Joe Biden

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. May I make an inquiry to the Senator from Arizona, is his amendment going to require a vote?

Mr. BIDEN. I thank the Senator very much. I would like to take advantage of that offer. President Talabani is in the Foreign Relations Committee at the moment. It would accommodate nicely my schedule. Amendment No. 3142 Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Biden amendment on MRAPs be called back up. It was the pending business until it was laid aside.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I say to my good friends, Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens, there are no two more seasoned or devoted Senators to protecting the military and our fighting men and women. I know my amendment with regard to so-called MRAPs, mine-resistant vehicles, is an inconvenience, and I am not being facetious when I say that. I know that my friend--and I don't have a closer friend in the Senate than Senator Inouye--supports the essence of what I am proposing, but there has been an attempt, understandably, to have all amendments that could be related in any way to Iraq placed on the supplemental. This amendment will be placed on the supplemental. But the truth is, we are not likely to get to the supplemental until January. I know one of the Democratic leaders, Senator Durbin, is in the Chamber. He may know better than I if that is accurate, but that is my understanding. In this place, you have to have, as they say, a horse to ride. You have to have a vehicle to be able to attach something important that you support so that it will get some consideration. The amendment I am proposing today is one that calls for a significant increase in the production of mine-resistant vehicles. I know I sound like a broken record to many of my colleagues since I started raising it last spring. This amendment is very simple, and it is costly. It provides the $23.6 billion needed to replace every Army up-armored HMMWV vehicle in Iraq with a Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle, so-called MRAPs. It is exactly the same thing we did on the authorization bill that passed Monday night. Our commanders in the field told us as recently as 2 weeks ago--I met with some of those commanders, Marine commanders in Ramadi, and took a ride in a new mine-resistant vehicle. I also sat in an up-armored HMMWVs--so the Marines, from the two-star general to the sergeant who drove various vehicles, could make a point to me about how different they are. They showed me a photograph of a roadside bomb having struck one of the new vehicles--that is a Cougar, which is one size of the up-armored mine-resistant vehicles and it showed where on, I believe, August 28, in that same city, a roadside bomb had exploded, 250 pounds of explosives. And it literally blew this vehicle, which is many times the weight of the largest SUV any American drives in this country--I don't know the exact weight, but it is close to 38,000 pounds fully loaded-- it blew it so high up in the air that it literally brought down the telephone wires. The wheels got caught in the telephone wires. A standard telephone pole, I don't know, are they 20, 25 feet, maybe more, maybe less? It blew the vehicle so high into the air it literally brought down the telephone wires. And when it hit, the vehicle, probably in an area the circumference of this Chamber, the pieces were spread all around the landscape. The engine would have been over by the Republican cloakroom, the drivetrain would have been over by the exit door on the Democratic side back toward the marble room, the axle would be sitting up by the Democratic cloakroom, and right in the middle of the Senate floor would be the cabin of the vehicle. There were seven soldiers in that vehicle. Had that been an up- armored HMMWV, everyone would be dead. Not one of those soldiers died. Not one. They suffered severe concussions, four of them, but that was the worst of their injuries. And one of those young sergeants, as the brass went through showing me this and I got into vehicles and we drove and so on and so forth--we are now inside Ramadi--as I am getting out and leaving, one of those young soldiers was exuberant. First, he saluted me and said: Sir, as Senator Reed, a West Point graduate, is accustomed to having been done to him in the old days and even now--and then he became emotional in his thanks for that vehicle, thanking us for insisting on building them. It is truly a lifesaving vehicle. Now, our commanders in the field tell us these Mine Resistant Ambush Protective vehicles are going to reduce casualties by 67 to 80 percent. That is the range, 67 to 80 percent. Put it another way, had they been riding around in these vehicles since we knew they were needed, we would have over a thousand fewer dead and over 10,000 fewer seriously wounded, literally, because over 70 percent of all the deaths and casualties are caused by