Joe Biden

Mr. BIDEN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I have spoken to the manager of the bill, and I am--with his permission and their permission--going to speak. But as soon as they are ready to reclaim the floor, to close this down, I am prepared to stop at that point, or before.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I know there is not a lot of time, but the amendment that is at the desk, No. 383, that I have--I ask it be called up and be considered. This is all about rail safety. The Federal Government currently has no say on where 90-ton rail tankers, filled with chlorine or other hazardous chemicals, are shipped around the Nation. The Naval Research Laboratory, at my request, some months ago, issued a report. The context of my inquiry with them was: What would happen if one of these 90-ton chlorine gas tanker cars exploded--for example, where a terrorist put C-2 underneath there in a populated area and blew it up? What made me think of it was, you may remember almost 2 years ago now, out in North Dakota, one of these tankers leaked, and the end result was a number of adjoining towns, small towns, had to be evacuated because it was so deadly. So I asked the question of the Naval Research Center. As you know, some of our best scientists in the world are there. I asked: What would happen? What would happen if a 90-ton tanker containing chlorine were to be blown up in a major metropolitan area? Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the report submitted to me be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN. Let me summarize the report. The answer was ``over 100,000 people could be seriously harmed or even killed in the first half an hour.'' Let me say that again. One of these tankers filled with chlorine gas--and there are hundreds, up and down the road, going through major metropolitan areas, from Los Angeles to New York and everywhere in between--what would happen if a terrorist were to explode one of those in a major metropolitan area? The answer was: ``over 100,000 people could be seriously harmed or even killed in the first half an hour.'' Said another way: What happens if one of these is blown up in a freight yard in Philadelphia, PA, right along the Schuylkill River, 10 blocks, 15 blocks from City Hall, the University of Pennsylvania, Drexel University--a very populated area? Within one-half hour, 100,000 people could be seriously harmed or even killed. How long would it take to evacuate that area? Imagine evacuating downtown New York City, Baltimore, Miami, Seattle--you name the city. So what is the problem? Well, the problem is--and we have seen in recent reports--insurgents in Iraq are using chlorine in their attacks on civilians. There is little doubt terrorists who are targeting us here at home are paying attention. In these roadside bombs, they are-- thank God they have not gotten it down very well yet--but they are injecting chlorine into that carnage they cause because they know the consequence of the dissemination of the highly toxic substance in a populated area. Nevertheless, we continue to allow these 90-ton--that is a standard: 90-ton--rail tanks containing chlorine and other hazardous chemicals to roll unprotected through the hearts of our largest cities in high- threat areas. We know the rail industry has adamantly opposed any attempt to allow local officials, in conjunction with the Department of Homeland Security and security people, to reroute these tankers. Now, again, look where this tanker is sitting, as shown in this picture. Do these buildings look familiar to you? This is an actual photograph of a 90-ton chlorine gas tanker car sitting in the direct view--if you look over the top of it, you can see the Hart Building, you can see the Dirksen Building, and you can see the U.S. Capitol. By the way, I know my friend, the Presiding Officer, a former board member of Amtrak, a guy who has fought very hard to protect Amtrak--we take the train almost every day together back and forth to and from Delaware--I say to my colleagues, go on down to the station this afternoon and follow us down whenever we finish and get on the train. If it is not an Acela, stand in the back car of an Amfleet train. You can look out the back window. Watch as we pull out of the station. Tell me how many cops you see. Tell me how many cameras you see. Tell me how much protection exists there. Look at this tanker car, shown in this picture, sitting right out there--in the middle of nowhere, in the middle of everywhere. So, folks, the idea we do not even have as an option the ability of our security people and the mayors and local officials to suggest these tankers bypass their cities so, God forbid, if something happens, they are not as high a prize of a target--by the way, the less sensational damage able to be done, the less likelihood it will be picked as a target. Because someone could legitimately argue: Biden, you are taking this out of the route--and we have other maps showing the routes of the various alternative routes that could be used to avoid the major cities. Now, they could say: You are going to be going through more rural areas. Yes, serious damage could be done in rural areas, but the prize for the terrorist is much lower. The likelihood of them concluding that instead of coming down from, for example, Newark, NJ, all the way down into Augusta--you can, in fact, reroute these on Norfolk Southern, which goes through much less populated areas. People legitimately say: Aren't you putting those folks at risk? No matter where these cars are, we are at risk. But again, where is the likely target? Where are terrorists going to risk their lives to be able to go in and do damage? They will do it where the most people are. So I know the rail industry, as I said, is adamantly opposed to amendment No. 306, and is likely opposed to the updated version we will vote on today. But in the face of such risks, I do not know how we can let their opposition determine whether we go forward. This amendment is very limited. It simply states the Secretary of Homeland Security, not the rail industry--the rail industry is not the bad guy--should determine the most secure routes for the shipments of the most dangerous chemicals, and that ownership of the track is not to be considered in making this risk-based determination; meaning, if you have something going down on a CSX track that is owned by CSX, they should be able to use and be diverted to a Norfolk Southern track. I could give you examples all across the country, as the Presiding Officer knows. Again, all I am saying is, let the Department of Homeland Security determine whether the most dangerous chemicals are able to be diverted around the most populated areas in our country. And do not--do not--in fact, use as an impediment the idea the track upon which it is being carried is not owned by the company whose car is on that track. That is all we are doing, Mr. President. The amendment would apply to only .36 percent--less than a third of a percent--of all the shipments that occur on our rail system. It only applies to through-shipments; it does not apply to the destination city. Some of this stuff goes into large populations, where that is the end point. It doesn't say it cannot go there, but it does say we should reduce the probability of catastrophic damage by allowing them to be rerouted, if that is the judgment of the Department of Homeland Security. A similar amendment was passed by voice vote in the House Homeland Security Committee today. Not one Republican or Democrat spoke in opposition to this measure. This amendment will ensure that the Senate is on the right side of the issue as well. Mr. President, I was asked by my colleague from Connecticut, one of the two managers, that he be added as a cosponsor. I ask unanimous consent his name be added.