Joe Biden

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I speak today to submit a resolution with my good friend and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Specter. Our resolution recognizes and commends the National Sexual Assault Hotline for counseling and helping more than 1 million callers. One of the most telling statistics since passage of the Violence Against Women Act in 1994 is the number of individuals reporting rape to the authorities. Almost half--42 percent of rape victims are now stepping forward and reporting these heinous crimes to the authorities, while prior to 2002, only 31 percent reported their attacks. Each number represents a brave victim who steps forward and says out loud that she has been raped. For years, rape was a crime of shame. Our society blamed the victim. Police, lawyers, and judges focused on her conduct--what did she wear? where was she walking? was she drinking alcohol? Slowly but surely, we are working to change societal attitudes about rape and improve our criminal justice system to encourage reporting and prosecution of rapes, whether committed by the neighbor next door or a stranger in an alley. A critical partner in our fight to end sexual assault has been the National Sexual Assault Hotline operated by RAINN, the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network. RAINN created this toll-free telephone hotline--1-800-656-HOPE--in 1994 and manages it with 1,100 local affiliates in 50 States, and the District of Columbia. Victims from across the country can telephone the Hotline and receive confidential, trained expertise from experienced professionals with the assistance of over 10,000 volunteers. In June 2006, the Hotline received its millionth call since it answered its first call in 1994. In 2005 alone, the Hotline helped 137,039 individuals, an average of 11,420 people a month. The National Sexual Assault Hotline is truly a national treasure. It helps individuals and families recover from a horrendous violation. It provides a safe haven for victims to talk about the crime, and offers referrals on local psychological and physical help. A call to the National Sexual Assault Hotline is often the first step towards justice for a victim. Research shows that victims who receive counseling are significantly more likely to report the assault, and more likely to fully participate in the prosecution. Every 2.5 minutes, another American is sexually assaulted. We are fortunate to have the hotline there to answer victims' calls for help and healing. The hotline's volunteers are doing God's work, and deserve our gratitude. I am proud to rise with my good friend from Pennsylvania to introduce a resolution marking the hotline's millionth call and commemorating the hotline's tremendous work to help America's families and make our streets safer.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I begin speaking to this legislation by thanking my buddy. And I know that is a colloquial expression in this formal place we work when I say ``my buddy,'' but Senator Hatch and I have worked together for a long time. It is hard for me to believe we have been here as long as we have. I have actually been here a couple years longer than he has. We have our differences in philosophy. We have never had any differences personally. We have never had any differences in terms of our relationship. The two things I am proudest of that we have both done is we have both--and I say this somewhat self-serving, I acknowledge--we both always hired staff that is respected. I do not think there has ever been a time that Orrin has not had a staff and staff members who my staff completely, totally trusted. I think it is fair to say that is the case on Orrin's side as well. That makes a gigantic difference because I think the work that Ken Valentine, the fellow sitting to Orrin's right, did--a loner, Secret Service guy from the administration, from the executive branch--and a fellow I am very proud of, whom I will mention in a moment--the work they did with John Walsh and others, to overcome the hurdles that get thrown in the way of good legislation because everybody has their own agenda. Everybody knows that for Orrin and me--and I would add my friend from North Dakota--that some of us have had this as sort of a--I have been accused of this being a hobbyhorse for me, this, all the work we have done for so long on dealing with child predators and abused women and abused children. But what happens sometimes is that good legislation gets stuck because other Senators, who do not have that as the same priority--although they are for it--attach a lot of extraneous things because there is something they feel is even more critical than the legislation, and they see it, to use the Senate jargon, as a vehicle to get their views heard and their legislation passed. Well, as to the work that Dave Turk of my staff did and Ken Valentine did in order to sort of clear the way for this, I think everyone who has worked on this, including John Walsh, would acknowledge is extraordinary. So I want to personally--there are others, I am sure. There are others. I do not mean, by mentioning these two individuals, to in any way denigrate the incredible work done by so many others. But I think sometimes the public wonders why we pay staff members--all of whom can make a lot more money if they did something else--the kind of salaries they get paid, in relative terms. It is because they are so good. They are so dedicated. They are so talented. In my experience of being here 33 years, I have found that when a staff member, no less than a Senator, has an intellectual as well as an emotional commitment to what they are doing, it is even more effective. I know for my friend and staff member, Dave Turk, who is a father, and for Ken Valentine, whom I have only gotten to know personally recently, this is more than legislation, this is more than passing this piece of legislation. This is the stuff of which your life's work is viewed as being worthwhile. I remember Jerry Brown, when he used to be the Governor of California, once said when he was cutting pay--I am not making a judgment of whether he should have or should not have--when cutting the pay of State employees, he made a statement only Jerry Brown could make, 20 years ago: Well, they have the psychic remuneration of living in California. I do not know about that. But I can tell you that the psychic remuneration for Orrin Hatch and Joe Biden and Ken Valentine and Dave Turk, and many others who worked on this, makes this job worthwhile. The two things of which I am most proud that I have done in 33 years are dealing with this issue in particular and culminating in this legislation, the Adam Walsh Child Protection Safety Act, and the Violence Against Women Act--which, I might add, one of only seven guys who jumped out front in 1994 to get that done was also Orrin Hatch. So, Senator Hatch, I thank you. We have been in the minority, the majority, the minority; we have switched places back and forth, but it has never changed our relationship, never changed how we have worked with each other, and never changed the good work I think we and many others can say we are proud to have participated in. Mr. President, I wish to talk a few minutes about the actual act. Congress has done a good deal over the last 25 years--and I might add, starting with, God love him, our old and deceased friend, Senator Thurmond from South Carolina--to protect kids. We created the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in 1984. We enacted the crime bill in 1994. We enacted the Amber Alert system in 2003. But every time we have done something significant, the bad guys have figured out a way to take advantage of it, to find a loophole, to find an opening. And that is what this is about--and I wish he had floor privileges because he could speak to it better than any of us--but this is about, to paraphrase John Walsh, with whom I had dinner the other night--this is about closing the door. This is about uniting 50 States in common purpose and in league with one another to prevent these lowlifes from slipping through the cracks. So we recognize that what we have done in the past did not do all we wanted to do. I might add one more thing. Joe Biden and Orrin Hatch come from different sides of the political spectrum on a lot of things. But I can assure you, not only is this tough, but the civil liberties of Americans are not in jeopardy with this. This is not--this is not--a case where in order to get bad guys we have had to in any way lessen the constitutional protections made available to good guys. So I think it is a proud piece of work. