veto, then the United States and Europe should do so together. I visited the camps across the border in Chad. It is an absolute tragedy. There are tens of thousands of people in that one camp alone, with no real protection. When the appropriate time comes I will introduce this resolution. I hope it meets the approval of my colleagues. I hope the President will listen. I thank the managers of the bill for yielding me this time. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, since I only have 2 minutes--and I am not going to ask for a vote on it now--my amendment talks about the dirty little word no one wants to talk about: How are we going to pay for all this? The fact is, we are arguing over peanuts. The fact is, we should set up a trust fund as we did with the violent crime trust fund. We should fund everything everyone knows we need to fund here, all those elements the 9/11 Commission called for, plus reinstating local law enforcement. The whole cost of that would be less than 1 year--1 year--of the tax cut for people making over $1 million. My amendment sets up a trust fund, has $53 billion put into that trust fund, displaced over 5 years--$10 billion a year--to pay for all we are doing here. Rich folks are just as patriotic as poor folks. It instructs the Finance Committees to go out and find the means by which they would deal with that, take it 1 year or take a piece of it over 5 years. The bottom line is, this is crazy. We are talking about all that we do not have. We are passing amendments like the Biden-McCain amendment or the McCain-Biden amendment on rail. We know it is never going to be funded. We know the cost is about $50 billion to fund what we all need. Yet, at the same time, we are spending three times as much on a tax cut as we are spending on how we are going to do it. This is only for people making over $1 million. Again, I floated this with millionaires. I have been with groups who are millionaires. I have asked them: Would you object to giving up 1 year of your tax cut? The response is: No, if you guarantee me it is going to go to provide for security. This amendment would guarantee that, set up a trust fund. For those who are skeptical about trust funds, let me remind you, we did it with the violent crime trust fund. It worked, and it reduced crime. We should step to the plate and say how we are going to pay for it. Everyone in this body knows that we are not yet safe enough. Independent experts, law enforcement personnel, and first responders have warned us that we have not done enough to prevent an attack and we are ill-equipped to respond to one. Hurricane Katrina, which happened just over a year ago, demonstrated this unfortunate truth and showed us the devastating consequences of our failure to act responsibly here in Washington. And, last December, the 9/11 Commission issued their report card on the administration's and Congress's progress in implementing their recommendations. The result was a report card riddled with D's and F's. And, to add to this, the FBI reported earlier this summer that violent crime and murders are on the rise for the first time in a decade. Given all of this, it is hard to argue that we are as safe as we should be. To turn this around, we have to get serious about our security. If we establish the right priorities, we can do the job. We can fund local law enforcement, which the President has attempted to slash by over $2 billion. We can give the FBI an additional 1,000 agents to allow them to implement reforms without abandoning local crime. We can secure the soft targets in our critical infrastructure, to ensure that our chemical plants and electricity grids are protected from attacks. We can immediately re-allocate spectrum from the television networks and give it to our first responders so they can talk during an emergency. I know what many of my colleagues here will argue. They will argue that it is simply too expensive to do everything. That is malarkey. This is all about priorities. And, quite frankly, this Congress and this administration has had the wrong priorities over the past 5 years. For example, this year the tax cut for Americans who make over $1 million is nearly $60 billion. Let me repeat that, just 1 year of the Bush tax cut for Americans making over $1 million is nearly $60 billion. In contrast, we dedicate roughly one-half of that--approximately $32 billion--for the entire operations of the Department of Homeland Security. We have invested twice as much for a tax cut for millionaires--less than 1 percent of the population--than we do for the Department intended to help secure the entire Nation. For a nation that is repeatedly warned about the grave threats we face, how can this be the right priority? The amendment that I am offering would change this by taking less than 1 year of the tax cut for millionaires--$53.3 billion--and invest it in homeland security over the next 5 years. By investing this over the next 5 years at just over $10 billion per year, we could implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations and do those commonsense things that we know will make us safer. For example, under this amendment, we could hire 50,000 additional police officers and help local agencies create locally based counterterrorism units. We could hire an additional 1,000 FBI agents to help ensure that the FBI is able to implement critical reforms without abandoning its traditional crime-fighting functions. We could also invest in security upgrades within our critical infrastructure and nearly double the funding for State homeland security grants. And, the list goes on. The bill that we are debating today is a good bill, and I am sure it will pass, but does anyone really believe that the $400 million in port security grants authorized in it will really be funded? A look back at our recent appropriations bills tells us that this is not likely. Just this July we passed the Department of Homeland Security appropriations budget. In that legislation, the Senate allocated only $210 million for port security grants--just over one-half of what we are advocating be authorized in this bill. Another example of this problem is our shameful record on providing funding for rail security. For the last two Congresses. the Senate has passed bipartisan rail security legislation sponsored by myself and Senator McCain, and others. This legislation authorizes $1.2 billion to secure the soft targets in our rail system, such as the tunnels and stations. In fact, this legislation was added as an amendment to this bill 2 