Joe Biden

Mr. BIDEN

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

Mr. BIDEN. This amendment is very straightforward. This amendment moves up $1.5 billion into the supplemental from the 2008 budget. The effect will be, it will add an additional 2,500 MRAP vehicles into the field faster. These are the vehicles with the V-shaped hull. This increases the security of our troops inside these vehicles--who are now riding in humvees--three to four times. What it will mean is it is an opportunity to provide 10,000 to 30,000 of our troops four times more protection than they now get riding around in the humvees when they are attacked by IEDs. That is tens of thousands of Americans who won't be severely injured or killed. The Commandant of the Marine Corps and the Chief of Staff of the Army both have said they need this money moved up so they can get these additional vehicles into the field earlier. I cannot think of a better way to explain this amendment than using the words of the Commandant of the Marine Corps when I spoke to him yesterday. He said: Senator, this is the highest moral imperative I have as a Commandant of the Marine Corps. I hope we will move this money up. I hope we will pass this amendment. It literally, not figuratively, will save lives. I yield the floor, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the island of Cyprus has a longstanding reputation as a place of natural beauty and rich history. It is now emerging as a potential source of energy as well. Developed responsibly, oil and gas deposits under the island's southern continental shelf could provide an alternative source of hydrocarbons at a time when many European countries are struggling to diversify their energy supplies. If this ambition is realized, Cyprus could play an important role in promoting regional energy security. The Government of the Republic of Cyprus, ROC, is working to establish partnerships with foreign companies and countries in an effort to bring these energy resources online. This process is being needlessly complicated, however, by individuals in Turkey and the Turkish Cypriot community who are discouraging foreign partners from working with the ROC. In view of this behavior, I believe it is important to affirm the ROC's right to search for and develop resources located under Cyprus' continental shelf. Under international law, there is no question about the legality of the Cypriot Government's activities. The legal principles at issue are codified in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, to which Cyprus is a party. The ROC has entered into agreements delineating its Exclusive Economic Zone, EEZ, with Egypt and Lebanon and the areas under consideration for development are well within these boundaries. There is simply no juridical basis to dispute Cyprus' claims or actions. I hope that both Ankara and leaders of the Turkish Cypriot community will cease their efforts to obstruct the exploration of Cypriot waters. Strong-arm diplomacy aimed at scaring away potential Cypriot business partners will only delay the peaceful reunification of Cyprus--and with it the day when all Cypriots can benefit from the island's energy resources. I want to reiterate my longstanding call for both Cypriot communities to push forward with the technical talks and negotiations that I believe can reunify the island. However, in doing so, I want to caution that attempts to interfere in Cyprus' legitimate energy exploration activities will only complicate negotiations to end the estrangement of the island's peoples. The country of Cyprus has long been a key partner for the United States, and our friendship rests on the bedrock of shared democratic values. In a global energy market dominated by authoritarian regimes, I believe it is important for Cyprus to push forward with plans to survey its energy assets. I sincerely hope that other parties will respect Cyprus' right to pursue this undertaking.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity today to introduce an important piece of legislation to improve the ability of the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide medical care for our Nation's Armed Forces and veterans. We are currently finishing up a debate in the Senate on additional war time funding for Iraq. As in past years, we are trying to mitigate the damage caused by the failure to properly plan for and manage the aftermath of Saddam Hussein's fall. I have spoken many times about how damaging this lack of planning has been to our efforts in Iraq and to our standing in the world. For the past two months, the spotlight has shone on another administration failure in this war: the shameful conditions our wounded soldiers face as outpatients navigating the military health system when they return from Iraq or Afghanistan. This is another example of gross mismanagement and a strained system. To alleviate the strain on this system, I am offering legislation today--the Effective Care for the Armed Forces and Veterans Act--to improve the care that members of the Armed Forces and veterans receive at Walter Reed and other military medical facilities. The purpose of this legislation is to ensure that some of the reasons for concern at Walter Reed do not occur in the future. As the living conditions for outpatients at Walter Reed Army Medical Center indicate, moving to private contracts for maintenance at military medical facilities can cause problems. After a private contract was awarded for maintenance and upkeep of buildings on the campus of Walter Reed Army Medical Center, a maintenance crew of approximately 300 was whittled down to 50 by the time the contract went in to effect. Many of the terrible living conditions in Building 18 that we read about in the Washington Post were a direct result of delays in building repair and maintenance because of a shortage in manpower. To prevent this situation from occurring again, this legislation calls for public- private competitions of maintenance services at military medical complexes to stop while our country is engaged in military conflicts. It also calls for a General Accountability Office review of contracting-out decisions for basic maintenance work at military facilities. Other problems discovered at Walter Reed are directly attributable to shortages resulting from pressures to cut budgets for military medical services. These cuts cannot be tolerated at a time when military medical services are needed to treat servicemembers who have been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. As such, this legislation would require medical command budgets to be equal to or exceed the prior year amount while the nation is involved in a major military conflict or war. Another issue that the conditions at Walter Reed brought up is whether or not the facility should be closed as the Base Realignment and Closure Commission recommended. The Commission recommended building new, modern facilities at the National Naval Medical Center at Bethesda and at Fort Belvoir to improve the overall quality of care and access to care in this region. Military leaders have indicated that the planned closure has limited their ability to attract needed professionals to jobs at Walter Reed and there have been concerns raised whether adequate housing for the families of the wounded has been properly planned. To deal with that, this legislation requires the Department of Defense to submit to Congress within one year a detailed plan that includes an evaluation of the following: the desirability of being able to guarantee professional jobs in the D.C. area for two years or more following the closure in order to foster a stable workforce; detailed construction plans for the new facilities and for new family housing; and the costs and benefits of building all of the needed medical treatment, rehabilitation, and housing before a single unit is moved. Another major problem and source of frustration for injured soldiers is the length of time it takes to receive a disability determination. In order to hasten the disability determination process, we need to ensure that the Department of Defense has information systems capable of communicating with those in the Department of Veterans Affairs. The VA has been a leader in implementing electronic medical record keeping, but we have to improve the capability of the Department of Defense to send electronic medical records to the VA to speed up the disability determination process. Making the disability determination system more efficient can reduce the stress on the soldiers and their families going through the determination process. Caseworkers are also critical. They schedule appointments and make sure wounded servicemembers get the rehabilitative and follow-up care they need. As more and more soldiers and marines come home wounded, many military caseworkers are overwhelmed. To improve the care given to servicemembers, this legislation requires a minimum ratio of case managers to patients of 1 to 20, that case managers have contact with recovering servicemembers at least once a week, and that case managers be properly trained on the military's disability and discharge systems so they can better assist patients with their paperwork. Currently, many combat veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan have service-related mental health issues like post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and traumatic brain injury (TBI). Many have labeled TBI the ``signature injury'' of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. It is estimated that as many as 10 percent of those serving or who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan have brain injuries. That would mean about 150,000 of the 1.5 million soldiers and marines who have served in Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom have suffered a brain injury. In many cases, these injuries are not diagnosed because there is not an external wound. Depending on the severity of these injuries, returning soldiers can require immediate treatment or not have symptoms show up until several years later. This legislation calls for every returning soldier to be screened for TBI. While the VA has announced plans to do this, it needs to happen in active-duty military medical facilities too. In addition, the legislation calls for a study on the advisability of treating TBI as a presumptive condition in every service's disability evaluation system, as well as the VA disability evaluation system. We often hear about the 25,000 soldiers and marines who have been wounded in these wars--but that figure grossly underestimates the demand that the VA health care system faces. Since our country was attacked on September 11, 2001, more than 1.5 million soldiers have been deployed to Afghanistan, Iraq, and other locations. Of these, 630,000 are now veterans and, according to the Department of Defense, more than 205,000 have already received medical treatment through the Department of Veterans Affairs. A recent Harvard study on the long-term costs of treating these new veterans estimates that by 2012 more than 643,000 veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan will be using the VA system, an almost three-fold increase of what the system faces now. With a significant backlog of claims currently existing, the system is in desperate need of an upgrade. To address this concern, my legislation directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to submit to Congress a plan for the long-term care needs for veterans for the next 50 years. It is our highest obligation to heal the hundreds of thousands of brave men and women who will bear the physical and emotional scars of these wars for the rest of their lives. Those of us who have the privilege of serving in Congress must act now to improve the medical care we provide to our Armed Forces and veterans. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing The American Automobile Industry Promotion Act of 2007 to jump-start next generation battery technology development in the United States and extend incentives to American-made highly efficient vehicles. This legislation authorizes $100 million a year for 5 years to advance new battery technology--an amount double the administration's current budget request. On a national and international level, we must do whatever it takes to help our domestic auto manufacturers remain competitive. Right now, the Japanese dominate the market for lithium ion batteries because they invested hundreds of millions of dollars in developing this technology and in supporting their domestic industry. And, the Koreans and the Chinese are not far behind. American auto manufacturers are playing catch-up and we need to move quickly. Specifically, I am proposing to support the development of advanced electric components, systems and vehicles, by providing funds for battery research to national laboratories, small businesses, and institutes of higher learning. The bill will also establish, through a competitive selection process, an Industry Alliance of private, U.S. based, for-profit firms whose primary business is battery development. The Industry Alliance would be an advisory resource on short and long term battery technology development. The new research initiative will have four major areas of focus: (1) Research and Development including battery technology, high-efficiency charging systems, high-powered drive-train systems, control systems and power train development, and nanomaterial technology for battery and fuel cell systems. (2) Demonstration. The initiative also creates a demonstration program which would devote resources toward demonstration, testing and evaluation of hybrid electric vehicles for many different applications including military, mass market passenger and SUV vehicles. (3) Education. The initiative will support curriculum development in secondary, high school, as well as higher education institutions that focus on electric drive systems and component engineering. (4) Testing. Finally, the initiative would work with the EPA to develop testing and certification procedures for criteria pollutants, fuel economy, and petroleum use in vehicles. In addition to research and development for the lithium ion battery, the American Automobile Industry Promotion Act will also set a national standard for biodiesel, a cleaner-burning fuel made from natural and renewable sources; and expand tax credit eligibility for consumers who purchase more fuel-efficient diesel vehicles. Today's diesels are cleaner than their predecessors, are in compliance with EPA emissions standards, and are 30 percent more fuel efficient than an equivalent gasoline engine. Specifically, the bill expands the emissions requirements to qualify for a tax credit for various weight diesel vehicles, increasing the number of American-manufactured more fuel efficient diesel vehicles that qualify. This provision would expire in four years, at which time all highly efficient vehicles will have to meet higher emissions standards to qualify for the tax credit. Now is the time to act. It's not too late, but we do not have the luxury of waiting. If we are ever to be truly competitive in the global auto market and free from our dependence on foreign oil, we must move forward on all fronts. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I introduce today with my colleagues Senators Specter, Brownback, and Leahy the Recidivism Reduction and Second Chance Act of 2007, which takes direct aim at reducing recidivism rates by improving the transition of offenders from prison back into the community. As this bill reflects, preventing recidivism is not only the right thing to do, it makes our communities safer and it saves us money. Today, we have over two million individuals in our Federal and State prisons and millions more in local jails. Our Federal and State prisons will release nearly 650,000 of these offenders back into our communities this year. A staggering \2/3\ of released State prisoners will be rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years of release. It's not difficult to see why. These ex-offenders face a number of difficult challenges upon release. The unemployment rate among former inmates is as high as 60 percent; 15-27 percent of prisoners expect to go to homeless shelters upon release; and 57 percent of Federal and 70 percent of State inmates used drugs regularly before prison. This addiction and dependency often continues during incarceration. Unless we address these problems, these individuals will commit hundreds of thousands of serious crimes after their release, and our communities will bear the human and economic cost. If we are going to reduce recidivism and crime, we simply have to make concerted, common- sense efforts now to help ex-offenders successfully reenter and reintegrate into their communities. The Recidivism Reduction and Second Chance Act of 2007 confronts head-on the dire situation of prisoners reentering our communities with insufficient monitoring, little or no job skills, inadequate drug treatment, insufficient housing, lack of basic physical and mental health services, and deficient basic life skills. Through commonsense and cost effective measures, it offers a second chance for ex-offenders, and the children and families that depend on them, and it strengthens our communities and ensures safe neighborhoods. The Second Chance Act provides a competitive grant program to study current approaches to reducing recidivism rates. It also provides grants for the development and implementation of comprehensive substance abuse treatment programs, academic and vocational education programs, housing and job counseling programs, and mentoring for offenders who are approaching release and who have been released. To ensure accountability, the bill requires grantees to establish performance goals and benchmarks and report the results to Congress. The bill authorizes $192 million per year in competitive grant funding. This represents an investment in our future and an acknowledgement of the problem we face. We must remember that the average cost of incarcerating each prisoner exceeds $20,000 per year, with expenditures on corrections alone having increased from $9 billion in 1982 to $60 billion in 2002. That's more than a six-fold increase, and the costs keep going up. A relatively modest investment in offender reentry efforts today is far more cost-effective than the alternative--building more prisons for these ex-offenders to return to if they can't reenter their communities and are convicted of further crimes. An ounce of prevention, as the saying goes, is worth a pound of cure. I'm proud today to join with Senator Specter, Senator Brownback, and Senator Leahy in introducing the Recidivism Reduction and Second Chance Act and ask that our colleagues join with us in this vital effort. The safety of our neighbors, our children, and our communities depends on it. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I would like to take the opportunity today to introduce an important piece of legislation to improve the ability of the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide medical care for our Nation's Armed Forces and veterans. We are currently finishing up a debate in the Senate on additional war time funding for Iraq. As in past years, we are trying to mitigate the damage caused by the failure to properly plan for and manage the aftermath of Saddam Hussein's fall. I have spoken many times about how damaging this lack of planning has been to our efforts in Iraq and to our standing in the world. For the past two months, the spotlight has shone on another administration failure in this war: the shameful conditions our wounded soldiers face as outpatients navigating the military health system when they return from Iraq or Afghanistan. This is another example of gross mismanagement and a strained system. To alleviate the strain on this system, I am offering legislation today--the Effective Care for the Armed Forces and Veterans Act--to improve the care that members of the Armed Forces and veterans receive at Walter Reed and other military medical facilities. The purpose of this legislation is to ensure that some of the reasons for concern at Walter Reed do not occur in the future. As the living conditions for outpatients at Walter Reed Army Medical Center indicate, moving to private contracts for maintenance at military medical facilities can cause problems. After a private contract was awarded for maintenance and upkeep of buildings on the campus of Walter Reed Army Medical Center, a maintenance crew of approximately 300 was whittled down to 50 by the time the contract went in to effect. Many of the terrible living conditions in Building 18 that we read about in the Washington Post were a direct result of delays in building repair and maintenance because of a shortage in manpower. To prevent this situation from occurring again, this legislation calls for public- private competitions of maintenance services at military medical complexes to stop while our country is engaged in military conflicts. It also calls for a General Accountability Office review of contracting-out decisions for basic maintenance work at military facilities. Other problems discovered at Walter Reed are directly attributable to shortages resulting from pressures to cut budgets for military medical services. These cuts cannot be tolerated at a time when military medical services are needed to treat servicemembers who have been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. As such, this legislation would require medical command budgets to be equal to or exceed the prior year amount while the nation is involved in a major military conflict or war. Another issue that the conditions at Walter Reed brought up is whether or not the facility should be closed as the Base Realignment and Closure Commission recommended. The Commission recommended building new, modern facilities at the National Naval Medical Center at Bethesda and at Fort Belvoir to improve the overall quality of care and access to care in this region. Military leaders have indicated that the planned closure has limited their ability to attract needed professionals to jobs at Walter Reed and there have been concerns raised whether adequate housing for the families of the wounded has been properly planned. To deal with that, this legislation requires the Department of Defense to submit to Congress within one year a detailed plan that includes an evaluation of the following: the desirability of being able to guarantee professional jobs in the D.C. area for two years or more following the closure in order to foster a stable workforce; detailed construction plans for the new facilities and for new family housing; and the costs and benefits of building all of the needed medical treatment, rehabilitation, and housing before a single unit is moved. Another major problem and source of frustration for injured soldiers is the length of time it takes to receive a disability determination. In order to hasten the disability determination process, we need to ensure that the Department of