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I understand that a man with whom I hardly disagree, Senator Inouye, has reservations. I hope he will reconsider those reservations. Again, all we are doing is letting the Department of Homeland Security, in conjunction with local officials, make the judgment whether the risk is so high that it warrants it being rerouted. Of all the cargo on all of the tracks in America, we are talking about .36 of 1 percent, all that is transported on rail. So we are not asking much. The downside of us being mistaken is significant. I close by quoting from the rail industry's letter opposing this amendment. They say: Rerouting would not eliminate the risk, but instead shift it from one population to another. That is true, but this amendment says the Department of Homeland Security, not the rail industry, should determine how to weigh and respond to this known potentially catastrophic risk. What did we just debate last week on the floor? The allocation of resources for Homeland Security should be going toward the danger lines. There is nothing that is risk free--nothing. It is a little like my friend from Delaware and I have heard so much every time we come up with rail security legislation. We are told we cannot secure every mile of track. That is true, we can't, but there is a big difference with a terrorist taking a single train off a track somewhere in rural America and a terrorist taking a train at 140 miles an hour into the most visited area in Washington, DC, Union Station, at a high speed. There is a difference between blowing up a tunnel underneath the Chesapeake Bay or the Hudson River and blowing up a tunnel in the middle of some rural area. Terrorists pick targets for the greatest effect. So the idea that we would not reroute--if the Department of Homeland Security determined it made sense--a series of chlorine gas tankers from a major metropolitan area to a more rural area seems to me to be such a silly argument to make. The idea is, how do we reduce the risk for the most people of the United States of America? Again, I will end where I began. When this was called to my attention some years ago, I went to the Naval Research Laboratory and I asked them--and I have included this in my statement-- to tell me what would happen--and, again, it doesn't take much for terrorists to figure out a way to puncture a hole in the bottom or the side of one of these tanks by use of explosives or other devices. The answer was that if that were to occur in a highly populated area, ``over 100,000 could be seriously harmed or even killed in the first half hour.'' Imagine how many people we get to evacuate reasonably so that there is essentially no one left in a half hour. If the gun goes off right now, how long does it take downtown Manhattan or downtown Washington, DC, or Capitol Hill to evacuate people so they are not around? If you don't evacuate--to say it another way--within a half hour, a whole lot more than 100,000 people will be seriously injured or will die. I know the Senator from Connecticut supports this amendment. I don't know what the view of our colleague from Maine is. I hope they understand how limited this amendment is, how consequential it is. I hope my colleagues, when it comes time to vote, will vote in favor of this amendment. I thank the Chair and I thank the managers. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Maine. She may have misunderstood two aspects of the amendment. One, it doesn't mandatorily require rerouting at all. It says the Department of Homeland Security can reroute, if they determine it should be rerouted. No. 2, the freight industry, where they made the judgment on how much further in distance it would travel if, in fact, you were to reroute, factored in only that it had to be rerouted on their own tracks. So the idea being that they would not be able to--this happens all the time, where other tracks are used; for example, the Chesapeake using Norfolk Southern track. No. 3, the Chamber of Commerce is opposed because it costs more money. A lot of these things cost more money. Will it cost more money to be able to reroute up to one-third of 1 percent of the freight on rail? Yes. But I ask the rhetorical question: What will it cost if one of these tankers goes off in a populated area? What will the cost then be to the very businesses that are most concerned about it? Fourth, this doesn't affect destination. If the chlorine gas tanker car is going to a water treatment facility, it still goes to that facility. Nothing changes. What we could have changed is what we did in Delaware, not use chlorine. There are other means by which water can be purified. We have done it in our home State. That is what you should do. But that doesn't stop this car, or any other car, from going to such a facility. Let me emphasize again that there is no prohibition on end point distribution. If the car is designed to go to a facility in the center of a city, it goes to the center of the city. There is nothing you can do about that. That is very different than--I am making up these numbers for illustration--you may have one of these tankers going in once a month versus 50 going through the same city in a month or 100 in a month. This is all about percentages. You play the percentages. Again, it is true, rerouting may render cities in North Dakota--well, they would not be rerouted in North Dakota, but I referenced the small towns. There was a chlorine gas tanker car going across the top of the Nation and, thank God, what happened was it went off in a rural part of the world. You were able to evacuate the three cities and nobody died. Had that same thing occurred in the middle of Chicago, you would not be able to evacuate the city. We would not have had time. So, yes, it is true. Are you going to put a different population at risk? Yes, about one-tenth, one-twentieth, one one-hundredth or one one-thousandth of the population, depending on where it is rerouted. So it is a little bit like saying: Why do we spend so much money worrying about the Sears Tower? It is there, it is big, and it is a target. Is it possible that a terrorist would go into a building that is two stories and blow it up? Yes. Can they fly an aircraft into a rural town grain elevator? Yes. But that is not what we are worried about. They are not likely to do that. They are likely to fly a plane, plant a bomb, do something devastating where the most people are. So I find it to be a totally disingenuous argument. This is about the bottom line. I measure the bottom line--as I suspect all of us would if we thought about it--in human life. The bottom line, in terms of the dollars, the impact that would occur in a catastrophic circumstance is if there is a town of 1,000 people and a town of 6 million people, there is a phenomenal difference whether that chlorine gas tanker car gets exploded. Let me summarize. It is indicated by the Department of Homeland Security again that an explosion of a rail tanker carrying chlorine would kill 17,500 individuals, require the hospitalization of another 100,000--and only then if we evacuate within a half an hour. We can evacuate a city of 1,000 people in half an hour. We cannot evacuate a city of 4 million people in half an hour. So it matters. If this rail tanker goes off in New York City, my friend from New York is going to be on the floor again pointing out the catastrophic impact. If it goes off in rural Delaware, it will be a tragedy for me and my constituency, but there will be a significant magnitude of difference. So everything we do in terms of allocation of resources goes in this place to deal with protecting the most people who can be protected: The shipment originates or the point of destination is in the high-threat corridor; no practical alternative routes exist. If they don't exist, it doesn't get rerouted. Rerouting would not increase the likelihood of an attack. It would decrease the likelihood of an attack because people attack targets that have the maximum impact. This would not increase the total number of cars on the track. It would allow the potential for homeland security to reroute them away from the places that would do the most damage. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, she is correct, but it only requires the Secretary to do it if he or she concludes that there is a safer way to reroute the shipment. If the conclusion made by the Secretary is that in a high-risk corridor the rerouting would not result in an increased safety margin for the shipment, then he or she need not reroute it. But it is correct, the presumption is, in a high- risk corridor we reroute if it is not a point of destination or origin but only if the determination by the Secretary is that the shipment, in fact, would be safer to be rerouted. It is on page 4 of the amendment. It is section 2, subparagraph E, ``Transportation and Storage of High Hazard Materials through High Threat Corridor'' areas. It says: In General.--The standards for the Secretary to grant exceptions under section (d)(4) shall require a finding by the Secretary that-- (A) the shipment originates or the point of destination is in the high threat corridor; (B) there is no practical alternative route; (C) there is an unanticipated, temporary emergency that threatens the lives of persons or property in the high threat corridor; (D) there would be no harm to persons or property beyond the owners or operator of the railroad in the event of a successful terrorist attack on shipment; or (E) rerouting would increase the likelihood of a terrorist attack on the shipment. The bottom line is that it should be left to the discretion of the Secretary to decide not to reroute rather than the privately owned railroad. I thank the Senator for her clarification. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 2 of Senate rule XXVI, I ask to have printed in the Record the rules of the Committee on Foreign Relations for the 110th Congress adopted by the committee on March 6, 2007.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I send to the desk two amendments. I am only going to speak to one, but I would like to send both to the desk so I have them offered. One is an amendment relating to funding of the homeland security effort, and the other is one relating to the ability for cities and States to reroute hazardous waste around their major metropolitan areas.