IEDs, or roadside bombs. When I found out about how good these vehicles are last year in Iraq and then again in testimony the beginning of this calendar year, and then when a whistleblower came to me telling me commanders in the field had asked for these in February of 2005, I was dumbfounded as to why we weren't building them. With the great help of everyone on this floor, I think the vote was 97 to 0, we accelerated production by adding $1.5 billion to last year's wartime funding bill. The lead commander on the ground in Iraq is Lieutenant General Odierno, and he told us 6 months ago that he wanted to replace the Army's approximately 18,000 up-armored HMMWVs with these new Mine Resistant vehicles. Instead of adjusting the requirement immediately, the Pentagon has taken time to study the issue. They originally agreed the Army should get 380--380--of these vehicles. That was in December of 2006. Then, in March of this year, after the Commandant of the Marine Corps said it was his highest moral priority to get his folks in 3,700 of these vehicles, they agreed to increase the number to 2,500 for the Army. In August, they added a few more and agreed to 2,726 for the Army. This month, they agreed that the general needs a little over half of what he asked for--10,000 of these vehicles. Slowly we are getting there. But we have seen this movie before, Mr. President, with the body armor, with the up-armored HMMWVs. Until the Congress insisted that the better protection be fielded for all of those troops in Iraq, it was not. The catalyst came from here. We insisted. Remember just several years ago how many kids we were sending into battle without the proper body armor and how many National Guard units we were sending over who were not adequately equipped and how initially the military was threatening to discipline young women and men who were taking sheets of metal to put on the vehicles they drove on convoys ferrying equipment from the gulf all the way up into Baghdad? They were putting these sheets of steel on the sides of their doors and the bottom. They were threatened with being disciplined. We have very short memories here. Very short memories. But in the meantime, a lot of people die. Some would have died inevitably, but a lot--a lot--would not have. So today we are insisting the Army get all of the 18,000 MRAPs the commanders in the field have asked for. Now, to be honest, I can't understand why it is taking so long to agree to replace all these vehicles. It makes no sense. We know how effective these vehicles are. We surely can't be making an economic argument. Surely there is no one here who is going to say we can't afford to protect these troops with the technology we know--we know--we know--will protect these troops. Surely no one is going to make that argument. Last week, General Pace, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Appropriations Committee that MRAPs have been tested in Aberdeen with 300 pounds of explosives below them--300 pounds--and they survive. Are we only supposed to care about the tactical judgement of the commanders in the field when it is cheap? I don't think that is what the American people think we are doing for our military. Our military men and women have a right to expect a lot more from us. I know some say it is not possible to build a total of 23,000 MRAPs in 12 to 15 months. Why not? Why not? Imagine President Roosevelt, in the middle of World War II--and this war has lasted longer than World War II--having said: You know, we need to get X number more fighter aircraft over in theater. We need to have more landing craft for D-Day. But you know what. The present system just won't be able to build them all. We just can't do it. Can you imagine that being said? Can you fathom that being said? I don't get it. I don't get it. Are we saying that we cannot mobilize, through the President of the United States and the weight of the United States Congress, the construction of vehicles that we know will save lives; that we know will reduce critical injuries? You are as dead in Baghdad as you were on Normandy Beach. You are as dead in Baghdad as you were on Normandy Beach. And the pain of the family of that fallen angel is not one bit different than the heroism we celebrate today in the Ken Burns documentary series on the Greatest Generation from World War II. There is no difference. There is no distinction. The pain is as searing. So I ask you all a question: Can you imagine during that war the Congress and the President saying: I don't think we can get this done? Mr. President, this is basically a modified truck. With real leadership and a national level commitment, America can certainly make this happen. I believe that the can-do spirit and deep patriotism of our business men and women is as profound as it was back in the year 1942 or 1945. MRAP manufacturers want to make the 23,000 vehicles needed to save the lives of our men and women on the frontline. But we