Defense has information systems capable of communicating with those in the Department of Veterans Affairs. The VA has been a leader in implementing electronic medical record keeping, but we have to improve the capability of the Department of Defense to send electronic medical records to the VA to speed up the disability determination process. Making the disability determination system more efficient can reduce the stress on the soldiers and their families going through the determination process. Caseworkers are also critical. They schedule appointments and make sure wounded servicemembers get the rehabilitative and follow-up care they need. As more and more soldiers and marines come home wounded, many military caseworkers are overwhelmed. To improve the care given to servicemembers, this legislation requires a minimum ratio of case managers to patients of 1 to 20, that case managers have contact with recovering servicemembers at least once a week, and that case managers be properly trained on the military's disability and discharge systems so they can better assist patients with their paperwork. Currently, many combat veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan have service-related mental health issues like post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and traumatic brain injury (TBI). Many have labeled TBI the ``signature injury'' of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. It is estimated that as many as 10 percent of those serving or who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan have brain injuries. That would mean about 150,000 of the 1.5 million soldiers and marines who have served in Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom have suffered a brain injury. In many cases, these injuries are not diagnosed because there is not an external wound. Depending on the severity of these injuries, returning soldiers can require immediate treatment or not have symptoms show up until several years later. This legislation calls for every returning soldier to be screened for TBI. While the VA has announced plans to do this, it needs to happen in active-duty military medical facilities too. In addition, the legislation calls for a study on the advisability of treating TBI as a presumptive condition in every service's disability evaluation system, as well as the VA disability evaluation system. We often hear about the 25,000 soldiers and marines who have been wounded in these wars--but that figure grossly underestimates the demand that the VA health care system faces. Since our country was attacked on September 11, 2001, more than 1.5 million soldiers have been deployed to Afghanistan, Iraq, and other locations. Of these, 630,000 are now veterans and, according to the Department of Defense, more than 205,000 have already received medical treatment through the Department of Veterans Affairs. A recent Harvard study on the long-term costs of treating these new veterans estimates that by 2012 more than 643,000 veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan will be using the VA system, an almost three-fold increase of what the system faces now. With a significant backlog of claims currently existing, the system is in desperate need of an upgrade. To address this concern, my legislation directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to submit to Congress a plan for the long-term care needs for veterans for the next 50 years. It is our highest obligation to heal the hundreds of thousands of brave men and women who will bear the physical and emotional scars of these wars for the rest of their lives. Those of us who have the privilege of serving in Congress must act now to improve the medical care we provide to our Armed Forces and veterans. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing The American Automobile Industry Promotion Act of 2007 to jump-start next generation battery technology development in the United States and extend incentives to American-made highly efficient vehicles. This legislation authorizes $100 million a year for 5 years to advance new battery technology--an amount double the administration's current budget request. On a national and international level, we must do whatever it takes to help our domestic auto manufacturers remain competitive. Right now, the Japanese dominate the market for lithium ion batteries because they invested hundreds of millions of dollars in developing this technology and in supporting their domestic industry. And, the Koreans and the Chinese are not far behind. American auto manufacturers are playing catch-up and we need to move quickly. Specifically, I am proposing to support the development of advanced electric components, systems and vehicles, by providing funds for battery research to national laboratories, small businesses, and institutes of higher learning. The bill will also establish, through a competitive selection process, an Industry Alliance of private, U.S. based, for-profit firms whose primary business is battery development. The Industry Alliance would be an advisory resource on short and long term battery technology development. The new research initiative will have four major areas of focus: (1) Research and Development including battery technology, high-efficiency charging systems, high-powered drive-train systems, control systems and power train development, and nanomaterial technology for battery and fuel cell systems. (2) Demonstration. The initiative also creates a demonstration program which would devote resources toward demonstration, testing and evaluation of hybrid electric vehicles for many different applications including military, mass market passenger and SUV vehicles. (3) Education. The initiative will support curriculum development in secondary, high school, as well as higher education institutions that focus on electric drive systems and component engineering. (4) Testing. Finally, the initiative would work with the EPA to develop testing and certification procedures for criteria pollutants, fuel economy, and petroleum use in vehicles. In addition to research and development for the lithium ion battery, the American Automobile Industry Promotion Act will also set a national standard for biodiesel, a cleaner-burning fuel made from natural and renewable sources; and expand tax credit eligibility for consumers who purchase more fuel-efficient diesel vehicles. Today's diesels are cleaner than their predecessors, are in compliance with EPA emissions standards, and are 30 percent more fuel efficient than an equivalent gasoline engine. Specifically, the bill expands the emissions requirements to qualify for a tax credit for various weight diesel vehicles, increasing the number of American-manufactured more fuel efficient diesel vehicles that qualify. This provision would expire in four years, at which time all highly efficient vehicles will have to meet higher emissions standards to qualify for the tax credit. Now is the time to act. It's not too late, but we do not have the luxury of waiting. If we are ever to be truly competitive in the global auto market and free from our dependence on foreign oil, we must move forward on all fronts. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I introduce today with my colleagues Senators Specter, Brownback, and Leahy the Recidivism Reduction and Second Chance Act of 2007, which takes direct aim at reducing recidivism rates by improving the transition of offenders from prison back into the community. As this bill reflects, preventing recidivism is not only the right thing to do, it makes our communities safer and it saves us money. Today, we have over two million individuals in our Federal and State prisons and millions more in local jails. Our Federal and State prisons will release nearly 650,000 of these offenders back into our communities this year. A staggering \2/3\ of released State prisoners will be rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years of release. It's not difficult to see why. These ex-offenders face a number of difficult challenges upon release. The unemployment rate among former inmates is as high as 60 percent; 15-27 percent of prisoners expect to go to homeless shelters upon release; and 57 percent of Federal and 70 percent of State inmates used drugs regularly before prison. This addiction and dependency often continues during incarceration. Unless we address these problems, these individuals will commit hundreds of thousands of serious crimes after their release, and our communities will bear the human and economic cost. If we are going to reduce recidivism and crime, we simply have to make concerted, common- sense efforts now to help ex-offenders successfully reenter and reintegrate into their communities. The Recidivism Reduction and Second Chance Act of 2007 confronts head-on the dire situation of prisoners reentering our communities with insufficient monitoring, little or no job skills, inadequate drug treatment, insufficient housing, lack of basic physical and mental health services, and deficient basic life skills. Through commonsense and cost effective measures, it offers a second chance for ex-offenders, and the children and families that depend on them, and it strengthens our communities and ensures safe neighborhoods. The Second Chance Act provides a competitive grant program to study current approaches to reducing recidivism rates. It also provides grants for the development and implementation of comprehensive substance abuse treatment programs, academic and vocational education programs, housing and job counseling programs, and mentoring for offenders who are approaching release and who have been released. To ensure accountability, the bill requires grantees to establish performance goals and benchmarks and report the results to Congress. The bill authorizes $192 million per year in competitive grant funding. This represents an investment in our future and an acknowledgement of the problem we face. We must remember that the average cost of incarcerating each prisoner exceeds $20,000 per year, with expenditures on corrections alone having increased from $9 billion in 1982 to $60 billion in 2002. That's more than a six-fold increase, and the costs keep going up. A relatively modest investment in offender reentry efforts today is far more cost-effective than the alternative--building more prisons for these ex-offenders to return to if they can't reenter their communities and are convicted of further crimes. An ounce of prevention, as the saying goes, is worth a pound of cure. I'm proud today to join with Senator Specter, Senator Brownback, and Senator Leahy in introducing the Recidivism Reduction and Second Chance Act and ask that our colleagues join with us in this vital effort. The safety of our neighbors, our children, and our communities depends on it. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

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

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I apologize for my formal dress. Like many here, including, I suspect, the two Senators from Washington, I am supposed to be attending the correspondents dinner tonight. I am informed that my amendment will actually be called up tomorrow as part of a series of votes. I would like to speak tonight as I have been told there will not be adequate time tomorrow. For my colleagues' information, the amendment I will be discussing is No. 739. I ask unanimous consent to add as cosponsors Senator Byrd of West Virginia, Senator Bond, Senator Pryor, Senator Kennedy, Senator Durbin, and Senator Kerry.