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, as Senator Hatch has indicated, estimates there are over 550,000 sex offenders nationwide, and more than 20 percent of them are unaccounted for. I would argue that there are a whole lot more than 550,000, who never get caught up in the criminal web for a thousand different reasons that I do not have time to explain. But at a minimum, this means there are as many as 150,000 of these dangerous sex offenders out there, individuals who have already committed crimes and may, unless we do something, continue to jeopardize the most vulnerable among us. The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act takes direct aim at this problem. Plain and simple, this legislation, I can say with certainty, will save children's lives. Sexual predators must be tracked, and our cops and our parents have a right to know when these criminals are in their neighborhoods. That is what we do here. First--an important point--let's start at the beginning. This legislation requires sex offenders to register prior to their release from prison, to make sure we give them absolutely no opportunity to do what happens now: fall through the cracks between the moment the prison door opens and before they set up a residence. We also make sure we are keeping tabs on everyone who poses a threat to our kids. Advances in technology are a great thing, but many times there is a dark side. The Internet, for example, puts the knowledge of the world at a child's fingertips, but it can also be and is abused by sexual predators causing kids harm. To steal a phrase from my son, who is a Federal prosecutor, he told me: Dad, it used to be you could lock your door or hold your child's hand at the mall and keep them out of harm's way. But today, in my son's words, with a click of a mouse, a predator can enter your child's bedroom in a locked home and begin the pernicious road to violating that child. That is why this legislation adds the ``use of the Internet to facilitate or commit a crime against a minor'' as an offense that could trigger registration. And once someone is on a sex offender registry, we make sure they can't go back into hiding in the shadows. Under this bill, child predators would be required to periodically and in person check in with the authorities. They also would be required to update their photographs so law enforcement and parents will know where these folks are and what they look like now and not solely what they looked like years ago that is unrecognizable now. And if a registered offender fails to comply with any of these requirements, he or she faces a felony of up to 10 years in prison. If an unregistered sex offender commits a crime of violence, the offender will face a 5-year mandatory prison sentence in addition to any other sentence imposed. A noncompliant sex offender will also face U.S. Marshals who have been brought in under this bill to lend their expertise and manpower to help track down these dangerous individuals. John and I were talking about it at dinner. These guys saddle up, to use his phrase. They are the most underrated, underestimated part of American law enforcement. They do the job incredibly well. They want to get in on this, and they are now part of this. We now have designated their expertise and manpower to track down these individuals. One of the biggest problems in our current sex offender registry system happens when registered sex offenders travel from one State to another. Delaware has worked hard to keep track of the 3,123 sex offenders registered to my State. But there are other States that are not so advanced and whose systems are not so sophisticated. This bill fully integrates and expands the State systems so that communities nationwide will be warned when high-risk offenders come to live among them. And we target resources under this bill at the worst of the worst and provide Federal dollars to make sure States aren't left holding the bag. We also require the U.S. Department of Justice to create software to share with States in order to allow for information to be shared instantly and seamlessly among them. When a sex offender moves from New Jersey to Delaware, for example, we have to be absolutely sure that Delaware authorities know about it. This bill also mandates a national sex offender Web site so that parents can find out who is living in their neighborhoods. Parents will now be able to search for information on sex offenders by geographic radius and ZIP Code. Do we have a silver bullet, a foolproof system here? I have been around too long to know the answer to that question is no. What we do have is a slew of commonsense ways for fixing our current problem. As I mentioned earlier, it has taken us months and years to get to the point of enacting this important bill into law. Again, I give credit where credit is due, as has already been mentioned, to John and Reve Walsh. I know we are not supposed to--and I will not--violate Senate rules by pointing out who is where. But the fact is, if I were sitting next to them in the gallery now, I suspect if I put my hand on his arm, I would feel the tension in his arm. This has to be a very bittersweet moment for John Walsh. For what are we doing here today? We are naming a bill that will save the lives of hopefully thousands of other young people after a beautiful young boy who was victimized and killed. The thing I find most amazing about John and Reve is, I don't know how anybody who has lost a child can have the courage to do what they have done. I know from my own experience, which I will not speak to, there are certain circumstances I cannot walk into because it reminds me of one of my children I lost. I could never do what John and Reve did. I could never do what they did. And we could have never done today what we are doing without them. That is not hyperbole; that is the God's truth. We could never have gotten this done without John and Reve Walsh. It has to be one god-awful bitter moment, for the 27th of this month, if I am not mistaken, will be the 25th anniversary. A lot of people on this floor, including one of my colleagues I am sitting with, have lost children. It doesn't matter whether it is 2 years past, 10 years, 25 years, or 50 years past. That part never passes. I thank John and Reve for their courage, courage way beyond anything I could possess. I have known John for many years. We go way back to 1984, working together to create the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children along with Senator Hatch. He has been at it year after year, pushing the Congress to do more. John, you have been an inspiration. You continue to be. Don't underestimate it. You have been doing it so long, don't underestimate how many thousands of people take solace from what you do and what you have done. It has not been my style in 33 years to take the floor to speak in such personal terms, but this is ultimately personal. It is the ultimate, ultimate personal thing, your child. Earlier this week I had a chance to sit down with Ed Smart whose daughter Elizabeth--what a magnificently beautiful, poised, gracious young woman--then 14 years, was abducted at gunpoint from her family in Salt Lake City while her parents and four brothers slept. She was found 9 months later. The strength of that family's character, its resilience is remarkable. I have taken too much of the Senate's time. Let me again thank my colleague from Utah. I also thank our committee chairman and all the members of our committee. They also deserve a great deal of credit. Other Senators, including my colleague on the floor, who has been relentless, absolutely relentless, Senator Dorgan; he added a major, important piece to this legislation. I thank him for that. Senator Bill Nelson, Chuck Grassley, all contributed important parts to this bill. They each took tragedies that happened in their States and used them as a call to action. Senators Frist and Reid--our majority and minority leaders--also deserve all our thanks by ensuring that this important bill was treated with the priority it deserved. Congressman Foley has worked tirelessly on this bill in the House for years, and Congressman Pomeroy was by his side. And Chairman Sensenbrenner guided this bill through the House of Representatives. I don't think there is one of us on this floor who wouldn't trade away this bill for being able to bring back to life all those innocent lives that were lost that allowed us, in a bizarre way, to produce this legislation. We cannot redeem the dead, but we can, in fact, protect the living. I think this bill, with the many parts I didn't mention, including DNA testing and a whole range of other things, is fair, decent, and honorable. Most important, there is not a single thing we can do that is more worthy of our effort than protecting our children. That is what all of us on this floor--and many who are not--today are playing a part in doing. Again, I close by thanking John Walsh. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, earlier this week, I voted with a bipartisan majority of Senators to strengthen FEMA while leaving it in the Department of Homeland Security. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and the woeful response of the Federal Emergency Management Administration, I was prepared to remove FEMA from the Department of Homeland Security. At the time, it was clear that FEMA had been stripped of necessary resources and leadership, and that, as a result of these choices, it had failed the citizens of the gulf coast. I changed my mind and voted to strengthen FEMA for three important reasons. First, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee conducted extensive hearings and oversight into the problems that led to the catastrophe of Katrina and how to fix this systemic failure. They conducted a 7-month investigation, including 23 hearings, heard testimony from 85 witnesses, interviewed 325 individuals, and reviewed 838,000 documents. They obviously did their homework. Second, as a result of this exhaustive research, they made substantive proposals to strengthen the role of FEMA within the Department of Homeland Security. These changes will provide new statutory protections to ensure that the Administrator had direct access to the President, that it restores authorities to work directly with State and local agencies, and that it strengthens regional authorities by creating teams to foster cooperation and joint training for local emergency managers and first responders. The final, and most important, reason that I decided to vote to strengthen FEMA as a component of the Department of Homeland Security is because of the position of local law enforcement and first responders. The bottom line is that I have spent my career working with the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Sheriffs Association, the National Association of Police Organizations, the National Troopers Coalition, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the International Association of Fire Fighters, the Major Cities Chief, and local first responders. I strongly value the opinions of these individuals, and if they believe that this is the right approach to help them in their efforts to save lives, I am willing to give it a shot. I hope that the changes voted for by the vast majority of Senators earlier this week will return FEMA to its vaunted status of the 1990s. The American people deserve no less.