have to do our part. In Congress, the best thing we can do to make sure it happens is to fully fund every vehicle needed up front. Contractors and subcontractors can only expand their capacity if we are clear on what we need and what we are prepared to fund. This amendment allows us to do that. It also ensures that any delays in dealing with the overall wartime supplemental funding bill do not cause the production lines that are only now getting up to speed to shut down. Said another way, we are finally getting these production lines up and running. There are five companies, some relatively small, that, based on contracts, have gone out and hired 200, 500, 1,000 more people. They have expanded their facilities to build these vehicles alone. But they can only expand to the degree to which they know they have a contract. We funded these MRAPs in the last supplemental and the Continuing Resolution to the point that we are not going to be able to build any more of them by the time March comes along if we do not have money in this bill. We are not going to be able to build any more. If we wait until the supplemental to let these contracts, we will have a hiatus of 2 to 4 to 6 months where they shut down these lines. These are not mom- and-pop operations, but they are also not General Motors, Chrysler, Ford, Toyota, or any other major automobile manufacturer. So this is about how many more months in delay getting these vehicles are we going to cause by not putting all of the funding in this appropriations bill. My amendment provides all of the funding needed. That is what my amendment will do. It also ensures that any delays in dealing with the overall wartime supplemental funding bill will not cause production to shut down. Once we provide the full funding, American business must step up and get the job done, the Pentagon must manage the program aggressively and attentively, and the President is going to have to make it clear this is a national priority. But we have no chance of making all these needed vehicles as quickly as possible if we fund that program bit by bit, in fits and starts. Once again, I ask my colleagues to weigh their options. Do we do our best to save American lives, knowing the only downside is the possible need to reprogram funding at the end of the year; or do we care more about the unknown total wartime funding limit than we care about these lives? I know every one of my colleagues would do anything in their power to increase the possibility that we reduce casualties. Well, here is the way to do it. It seems to me that certain things are a matter of sacred honor and exceed anything having to do with budgets. We can argue the national interest is better protected and our physical security is better protected by building X, Y, or Z weapon system, and we can argue whether our failing to build it is going to affect the lives of the American people. That is a very fundamentally different issue than knowing you have something, that if you physically place an American soldier in that vehicle, you will increase by 60 to 80 percent the chance of that man or woman living, and yet not doing it. That is a different deal. This is not your ordinary appropriations program. It is a little bit like the ultimate body armor. Would anybody here, if we knew that by spending X dollars more we could increase the life expectancy of every soldier by providing the right body armor in the theater, would we not do it, no matter what it cost? Well, this is a form of body armor, a form of body armor that we know, if it is possessed, is going to reduce the cause of over 70 percent of the casualties in theater. If these vehicles can reduce American casualties by two-thirds or more, I don't know how we can do anything else. I agree with the Commandant of the Marine Corps, GEN James Conway, when he said: ``Anything less is immoral.'' Let me say it again: ``Anything less is immoral.'' So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays on this vote when the appropriate time comes. I ask for them now, so that we know when the amendment is called up we get a vote.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN. I assume unanimous consent will be asked to move off that amendment and back on to the business of the Senate.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside, and I call up amendments Nos. 3167 and 3142 and ask for their immediate consideration.

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

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I say to the managers, I am going to ask to introduce an amendment. I am not going to ask for it to be considered now. I only want to lay it down. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside to call up amendments Nos. 3167 and 3142 and ask for their immediate consideration.

Mr. BIDEN. One I think will be worked out and the other one I wish to talk with the Chair about whether I would ask for a vote. I may ask for a vote.