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I wish to begin by stating very simply that this amendment is literally, not figuratively, a matter of life and death. I have been here for many years. I have never begun a discussion of an amendment--and I have sponsored some serious amendments and pieces of legislation--by saying something as graphic and drastic as this is literally a matter of life and death. But it is. This is not hyperbole. This is not an exaggeration. What my amendment will do is allow the military to put 2,500 more mine resistant ambush protected vehicles--known in the military by its acronym, MRAP--in the field by the end of this year. Now, let me explain what I am talking about. First, I want to point out that the committee acknowledged the need for these vehicles and included $2.5 billion in this bill. But what I propose in this amendment is forward-funding money from next year's 2008 budget into this supplemental. In that way, we can build more of these vehicles which have one purpose--the specific purpose of saving lives, American lives. The fact is, as most of my colleagues know, 70 percent of American casualties in Iraq are caused by improvised explosive devices, or IEDs. Many of my colleagues, including the Presiding Officer, have been to Iraq. They have had the same experience I have in my seven trips-- visiting field hospitals. There, you see amputees and people with serious head injuries who, because of the incredible skill and triage capability of our military doctors and nurses, are able to be kept alive. Most of those injured at Walter Reed and at Bethesda naval hospital are victims of these devices, sadly now familiar to all Americans from the nightly news. We have tried very hard--although this administration has done so belatedly--to better equip our troops to withstand IEDs. God forbid they find themselves victim of an IED attack, but if they do, we want them to be able to survive. MRAP vehicles provide four to five times more protection to our troops than up-armored HMMWVs. That statement, that these MRAPs provide four to five times more protection than up-armored HMMWVs, is not my estimate. That is the judgment of our military leaders. The Commandant of the Marine Corps, GEN James Conway, with whom I spoke as recently as this afternoon, wrote on March 1 to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He said: Multi-National Forces--West [that is, the Marines in Iraq] estimates that the use of the MRAP could reduce the casualties in vehicles due to IED attack by as much as 80 percent. He went on further and said that even though the MRAP is not expeditionary: It is, however, the best available vehicle for force protection. He concluded by saying: Getting the MRAP into the Al Anbar Province is my number one unfilled warfighting requirement at this time. Let me repeat that: Getting the MRAP into the Al Anbar Province is my number one unfilled warfighting requirement at this time. He went on to tell me today that although there is some disagreement in terms of priorities within this building, he was speaking to me from the Pentagon, he said, ``I believe this is a moral imperative.'' How many generals with four stars or three or two or one on their shoulders have you heard use that phrase? How often is something so fundamental it is called ``a moral imperative''? This is a man who is heading back out to Iraq soon. He is talking about protecting his kids, his troops. On my last trip into Anbar Province last summer, I went to Fallujah. I met with the commanding Marine general and roughly 30 to 40 of his commanders and noncommissioned officers. I was taken outside a building to see what they were trying to do to diminish the casualty rate of American forces required to patrol Fallujah. They showed me what they called a rhino, a big vehicle, looks like a Caterpillar bulldozer with a great big proboscis on it, a great big arm that is used when an IED is identified, to disarm it. It was interesting. I observed for the first time--maybe others knew about it--the hull. The bottom of it looked like a ship out of water. It had a V-shaped bottom. A humvee, like your SUV or your automobile, has a flat bottom. In a humvee, even if it is reinforced, it is still flat. The rhino had a V-shaped bottom or floor. I asked why. They said it made them much more blast resistant and it could protect the troops inside. That is the first time I heard about this concept. They did not have MRAPs yet, but they had this rhino, a much bigger vehicle for a different purpose. As I talked to them, I remember asking the question, why aren't we building more of these things? You know, the folks on the ground, these kids and many not so young women and men who are climbing into these coffins, know that even in an up-armored vehicle if they are struck, deadly force may be exerted, scrambling their brains or outright killing them. The number one requirement of the Commandant of the Marine Corps is to get more of these vehicles. I respectfully suggest to all who care--and every one of us cares about the fate of the troops--if there is any place we should not consider the cost-- emphasize again, not consider the cost--it is when there is a consensus that what we are purchasing can save lives. We have made no sacrifice in this country to fight this war except for the families of those who have gone to the war. We should not hesitate to save the lives of those who are sacrificing because of cost. A couple of my colleagues off the floor, none of whom are on the floor at this moment, have told me it might not be cost effective because the military is working on a new vehicle. Give me a break. Cost effective? I wonder how many people asked, when we were talking about the invasion of Normandy in World War II: You know, we better be careful. We may build too many landing craft. We might have some left over. What are we going to do with them after the war? We have no higher obligation than to protect those we send into battle. We have received a pretty good dose of this administration's willingness to send people into battle not prepared. Rumsfeld's famous comment: You go with the Army you have, not the Army you like or need. That is paraphrasing him from a couple of years ago. When we find a way to protect people better in battle, then it seems to me we have an overwhelming obligation to act. Let me explain the specifics of the MRAP. Each vehicle can hold 4 to 12 troops. Like the rhino, these vehicles have raised steel, V-shaped hulls and chassis. The raised hull is valuable because it gives the blast more time to expand, lessening the impact. The V-shape pushes the blast up the sides of the vehicle and away from the occupants. With an up-armored HMMWV or any humvee, the flat bottom sends the blast through the floor right into the occupants. In addition, the vehicles have side armor and bulletproof glass, and they also have tires that can be driven when flat. Ever since the military began using MRAPs in Iraq, the requirement has grown, as commanders realize how much better they are at protecting their personnel. In May of last year the requirement was only 185. By July, it had risen to 1,185. By November, it had risen to 4,060. By February of this year, after the supplemental request was submitted, it rose to 6,738. One month later, the requirement went up again to the current level of 7,774. At this point every one in the military agrees, we need 7,774 MRAPs. The Marines are the executive agents for this program, meaning they are managing it for themselves and the other services. Every service has a need for the vehicle for explosive ordinance units as well as regular patrols. The Marines need 3,700 of them. The Army needs 2,500. The Air Force needs 697. The Navy needs 544, and the Special Operations Command needs 333. The cost of 7,774 MRAPs is $8.4 billion. This administration's current plan is to spend $2.3 billion this year and $6.1 billion next year. But I believe we can and must do much better, and so do the Marines. If we simply put more funds up front, spend them in the supplemental rather than allocate them a year later in the 2008 budget, the same money that we are going to spend anyway next year, if we move it up, we can accelerate production drastically. Some have said the extra production capacity does not exist. Again, speaking to the Commandant of the Marine Corps today, he indicated that there are eight companies they are dealing with and he has confidence that they can build all they can purchase, all they can afford. That is also what the Chief of Staff of the Army thinks. On March 14, General Peter Schoomaker told the Appropriations Committee that with the MRAPs, ``We can build what we get the funds to build. It is strictly an issue of money.'' Let's assume the Commandant of the Marine Corps and General Schoomaker are wrong. Let's assume they have made a mistake. Let's assume we can't build as many as the money we give them. So what. So what. We are not talking about building a highway on time. We are talking about an informed judgment by the United States military, to build not a new weapons system, but to build a new protection system for their forces. I respectfully suggest, if we are going to err on one side or the other, for God's sake, for a change, let's err on the side of doing something that will protect American fighting women and men. Quite frankly, if the Marines believe we can do it, then my money is on the Marines getting it right. If General Schoomaker says he needs it, and more money will get the vehicles, then I take him at his word. I would rather take a chance, and I believe the American people would also, to protect more Americans under fire than not. What does this mean specifically? Well, by adding $1.5 billion, which my amendment does, to the supplemental today, the Marines will have $4 billion to work with. Based on their estimates, that will mean 2,500 vehicles get to the field 6 months sooner than under the current plan. You may say: What is 6 months? Ten of thousands of lives is what 6 months is. Figure it out: Four to twelve people in 2,500 more vehicles. Add up the numbers. That's 10,000 to 30,000 Americans. Look at the casualty rates that come from IEDs striking up-armored HMMWVs. Do the math, and tell me if their lives are not worth taking a financial risk to protect. If we move this money forward, on October 1 of this year, instead of having only 2,000 MRAPs, we would have 4,500 in the field. On January 1, 2008, instead of 3,500 MRAPs, we would have 6,000 in the field. By February, we would fulfill the entire requirement, instead of waiting until next July. We are still going to spend $8.4 billion, but spending it faster will make a major difference. If you want to be callous about this, it would also save the American taxpayers a whole lot of money because for every one of those injured soldiers who comes back--to put it in Machiavellian terms--who needs a lifetime of medical care, there are hundreds of thousands of dollars committed per casualty. I can find no logical argument for delaying this. Let me end where I began. This is a matter of life and death. Madam President, 2,500 more vehicles means literally that 10,000 to 30,000 more Americans will have a four to five times greater chance of surviving a hit with an IED while on patrol than exists today if we do not act. Madam President, 10,000 to 30,000 Americans will not be added to the casualty and death numbers if we move this money up. To use the phrase of the Commandant of the Marine Corps, at 3 or 4 o'clock today, on the phone with me: This is a moral imperative. I agree. It is a moral imperative that we protect these troops as soon as possible. So tomorrow, when I have my 1 or 2 minutes to speak to this issue before we vote, I will urge all my colleagues to vote for this amendment. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, for the Committee on Foreign Relations I report favorably the following nomination list which was printed in the Record on the date indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that this nomination lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, for nearly 35 years I've been working on this floor to address the all too real public health and safety issues associated with drug and alcohol addiction. Stiff prosecution of trafficking and possession of illegal drugs is important; but just as critical is an intense focus on prevention and treatment. To this end, if we are to be successful in this fight, we--you, me, all of us--must understand that addiction is a neurobiological disease, not a lifestyle choice. The frank and constructive approach to help those struggling with the disease of addiction, and to protect society from the crime and violence that sometimes accompany drug trafficking and use, is through treatment. We must continually work hard to resist the counterproductive social stigma that too often brands addicts and thereby encourages them to slip into seclusion rather than seek treatment. As such, we must begin to change the nature of public discourse about addiction by more appropriately naming our own research institutes to reflect this reality: Addition is a preventable and treatable disease. Today, I rise to introduce legislation recognizing this reality that addiction is a disease and not a chronic, stigmatizing life-sentence. The Recognizing Addiction as a Disease Act of 2007 changes the names of two institutes at the National Institutes of Health: the National Institute on Drug Abuse will become the National Institute on Diseases of Addiction, and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism will become the National Institute on Alcohol Disorders and Health. These name changes accomplish two important objectives. First, they remove the pejorative term ``abuse'' from the institutes' names and properly help to distance that notion from the disease of addiction. Second, the new names more clearly link the concepts of addiction and disease, a connection that scientific study clearly supports. Identifying addiction as a neurobiological disease will diminish the social stigma, discrimination, and the personal shame that is often a barrier to seeking treatment, and it will further a common understanding of diseases of addiction. The 2005 National Survey on Drug Use and Health reported that addiction affects 23.2 million Americans in our country, of whom only about 10 percent are receiving the treatment they need. Many are deterred from seeking such treatment because of the social stigma associated with admitting to a drug or alcohol dependency. This bill is a small but important step towards remedying this problem, fighting drug use, and successfully treating addiction. Addiction is now understood to be a disease because scientific research has shown that alcohol and other drugs can change the brain's structure and function. Advances in brain imaging science now make it possible to see inside an addict's brain and pinpoint the parts of the brain affected by drugs or alcohol. These insights will enable the development of new approaches to prevention and treatment. In fact, we now have data indicating that excessive alcohol use and alcohol dependence (alcoholism) are not separate diagnostic categories, but exist along a single continuum of alcohol-disorders associated with increased frequency of a harmful drinking pattern. Today's introduction of this legislation is timely. Two weeks ago HBO premiered an important new documentary movie, Addiction, which presents an encouraging look at addiction as a treatable disease and the film chronicles the major scientific advances that have helped us better understand and treat addiction. The Institutes collaborated with HBO to create this eye-opening documentary that seeks to help Americans understand addiction. HBO's Addiction Project will acquaint viewers with available evidence-based medical and behavioral treatments. This is especially important for disorders like addiction that for many years were treated outside the medical mainstream. From emergency rooms to living rooms to research laboratories, the documentary follows the trail of an illness that affects one in four families in the United States. The facts surrounding addiction are self-evident. With nearly 1 in 10 Americans over the age of 12 suffering from some form of substance dependency, addiction takes an emotional, psychological, and social toll on the country. The economic costs of substance dependency and addiction alone are estimated to exceed a half trillion dollars annually in the United States due to health care expenditures, lost productivity, and crime. I am proud to say that my friends and very distinguished colleagues Senators Kennedy and Enzi, chairman and ranking member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, respectively, are cosponsors of this important bill. Today, the Recognizing Addiction as a Disease Act of 2007 takes a small but important stride towards helping those struggling with diseases of addiction.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, for nearly 35 years I've been working on this floor to address the all too real public health and safety issues associated with drug and alcohol addiction. Stiff prosecution of trafficking and possession of illegal drugs is important; but just as critical is an intense focus on prevention and treatment. To this end, if we are to be successful in this fight, we--you, me, all of us--must understand that addiction is a neurobiological disease, not a lifestyle choice. The frank and constructive approach to help those struggling with the disease of addiction, and to protect society from the crime and violence that sometimes accompany drug trafficking and use, is through treatment. We must continually work hard to resist the counterproductive social stigma that too often brands addicts and thereby encourages them to slip into seclusion rather than seek treatment. As such, we must begin to change the nature of public discourse about addiction by more appropriately naming our own research institutes to reflect this reality: Addition is a preventable and treatable disease. Today, I rise to introduce legislation recognizing this reality that addiction is a disease and not a chronic, stigmatizing life-sentence. The Recognizing Addiction as a Disease Act of 2007 changes the names of two institutes at the National Institutes of Health: the National Institute on Drug Abuse will become the National Institute on Diseases of Addiction, and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism will become the National Institute on Alcohol Disorders and Health. These name changes accomplish two important objectives. First, they remove the pejorative term ``abuse'' from the institutes' names and properly help to distance that notion from the disease of addiction. Second, the new names more clearly link the concepts of addiction and disease, a connection that scientific study clearly supports. Identifying addiction as a neurobiological disease will diminish the social stigma, discrimination, and the personal shame that is often a barrier to seeking treatment, and it will further a common understanding of diseases of addiction. The 2005 National Survey on Drug Use and Health reported that addiction affects 23.2 million Americans in our country, of whom only about 10 percent are receiving the treatment they need. Many are deterred from seeking such treatment because of the social stigma associated with admitting to a drug or alcohol dependency. This bill is a small but important step towards remedying this problem, fighting drug use, and successfully treating addiction. Addiction is now understood to be a disease because scientific research has shown that alcohol and other drugs can change the brain's structure and function. Advances in brain imaging science now make it possible to see inside an addict's brain and pinpoint the parts of the brain affected by drugs or alcohol. These insights will enable the development of new approaches to prevention and treatment. In fact, we now have data indicating that excessive alcohol use and alcohol dependence (alcoholism) are not separate diagnostic categories, but exist along a single continuum of alcohol-disorders associated with increased frequency of a harmful drinking pattern. Today's introduction of this legislation is timely. Two weeks ago HBO premiered an important new documentary movie, Addiction, which presents an encouraging look at addiction as a treatable disease and the film chronicles the major scientific advances that have helped us better understand and treat addiction. The Institutes collaborated with HBO to create this eye-opening documentary that seeks to help Americans understand addiction. HBO's Addiction Project will acquaint viewers with available evidence-based medical and behavioral treatments. This is especially important for disorders like addiction that for many years were treated outside the medical mainstream. From emergency rooms to living rooms to research laboratories, the documentary follows the trail of an illness that affects one in four families in the United States. The facts surrounding addiction are self-evident. With nearly 1 in 10 Americans over the age of 12 suffering from some form of substance dependency, addiction takes an emotional, psychological, and social toll on the country. The economic costs of substance dependency and addiction alone are estimated to exceed a half trillion dollars annually in the United States due to health care expenditures, lost productivity, and crime. I am proud to say that my friends and very distinguished colleagues Senators Kennedy and Enzi, chairman and ranking member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, respectively, are cosponsors of this important bill. Today, the Recognizing Addiction as a Disease Act of 2007 takes a small but important stride towards helping those struggling with diseases of addiction.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, once again we are debating additional wartime funding for Iraq. Once again, we are trying to mitigate the damage caused by the President's utterly failed Iraq policy and the failure to properly plan for and manage the aftermath of Saddam Hussein's fall. I have spoken many times about how damaging this lack of planning has been to our efforts in Iraq and to our standing in the world. For the past 2 months, the spotlight has shone on another administration failure in this war: the shameful conditions our wounded soldiers face as outpatients navigating the military health system when they return from Iraq or Afghanistan. This is another example of gross mismanagement and a strained system. As such, I will offer amendment No. 766 to improve the care that members of the Armed Forces and veterans receive at Walter Reed and other military medical facilities. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that some of the reasons for concern at Walter Reed do not occur in the future. As the living conditions for outpatients at Walter Reed Army Medical Center indicate, moving to private contracts for maintenance can cause problems. After a private contract was awarded for maintenance and upkeep of buildings on the campus of Walter Reed Army Medical Center, a maintenance crew of approximately 300 was whittled down to 50 by the time the contract went into effect. Many of the terrible living conditions found in Building 18 were a direct result of delays in building repair and maintenance because of a shortage in manpower. To prevent this situation from occurring again, this amendment calls for public-private competitions of maintenance services at military medical complexes to stop while our country is engaged in military conflicts. It also calls for a Government Accountability Office review of contracting-out decisions for basic maintenance work at military facilities. Other problems discovered at Walter Reed are directly attributable to shortages resulting from pressures to cut budgets for military medical services. These cuts cannot be tolerated at a time when military medical services are needed to treat servicemembers who have been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. As such, this amendment would require medical command budgets to be equal to or exceed the prior year amount while the Nation is involved in a major military conflict or war. Another issue that the conditions at Walter Reed brought up is whether or not the facility should be closed as the Base Realignment and Closure Commission recommended. The Commission recommended building new, modern facilities at the National Naval Medical Center at Bethesda and at Fort Belvoir to improve the overall quality of care and access to care in this region. Military leaders have indicated that the planned closure has limited their ability to attract needed professionals to jobs at Walter Reed and there have been concerns raised whether adequate housing for the families of the wounded has been properly planned. To deal with that, this amendment requires the Department of Defense to submit to Congress within one year a detailed plan that includes an evaluation of the following: the desirability of being able to guarantee professional jobs for 2 years or more following the closure; detailed construction plans for the new facilities and for new family housing; and the costs and benefits of building all of the needed medical treatment, rehabilitation, and housing before a single unit is moved. Another major problem and source of frustration for injured soldiers is the length of time it takes to receive a disability determination. In order to hasten the disability determination process, we need to ensure that the Department of Defense has information systems capable of communicating with those in the Department of Veterans Affairs. The VA has been a leader in implementing electronic medical record keeping, but we have to improve the capability of the Department of Defense to send electronic medical records to the VA to speed up the disability determination process. Making the disability determination system more efficient can reduce the stress on the soldiers and their families going through the determination process. Caseworkers are also critical. They schedule appointments and make sure wounded servicemembers get the rehabilitative and follow-up care they need. As more and more soldiers and marines come home wounded, many military caseworkers are overwhelmed. To improve the care given to servicemembers, this amendment requires a minimum ratio of case managers to patients of 1 to 20, that case managers have contact with recovering servicemembers at least once a week, and that case managers be properly trained on the military's disability and discharge systems so they can better assist patients with their paperwork. Currently, many combat veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan have service-related mental health issues like posttraumatic stress disorder, PTSD, and traumatic brain injury, TBI. Many have labeled TBI the ``signature injury'' of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. It is estimated that as many as 10 percent of those serving or who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan have brain injuries. That would mean about 150,000 of the 1.5 million soldiers who have served in Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom have suffered a brain injury. In many cases, these injuries are not diagnosed because there is not an external wound. Depending on the severity of these injuries, returning soldiers can require immediate treatment or not have symptoms show up until several years later. This amendment calls for every returning soldier to be screened for TBI. While the VA has announced plans to do this, it needs to happen in active-duty military medical facilities too. In addition, the amendment calls for a study on the advisability of treating TBI as a presumptive condition in every service's disability evaluation system, as well as the VA disability evaluation system. We often hear about the 25,000 soldiers and marines who have been wounded in these wars--but that figure grossly underestimates the demand that the VA health care system faces. Since our country was attacked on September 11, 2001, more than 1.5 million soldiers have been deployed to Afghanistan, Iraq, and other locations. Of these, 630,000 are now veterans and, according to the Department of Defense, more than 205,000 have already received medical treatment through the Department of Veterans Affairs. A recent Harvard study on the long-term costs of treating these new veterans estimates that by 2012 more than 643,000 veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan will be using the VA system, an almost three-fold increase of what the system faces now. With a significant backlog of claims currently existing, the system is in desperate need of an upgrade. To address this concern, my amendment directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to submit to Congress a plan for the long-term care needs for veterans for the next 50 years. In addition to this amendment that I offer today, I am happy to have also joined with my colleagues Senators Obama and McCaskill and offered an amendment based on the Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act. My amendment complements the Obama and McCaskill amendment to improve the care our wounded soldiers receive at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and other military medical facilities. I believe both amendments will make medical care better for our military personnel and veterans. I also commend the Appropriations Committee for already providing approximately $3.1 billion in funding above the President's request for health programs in the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Providing $1.3 billion for defense health programs and $1.767 billion for veterans' health programs is a great step to fix some of the problems we currently face. It is our highest obligation to heal the hundreds of thousands of brave men and women who will bear the physical and emotional scars of these wars for the rest of their lives. While President Bush and his administration may have failed to plan adequately to ensure that these soldiers and veterans receive the care that they deserve, we in Congress must act now to improve this situation.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I send amendment No. 529 to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, this amendment reinstates the COPS Program. I remind everyone, when the COPS Program was functioning, violent crime in America reduced 8.5 percent a year for 7 years in a row. Mr. President, throughout the 1990s, we funded the COPS Program at roughly $1.2 billion, and it drove down crime. Now crime is rising again. In every one of our States it is up. Violent crime is up across the board. The Police Investigative Research Forum released a report which found that murders were up 10.6 percent in 2004. The COPS Program in the crime bill worked, and the Government Accounting Office found a statistical link between the COPS grants and a reduction in crime. The Brookings Institution reported the COPS Program is one of the most cost-effective programs we have ever had in this country. Local officials urgently need this support. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be added as cosponsors: Lieberman, Clinton, Salazar, Obama, Kohl, Harkin, Boxer, Kerry, Whitehouse, Dorgan, Dodd, Schumer, and all Democrats on this side.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am happy to join the esteemed Congressman from New York, Rep. Steve Israel, and submit a resolution today to declare May 2007 as ``National Autoimmune Diseases Awareness Month.'' The purpose of the resolution is to raise awareness of autoimmune diseases and the need for aggressive research to learn the root causes of autoimmune diseases, as well as the best diagnostic methods and treatments for people with autoimmune diseases. Autoimmune diseases are chronic, disabling diseases in which underlying defects in the immune system lead the body to attack its own organs and tissues. Autoimmune diseases can affect any part of the body-blood, blood vessels, muscles, nervous system, gastrointestinal tract, endocrine glands, and multiple-organ systems--and can be life- threatening. Researchers have identified over 80 different autoimmune diseases, including multiple sclerosis, juvenile diabetes, Crohn's disease, scleroderma, polymyositis, lupus, Sjogren's disease and Graves' disease, and suspect at least 40 additional diseases of having an autoimmune basis. The National Institutes of Health estimates that autoimmune diseases afflict more than 23 million people in the United States. Seventy five percent of the people affected with autoimmune diseases are women, and the prevalence of autoimmune diseases is rising. However, the family of autoimmune diseases is under-recognized, and this poses a major health care challenge to the United States. Diagnostic tests for autoimmune diseases are not standardized, which makes autoimmune diseases very difficult to diagnose. Because autoimmune diseases are difficult to diagnose, treatment is often delayed, resulting in irreparable organ damage and unnecessary suffering. There is a significant need for more collaboration and cross- fertilization of basic autoimmune research, with a particular focus on the etiology of all autoimmune-related diseases in order to increase understanding of the root causes of these diseases rather than treating the symptoms after the disease has had its destructive effect. As such, I am submitting this resolution to designate May 2007 as ``National Autoimmune Disease Awareness Month'' to help educate the public about autoimmune diseases and the need for research funding, accurate diagnosis, and effective treatments.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, there are many statements in the resolution by the Senator from New Hampshire that are true. It is a true statement that the President has the power to ``deploy troops and direct military campaigns during wartime.'' But that presupposes that a war has been properly authorized by Congress because that power exists only in wartime, or in certain emergency circumstances. The President does not, however, have the power under the Constitution to initiate a war. It is literally true that Congress has the power of the purse, and in that capacity has the moral responsibility to adequately support the troops in the field, once we are at war. This administration has failed in that responsibility in not equipping our soldiers in Iraq with adequate armor, in not having an adequate plan to stabilize Iraq after the initial invasion, and in not caring for our soldiers properly when they return home. But this resolution is not balanced. It does not set forth a statement about Congress's powers under the Constitution to authorize the use of force under article I. Nor does it say anything about the authority of Congress to change the mission of U.S. forces, once a war has commenced. This silence about Congress's power might be interpreted to suggest that the President's powers as Commander in Chief to initiate war are unlimited, and that Congress's sole responsibility is to fund a war that the President initiates. That is not what the Constitution says, and I cannot vote for anything that might be so read. Because the Gregg resolution lacks balance, I cannot vote for it. I will vote instead for the resolution by Senator Murray, which presents a more complete statement about the allocation of powers under the Constitution.