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

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, with regard to the first amendment, No. 383, which I am not going to take time to speak to today, is an amendment that allows cities and States to reroute hazardous material around their cities. In a nutshell, and I know no one knows this better than the Chair, and I mean that sincerely, these are 90-ton chlorine gas tank cars that go rolling through Newark on their way down through the corridor into my State and across my State. I once asked, not too long ago, the Naval Research Institute to give me an analysis of what would happen if one of those were to blow up in a metropolitan area. They said that 100,000 people would die--100,000 people would die. Yet this administration has opposed and we have not committed to allowing cities to reroute this hazardous material around their major metropolitan areas. That is one amendment which I will come back to at another time. At this moment I want to now speak to an amendment that is much broader, Amendment No. 384. We often say that September 11 changed everything. Well, it changed everything except it didn't change our behavior. It changed everything except when we look at the budget of this administration in the last 6 years, or 4 years since then, and if we look at our tax policy since then, we look at what hasn't changed. My dad used to have an expression, Mr. President. You probably heard me say it before: Show me your budget, I will tell you what you value. Tax cut after tax cut, overwhelmingly tilted to those who were at the highest end of the tax bracket, is what this outfit has valued. The truth is, we seem not to value protecting our cities, our homeland. The truth is, as the Presiding Officer knows better than anyone, living on the east coast in a State such as mine, only much larger, you know what the costs of the 9/11 Commission recommendations are. You know how few dollars we have spent implementing the recommendations. Literally from your home county, you could see the buildings collapse, the World Trade Center towers collapse. Thousands of people from your State were significantly affected, many were killed. We all ripped out our hair about how this was so terrible; we were going to not let this happen again. We went out there and took a real good look at what needed to be done when the 9/11 Commission came along. Precious little was done. Yet during the same period of time we made sure to help people earning more than a million dollars a year. I am not picking on them. I am happy. I hope my grandkids make over a million dollars a year. I hope everybody in America can. I have no problem with anybody making hundreds of millions of dollars. One of the things we forget on the Senate floor is that those folks are just as patriotic as poor folks. Those folks are just as patriotic as middle-class folks. They didn't ask for these massive tax cuts. They are prepared to give some of them back in order to make the country more safe, but we don't ask anything of them. So what happens? Just for this year, for households making more than $1 million a year, to put this in perspective, they are going to get a tax cut of $45 million. If you look at it from 2008 to 2017, that aggregate tax cut, if you are at an income where you make more than a million dollars a year, is going to be $739 billion. Households with incomes of that magnitude obviously take a big chunk of what are the fiscal priorities of this Nation. We just had a long discussion here about the grant programs and how we allocate funding to the various States. We debated that. But it is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic unless there is actual money dedicated to provide for these needs. What we have not done is we have not ensured a funding source. We have not provided the money needed to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations. I say to my colleagues that we have money to fund these programs. When I raised this last year and I talked about how much money was needed, as my friend from New Jersey has, they said: Oh, we can't afford it. Give me have a break. We can't afford it? We can afford over $700 billion in tax cuts for people making over $1 million a year, and we can't afford it? I will point out that it comes to about a $50 billion price tag over 5 years to implement all the 9/11 Commission Report. Can't afford it? Let me point out that the Congressional Budget Office recently released a study indicating H.R. 1, the House counterpart to this bill, will cost $21 billion, but the Senate bill we have here only costs $17 billion. There are a few comprehensive estimates of what all the 9/ 11 recommendations would cost, but I did what you did, I say to the Presiding Officer, and what others did--I went to a bunch of very smart people. I have been involved in this, as you have, from day one. We went in and costed it out, what it would cost for the main recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. The truth is, we are easily able to fund it. It is a lot more than that; it is $50 billion over 5 years, roughly. In addition we are not prepared in terms of homeland security relating to local cops, sheriffs--local police. If there is going to be somebody who is trying to put sarin gas into a complex in your State or mine, it is not going to be some brave special forces soldier in fatigues wearing night-vision goggles who is going to figure this thing out; it is going to be a local cop riding behind the arena and seeing someone getting out of a dumpster. If we are going to break up these rings, it is going to be intelligence, but also it will be a local cop walking a beat in Newark, NJ, or Wilmington, DE--or Newark, DE. ``By the way, those three apartments that have been vacant for the last 7 years, there are lights on in the window.'' What have we done? We slashed spending for local law enforcement. We slashed it $2.1 billion a year since this President has become President. Show me your budget, I will tell you what you value. It is a little bit like taking care of veterans. Show me your budget, I will tell you what you value. In addition, the study by the U.S. Conference of Mayors found that 75 percent of the cities in America do not have interoperable communications--75 percent. This is a disgrace. What do we need? We had Hurricane Katrina, we had 9/11--what else do we need to demonstrate that it is useful to have a local cop be able to speak to the National Guard that is called in, to be able to have somebody in the command center who can talk to everybody? Yet 75 percent of the cities do not have interoperable communications capability--one of the strongest recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission. As I said, while there is not a comprehensive assessment, I have spent a lot of time talking to experts and found that roughly for an additional $10.3 billion a year, we can implement all of the 9/11 recommendations--all of them, including provisions in this title--and do other commonsense things we know will make us more safe, such as reinvesting in local police. The bottom line is this: If we simply commit to taking back a small fraction of the cuts for those making over $1 million a year, we can pay for all the security upgrades we need. Here is how it would work. My amendment simply puts the Senate on record calling for the Finance Committee to report legislation to provide $53 billion in funding for homeland security to be placed in the homeland security trust fund. It is called a Homeland Security and Neighborhood Safety Trust Fund. From this trust fund, we require that spending be dedicated toward initiatives and grant programs authorized in this legislation, including the Urban Area Security Initiative, the State Homeland Security Grant Program, emergency management performance grants, and rail and transit security grants. It would reinstate the COPS Program, the FIRE Act grants, SAFER grants, and the Justice Assistance grants, which provide essential support to State and local police, allowing them to coordinate with the Federal Government. It would be funding enhancements in interoperable communications, improve port security, including working toward 100 percent scanning of cargo containers, and upgrade and better prepare the Nation's public health sector to respond to acts of bioterrorism and nuclear terrorism. I ask all my colleagues in earshot of my voice, go to the largest cities in your States and go to the emergency rooms in your hospitals. Ask how many times they have to close down their hospitals. They send out to all the ambulance drivers in the entire region that would be serviced by them a statement saying: We can't take any more today. What in God's name are we doing to prepare these hospitals and infrastructure for a terrorist attack? We also have to upgrade and develop new scanning technology to detect dangerous substances. That is what this money would be allowed to be used for. When I introduced this legislation last year and got a vote, I explained how I would allocate the $10.3 billion. I put $1 billion in here for interoperability, I put in $1 billion to promote 100 percent cargo container scanning, $500 million to bolster the public health infrastructure, and $100 million to improve government-wide information sharing. In order to leave what should be left--I took out these specific allocations in order to give to my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee and the Homeland Security Committee more discretion on how to spend the additional money in the outyears. I withheld the specifics. It is just an order to the relevant committees to come up with how to spend that money. Any way you slice it, this will leave the most fortunate among us still very fortunate but will take, from over $736 billion, $52 billion. No one in this Chamber can tell me that there is anyone out there who is going to say that is not fair. No one can tell me that will have a scintilla of a negative impact on the economy. No one can argue, I respectfully suggest--and I invite them to do it--that, in fact, these things are not needed, what I am talking about here. These were all talked about by various Senators. The numbers are clear. Those who need the least help are getting the most from the current tax cuts, and those fortunate Americans are twice blessed. They are blessed by our efforts in this bill, and they are blessed by the fact that they are doing very well through their own hard work. I have said before, of the many opportunities squandered since 9/11, the most tragic opportunity squandered by this administration is the failure to call our country together, to give all of us a part to play in response to the new threats we face, not just middle-class folks who are sending their husbands, wives, sons, and daughters to Iraq and Afghanistan to try to protect us. But despite the rhetoric that calls upon the proud recollections of our national purpose in conflicts such as World War II and the Cold War, on this floor there has been an incredible vacuum of leadership. Those Presidents asked something of the American people. What has been asked except forfeit commitments to health care, education, and energy security? And where does that burden fall? It falls on working women and men. Let me just say as my time begins to expire that I know those who are very well off. I know they are willing to do this. I had an opportunity to speak to a group of 50 people advertised to me as among the most wealthy people in the nation. It was a group of investors. I spoke before them, and I said to them that this is what I wanted to do. I said: Does anybody in here disagree with that? It was advertised to me that a significant portion of these people were actually billionaires. When I raised that question, there was silence in the room, and finally one guy honestly put his hand up. He said: I am not too sure I am. I am not too sure you won't go out and waste the money. I said: Will you support it if I come forward and do what I did in the crime bill I wrote years ago, I drafted years ago--set up a trust fund, and the money we take from this tax cut to get this $50 billion- plus will be put into a trust fund, and it can only be used for homeland security and neighborhood safety? Would you support it then? I got an ovation, literally an ovation, mostly a standing ovation, I say to you, Mr. President, from these extremely wealthy people. The wealthy are ready to commit just as the middle class and poor are. Mr. President, I end where I began. As my dad used to say, don't tell me what you value, show me your budget. Don't anyone on this floor presume to tell me, in the years I have spent here, that this country cannot afford to spend, over the next 5 years, $10.2 billion a year to make this Nation safer. Please don't anyone suggest that it is not possible to pay for this when, in fact, you have a tax policy that is so out of whack that even the people who are benefiting the most from it are willing to contribute to our national security. If we ask the sons and daughters, husbands and wives, mothers and fathers in each of our towns and cities to send their children, their husbands and wives to protect us abroad, we sure in the devil can ask the people making over $1 million a year--a total tax break of over $736 billion over the next several years--to contribute $10.2 billion a year out of that tax cut. I am confident they are ready. They just need to be asked. I hope, when the appropriate time comes, my colleagues will favorably consider my amendment. I yield the floor. Amendments Nos. 316 and 342