Mr. BIDEN

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

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4553.

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

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I thank my colleagues. I apologize. It was an unusual request--an urgent message which turned out not to be urgent. I apologize. The point I was making is $65 million goes specifically to Amtrak security upgrades. Specifically, things such as hiring officers, increasing K9 patrols, increasing fencing, lighting, and cameras in areas where the security experts indicate they are badly needed. There is $100 million for R&D. I will not take the time of the Senate to go into any of the ways in which to deal with tunnels and innovative ways to deal with detection of chemicals, et cetera, and biological agents. Before I close, I would like to point out a very troubling problem relating to rail police which this amendment addresses. We are all aware of the problems that this agency faces due to budget shortfalls. In particular, the police force is woefully inadequate for the job it is assigned to do. The amendment would add 200 Amtrak police officers and will provide a 25-percent salary increase for existing officers. You ask: Why is that the case? This funding is critical because the Amtrak police department cannot pay anything remotely approaching the competitive wage rate of other police officers. This contributes to an incredibly high turnover. An entry-level Amtrak police officer makes only $31,000 with a maximum, no matter how long he or she stays on the force and no matter what responsibility, of $51,000. By contrast, a Boston police department entry-level officer makes $49,000, and a U.S. Capitol Police officer entry level makes $46,746. This presents a problem with recruiting and turnover. Between 1997 and 2003, Amtrak lost 190 of its officers, with only 20 percent to retirement, and hired only 184. As a result, Amtrak has only 300 officers in the entire system nationwide, 20 percent below its inadequate authorized level. I have been working with the Amtrak police department and the Fraternal Order of Police for some time to address the disparity. This amendment sets aside $25 million to add 200 police officers and gives existing officers a 25-percent pay raise. And still they will not be competitive enough relative to other agencies. This funding is critical. We have neglected rail security since 9/11, and we have had wake-up call after wake-up call. This year, just as last year, our strong ally has experienced a deadly attack at the same time we are addressing homeland security appropriations at home. I pray to God that next year, as we address this, we are not responding to what might happen to our rail system. When are we going to wake up? I would like to draw attention to the 9/11 Commission's report card issued this past December. I think it was December 5. Don't hold me to that exactly, but it was in December. It found, in respect to our Nation's critical infrastructure, the following: No risk and vulnerability assessments have actually been made, no national priorities established, no recommendations made on the allocation of scarce resources, and all key decisions are at least 1 year away. It is time that we stop talking about priorities and actually set them. With this amendment, we establish rail security as a priority. I urge my colleagues to finally, for Lord's sake, deal with this. At any one moment today in New York City, there will be, in an aluminum tube in a tunnel underneath that city or standing on a platform, over 20,000 people. How many people are on a 747--500, 600? I don't know the number, but 20,000 people in a relatively confined space at any one time sitting in aluminum tubes in tunnels where there is virtually no protection--and standing on platforms. We all go to New York. Go on up there and look at Penn Station. Get off the train. Walk around and tell me how many police officers you identify. You will find more in your hometown. We have to do something. I thank my colleagues for listening to me once again. I hope I will not make this speech again next year as a consequence of another serious rail attack. I pray to God it is not at home. I yield the floor. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator permit me to respond, briefly?

Mr. BIDEN. I ask unanimous consent Senator Clinton be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, let me deal with a piece at a time, to the cogent arguments my friend from New Hampshire has made and thank him for the acknowledgment that there may be a need to do more on rail. First of all, I find the whole debate about homeland security, which is beyond the purview of this debate, somewhat fascinating. The 9/11 Commission tells us we should be spending over $42 billion over the next 5 years to deal with what they believe and identify as serious threats which are woefully inadequate, where they give the mark to the Congress and the Senate of a D or an F, in terms of how they grade the area of concern. We are $42 billion behind the curve to begin with. I find the argument, by the way, a little akin to the argument my friend from New Hampshire just made, a little akin to the false argument about whether, of $740 million allocated in the last round, there should be a 40-percent cut in money for New York and Washington to be sent to St. Louis and Omaha. The question isn't whether it should have been cut to be sent to Omaha, the money is needed in New York and Omaha and in St. Louis. The debate should be, why are we only spending, in that allocation, $740 million? The single most primary and primitive function of Government is to protect its citizens, to physically protect them. In my view, it comes before civil rights, civil liberties. It comes before education. It comes before health care. If you are not safe in your home, safe in your street, safe in your Nation, the rest of it does not matter a whole lot. So we get into a false debate. Take Amtrak, all the money in Amtrak, $740 million for capital expenditures. That $740 million for capital expenditures still leaves Amtrak about $4.5 billion behind on capital needs. What are we talking about? Rail maintenance, rail improvement, the catenary wire above it, the actual cars, the actual engines that have to be upgraded. We have forced Amtrak, by underfunding so badly for so long, to cannibalize its own system in order to be able to pay salaries to keep the trains operating. There is no money. It is a little bit similar to my saying, in the education budget, there is a whole lot of money there in order to be able to provide for eliminating the additional cost of the loans to college students because the education budget has X number of dollars. That means you have to go cut something out of education that is already underfunded. I find it to be a false argument. The point about the basis of the threat, I know of no other area where there has been as many consistent, specific threat assessments made by the FBI, by the CIA, by our intelligence agencies than rail. I may be mistaken, but I am happy to stand corrected if I am wrong. The threat is there. Lastly, TSA does not pay for the doors on the aircraft. We still spend billions and billions of direct dollars in taxpayers' money. Again, it sounds good but irrelevant. The arguments are very well made and very irrelevant. We are still only spending about $150 million. You say: Well, the States have this money. What have they chosen to do? Guess what. How much money have the States had to spend on airport security when they choose that? The Federal Government has come in and taken on th lion's share of that responsibility. I am confused. Why does Reagan Airport, which has fewer people visiting every day, have a higher priority than Union Station? I don't get that. I don't understand that. The bottom line is, we do not have the commitment to deal with this. I acknowledge, as the chairman of the subcommittee, my friend gets an allocation. But, again, that is a false argument. It is true he gets an allocation. Why is the allocation not bigger? The allocation is not bigger because our priorities in this country are backward. Let me give one example, and I realize it is just one. About a month ago, we had the six major oil companies before the Judiciary Committee. During that time, the chairman, Republican Chairman Senator Specter-- and the issue was price gouging--swore all six CEOs in under oath. Everyone asked about price gouging. It got my turn in the order of asking questions, and I said I would like to not ask about price gouging, I would like to ask you about tax breaks. You have an Energy bill last year that I voted against, that, at a minimum, there are $2.5 billion worth of tax breaks to encourage you to explore. I looked at the chairman of the board of ExxonMobil. I am paraphrasing, and I will later in the day come back with the actual record of that exchange and ask it be printed in the Record at that time. I said: You made $35 billion in profits. My mother would say: God love you, that is wonderful. I am not arguing about your profit. That is great. Do you need any of the $2.5 billion per year you are going to get? He put his head down, if you take a look at the film. I said: Sir, you are under oath. And he looked up and he said: No, we don't need it. I said: Good. And I went down the list of the other five oil executives. Do you need it? No, no, no, no, no. Then I asked another question. I'm going