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

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, what I wish to do at this moment is address one of the arguments I have heard many of my colleagues make over the past 2 days of this debate. The argument I have heard when I was on the floor yesterday, and again I have heard it today, is that the joint resolution we are debating is an effort to micromanage the war by focusing the mission of U.S. Armed Forces on training Iraqis, denying terrorists a safe haven in Iraq, and force protection. If you listen to my colleagues who oppose this, you hear them recount that as if somehow that is exceeding the power of the people to speak, through their Congress, as to what role American military forces are permitted to play. Many of my colleagues on the other side go on to argue we are somehow overstepping our constitutional boundaries in defining the purpose for which U.S. forces can be used in Iraq. Well, that argument, I respectfully suggest, is dead wrong. Defining the overall mission of U.S. troops is entirely within the power of the Congress under the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, not doing so would be an abdication of our fundamental duty under the Constitution, which clearly manifests war power in the hands of the Congress. Now let me give you a few illustrations, if I may. In 2002, when we voted to authorize the use of force against Iraq, we defined the purpose. We defined the purpose for which the President was permitted to use American forces against Iraq. It was to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, and, further, to enforce all relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. During the course of the negotiations on that resolution, in which I was deeply involved, Congress made it clear, at least on this side--as one of the several people speaking for the Democrats at the time in the Senate--we specifically and clearly rejected the Bush administration's initial proposal for using force in Iraq. President Bush sought what I believe to be, and the majority of the Senate eventually did, an overly broad authority to use force: to restore international peace and security in the region. I read that at the time as a grant of authority to the President that far exceeded what arguably was necessary at all in Iraq. The function of our military force was not to restore international peace and security in the region. We struck that and said: The use of force is to defend the national security of the United States against a continuing threat from Iraq, not the region; not the region. After the President's attempted overreach here, we narrowed the geographic scope of the authority the Congress, under the Constitution, was willing to grant the President, and we narrowed the purpose for which he was allowed to use force. We did two things. We not only said, Mr. President, this is not about the region. You can only use force, if necessary, dealing with Iraq being a threat to the United States. I remind everybody what we were being told at the time. We were being told by the Vice President that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear program. Simply not true. It was not true when he stated it. Our intelligence community not only said he did not reconstitute the nuclear program, it said he had no nuclear program. That is not what we were told. So we gave him authority, I remind everyone, to negotiate at the United Nations, to keep the pressure of the world on Iraq, to bring back the U.N. people, to determine what nuclear program or weapons of mass destruction he had, to get the inspectors back in, and to negotiate to do that, because at the time the argument taking place in the world was, was the U.S. embargo, was the world embargo, were the U.N. inspectors causing pain for innocent Iraqis? Do you remember how many times we heard the argument that the reason why there was not enough medicine, the reason why children were dying, the reason why they did not have enough food, was because of this awful thing the United States was leading, the embargo on Iraq, the Food for Oil Program? So to put this in context so everybody remembers, there were a lot of us on the floor willing to give deference to the President, who we thought was responsible in the exercise of power at the time, because he appeared responsible immediately after 9/11; he proceeded correctly relative to al-Qaida and the Taliban. He did not go off willy-nilly and start bombing people. He built the case. He sent his envoys all over the world. He made a compelling case for the right for us to invade Afghanistan. He even went so far as to worry about whether the Arab street would rise up if we attacked Muslims in Afghanistan. He engaged in public diplomacy. He did a fine job. That was the context in which we gave him this power. But even then, as much as he had done well relative to Afghanistan at the time, we quite frankly did not trust him or any President to have this broad reach of authority which he asked for, which was to maintain peace, international peace and security in the region. So we cut back the authority we gave him to negotiate at the U.N. Remember what he tried to do. He came and made the argument: There has to be a demonstration that all of the Nation support him in that we must keep pressure on Saddam. All Democrats and Republicans support him. That was the argument made to us. He did not come up here and make the argument to the Foreign Relations Committee, the Armed Services Committee: We need to be able to attack. He argued we needed to be able to give him the moral authority to go to the United Nations and keep the pressure on, because the French were wavering, the Europeans were wavering, some Arab countries were wavering. And then as time went on, he built this argument about they reconstituted their nuclear weapons and the like. But even then we did not give him the authority he asked for. Why am I dwelling on this? Well, we made a clear judgment as a Senate and as a House, as a Congress, that he did not have the geographic scope for the extended purpose he wanted. We said: Here is your writ, Mr. President. Here is the region you are allowed to, if need be, use force--in this constrained area called Iraq. Because you are telling us, Mr. President, it is a threat to the United States of America, not a threat to the region, it is a threat to the United States of America. So you have the authority to deal with that, if necessary. Secondly, even within Iraq, you can only use the force to enforce all relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. If memory serves me, there were 16, including resolutions relating to weapons of mass destruction. So that was the rationale. We severely limited the authority he wanted because we thought it was an overreach. Now we know there were no weapons of mass destruction. Now we know--I will speak and say what I believe--hopefully the Intelligence Committee will show--not only did we have bad intelligence, but the good intelligence we had was misused by the administration, in my opinion. We will find out whether that turns out to be true. In 2002, when we offered the authorization to use force, we defined the purpose. So I ask those who argue that we are now overstepping our bounds with this resolution, did we overstep our bounds in 2002 when we authorized the use of force against Iraq, when we limited what the President wanted to do? If, in fact, we do not have the constitutional authority today to limit what the President wants to do, how did we have the authority to do it in 2002? As I said, what is the rationale for the continued authority under the 2002 resolution? There are no weapons of mass destruction. All the U.N. resolutions are in compliance. And nobody argues the Iraqi Government is a threat to the United States of America. Are they going to invade us? To those who have a problem with the mission we defined in this joint resolution before the Senate, I also say, listen to Prime Minister Tony Blair in announcing last month the redeployment of British forces from Iraq. Last month the mission the British Government assigned to those Brits who will remain in Iraq is precisely what we prescribed in our resolution. The new mission of the British forces in Iraq is the following: to transfer responsibility to the Iraqis; to train and support Iraqi forces; to help secure the border and supply routes; and to conduct operations against extremist groups, i.e., Al-Qaida. It is not to fight in the Iraqi civil war. It is not to be in the lead role in security operations in Basra, where they had authority, or in Baghdad, where they did not. In short, with the exception of denying terrorists sanctuary and training of Iraqis, the British forces are moving from the driver's seat to the backseat. This resolution proposes that very transition for our forces in Iraq. So I ask again, rhetorically, does the Vice President think Prime Minister Blair's announcement of a ``redeployment,'' as the Vice President said, ``validates the al-Qaida strategy''? That is what he is accusing the Congress of. That is what he accuses me and Carl Levin of when we came up with this idea, that is now a leadership amendment; we are validating al-Qaida's strategy. Are the British validating al-Qaida's strategy? Is he saying Tony Blair is validating Osama bin Laden? It is ridiculous. It is a ridiculous argument. It flies in the face of the facts. It comes down to this: Do we want American troops fighting an Iraqi civil war? Is that what we want these troops for? Is that why we sent them? Do you think, when we voted back in 2002, if we knew there were no weapons of mass destruction, if Saddam were gone, if they were in compliance with other U.N. resolutions, but if there were a raging civil war, do you think we would have voted on the floor of this body to send 150,000, 160,000, 170,000, 180,000 American troops to Iraq to help them settle their civil war? What do you think? I don't think so. We might have sent troops to Jordan. We might have done what we are trying now in Amman and the emirates. We might have beefed up Turkey. We might have accepted to go after al-Qaida sites. But I doubt very much we would vote now to get in the midst of a self-sustaining cycle of sectarian violence, which is what it is. If you want American troops fighting a civil war in Iraq, if you want that, then vote against this resolution, do not vote for it. Do not vote for it. You say that is not fair; we are not engaged in fighting in a civil war. Has anybody asked themselves the rhetorical question: Why is it that Sadr, who has been responsible for killing a lot of Americans, and his Mahdi army, which has been responsible for killing a lot of Americans, why is it that the Shia-led Mahdi army, particularly in Sadr City, has taken off their uniforms, hidden their weapons, and as of yesterday--I have not checked today--there were rumors that Sadr is no longer in Iraq? Maybe he is back now. We do not know for sure where he is. Why is it that they took down the blockade? Is it because all of a sudden they turned peace loving? I respectfully suggest, because inadvertently the 17,500 troops we are surging into the middle of Baghdad, we are surging them into 20- some neighborhoods that are Sunni. They are bad guys, these former Saddamists, these former Baathists-- this insurgency--who were referred to until recently by the Secretary of Defense as ``a bunch of dead enders.'' I respectfully suggest the reason all of a sudden the Shia in Sadr City are lying low is because they are very happy the United States is doing their job for them, killing their enemy, killing the bad guys who are Sunnis. Does anybody think if we succeed in that mission that all of a sudden we are not going to see all those weapons come out of hiding in Sadr City? Does anybody think that all of a sudden it is going to be safe for Americans in that region? Does anybody think the uniforms aren't going to come back on and the roadblocks aren't going to go back up? These folks aren't dumb. It is not our purpose, but the effect is, we are engaged in this civil war. The question is, What is the plan to responsibly end our participation in this war without leaving behind chaos, without having traded a dictator for chaos, without having left behind a cycle of self-sustaining sectarian violence that metastasizes in the fragmentation of Iraq and metastasizes in the region--Turkey, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia? What is the answer? So far, I don't hear a plan. Notice, by the way, now the surge is really getting bumped up, as some of us predicted on this floor when he announced the surge and predicted in our committee, 17,000 people to 22,500, whatever the actual number was initially. Now they are saying they are going to need 30,000 people for the surge. Why? Because it is like squeezing a water balloon. The bad guys have left this area in part, and they have now gone to the province directly outside of Baghdad. General Keane is a very bright fellow, an honest guy, a former four- star general, who testified before our committee. He came up with the original plan about surging. He said: In order for this to work, you are going to have to surge well beyond Baghdad. You are going to have to go into Anbar Province and beyond. He