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a Senate resolution designating March 8, 2007, as International Women's Day. Since 1911, International Women's Day has provided a chance for people all over the world to pause and observe the remarkable steps that women have made in their fight for equality and recommit themselves to dosing lingering gender disparities. I am particularly pleased that I am joined by a tremendous group of women who are original co-sponsors of today's measure, Senators Boxer, Cantwell, Clinton, Feinstein, Klobuchar, Landrieu, Mikulski, Murray and Stabenow. These nine senators are living testament to the progress and promise of women's achievements. They are trailblazers and role models to whom we owe a great deal of gratitude. Besides the steady increase in the number of women senators, I need only look down the hallway to see another sign of extraordinary progress in 2007--the first ever woman Speaker of House, Representative Nancy Pelosi. Similar electoral accomplishments can be found in other countries. For instance, Michelle Bachelet became the first female President of Chile and Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf became first female President in Liberia in the history of Africa. In 2005, Angela Merkel became the first female Chancellor of Germany. Of course, participation in the political process is but one marker of women's empowerment and equal footing. Access to education, economic security, employment nondiscrimination, eradication of poverty, equality before the law, access to HIV/AIDS prevention and other health care services, and freedom from gender-based violence, including human trafficking--these are all critical benchmarks of women's progress. An essential component to achieving gender equality is ending violence against women--an issue about which I care deeply. The time is now to concentrate our energies on efforts to end domestic and sexual violence abroad. Last year Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act of 2005, an accomplishment that shows real consensus and momentum to end gender- based violence and heal America's families. The United Nations and the World Health Organizations have released ground-breaking studies on the prevalence and impact of domestic violence globally. Finally, international service organizations are finding that their efforts to help women in the field, be it opening the school doors to girls or getting HIV/AIDS medicine to young women, are ultimately ineffectual if we do not help these same women escape from violent homes. Furthermore, gender-based violence is pervasive in conflicts around the globe. In Darfur, women are systematically raped as a weapon of war. In Afghanistan, Safia Ama Jan, became the first female assassinated since the fall of the Taliban. Just last week, two Iraqi women accused the Iraqi national security forces of gang-raping them in Baghdad headquarters. This year's theme for International Women's Day is ``Ending Impunity for Violence Against Women and Girls''--a fitting mandate for all of us. I am working on legislative measures to fight the global epidemic of gender-based violence. In addition, International Women's Day is also a perfect opportunity for the Administration to review its position and support ratification of the International Women's Rights Treaty (formally known as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)). I whole heartedly support this human rights treaty that brings together in one document women's economic, social, cultural, civil and political rights and is an important tool for women rights advocates around the globe. I've said it before, but it bears repeating: Ending the systemic discrimination of women is not just a woman's issue, it is not just the responsibility of heads of state or Nobel Peace Prize winners, it is everyone's moral responsibility. You cannot build peace and you cannot build democracy when half of the population is not free. And no country can reach its full potential when women are not allowed to fully contribute. Spreading democracy must mean empowering women, ending domestic and sexual violence and holding abusers fully accountable. I urge my colleagues to join our Resolution to Commemorate International Women's Day on March 8th and thank advocates everywhere who work day in and day out I to improve women's lives.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, do I have 5 minutes?

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, today, the Senate has an opportunity--and a responsibility--to begin to end the escalation of the war in Iraq and to start us toward a new strategy for leaving Iraq without leaving chaos behind. Our responsibility is to debate and vote on the resolution passed by the House of Representatives that says that Congress disapproves of the President's plan to deploy more than 20,000 additional American combat troops to Iraq. The question before us today is whether a miniority of Senators will even allow the debate to start. That is what we are about to vote on. To my colleagues who are thinking about trying to block debate, let me say this: Iraq dominates our national life. It is on the minds of tens of millions of Americans. It shapes the lives of hundreds of thousands of our men and woman in uniform and their families. That the Senate would not even debate, much less vote on, the single most urgent issue of our time, would be a total failure of our responsibility. We have a duty to debate and vote on the President's plan. We have a duty to debate and vote on our overall strategy in Iraq. We have to demonstrate the courage of our convictions. Last month, Secretary of State Rice presented the President's plan for Iraq to the Foreign Relations Committee. Its main feature is to send more American troops into Baghdad, in the middle of a sectarian civil war. The reaction on the committee, from Republicans and Democrats alike, ranged from skepticism to profound skepticism to outright opposition. And that pretty much reflects the reaction across the country. Every Senator should be given a chance to vote whether he or she approves or disagrees with the President's plan to send more troops into the middle of a civil war. The debate I hope that we will have is as important as the vote. I predict the American people will hear very few of our colleagues stand up and support the President's plan to send more troops into the middle of a civil war. Listen to those voices. Some minimize the significance of a nonbinding resolution. If it is so meaningless, why did the White House and the President's political supporters mobilize so much energy against it? Why is a minority of Senators trying to prevent the Senate from talking about it? Opposing the surge is only a first step. We need a radical change in course in Iraq. If the President won't act, Congress must. But Congress must act responsibly. We must resist the temptation to push for changes that sound good but produce bad results. The best next step is to revisit the authorization Congress granted the President in 2002 to use force in Iraq. We gave the President that power to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and, if necessary, to depose Saddam Hussein. The WMD were not there. Saddam Hussein is no longer there. The 2002 authorization is no longer relevant to the situation in Iraq. Legislation I'm working on would repeal that authorization and replace it with a much narrower mission statement for our troops in Iraq. Congress should make clear what the mission of our troops is: to responsibly draw down, while continuing to combat terrorists, train Iraqis and respond to emergencies. We should make equally clear what their mission is not: to stay in Iraq indefinitely and get mired in a savage civil war. Coupled with the Biden-Gelb plan that offers the possibility of a political settlement in Iraq, I believe this is the most effective way to start bringing our troops home without leaving a mess behind. But for today, my message is simple: the American people want us to debate Iraq, the most important issue of our day. They expect it. They demand it. If we try to hide behind procedure and delaying tactics, the American people will hold us accountable. They get it. The question is: do we? Madam President, again, today we have the opportunity to do something we have not done on the floor of the U.S. Senate in the last 4 years; that is, to actually debate Iraq. This is the first opportunity we are going to have to do that. I know a number of people say: This is not binding, so why are we doing it? If it doesn't matter, why is there such an effort to keep us from talking about it, an effort to continue to fight us in being able to do this? Madam President, I say to my colleagues that if we fail to invoke cloture here, we are not permitted to debate this issue, and I don't know what it says to the American people about what we are all about. I don't know whether anybody has noticed, but the American public is seized with this issue. It is the issue. It is the issue everybody is discussing at the kitchen table. It is the issue every man, woman, husband, wife, mother, and father with someone in the National Guard or in the U.S. military is talking about. It is the issue. The Senate is being silenced on it, even being prevented from debating whether we can talk about making a simple statement that: Mr. President, you are wrong; don't escalate this war. The truth is, our voices, quite frankly, are as important as our votes. The President will find, if we have a full-blown debate on the floor of the Senate, there are precious few people on this floor who think he is handling this war correctly. Instead of escalating the war, we should be drawing down our forces. I predict the American people hear, as I said, very few of our colleagues talking about what a good idea this is, what the President has in mind. So to echo the comments made by my colleague from New York, if, in fact, we are precluded from even debating the issue of whether we oppose the President's escalation of the war, surely you are going to see more coming to the floor. I have been working with the Senator from Massachusetts and others on a piece of legislation that would literally rescind the President's authority--the authority we gave him to go to war in the first place-- and redefine the mission very narrowly. Look, there is going to be a lot of discussion, whether we debate today or not, on Iraq. There is going to be a lot of discussion about what to do next. It will range from cutting off funding, to capping troops, to a number of other proposals. The truth is, we are being presented with a false choice up to now. We are either told we have to stay the course and escalate the war or the other choice is to bring our troops home and hope for the best. The truth is that none of this will matter. We are going to have to bring everybody home if they don't get a political solution in Iraq. There is only one: a federal system. Listen to what their Constitution says. Even the National Intelligence Estimate, the estimate of all of the intelligence agencies, says--and I am paraphrasing it--that the Sunnis have to accept regionalism and the Kurds and Shias have to give the Sunnis a bigger piece of the action in order for them to do that. I point out to everybody, when civil wars begin in other countries, there are only a few things that stop them: One side wins and there is carnage; two, an occupying force stays there indefinitely; or, three, you end up in a situation where they have a federal state. The President should get about the business of pursuing not a military solution here but a political solution. He should be calling an international conference, getting all of the parties in a room, as we did in Dayton, convincing our allies and the region that the only outcome that has any possibility of surviving is the federal state, as their Constitution calls for. I conclude by saying that the American people expect--quite frankly, I think they demand--that we start to intelligently debate this subject rather than doing it by way of talk shows and Sunday appearances on TV. We should be debating on this floor. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, may I get in the queue?