to propose to eliminate that tax cut, and I am going to use it for homeland security. Do you object to that? Would you support it? I said: You are under oath. The CEO of ExxonMobil said: I would support it. They all supported it. So $2.5 billion we are wasting--wasting--in giving energy breaks to oil companies. I say to my colleagues, parenthetically, you do not hear me stand up here and demagog. I am happy they are making all that money. But they acknowledge they do not need it. For $2.5 billion, we could restore my entire COPS Program, which we have eliminated. We could add 1,000 more FBI agents to deal with homegrown terrorism. We could fund every penny of this. I realize, as the joke goes, that is above my friend's pay grade. It is not his responsibility. But we get put in these positions where guys such as me vote against budget priorities that are set, allocations are limited, and, understandably, under the rule, we are then put in a position of points of order. I respectfully suggest that if anyone said: What should be the priorities of this Nation and how much money should we be spending to protect the American people, my guess is a whole lot of things, including some social programs, would come after a basic fundamental requirement to protect the American people from what we are told is a reasonable probability that it will happen. I accept everything my friend said in terms of the caps, et cetera. I acknowledge this, in fact, would be subject to a point of order. I find it frustrating I am consistently left in the position of having to argue. It is a little bit similar to what we used to do in local office. You cut the budget, and we would make the hearing impaired compete with the physically impaired, who compete with the blind, for the limited amount of money we gave them. We would say: We cannot use more money for the hearing impaired because within this allocation we do not have enough money. We will have to cut it from someone else or go find it somewhere else. That is how I feel. I apologize for my frustration. The record will show, although when I speak in the Senate someone suggests I am mildly energized about what I speak about, I don't often rise in the Senate to speak. Folks, we are going to regret this. We are going to regret this. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I realize that particularly the Presiding Officer and my friends from New Hampshire and Washington State are probably tired of hearing me stand up year after year since 9/11 and talk about rail security or the lack thereof in the United States of America. This amendment is about rail security. The funding made available in this amendment is, unfortunately, something that I have, with others, fought for without success since 9/ 11. In fact, immediately after 9/11, I introduced legislation that is very similar to the amendment I am offering today that would provide critical resources to enhance rail security and rail infrastructure. Almost 5 years later, after introducing the legislation in the 108th Congress and the 109th Congress, we have done virtually nothing. In March of 2004, our allies in Spain suffered an attack on their rail system that killed 191 people. We did nothing. We did nothing at home. Just over 1 year ago, terrorists in London killed 52 people and injured over 700, mostly on rail. We did virtually nothing. The attack in London occurred just 1 week before we had a debate on the 2006 Homeland Security budget. Unbelievably, we approved only $150 million for rail and transit, with only $7 million going to Amtrak, which carries, by the way, 64,000 passengers per day--hardly, I would say, a serious effort. Just yesterday, in Mumbai, India, there was another attack on rail. So far there are 190 confirmed dead, 714 people injured. To state the obvious, I am sure every one of my colleagues feels as I do, but our thoughts and prayers are with those who were harmed in yesterday's attack. As they described in today's New York Times and I am sure every other paper in the Nation, there was baggage and body parts strewn for hundreds and hundreds of yards around the site of the explosion. Coincidentally, here at home we are debating again the appropriations bill for Homeland Security. I wonder how long we can dodge the bullet. I wonder how long it will be that we can avoid accountability for what we are not doing to protect our rail and transit system. I don't know what it is going to take for us to wake up and take this threat seriously. Certainly everyone understands here at home that the threat is real and it is at home. The FBI has warned us of the threat to our rails. In fact, the Central Intelligence Agency has found photos of rail stations and rail crossings in safe houses in Afghanistan. I am sure they weren't doing that for a geography project for their kids. It was about looking at targets in America. Remember when we saw that they had taken photos of American buildings, what we did? We immediately mobilized our security forces around those buildings here in the United States, because we knew if they had photos of those buildings tacked up on the walls they must be thinking of them as targets. What do we need? Do we need someone from al-Qaida to write us a note and say: ``By the way, folks, we are planning on attacking your rail system''? ``We are not going to tell you when, but we are going to attack your rail system.'' What do we need? What do we need to be able to jog the-- not ``conscience,'' that may be the wrong word--jog this body into a sense of reality? We have still done virtually nothing. Since 9/11 the administration invested over $25 billion in aviation security, primarily to screen passengers. I voted for that, I agree with that--$25 billion. During the same period, less than $600 million has been allocated for rail and transit systems that carry a whole heck of a lot more passengers. This year's budget includes an additional $6 billion for aviation security, which I support. Only $150 million has been allocated for rail and transit security. Out of the $150 million allocated for rail and transit funding this year, $7 million went to Amtrak. I don't think that is a serious effort--again, 64,000 people a day. I understand you can't protect every single inch of our vast rail structure but we can do some pretty commonsense things, some block-and- tackle things that we know will make us a lot safer. I can't stop anyone, nor are we likely to be able to stop anyone, from putting an IED that is fashioned in America on a track somewhere between here and Wilmington, DE, when I take the train every day. I am not asking for that. But I will tell you what we can do. What we can do is go to those areas we know are prime targets, where hundreds if not thousands of people could die if al-Qaida or any of their copycat organizations decided to move on rail and were successful. Take a walk over to Union Station. Union Station is just down the street in that direction. I walk to it or drive to it every single night the Senate is in session. I come from it every day. It is the single most visited place in Washington. Do you hear me? The single most visited place in Washington, DC. More people are in and out of that station than are at any museum, than visit the Congress, the White House, the FBI. It is the single most visited place in Washington, DC. Take a look. As I say to security people, get with me on an Amfleet train. Not an Acela, because they don't have the old kind of caboose on it. Stand in the last car and look out the window as you pull out of the train station. Tell me how many cameras you observe. Tell me how many cops you see. Tell me how many bits of protection--whether it is fencing or alarm systems--that are on the switching devices that are in that yard. Tell me how many folks you see wandering the yard where you see trains stacked up, where people can cross around just a plain old chain-link fence and put some C2 up underneath an existing train. Or travel from Washington south. You go underneath the Supreme Court. You go underneath one of the House office buildings. Tell me what you see. Are there any guards patrolling that area? I am not going to say, because people will say to me, You are just giving terrorists information. I promise you, they already know it. You would be stunned how few law enforcement officers are on duty at any one time in that entire infrastructure. My amendment simply makes the investment that the experts who have testified have repeatedly told us is needed. It would provide an additional $1.1 billion for rail security upgrades. Out of this amount we would provide $670 million to upgrade the tunnels along the Northeast corridor to add ventilation, lighting, escape routes, in some cases cameras, and the ability to be able to patrol those tunnels. I will not take the time because my colleagues have heard me do it 1,000 times. The tunnel that goes from here heading to Boston--in fact, it goes through the State of Maryland, through Baltimore--it was built, I think, in 1869. Next time you ride through it, look and see if you see any ventilation. Tell me what you see in terms of lighting. Tell me what you see about any prospect of someone being able to escape from that tunnel. Tell me if you see any security going in and out of that tunnel. It seems like a long time ago, I have been doing it so long, there was a fire in a tunnel. It was just a plain old fire, not a rail tunnel, another tunnel going into Baltimore. The fire shut down all the harbor, and it shut