Mr. BIDEN. My friend is accommodating my schedule. I am going to allow us to move on rather than come back after he speaks. That is all. It is an accommodation of my schedule; nothing beyond that.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senators Graham, Casey, and Sanders as cosponsors of amendment No. 3142.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their courtesy. Mr. President amendment No. 3142 is very simple. It provides the $23.6 billion in funding needed to replace every Army up-armored HMMWV in Iraq with a mine resistant ambush protected, or MRAP, vehicle. It is exactly the same thing we did on the authorization bill that was passed Monday night. Our commanders in the field tell us that MRAPs will reduce casualties by 67 to 80 percent. The lead commander on the ground in Iraq, LTG Ray Odierno told us months ago that he wanted to replace each of the Army's approximately 18,000 up-armored HMMWVs in Iraq with an MRAP. Instead of adjusting the requirement immediately, the Pentagon has taken its time to study this issue. They originally agreed that the Army should get 380 MRAPs. That was in December 2006. Then, in March of this year, they agreed to 2,500. In August, they added a few more and agreed to 2,726 for the Army. This month, they have agreed that the general needs a little over half of what he asked for--10,000. Slowly they are getting there. We have seen this movie before with the body armor and with the up- armored HMMWVs. Until Congress insisted that the better protection be fielded to all those in Iraq, it was not. So, today, we are insisting that the Army get all of the 18,000 MRAPs the commanders in the field have asked for. To be honest, I cannot understand why it is taking so long to agree to replace them all. It makes no sense. We know how effective these vehicles can be. Just last week, General Pace, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Appropriations Committee that MRAPs have been tested at Aberdeen with 300 pounds of explosives below them and they survived. Are we only supposed to care about the tactical advice of our commanders in the field when it is cheap? I don't think that is what the American people or our military men and women expect from us. I know some will say that it is not possible to build a total of 23,000 MRAPs in 12 to 15 months. Why not? Why not? This is basically a modified truck. With real leadership and a national level commitment, America can certainly make this happen. I believe in the ``can-do'' spirit and deep patriotism of our businesses. MRAP manufacturers want to make the 23,000 vehicles needed to save the lives of our men and women on the front line. But I also know that we have to do our part. In Congress, the best thing we can do to make sure it happens is to fully fund every vehicle needed upfront. Contractors and subcontractors can only expand their capacity if we are clear on what we need and that we will fully fund it. This amendment allows us to do that. It also ensures that any delays in dealing with the overall wartime supplemental funding bill do not cause the production lines that are only now getting up to speed to shut down. Once we provide the full funding, American businesses must step up and get it done and the Pentagon must manage the program aggressively and attentively and the President must make it clear that this is a national priority. But we have no chance of making all of the needed vehicles, as quickly as possible, if we fund the program bit by bit, in fits and starts. We must do our part. Once again, I ask my colleagues to weigh their options. Do we do our best to save American lives, knowing that the only downside is the possible need to reprogram funding at the end of the year? Or do we care more about some unknown total wartime funding limit than those lives? We have an obligation to provide the best possible protection to each and every military man and woman while they are in the line of fire. If these vehicles can reduce American casualties by two-thirds or more, how can we do anything else? I agree with the Commandant of the Marine Corps, GEN James Conway when he said, ``Anything less is immoral.'' I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? I may be able to step away from this if--I think I heard my friend correctly. Did I hear him say that if in fact it is not clear that we are going to be able to prevent this gap in the shutdown of the line, that by November the Senator is saying the committee would have a continuing resolution that included the specific money?

Mr. BIDEN. Then, if I understand this correctly, I think my friend and the Senator from Alaska are doing exactly what I asked for. My only worry is that, A, we make a commitment to the total of 23,000 in the supplemental, a commitment that would get us to 23,000; and, B, we do not have to wait until January. Because if that is the case, these small operations will have needed a 3- to 6-month lead time, once they get a contract, to keep the line going. But what I hear my friend saying is that we would, in November, if it didn't look like the supplemental was going to happen, we in November would fill that gap so there would not be a shutdown in these lines. Is that what my friend is saying?

Mr. BIDEN. That is good enough for me. I am happy to withdraw the amendment. I have never known the Senator from Hawaii or the Senator from Alaska, when they gave their word, to do anything--do anything but that. The supplemental we are going to revisit in January, that has the additional money to get us to 23,000. What my friend is saying here is that $11.48 billion would be in any continuing resolution if we did not get to that?