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, we will hear a lot, today and this week, of phrases such as ``last best chance,'' ``refuse to endorse an alternative plan,'' ``Iraq is a central front of the war on terror.'' Virtually no one subscribes to any of those three points--all of the experts who have given testimony, the Iraqi Study Group, the plans that have been put forward that are real alternatives. The President has not put forward a plan. He has put forward a tactic, a tactic that most experts, including his own military, think will make a plan for success less likely to be able to be arrived at. No one in this Senate, at least in this debate, at least from my perspective, is calling for us cutting and running--none of that. I hope we keep our eye focused, our eye on the ball. The Senate is today taking a first step toward a bipartisan effort to prevent the escalation of a war in Iraq and to adapt a strategy for Iraq for leaving Iraq without leaving behind chaos. The first step is to debate and vote the resolution offered by Senator Warner and reintroduced by Senator Levin and me as a bill. That says the Senate disagrees with the President's plan to send 17,500 more American troops into the middle of a city of over 6.2 million people in the midst of a civil war, because what we are afraid of is that the Senator from Texas may be right; this may make things so bad that everyone will conclude there is no more chance of succeeding. We have vital interests in that region. I am afraid this policy, this tactic of the President, is going to be a self-fulfilling prophesy. The question before us today is whether a minority of Senators will even allow a debate to start. That is what this is about. All they have to do--there will be other resolutions brought up; they are able to be brought up--all they have to do is take issue with this. They can stop the debate by getting 41 votes. But they can actually engage in debate and try to defeat the notion, when the message of this resolution is: Mr. President, stop. No more escalation, Mr. President. Everyone from the Iraq Study Group to the Biden-Gelb plan, to every other plan that has been put out there says the way to get the Iraqis to reach a political solution is to begin to draw down American forces. No one, including General Petraeus, whom I know fairly well, suggests there is a military answer. A political solution is required. So to my colleagues who are thinking about trying to block the debate, let me say this: Iraq dominates our national life. It is on the minds of tens of millions of Americans. It shapes the lives of hundreds of thousands of our men and women in uniform and their families. And that the Senate would not even debate, much less vote, on the single most urgent issue of our time would be a total forfeiture of our responsibility. We have a duty to debate and to vote on the President's tactic. We have a duty to debate and vote on our overall strategy in Iraq. And we have a duty as Senators to speak out and say where we are. Three weeks ago, Secretary of State Rice came before the Foreign Relations Committee and presented the President's plan. Its main feature is to send more troops, increase the total number of troops, and send them into Baghdad in the middle of a sectarian war. The reaction on the committee, from Republicans to Democrats alike, ranged from skepticism, to profound skepticism, to outright opposition. That pretty much reflects the reaction all across the country. So Senator Hagel joined me and Senator Lugar and Senator Snowe. We sat down and wrote a resolution to give Senators a way to vote what their voices were saying, for we believe the quickest and most effective way to get the President to change course is to demonstrate to him that his policy has little or no support across the board, Democrats and Republicans. After we introduced the resolution, the distinguished ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner, came forward with his resolution. The bottom line of the resolutions is the same: Mr. President, don't send more Americans into the middle of a civil war. There was one critical difference. As originally written, the Warner resolution left open the possibility of increasing the overall number of troops in Iraq, when in fact the Iraq Study Group and others said we should be declining to get action from the politicians in Iraq. We believe that would have sent the wrong message. Not ramp up; again, to draw down, redeploy forces remaining in Iraq. And the best way to make that clear to the Iraqi people is to let them know we are not going to be there forever, as the President said. And they must begin to make the hard compromises necessary for a political solution that virtually everyone agrees is necessary to end this war. So we approached Senator Warner to work out our differences, and I am very pleased to say we succeeded in doing that. The language Senator Warner removed from his resolution removed the possibility that it could be read as calling for a troop increase. With that change, we agreed to support his resolution. And I do. When I first spoke out against the President's planned surge before the New Year, I made it clear I had one objective: I hoped to build and demonstrate bipartisan opposition to this plan because it was the fastest way to turn the President around. And that is exactly what we have done. Now we have a real opportunity for the Senate to speak clearly. Every Senator should be given a chance to vote on whether he or she approves or disapproves of the President's tactic to send more troops into the middle of a civil war. The debate we will have is important, but the debate is as important as the vote. And I hope the American people carefully listen. I predict they will hear very few colleagues stand up and support the President's plan to send more troops into the middle of a civil war. Listen to the voices. Listen to the voices as well as the votes. Just as important as what we are voting against is what we are voting for. This bill, similar to the Biden-Hagel-Levin-Snowe provision, makes three things clear. First, Iraq needs a political settlement. Second, the United States has to work with other regional powers. And third, the mission of our forces should be confined to counterterrorism, training, and maintaining the territorial integrity of Iraq. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. BIDEN. I will continue, Mr. President. As I said at the outset, this is the first step, this rejection of the President's increase of more troops into Iraq into the middle of a civil war. But it can set the foundation for everything that follows. If the President does not listen to the majority of Congress and the majority of the American people, we will have to look for other ways to turn this surge around. Even if we succeed in this effort, we still need to turn our overall policy around. We need a strategy that can produce a political settlement in Iraq. That is the only way to stop the Shiites and the Sunnis from killing each other and to allow our troops to leave Iraq at an appropriate time without trading a dictator for chaos. But today my message is simple. The American people want us to debate Iraq, the most important issue of our day. They expect it. They demand it. And if we attempt to hide behind procedure and delaying tactics, I believe the American people will not be very happy. They get it. The question is, Do we? Are you for or against the President escalating this war in Iraq? I am against it. I believe the majority of Members on both sides are as well. We should vote on that. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. BIDEN

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

Mr. BIDEN

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

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I would like to make a few brief comments this morning on the Warner resolution and the negotiations that went on yesterday, led by Senator Levin, to deal with Iraq. Three weeks ago before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Secretary Rice presented the President's plan for Iraq. The Presiding Officer, among others, was there. Its main feature was to send more American troops into Baghdad, in the middle of a sectarian war, in the middle of a city of over 6 million people. The reaction to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee from Republicans and Democrats alike ranged from profound skepticism to outright opposition. That pretty much reflected the reaction across the country. Consequently, Senators Hagel, Levin, Snowe, and I wrote a resolution to give Senators a way to vote their voices, vote what they had said. We believe, the four of us, and I know the Presiding Officer does, as well, that the quickest, most effective way to get the President to change his course is to demonstrate to him that his policy has little or no support in this Senate, in our committee, or, quite frankly, across the country. After we introduced our resolution, Senator Warner came forward with his resolution. The bottom line of the resolution is essentially the same, and it was: Don't send more American troops into the middle of a civil war. There was one critical difference between the Biden-Levin and the Warner amendment. Senator Warner's resolution, in one paragraph, left open, I think unintentionally, the possibility of increasing the overall number of American troops in Iraq--just not in Baghdad. So from our perspective it wasn't enough to say don't go into Baghdad with more troops; we wanted to say don't raise the number of troops, as well. The provision in the Warner amendment that allowed for that, if read by the President the way he would want to read it, I believe, would have allowed an increase in troops. We believe very strongly--Senator Levin, myself, Hagel, Snowe--that would send the wrong message. We ought to be drawing down in Iraq, not ramping up. We ought to be redeploying, not deploying into Baghdad. We should make it clear to the Iraqi leaders that they have to begin to make the hard compromises necessary for a political solution. A political solution everyone virtually agrees on is the precondition for anything positive happening in Iraq. Now, I make it clear, I and everyone else in this Senate knows that it is not an easy thing for the Iraqi leadership to do, but it is absolutely essential. So we approached Senator Warner several times to try to work out the difference between the Biden and the Warner resolutions. I am very pleased that last night, through the leadership of