down all of south Baltimore. If you go up into New York, you have six tunnels sitting under New York City without any appreciable work being done on any of them since, roughly, 1918. Ask any expert about ventilation. Why am I talking about ventilation? Drop sarin gas in that tunnel, drop another chemical in that tunnel, and tell me what happens without any ventilation to suck it out. Tell me what you see in those tunnels. Ask those experts what chance there is of escape. I will go back to that in a minute. There is $250 million to be allocated to general security upgrades for freight rail operations, including transport of hazardous material. I had an amendment here on another bill not long ago because I asked the Naval Research Institute, NRI, to answer a question for me. Again, I apologize to my colleagues from Washington and New Hampshire for continuing to repeat this, but I asked the question: What would happen if a chlorine gas tanker exploded in a metropolitan area? Remember, I guess it was a year or year and a half ago, one exploded up in the Dakotas--not near any big city. They had to evacuate several towns in the region. I said, What would happen? The standard chlorine gas tanker on rails is about 90 tons. What happens if one of those were exploded? They said it would kill or injure up to 100,000 people. I had an amendment. Why don't we allow the cities to be able to divert these hazardous cars around the cities. It got voted down--I actually did get a vote on it--because it would somehow increase the cost of doing business. It would increase the cost of doing business. Maybe I am missing something here. The only thing I can believe is that most of my colleagues also think that this is not likely to happen, that these guys aren't going to go after transit, they are not going to go after freight rail, they are not going to go after passenger rail. They really don't mean it so we don't really have to worry. It reminds me of that Calypso song that was popular about a decade go, ``Don't worry, be happy.'' Yet if we look around the world, bombings and attacks on rail systems are becoming increasingly sophisticated. They are carried out by terrorist groups. Before 9/11 when we saw these terrorist activities happening in Europe and other parts of the world, we just seemed impervious to it. ``It can't happen here. It won't happen here.'' I made a speech on September 10. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of it be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN. On September 10, the day before the attacks on the towers, I made a speech to the National Press Club where I warned about a massive attack on the United States of America from terrorists; why I thought it would happen and why I thought our priorities were misplaced--the day before 9/11. I had no knowledge of 9/11, but I have been working in this field, like my colleagues on the floor, for 30 years. There was an inevitability to it. But we did nothing. I feel like we are in that same ``Alice in Wonderland'' suspension when it comes to rail. It is either it is so big you can't protect everything so don't protect anything--like it was before. Our country is so big and so open there is nothing much we can do about terror. And the second subparagraph before 9/11 was: By the way, it is not likely to happen here. Why? Why is it not likely to happen here? There is $250 million to be allocated to general security upgrades for freight rail operations. That includes things like putting cameras in freight yards so you have somebody watching who is wandering around those yards and maybe sticking something up underneath 90-ton chlorine gas tanker cars or putting in a boxcar a dirty bomb, a home-made weapon. It also provides $65 million to go specifically to Amtrak security upgrades for hiring officers. We had an interesting thing. We have a relatively small number of officers on Amtrak. If you go from here to fly out of Reagan Airport, if you go out of Dulles or Reagan Airport or the Philadelphia airport or LaGuardia or Newark or L.A. or O'Hare or Atlanta, you are going to go through, en route to your gate, probably as many security officers, including the folks inspecting your bags, as exist in all of Amtrak. Did you hear me? Let me say that again. I guarantee you that going through the screening area you are going to run into not just the people looking at you in the area you go through, but you are likely to run into more TSA screeners than exist in any one station in the United States of America. I received a note indicating that I am needed urgently. If I could suspend for a minute and come back and pick up where I left off, I suggest the absence of a quorum. (Ms. Murkowski assumed the Chair.)

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I move to waive the relevant sections of the Budget Act on this amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I support the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006, of which I am the lead cosponsor. The political rise of Hamas presents us with a difficult policy challenge. None of us want to see a penny of American taxpayer money going to a Hamas-led government that refuses to meet the basic demands not just of the United States, but of the international community, including the so-called Quartet of the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations. Those demands are that Hamas recognize Israel, renounce violence, and accept past agreements. At the same time, the situation in the Palestinian Territories is an explosive one, with potentially disastrous consequences for the Palestinian people, Israel and the entire region. Tensions between Fatah and Hamas militias have been escalating in recent weeks. 165,000 Palestinian Authority employees have not been paid in months. Avoiding a genuine humanitarian crisis and a descent into a Palestinian civil war will require diplomatic flexibility and sustained American engagement. In this sensitive environment, my friend from Kentucky and I have tried to find the right balance between isolating Hamas, while simultaneously not doing anything to harm the Palestinian people. So let me say a few words to clarify what our bill does--and does not--do. First, it sends a clear message: the United States will provide no direct assistance to a Hamas-led government unless it meets the three conditions--acknowledging Israel's right to exist, renouncing violence and accepting past agreements between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. We must not retreat from insisting that these three conditions be met. The bill affirms support for a two-state solution to end the Israeli- Palestinian conflict, something that Hamas rejects. The bill also requires the administration to report on steps it is taking to urge other nations to refrain from providing financial assistance to Hamas. In addition, it places restrictions on diplomatic contacts with, and movements by, representatives of Hamas. But in dealing with Hamas, it is important that we keep our strategic objectives clear. While our intention is to pressure Hamas to accept the same terms that bound previous Palestinian governments, it is not in the interest of either the United States or Israel to be seen as punishing the Palestinian people. It is critically important that in pressuring Hamas we make it clear to the Palestinian people that it is Hamas that is failing them, not the international community. We must maintain the moral high ground. That is why our bill allows for assistance to continue to support the basic needs of the Palestinian people. It permits assistance to the Palestinians, through non-governmental organizations, for things such as food, water, health, medicine, and sanitation, as well as for democracy promotion, human rights, and education. It also recognizes the important distinction between Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas--who has committed to the Road Map and a negotiated two-state solution--and Hamas, by incorporating exemptions to support Abbas in fulfilling his duties as President. Lastly, our bill creates an Israeli-Palestinian Peace, Reconciliation and Democracy Fund to support organizations that are trying to build bridges between the two societies through the promotion of democracy, civil society development and reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians. My friend from Kentucky and I have been able to make important changes to address the most significant issues raised by the administration and the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. These include broadening the President's waiver authority as well as narrowing the focus of the bill to the Hamas-controlled Palestinian Authority. I look forward to continuing to work with the administration as the bill moves forward. Mr. President, Hamas has a decision to make. It must respond to international demands and, even more important, be responsive to the Palestinian public which voted for reform, but not poverty, international isolation and a government that can't pay its own bills or keep the lights on. If Hamas ultimately proves unable to provide for its own people, it won't be because of the restrictions in this legislation. It will be because Hamas is either unable or unwilling to make rational policy decisions over destructive terror and xenophobic ideology. Simply put, Hamas must choose between bullets and ballots, between destructive terror and constructive governance. It cannot have it both ways. The legislation I have sponsored with my colleague, the senior Senator from Kentucky, is an attempt to clarify the choices for Hamas and to make clear our rejection of a group that is committed to terror.