days ago. I thank my colleagues for including it, but we all understand that there is no chance of fully funding it unless we change our priorities. Indeed, this body has voted against funding rail security when I have offered it as an amendment to the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill the past 2 years. During that time, only $150 million per year has been allocated for rail and transit security with less than $15 million allocated for Amtrak security. So while I thank my colleagues for recognizing the need for increased rail security by adopting the McCain-Biden amendment, it is clear that it won't mean much. Unfortunately, this is an example that is repeated over and over. We know that the murder rate is up and that there is an officer shortage in communities throughout the Nation. Yet, we provide zero funding for the COPS hiring program and we have slashed funding for the Justice Assistance Grant. We know that our first responders can't talk because they don't have enough interoperable equipment. Yet, we have not forced the networks to turn over critical spectrum, and we vote down funding to help local agencies purchase equipment every year. We know that only 5 percent of cargo containers are screened, yet we do not invest in the personnel and equipment to upgrade our systems. We know that our critical infrastructure is vulnerable. Yet, we allow industry to decide what is best and provide scant resources to harden soft targets. The 9/11 Commission's Report Card issued last December stated bluntly that ``it is time we stop talking about setting priorities and actually set some.'' With this amendment, we set some priorities. I won't go through the entire amendment on the floor, but I would like to touch on the highlights. First, we provide the funding necessary to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Next, we take the commonsense steps to make our Nation safer. We make sure that law enforcement and first responders have the personnel, equipment, training, and are sufficiently coordinated to do the job. With this trust fund we could provide: $1.15 billion per year for COPS grants; $160 million per year to hire 1,000 FBI agents; $200 million to hire and equip 1,000 rail police; $900 million for the Justice Assistance Grants; $1 billion per year for interoperable communications; and $1 billion for Fire Act and SAFER grants. We could invest in screening technologies: $100 million to improve airline screening checkpoints; $100 million for research and development on improving screening technologies. We set aside funding for our critical infrastructure: $500 million per year for general infrastructure grants; $500 million per year for port security grants; $200 million per year to harden our rail infrastructure. And, the list goes on. Mr. President, I will conclude where I started. This is all about setting the right priorities for America. Instead of giving a tax cut to the richest Americans who don't need it we should take some of it and dedicate it towards the security of all Americans. Our Nation's most fortunate are just as patriotic as the middle class. They are just as willing to sacrifice for the good of our Nation. The problem is that no one has asked them to sacrifice. If we adopt this amendment, we will be asking them to sacrifice for the good of the Nation, and I am convinced that they would gladly help us out. We have done this before with the Violent Crime Trust Fund. This amendment is about reordering our homeland security priorities, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the Senator from Washington, for yielding me the time, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise this morning as a point of personal privilege to welcome a friend and leader in our community in Wilmington, DE. Father Christo opened the Senate in prayer this morning. It may be the only time the entire Greek community in Wilmington, DE, was tuned in to C-SPAN as we opened up the morning session. I want this Senate to know and I hope my colleagues will get a chance to meet Father Christo. Many who were raised with a parochial education got an opportunity to meet religious teachers. The kind of guy one always looked for was Father. Father is a guy whom everyone knew was much smarter than you. You knew he was probably a better athlete than you were. You knew he had thought through whatever you were thinking of before you thought it. And you also knew you could go to him whenever you needed help. That is the role he continues to play with an adult parish in one of the most active communities in my State. The Greek-American community is small in our State, but it is extremely vibrant. Similar to many communities, the heart and soul of it is the church. The heart and soul of it is not only the spiritual center of the community, it is the political center of the community. I mean that in a nonpartisan way. It is the social center of the community. It is the community. It is the embodiment of community. We have very important business this morning, and I will yield to my distinguished colleague, Senator Carper. I can say to Father, it is an honor to have him here this morning. I hope he has an even greater impression than I know he possessed when he came, of the majesty of this place. This is the people's Chamber. They talk about the people's House, this building, this Senate, all of the Capitol. Every time people come to visit, I remind them that this belongs to them. This is theirs. We are only here as hired hands for a while. I hope Father takes back to his parish the notion that there is an awful lot of good that can be done here. I am delighted he took the time this morning to remind us of the relationship between temple, Government, and the spiritual leadership that comes directly and immediately from God. I thank him for that. I thank him for his generosity and leadership back home in our community beyond Holy Trinity. Thank you very much. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. (for himself, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Kerry, Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Levin, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Specter, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Sununu, Mr. McCain, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Coleman, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Salazar, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Leahy, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Frist, and Mr. Smith) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. Whereas the Darfur Peace Agreement, signed on May 5, 2006, between the Government of Sudan and rebels in Darfur has not resulted in a cessation of hostilities in Darfur; Whereas, although the United Nations Security Council approved Security Council Resolution 1706 (2006), which provides for a United Nations peacekeeping presence in Darfur to replace the African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS), the Government of Sudan has rejected the deployment of United Nations peacekeepers; Whereas the Government of Sudan is engaged in a major offensive in Darfur, in direct violation of the Darfur Peace Agreement; Whereas violence in the Darfur region has increased since the signing of the Darfur Peace Agreement; Whereas Jan Egeland, the United Nations Under-Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs, has stated that the coming weeks may result in a ``man-made catastrophe of an unprecedented scale'' in Darfur; Whereas the African Union has decided to terminate the African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS) at the end of September 2006; Whereas it is unlikely that the United Nations will have the logistical means or capability to deploy peacekeepers to Sudan until the end of 2006; Whereas the people of Darfur cannot wait that long for security to be re-established; and Whereas the international community must renew its efforts to stop genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity in Darfur: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) strongly condemns-- (A) the current military offensive of the Government of Sudan in Darfur in violation of the terms of the May 5, 2006, Darfur Peace Agreement and the April 8, 2004, N'Djamena cease-fire accord; and (B) the rejection by the Government of Sudan of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1706 (2006); (2) commends the African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS) for its actions to date in monitoring the April 8, 2004, N'Djamena cease-fire agreement in Darfur and encourages the African Union to leave the AMIS force in place until a United Nations peacekeeping mission is deployed to Darfur; (3) calls upon the Government of Sudan to immediately-- (A) cease its military offensive in Darfur; and (B) comply with the deployment of United Nations peacekeepers to Darfurt called for by the United Nations Security Council; (4) calls upon the United Nations-- (A) to deploy as quickly as practicable peacekeeping troops as authorized by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1706 (2006) that are well trained and equipped; and (B) to begin considerations of sanctions as called for by paragraphs 6 and 7 of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1556 (2004) and paragraph 14 of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1564 (2004); (5) urges the President to take urgent steps to help improve the security situation in Darfur, including by-- (A) pursuing the imposition of a ``no-fly zone'' in Darfur in cooperation with the United Nations, NATO, or NATO allies; (B) garnering support for NATO assistance with the handover by the African Union of the AMIS mission to the United Nations; (C) working through diplomatic channels to obtain the support of China, Russia, and United States allies in the Arab League in securing the compliance of the Government of Sudan with the deployment of United Nations peacekeepers as provided by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1706 (2006); (D) supporting full funding for the United Nations Peacekeeping Mission in Sudan; (E) securing the necessary support from United Nations member states to schedule a special session on Sudan in the United Nations Human Rights Council; and (F) appointing a Special Envoy to Sudan to head the Office of the Presidential Special Envoy established pursuant to chapter 6 of title I of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006 (Public Law 109-234; 120 Stat. 439); and (6) urges the international community-- (A) to support the deployment of United Nations peacekeepers to Darfur financially, with logistical and equipment support, or through troop contributions; (B) to fulfill financial obligations to United Nations and international humanitarian aid agencies for responding to thepiis in Darfur or addressing humanitarian needs throughout Sudan; (C) to impose targeted sanctions against members of the National Congress Party determined to be responsible for human rights violations, war crimes, and crimes against humanity; and (D) to impose sanctions consistent with paragraphs 6 and 7 of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1556 (2004) and paragraph 14 of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1564 (2004)

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a resolution along with my colleague Senator DeWine urging the President to take immediate action to avert a looming tragedy in Darfur, Sudan. The government of Sudan has launched an all-out military offensive in Darfur that could result in hundreds of thousands of additional deaths. The United States must lead the international community to save those lives. It is urgent that we act. How did we arrive at such a situation? And what must we do to stop it? Over the past two years the situation in Sudan has remained dire. As many as 400,000 people may be dead. Two million people have been displaced from their homes, over 200,000 are refugees in Chad, and three million rely on international aid. Those numbers haven't diminished over time, they have gotten worse. And now, they may be on the brink of becoming even more catastrophic. In May of this year, the government of Sudan and rebels in Darfur-- specifically the Minni Minnawi faction of the Sudan Liberation Army, SLA,--signed a peace agreement. Rather than improving the security situation, the Darfur Peace Agreement has made things worse. The agreement never had the support of the entire SLA, or the other major rebel movement in Darfur, the Justice and Equality Movement. Nor did it have the support of people living in displaced camps in Darfur. In the days and weeks after news of the agreement spread, violence in camps increased either because people misunderstood what was in the agreement, or they felt the agreement was flawed. And violence on the ground became worse, as the rebel factions split and fighting erupted between those who had signed the Darfur Peace Agreement and those who had not. Tens of thousands of people have been displaced in fighting since May--fifty thousand in the last two months