Senator Warner and Senator Levin, we succeeded in doing just that. The language Senator Warner removed from his resolution removed the possibility that it can be read as calling for more troops in Iraq. With that change, I am very pleased to join Senator Levin, now known as the Levin-Warner resolution, as a cosponsor of that resolution. For my intent, at the outset when I first spoke out about the President's planned surge of American forces in Iraq, when I spoke out before the new year, I made it clear that my purpose was to build bipartisan opposition to his plan because that was the best way to get him to reconsider. That is exactly what this compromise does. Now we have a real opportunity for the Senate to speak clearly. Every Senator will have a chance to vote on whether he or she supports or disagrees with the President's plan to send more troops into the middle of a civil war. If the President does not listen to the majority of the Congress--and I expect the majority of Congress will vote for our resolution--if he does not respond to a majority of the Congress and a majority of the American people, we will have to look for other ways to change his policy. But this is a very important first step. Also, I would like to take a moment to present what I believe are the principal findings of our 4 weeks of hearings, over 50 hours, if I am not mistaken, of hearings in the Foreign Relations Committee. While no unanimous prescription has emerged, there is remarkably broad consensus on three main points: First, American troops cannot stop sectarian warfare in Iraq, only a political settlement can do that; the second point of consensus, we must engage in intensive regional diplomacy to support the settlement among Iraqis; third, the U.S. military should focus on combatting terrorists, keeping Iraq's neighbors honest, training Iraq's troops--not on policing a civil war. Indeed, combat troops should start to redeploy as soon as our mission is narrowed. Those three points were overwhelmingly agreed upon by an array of the most well informed foreign policy experts, both military and civilian, that we have arrayed before that committee in a long time. Since a political settlement is so critical, we have examined this issue in detail. We have looked at the benchmarks the President has proposed--on oil law, debaathification reform, constitutional reform, and provincial elections--but the divisions are so deep and passions run so high now in Iraq we may be beyond the point where such modest measures can stabilize Iraq. I believe, and have believed for some time, something much broader is necessary, something much bolder is necessary. Les Gelb, the chairman emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations and a former Defense Department official, and I put forward just such a proposal 9 months ago. It is premised upon our conviction that the heart of the administration's strategy--building a strong central government--will, in fact, not succeed. As a matter of fact, in the testimony we heard, most pointed out where countries have been drawn by the slip of a pen by world leaders after World War I and World War II--the Balkans, Iraq, and many other places we could name--there have basically only been two models that have brought stability: A straw plan, a la Saddam, or a Federal system, a la the Iraqi Constitution. The reason a strong central government will not work, although desirable, is there is no trust within the Government, no trust of the Government by the people of Iraq, no capacity of the Government to deliver services, no capacity of this new Government to deliver security. In a sense, it is understandable. Indeed, we must bring Iraqis' problems and the responsibility of managing those problems down to local and regional levels where we can help the Iraqis build trust and capacity much more quickly and much more effectively. We have proposed that the Iraqis create what their constitution calls for: three or more ``regions'' they call them--not republics--three or four more regions consistent with their constitution. We call for Iraq's oil to be shared equally with a guarantee that the Sunnis get their share and have some international oversight to guarantee it. We call for aggressive diplomacy--which, again, most every witness called for, including the Iraq Study Group--we call for aggressive diplomacy in the creation of a contact group consisting of Iraq's neighbors and the major powers in the world, including large Islamic countries to support a political settlement. We believe we can redeploy most, if not all, of America's troops from Iraq within 18 months under this plan, leaving behind a small force in Iraq or in the region to strike at terrorists, the jihadists, the al- Qaidaists, keeping the neighbors honest, and training Iraqi forces. The time has demonstrated this plan is more relevant and inevitable than it was even the day we put pen to paper and set it out 9 months ago. It takes into account the harsh reality of self-sustaining sectarian violence; it is consistent with Iraq's Constitution; and it can produce a phrase used by a New York Times columnist in describing our plan. It can produce ``a soft landing'' for Iraq and prevent a full-blown civil war that tears the country apart and spreads beyond its borders. I might also add, as people have come to understand, what I am calling for is not partitioning, not three separate republics; what I am calling for is what the Iraqi Constitution calls for: decentralization of control over security and local laws with the central government having responsibility for the Army, distribution of resources and currency and other things that a central government must do. As that has become clearer and clearer, some of the most powerful voices in the American foreign policy establishment have come forward to suggest it makes sense. Secretary Kissinger told our committee yesterday: I'm sympathetic to an outcome that permits large regional autonomy. In fact, I think it is very likely this will emerge out of the conflict that we are now witnessing. Former Secretary of State Albright said: . . . the idea of the . . . constitution of Iraq as written, which allows for and mandates, in fact, a great deal of regional autonomy, is appropriate. James Baker, former Secretary of State, coauthor of the Baker- Hamilton commission report told us that there are indications that Iraq may be moving toward three autonomous regions, and ``if it is, we ought to be prepared to try and manage the situation.'' Time is running out. We are going to have as a consequence of the compromise reached between the Biden-Levin resolution and the Warner resolution, now known as the ``Levin-Warner whoever else is attached to it'' resolution--we are going to have for the first time a full-blown debate in the Senate. I hope the administration will be listening. I suggest we are coequal--Congress, along with the President--in deciding when, if, how long, and under what circumstances to send Americans to war, for shedding America's treasure and blood. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I would like to make a few brief comments this morning on the Warner resolution and the negotiations that went on yesterday, led by Senator Levin, to deal with Iraq. Three weeks ago before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Secretary Rice presented the President's plan for Iraq. The Presiding Officer, among others, was there. Its main feature was to send more American troops into Baghdad, in the middle of a sectarian war, in the middle of a city of over 6 million people. The reaction to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee from Republicans and Democrats alike ranged from profound skepticism to outright opposition. That pretty much reflected the reaction across the country. Consequently, Senators Hagel, Levin, Snowe, and I wrote a resolution to give Senators a way to vote their voices, vote what they had said. We believe, the four of us, and I know the Presiding Officer does, as well, that the quickest, most effective way to get the President to change his course is to demonstrate to him that his policy has little or no support in this Senate, in our committee, or, quite frankly, across the country. After we introduced our resolution, Senator Warner came forward with his resolution. The bottom line of the resolution is essentially the same, and it was: Don't send more American troops into the middle of a civil war. There was one critical difference between the Biden-Levin and the Warner amendment. Senator Warner's resolution, in one paragraph, left open, I think unintentionally, the possibility of increasing the overall number of American troops in Iraq--just not in Baghdad. So from our perspective it wasn't enough to say don't go into Baghdad with more troops; we wanted to say don't raise the number of troops, as well. The provision in the Warner amendment that allowed for that, if read by the President the way he would want to read it, I believe, would have allowed an increase in troops. We believe very strongly--Senator Levin, myself, Hagel, Snowe--that would send the wrong message. We ought to be drawing down in Iraq, not ramping up. We ought to be redeploying, not deploying into Baghdad. We should make it clear to the Iraqi leaders that they have to begin to make the hard compromises necessary for a political solution. A political solution everyone virtually agrees on is the precondition for anything positive happening in Iraq. Now, I make it clear, I and everyone else in this Senate knows that it is not an easy thing for the Iraqi leadership to do, but it is absolutely essential. So we approached Senator Warner several times to try to work out the difference between the Biden and the Warner resolutions. I am very pleased that last night, through the leadership of Senator Warner and Senator Levin, we succeeded in doing just that. The language Senator Warner removed from his resolution removed the possibility that it can be read as calling for more troops in Iraq. With that change, I am very pleased to join Senator Levin, now known as the Levin-Warner resolution, as a cosponsor of that resolution. For my intent, at the outset when I first spoke out about the President's planned surge of American forces in Iraq, when I spoke out before the new year, I made it clear that my purpose was to build bipartisan opposition to his plan because that was the best way to get him to reconsider. That is exactly what this compromise does. Now we have a real opportunity for the Senate to speak clearly. Every Senator will