predicted what would happen. They said: No, we are only talking about 22,500 troops. What is the purpose of the surge? The purpose of the surge, we are told--in a humanitarian sense, it makes a lot of sense, except for the humanitarian interest of our troops--is to bring order to Baghdad, stop the killing and the chaos. Why? Because when that happens and they have--I think the phrase used is ``breathing room''--when they have that breathing room, what is going to happen? Then they can negotiate. Then they will sit down and negotiate an agreement among themselves. Has anybody asked the question, What will be the basis of that negotiation? What is the idea? What is the element? What is the political solution? The President continues to insist on a well-intended but fundamentally flawed strategy. The flawed strategy is, it is possible to have a strong central democratic government. Before we went to war, I believed, and so stated, that there is not going to be a democracy there in any of our lifetimes, including the Presiding Officer, who is considerably younger than most of us. It is not going to happen. It is possible that we could leave behind a country secure within its borders, loosely federated, not a threat to its neighbor and not a haven for terror, but that is as good as it is going to get. At least one and probably both of my colleagues in the Chamber were here during the Balkan crisis in Bosnia. What does history teach us and what does recent experience teach us? Wherever there is a cycle of self-sustaining genocide, self-sustaining sectarian violence, when in modern history has it ended other than any one of four ways: One, a victor. They wipe out the other two sides or three sides or one side, and one of the ethnic groups prevails militarily on the battlefield. Two, occupation by an outside force--the Ottoman Empire, the Persian Empire, the British Empire. We can't afford the first to happen because that would have a devastating impact on the region because everybody knows the Sunni states will get more involved. If it goes the other way, the Shia states will be involved in Iran beyond what they are now. That is not a real option. We are not an occupying force. It is not in our DNA. We are not an empire. The third option historically is a dictator, a strongman. Wouldn't that be the ultimate irony--us going to Iraq to take down Saddam and restoring a strong man, which, I respectfully suggest, we should consider might happen because eventually we are going to leave and the dysfunctional circumstances in Iraq are as likely to produce a strong military leader to take over as anything else, although there is no individual in sight right now. That is not an option available to us. What is the fourth historical option? Federation, a federal system, a weak central government within the defined borders of a country that, in fact, gives the warring sectarian parties some control over the fabric of their daily lives, their local police force for their public safety, rules relating to marriage, education. That is the only other option which has ever worked. It doesn't work perfectly. What does recent history tell us? Like many here, I was deeply involved in our Balkan policy. As my friend from Kansas may remember, I, to use the vernacular, beat President Clinton up and about the head to use force in the Balkans. I argued, after encountering Milosevic 2 years before he acted in his office--when he asked me what I thought of him, I said: I think you are a damn war criminal, and I am going to spend my career seeing you tried as one. I came back and wrote report after report, after close to a dozen visits. I saw what was happening in Brcko, in Tuzla, in Sarajevo, in Srebenica, more sectarian violence in the Balkans from Vlad the Impaler to Milosevic than ever occurred in what is now called Iraq. So how did we end it? We ended it after they killed several hundred thousand people, mostly women and children. We ended it after we gathered all the neighbors, including Russia, a pro-Serbian force, France, all the nations in the region. We gathered in a room. We brought in the parties who were warring, including Milosevic, Tudjman, Croats, and other leaders representing the Bosniaks. What did we do? We then called the Dayton Peace Accords. What did we do there? We gave much more autonomy to each of those groups than ever was envisioned by what I am proposing. We set up a thing called the Republic of Serbia in Bosnia with its own President. We had a Bosnian President and we had a Croatian President. For over 10 years, as my friend from Oklahoma can attest, who knows more about force structure than most of us know, there have been over 20,000 on average NATO forces there. To the best of my knowledge, none has been killed in anger with a shot fired. What is going on in Bosnia today? Was everyone who was ethnically cleansed able to come back to their neighborhoods? No. A lot have. Is there still injustice? Yes. Is genocide continuing? No. What are they doing now? They are debating amending their Constitution to become part of Europe so they can join the EU down the road. We don't have to go very far for an example. Let me ask the rhetorical question again: Can anybody name me a time, without empire, dictator or expiring, that self-sustaining sectarian violence within the borders of a country has resulted in a central federal control that is democratic? With all due respect to the President, arguably his dream at the outset made sense. That is why I called 3 years ago for 60,000 to 100,000 additional American forces. That is why I called for the need for at least 5,000 to 6,000 paramilitary police to be sent, because I believed--and I wrote at the time--if the genie ever gets out of the bottle, if we don't establish order quickly, there is no possibility of stopping a vicious civil war. Senator Hagel and I got smuggled across the Turkish border before the war began, and went up to Arbil and met with the Brazani and Talabani clans to discuss with them whether they would actually be with us if force was used. They had us each speak before the Kurdish Parliament, and they had already written a constitution that was the minimum they would, in fact, insist upon which allowed for significant Kurdish autonomy. They wanted a federal system. A year ago January, my distinguished colleague from South Carolina and I went to Iraq for what was my sixth time. I have been there since. I don't know how many times it was. We went around and proudly put our fingers in the ink well, demonstrating that this was a free election. We came back and spoke to the President. We were debriefed by the President and his war cabinet. The President said it was a great democratic effort. I presumed to suggest it wasn't a democratic effort, it was a free election. It was a sectarian election. It turns out 92 percent of the vote cast was a sectarian vote. Kurds voted for Kurds. Shia voted for Shia. Sunni voted for Sunni. That is not democracy. Elections do not a democracy make. They are a necessary and ultimate condition to democracy. Democracy is about giving up things, about compromise. I will never forget what Senator Graham, who has a great facility for words, said as I was trying to explain to the President about the militias--not that he did not know there were militias. After we got finished, the President turned to Senator Graham and Senator Graham said, with a bit of humor: Mr. President, it is kind of like when the recount was taking place in Florida, if the Republicans had their own army and the Democrats had their own army. That is the better analogy. The genie was out of the bottle, and the genie came roaring out of the bottle when that shrine in the Shia area was devastated and ripped off the Earth. Let me conclude by saying, it comes down to a simple proposition: Why do we want our troops in Iraq? Is it to fight a civil war or is it to provide a circumstance whereby we do the only thing that can help our interest, to prevent al-Qaida from occupying territory, to train the Iraqi forces, and to protect our troops. To do that we need a lot fewer troops. Do we want to end this war responsibly? If we do, I respectfully suggest we vote for this resolution. If you prefer the President's plan, which offers no end in sight, I respectfully suggest you should vote against it. But, ultimately, there are a lot of proposals put forward, including the President's, and you have to ask yourself the rhetorical question, I believe: After it is implemented, then what? Then what? I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, our troops don't lose wars; bad policy and bad leadership lose wars. We should have the courage to stand up and tell the administration they have had a God-awful policy. They put our troops in a position that, in fact, has made it virtually impossible for them to succeed at the outset. They deserve a policy, a plan, but there is no plan. We went to war with too few troops, we went to war unnecessarily, and we went to war with men and women who were ill-equipped, and they are coming home ill-served. It is about time we have the courage to stand up and say to the President: Mr. President, you have not only put us in harm's way, you have harmed us. You have no policy, Mr. President. I am so tired of hearing on this floor about courage. Let's have the courage to tell the administration to stop this ridiculous policy they have. We are taking sides in a civil war. I was there in Srebrenica. I was in Tuzla. I was in Sarajevo. I was in Brcko in the Balkans. How did we solve that? We solved that with a policy of separating the parties. This is a cycle of self-sustaining sectarian violence that 20,000, 30,000, 50,000, 100,000 Americans will not be able to stop. This is ridiculous. There is no plan. I ask the President and everyone else who comes forward with a plan, whether it is capping or surging or whatever they have: Will it answer the two-word test: Then what? Then what? Then what? What happens after we surge these women and men? And by the way, he said General Petraeus is one who believes. He may be the only one who believes this is a good idea. Virtually no one else thinks it is a good idea. Look, in this story about the Constitution, we gave the President specific authority, which is our responsibility. It was to take down Saddam, if need be, it was to get rid of weapons of mass destruction that did not exist, and it was to get compliance with the U.N. resolution. Every one of those have been met. Saddam is dead, there were no weapons, and Iraq is in compliance with the U.N. So if one wants to be literal about it, his mission no longer has the force of law. Everyone I have spoken with, including from the Biden- Gelb plan straight through to the Iraq Study Group, says: Look, use our troops wisely; use them wisely. What are their missions? We have the right and obligation constitutionally, and we should have the courage constitutionally, to exercise our responsibility to say: Why are our troops there? Did anybody on this floor, did anybody count on the utter incompetence of this administration when they were getting the authority they were getting? Absolute incompetence. I stood on this floor 3 years ago saying we need another 100,000 troops before the sectarian violence became self-sustaining and warned, as others did, that once it did, all the king's horses and all the king's men could not hold that country together. So what is our objective here? Our objective is to leave Iraq relatively stable within its own borders, not a threat to its neighbors and not a haven for terror. What is the President and my friend from Arizona and others insisting on? What can never be: a central government that is a democracy that is going to be fair to the rest of its citizens. It is not possible, mark my words. So as long as the President keeps us on this ridiculous path, taking us off a cliff, I ask my colleagues: Does anybody think they are going to be able to sustain keeping American forces in Iraq at 160,000 for another year and a half? What do you think? What do you think is going to happen in Tennessee, in Delaware, in Illinois? Are we going to break this man's and woman's Army? What are we going to do here? How many times do we have to ask those 175,000 marines to rotate, three, four, five, six, seven times? And what is the President's political solution? I love this. Everyone says there is no military solution, only a political solution. Name me one person who has come up with a political solution--one--other than me and Les Gelb. There is a political solution. It is what history teaches us. When there is self-sustaining sectarian violence, there is only one of four possibilities: They either, one, expire, kill one another off; two, you impose a dictator; three, you have an empire; or, four, you have a Federal system. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 more seconds.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am tired of hearing about courage. The only courage being evidenced in this country is by those folks out on the battlefields getting shot at, getting killed. Why are they there? Let's get on with this. This is the only rational way to move. All this malarkey about cutting off funds--this is about the mission. Mr. President, you are leading us off a cliff. Stop. I yield the floor.