alone. Many of them have taken refuge in camps for the internally displaced. Attacks on humanitarian aid convoys have increased by a factor of more than ten compared to this time last year. Twelve humanitarian workers have been killed in the past four months--more than during the previous year. Two hundred internally displaced women have been raped and another two hundred violently assaulted in over the course of the past five weeks. The United Nations, after months of delay, finally extended the mandate of the U.N. Mission in Sudan (UNMIS) to Darfur at the end of August. U.N. Security Council Resolution 1706 authorizes the deployment of over 17,000 peace keepers and 3000 civilian police to Darfur. Regrettably, however, the government of Sudan has rejected the deployment of the U.N. force, instead launching a military offensive in Darfur. African Union officials have stated that they will not extend the mission in Sudan past the end of this month. And even if the aforementioned impediments did not exist, it would be months before a U.N. mission could fully deploy. Just to make absolutely sure a peacekeeping force is never deployed, the government of Khartoum has gone on the offensive. If it scorches enough earth--and people--there will be no need for the peacekeeping force because there will be no one left to protect and no peace to keep. We are at a pivotal moment. Hundreds of thousands of Sudanese are in camps, vulnerable to aerial and ground attacks from government forces. We cannot stand by and do nothing. This resolution is straightforward. It calls on the President to undertake three key actions, some of which the Senate has asked him to do before: First, it once again calls on him to pursue the imposition of a no-fly zone through the U.N., NATO or NATO allies. The Senate asked the President to propose that NATO consider how to implement and enforce such a no-fly zone in March of this year. If anything, the need to enforce a no-fly zone has increased. Second, it asks that the President secure the necessary support from United Nations member states to schedule a special session on Sudan in the United Nations Human Rights Council. The international community must speak out on the atrocities which continue to unfold in Sudan--and it must act. Third, it asks the President to appoint a Special Envoy to Sudan to head the office that Senator DeWine and I established at the State Department through a provision in the supplemental appropriations bill that was signed into law in June. The administration has avoided doing so for years, and our diplomatic efforts have suffered as a result. I'm under no illusion that these actions alone will stop the Sudanese government. The international community must put a credible force on the ground as soon as possible. NATO should be prepared to help the AMIS hand-off to the United Nations. It is imperative that the President pick up the phone and talk to our NATO allies about how to do that. He should also call the president of the African Union and the U.N. Secretary General about going to Khartoum to talk to President Bashir about his government's rejection of the U.N. Security Council resolution. And the Secretary of State must get involved in diplomatic efforts to convince the Sudanese to cooperate with the implementation of Security Council resolution. I understand that Assistant Secretary of State Frazer was sent to Khartoum over the Labor Day weekend. She met with President Bashir, but according to all reports, the meeting did not result in any change in Khartoum's posture towards the deployment of U.N. troops. I applaud the administration for sending Dr. Frazer. But with all due respect I think we need to be engaged at higher levels. It has been 12 years since the international community watched nearly a million people get killed in Rwanda, and 11 years since the world stood by as the massacres in Srebrenica occurred. Since then, President Clinton took decisive action to stop ethnic cleansing act in Bosnia, and then in Kosovo. Both missions were controversial--even unpopular. But the cost of inaction was too high. The cost of inaction in Darfur is too high as well.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I share the concerns that prompted the introduction of this amendment, but I am not prepared to approve such a far-reaching measure without a clear legislative record regarding the need for it and its likely impact on U.S. and allied forces. Cluster bombs have always posed problems for responsible military forces like those of the United States. The weapons are very useful militarily, but they also carry a real risk of causing civilian casualties if they are used where civilians are present or if too many submunitions fail to explode when they hit the ground. This is a legitimate issue to consider and, perhaps, to legislate. But it should be done in a careful manner, after holding hearings and with proper preparation. I urge the Senate Armed Services Committee to hold hearings on the issue of cluster munitions so that we can all gain a better understanding of how to maintain their usefulness while minimizing their risks. The committee should also make sure the Defense Department lives up to its claim that it ``is working towards minimizing `dud' cluster munitions by phasing cluster munitions systems with more reliable or self-destructing fuzes.'' Success in that effort would go far to reduce the risks of postwar casualties.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, prior to the August recess, the Senate sent the nomination of James O'Gara to be the Deputy Director for Supply Reduction at the Office of National Drug Control Policy back to the White House for reconsideration. Mr. O'Gara's nomination was strongly opposed by Senators on both sides of the aisle, which prevented it even from being reported out of the Judiciary Committee. Unfortunately, the White House has returned Mr. O'Gara's nomination for confirmation. As such, I am using this opportunity to, again, remind the President of the objections that law enforcement and many Members of this body have to the policies and the leadership at the Office of National Drug Control Policy. In so doing, it is my hope that the administration will change course and develop and implement strategies that will address the drug problems facing our communities, such as the spread of methamphetamine. More than 20 years ago I began working to create an Office of National Drug Control Policy because I believed then, as I believe now, that we needed a Cabinet-level official who would