Mr. BIDEN. It is $11.5 billion. Amendment No. 3142 Withdrawn Mr. President, I would obviously prefer that it be put here. But I tell you, if there has ever been appropriate use of the expression someone's word is ``as good as gold,'' it is about my friend from Hawaii. I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I am submitting a resolution designating October 19, 2007, as ``National Mammography Day.'' This is the 15th straight year I have introduced such legislation, and I am proud to say that on each occasion the Senate has shown its support for the fight against breast cancer by approving the resolution. Each year, as I prepare to introduce this resolution, I review the latest information from the American Cancer Society about breast cancer. For the year 2007, it is estimated that nearly 178,480 women will be diagnosed with invasive breast cancer and 40,460 women will die of this disease. The first several times I introduced this resolution, I commented on how gloomy the statistics surrounding breast cancer were. While too many of our loved ones still die from breast cancer each year, there are some numbers these days that give us hope in our persistent struggle to defeat this disease. As I mentioned last year, the trend over time is that the number of deaths from breast cancer is actually stable or falling from year to year. According to the American Cancer Society, the death rate from breast cancer in women has decreased since 1990: between 1975-1990, the death rate increased by 0.4 percent; between 1990-2004, the death rate decreased by 2.2 percent annually. This decline in the breast cancer mortality rate has been attributed to both improvements in breast cancer treatment as well as early detection from mammograms and other screening methods. New digital techniques make the process of mammography much more rapid and precise than before. In addition, early detection of breast cancer continues to result in extremely favorable outcomes: 98 percent of women with localized breast cancer will survive 5 years or longer. Government programs will provide free mammograms to those who can't afford them, as well as Medicaid eligibility for treatment if breast cancer is diagnosed. Information about treatment of breast cancer with surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy has exploded, reflecting enormous research advances in this disease. With all of these advances in research, screening and treatment, a diagnosis of breast cancer is not a death sentence--all of us encounter long-term survivors of breast cancer almost daily, whether we realize it or not. Recently, there has been discussion among scientists regarding the best and most appropriate screening tool for breast cancer--traditional mammography or more advanced technology like magnetic resonance imaging, MRI. In addition, newspapers have been filled with discussions over whether the scientific evidence actually supports the conclusion that periodic screening mammography saves lives. For those of us who are neither physicians nor scientists in this highly technical area, we look to the experts. The American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute, and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force all continue to recommend periodic screening mammography. As for mammography versus MRI's, in 2007 an expert panel convened by the American Cancer Society released new recommendations for the use of MRI for women at increased risk for breast cancer. Essentially, the Society recommended annual screening using MRI in addition to mammography for women at high lifetime risk, 20 to 25 percent or greater of developing breast cancer. Women with moderately increased risk of developing the disease, 15 to 20 percent lifetime risk, should discuss the option of adding an MRI to their annual mammogram with their physician. Women that do not fall into the high-risk or moderate- risk categories for developing breast cancer have no need to supplement their mammogram with an MRI. I know that some women don't have annual mammograms because of either fear or forgetfulness. It is only human nature for some women to avoid mammograms because they are afraid of what the test will reveal. To those who are fearful, I would say that if you have periodic routine mammograms, and the latest one comes out positive, even before you have any symptoms or have found a lump on self-examination, you have reason to be optimistic, not pessimistic. Such early-detected breast cancers are highly treatable. Then there is forgetfulness. I certainly understand how difficult it is to remember to do something that only comes around once each year. I would suggest that this is where National Mammography Day comes in. On that day, let's make sure that each woman we know picks a specific date on which to get a mammogram each year, a date that she won't forget: a child's birthday, an anniversary, perhaps even the day her taxes are due. On National Mammography Day, let's ask our loved ones: pick one of these dates, fix it in your mind along with a picture of your child, your wedding, or another symbol of that date, and promise yourself to get a mammogram on that date every year. Once you pick a date, call your health care provider and make an appointment. If you have access to the internet, go the American Cancer Society's website and sign up for the mammogram reminder service--they'll send you an e-mail to remind you about the date you picked. Do it for yourself and for the others that love you and want you to be part of their lives for as long as possible. And to those women who are reluctant to have a mammogram, once again I say let National Mammography Day serve as a reminder to discuss this question each year with your physician. New scientific studies that are published and new mammography techniques that are developed may affect your decision on this matter from one year to the next. I encourage you to keep an open mind and not to feel that a decision at one point in time commits you irrevocably to a particular course of action for the indefinite future. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in the ongoing fight against breast cancer by cosponsoring and voting for this resolution to designate October 19, 2007, as ``National Mammography Day''.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join my colleague, Senator Murray, in introducing legislation--the Facilitating Outstanding Classrooms Using Size Reduction (FOCUS) Act of 2007--that will provide $2 billion in funding to help, States and school districts hire 100,000 new teachers to reduce class size, particularly in the early grades. When a teacher is responsible for a classroom of 25, 30, or more students, how can we expect each student to receive enough time and attention? One pillar of our education system should be small classes. The body of research around class size has consistently shown that smaller classes improve student performance, including reading and mathematics, in the early grades as well as in subsequent years when students are placed in larger classes. Research also shows that at the end of fifth grade, students who were in small classes in first through third grades were about half a school year ahead of students from larger classes in all core subjects--reading, language arts, math, and science. Additionally, studies have found that students from small classes earn better grades in high school, take more advanced courses, and are more likely to take college-entrance exams. They are also more likely to graduate from high school than students in larger classes. Small classes also enable teachers to teach better. Any teacher will tell you that small classes make a difference. Small classes allow teachers to spend more time on instruction, get to know their students better, spend less time on discipline problems, and better identify students who need individually tailored assistance. The difference between teaching large classes and teaching small classes is substantial, and the pedagogy required for each differs. I have stood with Senator Murray on previous legislation to reduce class size in our Nation's schools, and I am proud to stand with her again today in support of a class size reduction bill. The bill we offer today strengthens our earlier efforts to reduce class size. First--the FOCUS Act would provide a dedicated funding stream for class size reduction. The No Child Left Behind Act incorporated the Class Size Reduction Program into title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The Murray-Biden FOCUS Act would create a separate funding stream in title V for the class size reduction initiative-- ensuring that efforts to reduce class size would not have to compete for funding with a broad array of other teacher and administrator professional development and training funds. Another provision that has been added are instructions that States and schools districts allocate their funding in a manner that creates a continuum of small classes for students as they progress from kindergarten to third grade and beyond. Research has shown that the benefits of attending small classes are the greatest for students in kindergarten through third grade, with further benefits accruing to those students for each additional year spent in small classes. The ultimate goal is that a student in the kindergarten grade matriculates through first, second, and third grades--each with an average class size of 18 students or less. The bill also establishes a Web-based National Clearinghouse on Class Size that would provide research, best practices, and resources for small classroom instruction. This information needs to be broadly available and easily accessible to the education community as well as the public. Additionally, the legislation requires an independent evaluation to be conducted to determine the impact and effectiveness of the initiative and the National Center for Education Statistics to report on average class size data. It is imperative that we understand, objectively, how these funds are spent, and what outcomes are achieved. Mr. President, the ultimate success of our education system depends on teachers. Ask any teacher if it matters whether they are teaching a class of 18 students or 25 students and you will get the same answer every time: absolutely. Smaller classes will provide teachers with the resources they need to create the opportunities for learning that our students deserve.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join my colleague, Senator Murray, in introducing legislation--the Facilitating Outstanding Classrooms Using Size Reduction (FOCUS) Act of 2007--that will provide $2 billion in funding to help, States and school districts hire 100,000 new teachers to reduce class size, particularly in the early grades. When a teacher is responsible for a classroom of 25, 30, or more students, how can we expect each student to receive enough time and attention? One pillar of our education system should be small classes. The body of research around class size has consistently shown that smaller classes improve student performance, including reading and mathematics, in the early grades as well as in subsequent years when students are placed in larger classes. Research also shows that at the end of fifth grade, students who were in small classes in first through third grades were about half a school year ahead of students from larger classes in all core subjects--reading, language arts, math, and science. Additionally, studies have found that students from small classes earn better grades in high school, take more advanced courses, and are more likely to take college-entrance exams. They are also more likely to graduate from high school than students in larger classes. Small classes also enable teachers to teach better. Any teacher will tell you that small classes make a difference. Small classes allow teachers to spend more time on instruction, get to know their students better, spend less time on discipline problems, and better identify students who need individually tailored assistance. The difference between teaching large classes and teaching small