have a chance to vote on whether he or she supports or disagrees with the President's plan to send more troops into the middle of a civil war. If the President does not listen to the majority of the Congress--and I expect the majority of Congress will vote for our resolution--if he does not respond to a majority of the Congress and a majority of the American people, we will have to look for other ways to change his policy. But this is a very important first step. Also, I would like to take a moment to present what I believe are the principal findings of our 4 weeks of hearings, over 50 hours, if I am not mistaken, of hearings in the Foreign Relations Committee. While no unanimous prescription has emerged, there is remarkably broad consensus on three main points: First, American troops cannot stop sectarian warfare in Iraq, only a political settlement can do that; the second point of consensus, we must engage in intensive regional diplomacy to support the settlement among Iraqis; third, the U.S. military should focus on combatting terrorists, keeping Iraq's neighbors honest, training Iraq's troops--not on policing a civil war. Indeed, combat troops should start to redeploy as soon as our mission is narrowed. Those three points were overwhelmingly agreed upon by an array of the most well informed foreign policy experts, both military and civilian, that we have arrayed before that committee in a long time. Since a political settlement is so critical, we have examined this issue in detail. We have looked at the benchmarks the President has proposed--on oil law, debaathification reform, constitutional reform, and provincial elections--but the divisions are so deep and passions run so high now in Iraq we may be beyond the point where such modest measures can stabilize Iraq. I believe, and have believed for some time, something much broader is necessary, something much bolder is necessary. Les Gelb, the chairman emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations and a former Defense Department official, and I put forward just such a proposal 9 months ago. It is premised upon our conviction that the heart of the administration's strategy--building a strong central government--will, in fact, not succeed. As a matter of fact, in the testimony we heard, most pointed out where countries have been drawn by the slip of a pen by world leaders after World War I and World War II--the Balkans, Iraq, and many other places we could name--there have basically only been two models that have brought stability: A straw plan, a la Saddam, or a Federal system, a la the Iraqi Constitution. The reason a strong central government will not work, although desirable, is there is no trust within the Government, no trust of the Government by the people of Iraq, no capacity of the Government to deliver services, no capacity of this new Government to deliver security. In a sense, it is understandable. Indeed, we must bring Iraqis' problems and the responsibility of managing those problems down to local and regional levels where we can help the Iraqis build trust and capacity much more quickly and much more effectively. We have proposed that the Iraqis create what their constitution calls for: three or more ``regions'' they call them--not republics--three or four more regions consistent with their constitution. We call for Iraq's oil to be shared equally with a guarantee that the Sunnis get their share and have some international oversight to guarantee it. We call for aggressive diplomacy--which, again, most every witness called for, including the Iraq Study Group--we call for aggressive diplomacy in the creation of a contact group consisting of Iraq's neighbors and the major powers in the world, including large Islamic countries to support a political settlement. We believe we can redeploy most, if not all, of America's troops from Iraq within 18 months under this plan, leaving behind a small force in Iraq or in the region to strike at terrorists, the jihadists, the al- Qaidaists, keeping the neighbors honest, and training Iraqi forces. The time has demonstrated this plan is more relevant and inevitable than it was even the day we put pen to paper and set it out 9 months ago. It takes into account the harsh reality of self-sustaining sectarian violence; it is consistent with Iraq's Constitution; and it can produce a phrase used by a New York Times columnist in describing our plan. It can produce ``a soft landing'' for Iraq and prevent a full-blown civil war that tears the country apart and spreads beyond its borders. I might also add, as people have come to understand, what I am calling for is not partitioning, not three separate republics; what I am calling for is what the Iraqi Constitution calls for: decentralization of control over security and local laws with the central government having responsibility for the Army, distribution of resources and currency and other things that a central government must do. As that has become clearer and clearer, some of the most powerful voices in the American foreign policy establishment have come forward to suggest it makes sense. Secretary Kissinger told our committee yesterday: I'm sympathetic to an outcome that permits large regional autonomy. In fact, I think it is very likely this will emerge out of the conflict that we are now witnessing. Former Secretary of State Albright said: . . . the idea of the . . . constitution of Iraq as written, which allows for and mandates, in fact, a great deal of regional autonomy, is appropriate. James Baker, former Secretary of State, coauthor of the Baker- Hamilton commission report told us that there are indications that Iraq may be moving toward three autonomous regions, and ``if it is, we ought to be prepared to try and manage the situation.'' Time is running out. We are going to have as a consequence of the compromise reached between the Biden-Levin resolution and the Warner resolution, now known as the ``Levin-Warner whoever else is attached to it'' resolution--we are going to have for the first time a full-blown debate in the Senate. I hope the administration will be listening. I suggest we are coequal--Congress, along with the President--in deciding when, if, how long, and under what circumstances to send Americans to war, for shedding America's treasure and blood. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the State and Local Law Enforcement Discipline Accountability, and Due Process Act of 2007. These are trying times for the men and women on our front lines who provide our domestic security and public safety--our Nation's law enforcement personnel. Indeed, they face one of the most difficult work environments imaginable--an average of 165 police officers are killed in the line of duty every year. Our Nation's law enforcement officers put themselves in harms way on a daily basis to ensure the safety of their fellow citizens and the domestic security of our Nation. Nevertheless, many times these brave officers do not receive basic rights if they become involved in internal police investigations or administrative hearings. According to the National Association of Police Organizations, ``[i]n roughly half of the states in this country, officers enjoy some legal protections against false accusations and abusive conduct, but hundreds of thousands of officers have very limited due process rights and confront limitations on their exercise of other rights, such as the right to engage in political activities.'' Similarly, the Fraternal Order of Police notes that, ``[i]n a startling number of jurisdictions throughout this country, law enforcement officers have no procedural or administrative protections whatsoever; in fact, they can be, and frequently are, summarily dismissed from their jobs without explanation. Officers who lose their careers due to administrative or political expediency almost always find it impossible to find new employment in public safety. An officer's reputation, once tarnished by accusation, is almost impossible to restore.'' The legislation being introduced today, which is endorsed by the Fraternal Order of Police and of the National Association of Police Organizations, seeks to provide officers with certain basic protections in those jurisdictions where such workplace protections are not currently provided. First, this bill allows law enforcement officials to engage in political activities when they are off-duty. Second, it provides standards and procedures to guide State and local law enforcement agencies during internal investigations, interrogations, and administrative disciplinary hearings. Additionally, it calls upon States to develop and enforce these disciplinary procedures. The bill would preempt State laws which confer fewer rights than those provided for in the legislation, but it would not preempt any State or local laws that confer rights or protections that are equal to or exceed the rights and protections afforded in the bill. For example, my own State of Delaware has a law enforcement officers' bill of rights, and those procedures would not be impacted by the provisions of this bill. This bill will also include important provisions that will enhance the ability of citizens to hold their local police departments accountable. The legislation includes provisions that will ensure citizen complaints against police officers are investigated and that citizens are informed of the outcome of these investigations. The bill balances the rights of police officers with the rights of citizens to raise valid concerns about the conduct of some of these officers. In addition, I have consulted with constitutional experts who have opined that the bill is consistent with Congress' powers under the Commerce Clause and that it does not run afoul of the Supreme Court's Tenth Amendment jurisprudence. I would also like to note that I understand the objections that many management groups, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police's, have to this measure. I have discussed this with them, and I've pledged that their views will be heard and considered as this bill is debated in Congress. It is my view that we must bridge this gap. Without a meeting of the minds between police management and union officials, the enactment of a meaningful law enforcement officers' bill of rights will be difficult. Law enforcement officials are facing unprecedented challenges, and management and labor simply must work together on this issue and the numerous other issues facing the law enforcement community. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the State and Local Law Enforcement Discipline Accountability, and Due Process Act of 2007. These are trying times for the men and women on our front lines who provide our domestic security and public safety--our Nation's law enforcement personnel. Indeed, they face one of the most difficult work environments imaginable--an average of 165 police officers are killed in the line of duty every year. Our Nation's law enforcement officers put themselves in harms way on a daily basis to ensure the safety of their fellow citizens and the domestic security of our Nation. Nevertheless, many times these brave officers do not receive basic rights if they become involved in internal police investigations or administrative hearings. According to the National Association of Police Organizations, ``[i]n roughly half of the states in this country, officers enjoy some legal protections against false accusations and abusive conduct, but hundreds of thousands of officers have very limited due process rights and confront limitations on their exercise of other rights, such as the right to engage in political activities.'' Similarly, the Fraternal Order of Police notes that, ``[i]n a startling number of jurisdictions throughout this country, law enforcement officers have no procedural or administrative protections whatsoever; in fact, they can be, and frequently are, summarily dismissed from their jobs without explanation. Officers who lose their careers due to administrative or political expediency almost always find it impossible to find new employment in public safety. An officer's reputation, once tarnished by accusation, is almost impossible to restore.'' The legislation being introduced today, which is endorsed by the Fraternal Order of Police and of the National Association of Police Organizations, seeks to provide officers with certain basic protections in those jurisdictions where such workplace protections are not currently provided. First, this bill allows law enforcement officials to engage in political activities when they are off-duty. Second, it provides standards and procedures to guide State and local law enforcement agencies during internal investigations, interrogations, and administrative disciplinary hearings. Additionally, it calls upon States to develop and enforce these disciplinary procedures. The bill would preempt State laws which confer fewer rights than those provided for in the legislation, but it would not preempt any State or local laws that confer rights or protections that are equal to or exceed the rights and protections afforded in the bill. For example, my own State of Delaware has a law enforcement officers' bill of rights, and those procedures would not be impacted by the provisions of this bill. This bill will also include important provisions that will enhance the ability of citizens to hold their local police departments accountable. The legislation includes provisions that will ensure citizen complaints against police officers are investigated and that citizens are informed of the outcome of these investigations. The bill balances the rights of police officers with the rights of citizens to raise valid concerns about the conduct of some of these officers. In addition, I have consulted with constitutional experts who have opined that the bill is consistent with Congress' powers under the Commerce Clause and that it does not run afoul of the Supreme Court's Tenth Amendment jurisprudence. I would also like to note that I understand the objections that many management groups, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police's, have to this measure. I have discussed this with them, and I've pledged that their views will be heard and considered as this bill is debated in Congress. It is my view that we must bridge this gap. Without a meeting of the minds between police management and union officials, the enactment of a meaningful law enforcement officers' bill of rights will be difficult. Law enforcement officials are facing unprecedented challenges, and management and labor simply must work together on this issue and the numerous other issues facing the law enforcement community. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to ensure that the United States does not fall further into debt at the United Nations, and to pay the debt that we have accrued since January 1, 2006. For over a year, we have not been paying our full contribution to the U.N. for its peacekeeping operations--for missions in places like Lebanon, Haiti, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Kosovo--that advance our national interests and spread the burden of keeping the peace among other nations. We are approximately $80 million in debt, and the number grows every month as new bills come in for peacekeeping operations. Here is why. In 1994, Congress passed a law limiting U.S. payments for U.N. peacekeeping at 25 percent after fiscal year 1995. The United Nations continued to bill the United States at 31 percent. As a result, a debt accrued--that is, the gap between the 25 percent allowed under U.S. law, and the 31 percent we were charged by the U.N. In 1999, when Congress approved the ``Helms-Biden'' law, it authorized the repayment of U.S. arrears to the U.N. conditioned on certain reforms in the U.N. system. One of those reforms was a negotiated reduction of the U.S. peacekeeping rate down to 25 percent. Through negotiations in 2000, U.S. Ambassador Holbrooke succeeded in reducing the U.S. assessments for peacekeeping to just over 27 percent. In 2001, Congress amended the Helms-Biden law to allow the arrears payments to be provided to the U.N., even though Ambassador Holbrooke had not reached the target of 25 percent. But the original 1994 law limiting our payments to 25 percent was never repealed. In the past few years, Congress has amended the 1994 law on a temporary basis by raising the 25 percent limitation to conform it to the rate negotiated by Ambassador Holbrooke, but the most recent temporary change in law expired on December 31, 2005. Therefore, the law today is this: the United States may not pay more than 25 percent for peacekeeping, even though the United Nations assesses the United States at a higher rate. Mr. President this is a problem. At a time when our government continues to seek important reforms at the United Nations, it is a mistake for us to continue to fall short on our dues. Rather than encourage reform, it may give other countries an excuse to avoid it. How can we, in good faith, fail to pay our bills while at the same time push the U.N. to get its financial house in order? More important, U.N. peacekeeping operations advance America's national security. If the U.N. didn't do them, we might have to do so. The U.N. `blue helmets' are literally on the front lines in conflicts that are the worst of the worst: protecting civilians, monitoring cease-fires, clearing mine fields, and disarming combatants. Right now, the United States continues to seek support at the U.N. for a robust mission in Darfur. We have voted time and again in the Security Council, and rightfully so, to support these critical missions. Through U.N. peacekeeping, the U.S. contributes to international peace and stability where we have critical foreign policy interests, while sharing the human, political and financial costs with other nations. We should not shortchange these operations.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to ensure that the United States does not fall further into debt at the United Nations, and to pay the debt that we have accrued since January 1, 2006. For over a year, we have not been paying our full contribution to the U.N. for its peacekeeping operations--for missions in places like Lebanon, Haiti, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Kosovo--that advance our national interests and spread the burden of keeping the peace among other nations. We are approximately $80 million in debt, and the number grows every month as new bills come in for peacekeeping operations. Here is why. In 1994, Congress passed a law limiting U.S. payments for U.N. peacekeeping at 25 percent after fiscal year 1995. The United Nations continued to bill the United States at 31 percent. As a result, a debt accrued--that is, the gap between the 25 percent allowed under U.S. law, and the 31 percent we were charged by the U.N. In 1999, when Congress approved the ``Helms-Biden'' law, it authorized the repayment of U.S. arrears to the U.N. conditioned on certain reforms in the U.N. system. One of those reforms was a negotiated reduction of the U.S. peacekeeping rate down to 25 percent. Through negotiations in 2000, U.S. Ambassador Holbrooke succeeded in reducing the U.S. assessments for peacekeeping to just over 27 percent. In 2001, Congress amended the Helms-Biden law to allow the arrears payments to be provided to the U.N., even though Ambassador Holbrooke had not reached the target of 25 percent. But the original 1994 law limiting our payments to 25 percent was never repealed. In the past few years, Congress has amended the 1994 law on a temporary basis by raising the 25 percent limitation to conform it to the rate negotiated by Ambassador Holbrooke, but the most recent temporary change in law expired on December 31, 2005. Therefore, the law today is this: the United States may not pay more than 25 percent for peacekeeping, even though the United Nations assesses the United States at a higher rate. Mr. President this is a problem. At a time when our government continues to seek important reforms at the United Nations, it is a mistake for us to continue to fall short on our dues. Rather than encourage reform, it may give other countries an excuse to avoid it. How can we, in good faith, fail to pay our bills while at the same time push the U.N. to get its financial house in order? More important, U.N. peacekeeping operations advance America's national security. If the U.N. didn't do them, we might have to do so. The U.N. `blue helmets' are literally on the front lines in conflicts that are the worst of the worst: protecting civilians, monitoring cease-fires, clearing mine fields, and disarming combatants. Right now, the United States continues to seek support at the U.N. for a robust mission in Darfur. We have voted time and again in the Security Council, and rightfully so, to support these critical missions. Through U.N. peacekeeping, the U.S. contributes to international peace and stability where we have critical foreign policy interests, while sharing the human, political and financial costs with other nations. We should not shortchange these operations.