coordinate Federal drug policy and be publicly accountable for developing and implementing an effective national strategy. I believe the Office of National Drug Control Policy is an important office, and I take matters related to it very seriously. When our current drug czar, John Walters, came for a vote before this body in 2001, I opposed his nomination because I did not believe he was the right man for the job. Unfortunately, my fears have been borne out. During his tenure, John Walters has been reticent to acknowledge the methamphetamine problem that is plaguing small communities nationwide, preferring to focus almost exclusively on marijuana. He recommended to the President that the highly popular and highly effective High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Program, which funds drug enforcement task forces, be cut by 56 percent and relegated to the Department of Justice. And under his leadership, the Office of National Drug Control Policy has essentially walled itself off from consultation and dialogue with external drug policy experts including treatment professionals, prevention specialists, and State and local law enforcement officials. Those are just a few of the many examples of Mr. Walters' missteps. Under him, the office operates like an ivory tower rather than the command center for our national drug control policy. This past year, together with many of my Republican colleagues, I fought to prevent James O'Gara--a colleague of Mr. Walters since 1989-- from becoming the Deputy Director for Supply Reduction. Together, they have coauthored policy articles expressing their shared drug policy views. Given the misgivings that many of us have about how Mr. Walters has run the Office of National Drug Control Policy, I would likely have a difficult time voting to give a promotion to any member of his inner circle. But that is not the only reason why many of us opposed Mr. O'Gara's nomination. Perhaps most troubling is that Mr. O'Gara, who was nominated for a position which has authority over international drug control, foreign and domestic drug intelligence, and interdiction, does not have the confidence of law enforcement. In letters to Senator Specter and Senator Leahy expressing their strong opposition to the O'Gara nomination, law enforcement has expressed its strong opposition. The National Narcotics Officers Association wrote that: Mr. O'Gara lacks an operational understanding of a critical issue involved in supply reduction, has no operational background in supply reduction or drug control, and most importantly is not trusted by his constituents in the drug enforcement, prevention and treatment fields. All of this makes him unqualified and unable to effectively lead the coordination of supply reduction initiatives in accordance with the National Drug Control Strategy. The letter from the HIDTA Directors states that: Based on our collective 1,000+ years of law enforcement experience, we believe Mr. O'Gara lacks the qualifications and abilities necessary to coordinate our nation's supply reduction initiatives effectively. We believe his lack of experience and inability and/or unwillingness to collaborate with a variety of stakeholders has resulted in the formulation of three National Drug Control Strategy documents that do not provide adequate guidance to law enforcement, treatment, and prevention professionals; lack specific and measurable objectives; and insufficiently address some of the most pressing drug threats facing our country today, including methamphetamine. By returning this nomination, it is my hope--together with many of my Republican colleagues--that the administration will reconsider and rescind this nomination. State and local law enforcement accounts for more than 90% of drug- related arrests. During a time when assistance for State and local law enforcement has been slashed, it is essential that the leadership of the Office of National Drug Control Policy have the confidence of local officials. Mr. O'Gara lacks this support. Moreover, Mr. Walters and Mr. O'Gara have alienated State and local law enforcement, drug prevention and treatment professionals, as well as many members of Congress. As the scourge of methamphetamine continues to ravage middle America, it is essential that the policies adopted and the personnel appointed by the administration have the confidence of the drug enforcement community. President Bush could take a huge step in this direction by rescinding the nomination of Mr. O'Gara and consulting with local law enforcement to appoint an individual who could win the bipartisan support of the Senate.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. I would ask both of my friends if they are committed to ensuring that happens?

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and ranking member for taking the time to discuss an issue that is very important to me and to the well-being of our military personnel. As both of you well know, the military today relies on vaccines as an element of force protection. In order to keep our military healthy and to protect against biological threats, we require personnel to be vaccinated. These vaccines are generally considered to be ``safe'', but they are still drugs that are put into the body. As such, there are always a small number of personnel that have adverse reactions. These personnel are our responsibility. While serving their Nation, they are required to take these vaccinations. If they are made ill by that requirement, we must give them the best possible care, just as we do for those who lose a limb serving the Nation. In 2001, Congress recognized that we needed to develop specific expertise for treating these rare and complicated cases and created the vaccine health care centers. Last year, the vaccine health care centers treated 708 personnel. That is a caseload increase of 83 percent since they began operations in 2001. Today, the centers are unique in the Nation for their expertise in adult vaccinations and adverse reactions to them. They are a critical component of force protection, assuring our military personnel that if they become ill from a mandatory vaccination, they will get adequate care.

Mr. BIDEN. I want to also thank my colleague for including $2 million specifically for the vaccine health care centers in the fiscal year 2007 Defense appropriations bill. I believe it was the committee's intent, in a difficult budget year, to show their support for keeping the centers intact pending the GAO report expected in mid-fiscal year 2007. Is that correct?