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise to thank my colleagues for accepting an amendment that I introduced on behalf of myself, Senator Bingaman, and Senator Carper to fully protect the health of our military personnel. The majority of this amendment is the same language the Senate included in last year's Defense Authorization bill clearly establishing the Vaccine Healthcare Centers, or VHCs, role in force protection and treatment. That language was not retained in conference. Instead, a GAO report was mandated. While the GAO report will be helpful in refining the organization and missions of the VHCs, it is important to clearly establish their role today. The GAO report will not be completed until next year. In addition to the language the Senate passed last year, this amendment includes one additional area for GAO to investigate and a requirement that the Department of Defense examine and plan for its future vaccination needs. Both necessary steps to determining the optimal structure for the centers. I should also point out to my colleagues that this amendment does not add any funding to the bill. The centers are currently being funded at $6 million a year with global war on terror funds. This amendment does not change that. Let me explain more thoroughly what the vaccine health care centers do. As our military operates around the globe, they are protected from common illnesses like the flu and from common travel concerns, like yellow fever for sub-Saharan Africa, by vaccinations. In addition, they are vaccinated to protect them from biological warfare agents like anthrax or smallpox. These force protection measures are critically important, but they only work if military personnel are confident that the vaccines themselves are not dangerous or that the side-effects can be treated. Vaccines, even those generally considered safe, are still drugs put into the body. For that reason, there are always a small number of personnel whose bodies will have an adverse reaction to a ``safe'' vaccine. In order to deal with this, the Vaccine Healthcare Centers Network was established in 2001. The centers act as a specialized medical unit and center of excellence that can provide the best possible clinical care to any military member, Active-Duty, Guard, or Reserve, or their family that has a severe reaction. They also advise the Department of Defense regarding vaccine administration policies and educate military health care professionals regarding the safest and best practices for vaccine administration. Their overall mission is to promote vaccine safety and provide expert knowledge to patients and physicians. Why is this so important? As many of you know, the number of adults who get regular vaccines is fairly small. While we have civilian specialists who deal with childhood vaccinations and problems that might develop, the population of adults regularly vaccinated with anything more than the flu vaccine is small. No civilian expertise exists in this area because the cases are rare and infrequent. In the military, the reverse is true. Military personnel are regularly vaccinated for travel, for threats relating to their theater of operation, and for things like the flu. Even in the military, though, the cases are rare and spread throughout the force. It is difficult for the average base physician to develop the expertise needed to recognize the problem and to provide the best treatment. In order to effectively develop proper treatments, there must be a centralized center to capture the information on those who experience severe problems. Here are some specifics: Last year, 2005, the VHCs managed over 700 cases of adverse reactions to mandatory vaccines. Each military service made use of the help and care offered by the VHCs--48 percent of their cases were in the Army, 29.6 percent of their cases were in the Air Force, 13 percent of their cases were in the Navy and Marine Corps, and 2.4 percent of their cases were in the Coast Guard. Since being founded, as part of their ongoing educational effort, the VHCs have developed and distributed over 50,000 immunization took kits to improve vaccinations throughout DOD. The VHCs are leading the effort to properly characterize and develop treatments for serious reactions to the smallpox vaccine and the anthrax vaccine. In many cases, they collaborate with outside researchers and analysts by providing the large sample population needed to develop case definitions and clinical guidelines. Since beginning their work in 2001, the VHCs have handled a total of 2,049 cases. Their yearly case load has gone up 83 percent since 2001. The over 2,000 cases treated demonstrates clearly the need for postvaccination treatment expertise. In all of these cases, base or post doctors did not have the expertise to adequately treat sick personnel. Given that these are mandatory vaccinations, we have an absolute moral obligation to make sure that those made sick by them get the best possible treatment. Much as the military developed a unique expertise in treating those exposed to nuclear radiation, in this new era of proliferating biological threats we must now develop an expertise in postvaccination treatments. This has all been done by an extremely small staff--only one full- time doctor, three nurse practitioners, and five educators and support staff at each of the four regional facilities. The value and medical services they have provided to the entire military family--Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard--has been extraordinary. Make no mistake, military personnel and their dependents are more confident in the vaccination programs because of the VHCs. When personnel do suffer adverse reactions, reports are extremely positive regarding the care they now get from the centers and we do not see individual cases becoming national news and fear spreading throughout the force. Why do we need the language I am proposing? The reason is simple. Despite the May 9, 2006, testimony from the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Health Protection and Readiness to the House Committee on Government Reform touting the centers as DOD's answer to adverse anthrax vaccine reactions, the centers are still not clearly established in law and face regular funding battles. The VHCs were created in minimally worded report language from the fiscal year 2001 Labor-HHS Appropriations conference report. It is time to recognize their role and varied responsibilities with a proper authorization. In addition, it is time to make sure they have clear and regular funding. For the past 5 years, the VHCs have been funded by the Army alone, primarily with global war on terror funds. I applaud the Army for recognizing the need for the centers and providing those funds from their wartime allocation. But, I am concerned that this is not sustainable and it is not what Congress intended. The Army is only the executive agent for what is supposed to be a defense-wide service. Even though almost half, 45 percent, of those treated by the VHC came from the Air Force, Navy and Marines, and Coast Guard, none of those services is willing to provide their fair share of the yearly $6 million bill. The Army cannot sustain this and the people that would lose are injured military personnel from the other services who will not be able to access expert care. In recent years, the decision by the other services not to provide a portion of the funding for the centers has led to proposals to eliminate some of their operations. If all or part of the VHC network is dismantled, the technical expertise built up over the past 5 years will be dispersed. It will be almost impossible to reconstitute that highly specialized knowledge when we need it in the future. We cannot just hope that the 708 personnel who sought treatment last year will just get better on their own. This amendment seeks to clarify that the vaccine health care centers must exist, while also mandating a thorough review of their organization and functions. Next year, when we have the GAO study and the Pentagon's study, Congress can act on any worthwhile recommendations. In the meantime, we cannot leave this vital force protection and treatment center in limbo, nor can we leave the entire burden on the Army. As biological threats grow from both naturally occurring diseases like bird flu to weaponized agents like anthrax, force protection clearly demands a good vaccination program. Equally clearly, that program must include quality care for those who suffer adverse events in every service, not just the Army. As we look to the future, the need for vaccinations is only likely to grow. For that very reason, we established Project BioShield. At this point, there is no civilian equivalent to the vaccine health care centers network, but there is an initial collaborative effort between the VHCs and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This collaboration must be encouraged so that we can take advantage of the VHCs knowledge should a mass civilian inoculation become necessary. If the VHCs are dismantled, that knowledge will be lost and may not be easily recovered or recreated. At the end of the day, this is very simple. We simply cannot mandate that military personnel take these vaccines and then abandon them when a problem arises. There should be no ambiguity about the authority for the vaccine health care centers to continue their excellent work. If military personnel are injured because of their service to this Nation, whether it be needing a prosthetic limb or long-term treatment for an adverse vaccine reaction, we have an absolute obligation to give them the best possible care. Anything less is unconscionable. For that reason, I am thankful that my colleagues have agreed and that this vital amendment has passed the Senate. amendment no. 4466