classes is substantial, and the pedagogy required for each differs. I have stood with Senator Murray on previous legislation to reduce class size in our Nation's schools, and I am proud to stand with her again today in support of a class size reduction bill. The bill we offer today strengthens our earlier efforts to reduce class size. First--the FOCUS Act would provide a dedicated funding stream for class size reduction. The No Child Left Behind Act incorporated the Class Size Reduction Program into title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The Murray-Biden FOCUS Act would create a separate funding stream in title V for the class size reduction initiative-- ensuring that efforts to reduce class size would not have to compete for funding with a broad array of other teacher and administrator professional development and training funds. Another provision that has been added are instructions that States and schools districts allocate their funding in a manner that creates a continuum of small classes for students as they progress from kindergarten to third grade and beyond. Research has shown that the benefits of attending small classes are the greatest for students in kindergarten through third grade, with further benefits accruing to those students for each additional year spent in small classes. The ultimate goal is that a student in the kindergarten grade matriculates through first, second, and third grades--each with an average class size of 18 students or less. The bill also establishes a Web-based National Clearinghouse on Class Size that would provide research, best practices, and resources for small classroom instruction. This information needs to be broadly available and easily accessible to the education community as well as the public. Additionally, the legislation requires an independent evaluation to be conducted to determine the impact and effectiveness of the initiative and the National Center for Education Statistics to report on average class size data. It is imperative that we understand, objectively, how these funds are spent, and what outcomes are achieved. Mr. President, the ultimate success of our education system depends on teachers. Ask any teacher if it matters whether they are teaching a class of 18 students or 25 students and you will get the same answer every time: absolutely. Smaller classes will provide teachers with the resources they need to create the opportunities for learning that our students deserve.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to the offer the Procedural Fairness for September 11 Victims Act, a simple bill that ensures procedural fairness for the parties to litigation arising out of the terrible events of September 11, 2001. When we passed the September 11 Victims Compensation Fund of 2001, we established a Federal cause of action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York as the exclusive remedy for damages arising out of the September 11 attacks. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure effectively limit service of a subpoena by a party to an action under the Victims Compensation Fund to within 100 miles of the Southern District of New York. Litigating a Federal cause of action under the Victims Compensation Fund is likely to involve the testimony and the production of documents by a substantial number of witnesses who may not reside within 100 miles of the Southern District of New York. Neither the Victims Compensation fund statute nor the Federal rules, however, currently provide an effective means for securing such testimony or documents. The Procedural Fairness for September 11 Victims Act addresses this oversight by allowing parties to Victims Compensation Fund actions to subpoena witnesses and documents from anywhere in the U.S. The court retains its authority to quash or modify any such subpoena if it is unduly burdensome to the witness subpoenaed. Justice requires that the parties to cases arising under the Victims Compensation Fund have access to all the testimony and documents relevant to their claims, regardless of where in the U.S. the witnesses or documents are located. By granting the parties to such cases nationwide subpoena authority, administered by the Federal court, this act ensures that they do. As the bipartisan cosponsorship of the act attests, ensuring procedural fairness in these cases bearing on the terrible attacks of September 11 is not a Democratic issue or Republican issue, it is an American issue. I strongly encourages my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to join me and the other cosponsors of this important bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to the offer the Procedural Fairness for September 11 Victims Act, a simple bill that ensures procedural fairness for the parties to litigation arising out of the terrible events of September 11, 2001. When we passed the September 11 Victims Compensation Fund of 2001, we established a Federal cause of action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York as the exclusive remedy for damages arising out of the September 11 attacks. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure effectively limit service of a subpoena by a party to an action under the Victims Compensation Fund to within 100 miles of the Southern District of New York. Litigating a Federal cause of action under the Victims Compensation Fund is likely to involve the testimony and the production of documents by a substantial number of witnesses who may not reside within 100 miles of the Southern District of New York. Neither the Victims Compensation fund statute nor the Federal rules, however, currently provide an effective means for securing such testimony or documents. The Procedural Fairness for September 11 Victims Act addresses this oversight by allowing parties to Victims Compensation Fund actions to subpoena witnesses and documents from anywhere in the U.S. The court retains its authority to quash or modify any such subpoena if it is unduly burdensome to the witness subpoenaed. Justice requires that the parties to