Mr. BIDEN. I thank my colleague. It was also my understanding, based on discussions during consideration of the last supplemental in the spring, that the military was fully committed to retaining the complete capabilities of the vaccine health care centers in their current form pending the completion of the GAO report. As my friend knows, Congress would also like to see a plan from the Department of Defense for meeting this need. On this year's Defense authorization bill, the Senate agreed unanimous to my amendment prohibiting the restructuring or downsizing of the current vaccine health care centers until the Department provides Congress with a report outlining their plans to meet the needs of our military personnel for pre- and post-vaccination care over the next decade.

Mr. BIDEN. I thank my colleagues for their assistance. I hope that next year we will have a comprehensive and useful GAO report and a DOD report that will help us ensure that we are meeting the unique force protection needs created by mandatory vaccinations in the best possible way. Until then, I greatly appreciate their commitment to ensuring that we do not lose the capabilities that have been established to date and are regularly utilized by our military personnel. funds for improving polygraphs

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, our country is at war. We face fundamental challenges to our security at home and abroad. The President himself has compared our situation to the Cold War, to World War II. Those were existential struggles, for which we made great sacrifices and which fundamentally realigned our priorities. Thousands of American families have paid the ultimate sacrifice, tens of thousands of our sons and daughters have been wounded. Tens of thousands more have been put in the line of fire, some of them for multiple tours of duty. The war in Iraq alone has lasted longer than World War II, and its cost, at $315 billion, continues to grow. Here at home, we face challenges to the American dream--the faith that hard work would be rewarded with a decent job, a better future for our children, and secure retirement. The income of the average American family has not risen in the past 6 years. Global competition from a billion and a half new workers will change the world our children inherit. American families have virtually no money left over to save, and private retirement savings are woefully inadequate to meet the wave of retirees now upon us. To meet these challenges, we will have to make massive investments in education and in research to boost the productivity and earnings of American workers. We need to find alternative fuels to reduce our dependence on oil that undermines our foreign policy and holds our economy hostage. Over 46 million Americans are without health insurance. Only 5 percent of the containers that pass through our ports are inspected for weapons. Our passenger rail system lacks the basic lighting, fences, dog patrols, and cameras that could prevent attacks by terrorists we know have that system in their sights. This is just a short list of the profound challenges we face as a Nation. We can all think of others. While our needs multiply, we lack the resources to meet them. Handed a 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion, this administration has dragged us down, through the most dramatic reversal in our Nation's history, into an additional $3 trillion in debt. They have doubled our debt to foreign governments. We now owe more than $2 trillion to Japan, China, and others. We are losing control of our financial future. We are borrowing from our own national retirement savings, the Social Security system. This year alone, we will borrow $177 billion from Social Security. Every day we go deeper into debt to foreign governments. Every day we spend more of our national retirement savings. And every day our basic needs, from homeland security to our retirement savings to our children's future--those needs are ignored. That is the setting, that is the background, those are the circumstances in which we are now asked to cut taxes on just 7,000 of the wealthiest heirs in our country--at a cost of over $750 billion in the first decade it is in effect. All of that will be borrowed. It is a transfer of $750 billion to the wealthiest two-tenths of 1 percent of Americans, borrowed from China, from Japan, from our own Social Security system. Somebody will have to pay that back. Our children and our grandchildren will pay that back. It is a transfer from those with no voice of their own in our system, a transfer to those whose wealth speaks the loudest. Under current law, the estate tax will affect fewer than 7,000 estates in the whole country by 2009. That year, a couple will be able to exempt a $7 million estate from taxes--a $7 million estate will pay no estate taxes. None. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that only 65 family farms in the whole country will be subject to estate tax at that point, under current law. Sixty-five farms, period. Seven thousand of the wealthiest families will be the only ones paying any estate tax, and only 65 of those estates will be family farms, barely more than 1 farm per State across Our Nation. And yet we are here today, actually considering reducing those numbers further, and driving our debt deeper, to save the most fortunate among us from that small remainder of an estate tax. I believe that with the changes in current law we have accomplished some appropriate reform. I believe that family businesses and family farms should not be broken up to pay taxes. With the booming economy of the 1990s, many more Americans joined the ranks of those who could face estate taxes. Raising the exemption level and lowering the rate made sense. Under current law, in my State of Delaware, fewer than 50 families will face any estate tax in 2009. Those are reforms that protect all but a few from the estate tax. It protects family businesses and family farms. But I opposed complete repeal of the estate tax, and I oppose this legislation that will cost us $750B, three quarters of the cost of full repeal. I oppose it, not because those who would benefit aren't good Americans. I am sure they are. Because they are good Americans, I think most would agree that given the world we live in today, facing a global threat to our security, with gaps in our homeland security, with clear domestic needs unmet, with our Federal finances already in the red--in