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I appreciate the support of Chairman Warner and Senator Levin in agreeing to accept amendment No. 4424 to S. 2766, which I have sponsored. Section 1023 relates to a counternarcotics authority granted to the Department of Defense in the fiscal year 1998 Defense Authorization Act. P.L. 105-85, specifically section 1033 of that Act. The original provision, enacted in 1997, gave the Department authority to provide counterdrug support to the Governments of Peru and Colombia, including authority to transfer riverine patrol boats to those Governments, and to maintain and repair equipment used for counter-drug activities by those Governments. In recent years, the so-called 1033 authority has been expanded to cover the other countries in the Andes, and to Afghanistan and many of its neighboring states. The bill now before the Senate would expand the list of eligible governments still further, to include a long list of countries in Asia, the Americas, and Africa. It also provides the Department the authority to transfer aircraft to eligible governments. The amendment I have proposed to section 1023 would ensure that the transfer of aircraft is subject to section 484(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, which requires that the United States retain title to aircraft made available to a foreign country primarily for narcotics-related purposes, unless the President makes a national interest determination and so notifies Congress. The requirement that such aircraft be made available only on a loan or lease basis has been the law for 20 years, since the enactment of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, P.L. 99-570, and no good argument has been offered as to why it should not apply to Department of Defense programs. Simply put, the requirement strengthens the ability of the United States to make sure that the aircraft provided is used for the intended purpose. In my view, section 484(a) already does apply to Defense Department counternarcotics programs. By its terms, it applies to any aircraft ``made available to a foreign country primarily for narcotics-related purposes'' under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 or ``under any other provision of law.'' This expansive statutory language makes clear that any U.S. Government agency providing aircraft to a foreign government for counterdrug purposes must retain title to that aircraft. Yet inquiries to the Department of Defense officials about whether the authority provided in section 1023 of S. 2766 would be governed by section 484(a) have proven inconclusive. So that there is no doubt about this question, I have proposed this amendment, which I understand the managers of the bill have agreed to accept. amendment no. 4364

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, last Thursday, we passed by a 99-to-1 vote an emergency spending bill to support our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and provide relief to the victims of Hurricane Katrina. Unfortunately, behind closed conference doors, a key provision of both the House and Senate versions was stripped out--an amendment, introduced by Representative Barbara Lee and myself, that would bar any funds from being used to establish permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq or to control Iraq's oil. I voted to support our troops, though I was surprised that my amendment was removed in conference after not a single Senator spoke against it during the floor debate. By removing the ``no permanent bases'' amendment, we make life more difficult for our men and women in uniform and undercut our Nation's broader effort against terrorism. So I am happy that my amendment has now been accepted as part of the Defense authorization bill. It is straightforward, clear, and simple: It affirms that the United States will not seek to establish permanent military bases in Iraq and has no intention of controlling Iraqi oil. I will repeat what I said 6 weeks ago: While it may be obvious to Americans that we don't intend to stay in Iraq indefinitely, such conspiracy theories are accepted as fact by most Iraqis. In an opinion poll conducted by the University of Maryland in January, 80 percent of Iraqis--and 92 percent of the Sunni Arabs--believe we have plans to establish permanent military bases. The same poll found that an astounding 88 percent of Sunni Arabs approve of attacks on American forces. Why do Iraqis believe we want permanent bases? Why do they think we would subject ourselves to the enormous ongoing costs of Iraq in blood and treasure? Do they think we want their sand? No, they think we want their oil. To my mind, the connection between these two public opinion findings is incontrovertible. Before you dismiss these as simple conspiracy theories, remember what Iraqis have been through in the past three decades: three wars and a tyrannical regime that turned brother against brother and made paranoia a way of life. And there is a longer history, too: 400 years of British and Ottoman occupation have led to a deeply ingrained suspicion of a foreign military presence. These views extend well beyond Iraq. In a 2004 Pew Charitable Trust survey, majorities in all four Muslim states surveyed--Turkey, Pakistan, Jordan, and Morocco--believed that control of Mideast oil was an important factor in our invasion of Iraq. Our enemies understand the boon these misconceptions provide to their recruiting efforts and use them as a rallying cry in their calls-to-arms. Last year, in a letter intercepted by the U.S. military, Ayman al-Zawahiri, the deputy leader of al-Qaida, wrote to the recently killed Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi: ``The Muslim masses . . . do not rally except against an outside occupying enemy.'' Our military and diplomatic leaders understand that countering this vicious propaganda requires clear signals about our intentions in Iraq. And they have done just this: GEN George Casey, the ground force commander in Iraq, told the Committee on Armed Services last September: ``Increased coalition presence feeds the notion of occupation.'' At the same hearing, GEN John Abizaid, the commander of all U.S. troops in the Middle East, told Congress: ``We must make clear to the people of the region we have no designs on their territory or resources.'' In March, the American Ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, told an Iraqi television station that the United States has ``no goal in establishing permanent bases in Iraq.'' Unfortunately, this clarity has been clouded by mixed messages from the senior-most decision-makers in the Bush administration: To my knowledge, President Bush has never explicitly stated that we will not establish permanent bases in Iraq. And both the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State have left the door open to do just that. On February 17, 2005, Secretary Rumsfeld told the Committee on Armed Services: ``We have no intention, at the present time, of putting permanent bases in Iraq.'' ``At the present time'' is not exactly an unequivocal statement. On February 15, 2006, at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, Senator Kerry asked Secretary Rice: ``Is it, in fact, the policy of the administration not to have permanent bases in Iraq?'' Rather than answering the simple one word, ``Yes,'' Secretary Rice said during a 400-word exchange on the question: ``I don't want to in this forum try to prejudice everything that might happen way into the future.'' Just last Thursday, columnist Helen Thomas asked the White House Press Secretary to unambiguously declare that the United States will not seek permanent bases in Iraq. Again, the Press Secretary could not unequivocally declare this to be the case. These mixed messages are confusing to the American people and the Iraqi people alike. They feed conspiracy theories and cede rhetorical space to our enemies. They make it that much more difficult to win the battle for the hearts and minds of 1.2 billion Muslims in the world. Our success in that battle will determine our success in the struggle between freedom and radical fundamentalism. Against this backdrop, I believe that it is incumbent upon us to speak where the administration has not. My amendment will have no detrimental effect on the military operations of our Armed Forces in Iraq or their ability to provide security for Iraqi oil infrastructure. United Nations Council Resolution 1546 recognizes that the American and coalition forces are present in Iraq at the invitation of the Iraqi Government and that their operations are essential to Iraq's political, economic, and social well-being. In his first speech to the Iraqi Parliament last month, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki endorsed that resolution. We are anxious for the day when Iraqis can take control of their own destiny, but the Iraqis are suspicious of our intentions and are growing increasingly impatient. This amendment may not in itself change a lot of minds on the ground or in the region, but it can mark the beginning of a sustained effort to demonstrate through words and deeds that we have no intention of controlling Iraq's oil or staying there forever. I believe it is our duty to do so.