cases arising under the Victims Compensation Fund have access to all the testimony and documents relevant to their claims, regardless of where in the U.S. the witnesses or documents are located. By granting the parties to such cases nationwide subpoena authority, administered by the Federal court, this act ensures that they do. As the bipartisan cosponsorship of the act attests, ensuring procedural fairness in these cases bearing on the terrible attacks of September 11 is not a Democratic issue or Republican issue, it is an American issue. I strongly encourages my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to join me and the other cosponsors of this important bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today the Committee on Foreign Relations held a hearing to review the Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Agreement Relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the Convention (Treaty Doc. 103-39). The Committee heard testimony from representatives of the executive branch. On Thursday, October 4, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. in SD-419, the Committee will conduct another hearing on the Convention on the Law of the Sea. Witnesses from outside the government will present testimony. Interested parties who have not been invited to testify may submit written testimony until the close of business on October 5, 2007 by sending it electronically to los@foreign.senate.gov or by faxing it to the Committee's Executive Clerk, Gail Coppage, at (202) 228-3612.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I will oppose the Kyl-Lieberman amendment for one simple reason: this administration cannot be trusted. I am very concerned about the evidence that suggests that Iran is engaged in destabilizing activities inside Iraq. I believe that many of the steps the Senators from Connecticut and Arizona suggest be taken to end this activity can be taken today. We can and we should move to act against Iranian forces inside Iraq. We can and we should use economic pressure against those who aid and abet attacks on our forces and against Iraqis. The administration already has the authority to do these things and it should be doing them. Arguably, if we had a different President who abided by the meaning and intent of laws we pass, I might support this amendment. I fear, however, that this President might use the designation of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist entity as a pretext to use force against Iran as he sees fit. While this may sound far-fetched to some, my colleagues should examine the record in two particular instances. First, is the misuse of the authority that we granted the President in 2002 to back our diplomacy with the threat of force. My colleagues will remember that, at the time, we voted to give the President a strong hand to play at the U.N. to get the world to speak with one voice to Saddam: let the inspectors back in and disarm or be disarmed. We thought that would make war less likely. But in the 5 months between our vote and the invasion of Iraq, the ideologues took over. The President went to war unnecessarily, without letting the weapons inspectors finish their work, without a real coalition, without enough troops, without the right equipment, and without a plan to secure the peace. The second example is the administration's twisting of our vote on the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 as an endorsement of military action against Iraq. Let me quote the Vice President from November 2005: Permit me to burden you with a bit more history: In August of 1998, the U.S. Congress passed a resolution urging President Clinton take `appropriate action' to compel Saddam to come into compliance with his obligations to the Security Council. Not a single senator voted no. Two months later, in October of '98--again, without a single dissenting vote in the United States Senate--the Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act. It explicitly adopted as American policy supporting efforts to remove Saddam Hussein's regime from power and promoting an Iraqi democracy in its place. And just two months after signing the Iraq Liberation law, President Clinton ordered that Iraq be bombed in an effort to destroy facilities that he believed were connected to Saddam's weapons of mass destruction programs. The Vice President made this argument despite this explicit section of the Iraq Liberation Act: ``Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces.'' These examples are relevant to the debate today. The Authorization for the Use of Military Force approved in September 2001 would appear to limit the scope of authority it contains to the terrorists who conducted or aided the attacks of 9/11, or harbored them. But the President and his lawyers have frequently argued for a broad reading of this law, and believe they are fighting a ``global'' war on terrorism. In letters to Congress under the war powers resolution, the President has stated that he will ``direct additional measures as necessary'' in the exercise of self-defense and ``to protect U.S. citizens and interests'' as part of this global war. I do not think the suggestion that the President designate an arm of the government of Iran as a ``terrorist'' entity provides any authority to do anything. After all, it is a nonbinding measure. But this administration already has an unduly broad view of the scope of executive power, particularly in time of war. I do not want to give the President and his lawyers any argument that Congress has somehow authorized military actions. The lesson of the last several years is that we must be cautious about acting impulsively on legislation which can be misconstrued, and misused to justify actions that Congress did not contemplate. With a different President who had a different track record, I could vote to support this amendment. But given this President's actions and misuse of authority, I cannot support the amendment.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I yield back my time. Constitutional Review Commission