the face of those facts, full repeal is a luxury that we cannot afford. We could provide our middle class with some tax relief, by extending protection from the marriage penalty for $46 billion. We could extend the child tax credit for $183 billion. We could extend the college tuition deduction for $19 billion. Instead, the top priority of the leadership in this Congress is a handout to the most fortunate, paid for by three-quarters of a trillion dollars in debt heaped on our kids. To add insult to this injury, the first pay raise for minimum wage workers in 10 years is now hostage to this estate tax cut. Under current law, you can be paid a wage that keeps you below the poverty line even if you are working full time. Over the past 24 years, the most fortunate Americans, in the top 1 percent, saw their incomes more than double--from an average of $306,000 to over $700,000. During that same period, the incomes of average Americans grew just 15 percent. But the poorest fifth of our citizens saw their already inadequate incomes grow just $600--over 24 years. We are moving apart, not coming together, as a nation. The minimum wage has not increased since 1996--and all of that increase has been wiped out by the cost of living. The minimum wage today, at $5.15 an hour, is even worth less in today's dollars than the $4.25 rate it replaced. Today, the minimum wage is worth only a third of the average hourly wage of American workers, the lowest level in more than half a century. The bottom rung of the ladder of opportunity is broken. It is time to fix it. That means a pay raise for over 7 million workers, in three stages, over the next 3 years, to $7.25 an hour. That will lift the floor under everybody's wages. But now we are told that to get those folks on minimum wage a raise, we have to go three-quarters of a trillion dollars into debt to China, Japan, and other countries so that the sons and daughters of the 7,000 most fortunate families among us will be spared the estate tax. Everyone else's sons and daughters will get that bill. Our country, already the world's biggest debtor nation, already borrowing 65 percent of all the money borrowed by countries around the world, already spending the retirement savings that should be going into Social Security, our country will be weaker financially because of it. The American people are tired of seeing this kind of ``gotcha'' politics while our country is at war, while we face serious challenges to our economic competitiveness, our health, our children's future. Instead of a long overdue adjustment in the minimum wage, we get political theater. And finally, instead of extending important tax credits to promote research and development, to clean up brownfields--even to give our fighting forces tax credits for combat pay--we are given this take-it- or-leave-it deal that makes estate tax cuts the top priority. Those are not the priorities of the American people, and this Senate should reject them. We can pass a minimum wage increase to reward work at the bottom of our economic ladder. We can extend the tax breaks that meet real needs and that serve genuine public policy needs. We can do that, and we can leave in place substantial reforms to the estate tax that have already taken place. First, we must say no to this transparent gimmick. Then we can do what we should have done in the first place.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am in opposition to the bill before us that opens up new areas in the Gulf of Mexico to oil and gas drilling. I don't dispute that the oil and natural gas that may be harvested as a result of this legislation could be useful, and I would support drilling from some new sources--if the value of doing so is not outweighed by the risks to our environment and economies. But it is not a solution to our energy problems. Here we are, yet again, with a so-called ``energy'' plan that only offers one plan for our energy security crisis: drilling. That is not much of a plan. That is not going to free our foreign policy. That is not going to lower prices at the pump. We consume a quarter of the oil in the world, but we have less than 2 percent of the world's reserves--that 2 percent includes the areas under debate today. If we tapped all the reserves in Alaska, the Gulf of Mexico and off the Pacific and Atlantic coasts, we would increase output by 2 million barrels a day by 2020. Yet our consumption is expected to rise to 25 million and world consumption to 110 million, so the impact on price and energy security would be minimal. Drops in the bucket. We need a real energy policy, a real path toward energy security. For instance, we can make the biggest difference and have the most immediate impact by reducing oil consumption where we use it most: the transportation sector. That's why I have proposed four steps to begin the transition to alternative fuels and make us more energy secure: (1) 100 percent of cars running on alternative fuels; (2) 50 percent of major gas stations selling it; (3) 25 percent farm-grown fuel; (4) 1 mile per gallon more fuel efficient each year. And if we are going to drill in new areas, we need to make sure we do it right, and not bypass the appropriately careful process and environmental reviews that are required by the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. The leadership put this bill before the Senate and said: ``take it or leave it.'' This bill could have been much better, and I fear that the bill that will come back from the House will be much worse.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I support the Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance with Germany, a close and trusted partner with the United States on law enforcement matters. I would like to address one issue that arose during the review of the treaty. Article 12(1) of the treaty provides that ``Each Party may at the request of the other Party, within its possibilities and under the conditions prescribed by its domestic law . . . take the necessary steps for the surveillance of telecommunications.'' After the revelation last December of the program of warrantless surveillance by the National Security Agency, NSA, the question arose whether the treaty would provide another purported legal authority for the NSA program. My view is that it does not. But the President's lawyers have proffered highly dubious theories for the program, and the Senate should not make assumptions about what the executive branch thinks about a treaty, because ultimately it is the President, not the Senate, who is charged with ``faithfully executing'' it. So I asked the executive branch its legal view about whether the treaty provides any additional legal authority for electronic surveillance--whether for the NSA program or any other program. On April 6, 2006, I wrote the Attorney General of the United States to ask him to confirm that the treaty does not authorize warrantless surveillance. On July 3, after nearly 3 months of deliberation, the Department of Justice responded to my letter. Why it took so long to answer this simple question is unclear. But the response itself is clear: the Justice Department letter concludes that the treaty with Germany would ``in no way expand current authority under U.S. law to conduct electronic surveillance.'' I welcome the Justice Department's response. While I may disagree with the Department about the scope of the current authority under U.S. law to conduct electronic surveillance, I agree with the Department's interpretation that Article 12(1) does not expand that authority. I urge all Senators to support this treaty. I ask unanimous consent that both letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, this spring, William Okoniewski, one of Wilmington's best, passed away after a long career as a photographer. He was known throughout the community as the guy who shot all the pictures at weddings, high school graduations, communions, and confirmations. If you had the Okoniewski Studio logo in the corner of a photo, you knew it was quality work. This was before the era of digital cameras, when our standards were different. A couple of generations of Delawareans came to admire Bill, and his family. He and his wife of 64 years, Ceclia, had six children, and you could find him coaching winning track teams throughout the 1960s and 1970s. At his funeral, when his son Stephen read a letter, it reminded me of just why we call Bill's generation the ``greatest generation.'' The letter was from Art Slote, who on January 9, 1945, was one of five people rescued by Bill in the middle of the Battle of Herrlsheim, in France, near the German border. In the letter, Mr. Slote said how he had searched for Bill for years, contacting the Army, the Red Cross, and every phone book, trying to locate the guy who saved his life. He finally found him in the late 1990s. He wrote: I frequently ponder over what impels a man to act as your father did. He could have easily scurried to the rear to save his own skin, and nobody would have criticized him. But he didn't. I wonder if you or I would risk our lives in another's behalf. It must be built into your father's character and sense of morality. Although slow to admit it, your father's personal bravery, his ability to set aside his fears in behalf of his wounded fellow soldiers, his natural compassion for others in trouble, his modesty in never talking to you about it make this a valor and heroic event. There is a lesson in those words for all of us in this Chamber and for all Americans. Bill Okoniewski embodied everything that is uniquely American. He understood what it meant to be loyal to our country and to respect your fellow Americans. He, and his generation, set the example. Today, he is the model for the brave men and women in uniform who are performing equally dangerous acts every day in Iraq and Afghanistan. One day, and hopefully soon, they too will return home not only having served their country in time of war but going on to lead the kind of professional and family life that Bill lived for decades and decades.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I would like to spend just a few minutes talking about why I support this Voting Rights Act reauthorization. The Supreme Court has said voting rights are so important because they are ``preservative of all rights'' (Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)). I couldn't agree more, and that is why the Voting Rights Act was and is so centrally important to our country. Martin Luther King, Jr., called President Johnson's support of the Voting Rights Act ``a shining moment in the conscience of man.'' That moment must continue. The act began a true transformation of our country. In 1964, there were only 300 African Americans in public office, including just three in Congress. There were exceptionally few anywhere in the South. Today, there are more than 9,100 Black elected officials, including 43 Members of Congress, the largest number ever. The act helped open the way for the 6,000 Latino public officials elected and appointed nationwide, including 263 at the State or Federal level, 27 of whom serve in Congress. One of the leaders of the civil rights movement, Congressman John Lewis, has characterized the impact of the Voting Rights Act this way: ``It not only transformed Southern politics, it transformed the nation.'' I couldn't agree more. But we shouldn't just rest on the successes of the recent past. We must remain vigilant. For hundreds of years, our country struggled with slavery and the fact that nothing more than a person's skin color could determine his or her prospects in life. Even after we enacted the 15th amendment, our country struggled with Jim Crow laws and persistent discrimination. We have now had the Voting Rights Act for 40 years, which may seem like a long time, but compared against our long and shameful history of race discrimination, 40 years seems pretty short. Thankfully, we have come a long way since signs emblazoned windows read: ``colored need not apply'' and ``Whites only.'' But let's not be lulled into a false sense of security: racism--though much more subtle--still exists. African Americans can apply for a job all right but they might not get it because ``they're not the right type,'' or ``they just wouldn't fit in.'' New words for old sins. Our recent history still finds sophisticated discrimination occurring when it comes to voting; and we must be especially vigilant here because voting is such a cornerstone of our democracy. We must continue to ensure diversity in our democracy and protect the rights of all Americans irrespective of race, gender, or national origin. That is why I strongly support this reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act and am a cosponsor. Authorizing the Voting Rights Act will be one of the most important things we can do this year, and I look forward to helping in any way that I can. I yield the floor.