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Michigan. I, too, compliment the Senator from Missouri for the service of his son. My son is not--he is in the military, in the National Guard. He is not in Iraq, although he did spend some time in Kosovo. I admire the patriotism of his son and respect the point of view his son expressed. But I think it confuses things. Mr. President, last Thursday, we passed by a 99--1 vote an emergency spending bill to support our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and provide relief to the victims of Hurricane Katrina. Unfortunately, behind closed conference doors, a key provision of both the House and Senate versions was stripped out--an amendment, introduced by Representative Barbara Lee and myself that would bar any funds from being used to establish permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq or to control Iraq's oil. I voted to support our troops, though I was surprised that my amendment was stripped after not a single Senator publicly spoke against it during the floor debate. But what bothers me is that by removing the ``no permanent bases'' amendment, we make life more difficult for our men and women in uniform and undercut our Nation's broader effort against terrorism. So I will reintroduce my amendment as part of the Defense authorization bill. It is straightforward, clear, and simple. It affirms that the United States will not seek to establish permanent military bases in Iraq and has no intention of controlling Iraqi oil. I will repeat what I said 6 weeks ago: While it may be obvious to Americans that we don't intend to stay in Iraq indefinitely, such conspiracy theories are accepted as fact by most Iraqis. In an opinion poll conducted by the University of Maryland in January, 80 percent of Iraqis--and 92 percent of the Sunni Arabs-- believe we have plans to establish permanent military bases. The same poll found that an astounding 88 percent of Sunni Arabs approve of attacks on American forces in part. Why do Iraqis believe we want permanent bases? Why do they think we would subject ourselves to the enormous ongoing costs in Iraq in blood and treasure? Do they think we want their sand? No, they think we want their oil. To my mind, the connection between these two public opinion findings is incontrovertible. Before you dismiss these as simple conspiracy theories, remember what Iraqis have been through in the past 3 decades: Three wars and a tyrannical regime that turned brother against brother and made paranoia a way of life. And there is a longer history, too: 400 years of British and Ottoman occupation have led to a deeply ingrained suspicion of a foreign military presence. These views extend well beyond Iraq. In a 2004 Pew Charitable Trust survey, majorities in all four Muslim states surveyed--Turkey, Pakistan, Jordan, and Morocco--believed that control of Mideast oil was an important factor in our invasion of Iraq. Our enemies understand the boon these misconceptions provide to their recruiting efforts and use them as a rallying cry in their calls-to- arms. Last year in a letter intercepted by the United States military, Ayman al-Zawahiri, the deputy leader of al-Qaeda, wrote to the recently killed Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi: The Muslim masses . . . do not rally except against an outside occupying enemy. Our military and diplomatic leaders understand that countering this vicious propaganda requires clear signals about our intentions in Iraq. And they have done just this. General George Casey, the ground force commander in Iraq, told the Committee on Armed Services last September: Increased coalition presence feeds the notion of occupation. At the same hearing, General John Abizaid, the commander of all U.S. troops in the Middle East, told Congress: We must make clear to the people of the region we have no designs on their territory or resources. In March, the American ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, told an Iraqi television station that the United States has ``no goal in establishing permanent bases in Iraq.'' Unfortunately, this clarity has been clouded by mixed messages from the senior-most decision-makers in the Bush administration. To my knowledge, President Bush has never explicitly stated that we will not establish permanent bases in Iraq, and both the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State have left the door open to do just that. On February 17, 2005, Secretary Rumsfeld told the Committee on Armed Services: We have no intention, at the present time, of putting permanent bases in Iraq. ``At the present time'' is not exactly an unequivocal statement. On February 15, 2006, at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, my friend, the Senator from Massachusetts, asked Secretary Rice: Is it, in fact, the policy of the administration not to have permanent bases in Iraq? Rather than answering the simple one word, ``Yes,'' Secretary Rice said during a 400 word exchange on the question: I don't want to in this forum try to prejudice everything that might happen way into the future. Just last Thursday, columnist Helen Thomas asked the White House press secretary to unambiguously declare that the United States will not seek permanent bases in Iraq. Again, the press secretary could not unequivocally declare this to be the case. These mixed messages are confusing to the American people and the Iraqi people alike. They feed conspiracy theories and cede rhetorical space to our enemies. They make it that much more difficult to win the battle for the hearts and minds of 1.2 billion Muslims in the world. Our success in that battle will determine our success in the struggle between freedom and radical fundamentalism. Against this backdrop, I believe that it is incumbent upon us to speak where the administration has not. My amendment will have no detrimental effect on the military operations of our Armed Forces in Iraq or their ability to provide security for Iraqi oil infrastructure. United Nations Council Resolution 1546 recognizes that the American and coalition forces are present in Iraq at the invitation of the Iraqi Government and that their operations are essential to Iraq's political, economic, and social well-being. In his first speech to the Iraqi parliament last month, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki endorsed that resolution. We are anxious for the day when Iraqis can take control of their own destiny, but the Iraqis are suspicious of our intentions and growing increasingly impatient. This amendment may not in itself change a lot of minds on the ground or in the region. But it can mark the beginning of a sustained effort to demonstrate through words and deeds that we have no intention of controlling Iraq's oil or staying there forever. I believe it is our duty to do so. I want to point out a couple of things. I have listened to some of this debate. Sometimes I wonder whether we are debating the Levin amendment or not. The Levin-Reed amendment says two things. It lays out a plan. The front part of it is the part that is being ignored by most people. The amendment lays out a specific plan to avoid trading a dictatorship for chaos in Iraq. Right now, I respectfully suggest the President has a plan how not to lose but no plan how to win. In my view, a plan to arbitrarily set a date to leave is not a plan. It is an expression of overwhelming frustration and maybe on the part of some a conclusion reached that it is not winnable because it has been so badly handled the last 2 years. I respect that position. I don't agree with it, but I respect it. The fact is, what is before us in the Levin amendment is it first calls for a political settlement and the sharing of economic resources. That is another way of saying the Iraqis need a deal on oil that gives the Sunnis a fair share of the revenues; and, secondly, it calls for the President to convene what not just Joe Biden and this amendment but Biden before, and before that Henry Kissinger, and Secretary Shultz and others called for, and that is convening of an international conference to promote a durable political settlement and reduce the interference by Iraq's neighbors in Iraq. And it calls for the things that everyone agrees have to be done, purging the sectarian militia which has infiltrated the security forces. My friend from Missouri stood up and talked about the Iraqi security forces. The Iraqi security forces are riddled with sectarian infiltration. There is overwhelming evidence that Sadr suggests his Mahdi militia join the military. There is overwhelming evidence that the SCIRI and Dawa Parties have moved their people into the military as have the Sadr militia. There is evidence of the fact that the Peshmerja are in the north. So let me ask a question: How is it remotely possible that this government, assuming it is really good government, has a lot of personal courage and wisdom? How can it run a country when it does not have a military that--at least at any one time--one-third of the country doesn't trust? Did you all notice what happened today? Saddam's defense lawyer, for whom I have no particular empathy or sympathy--guess what. Five cops or four cops--Iraqi police--show up with identification, take him away, and shoot him. What has been going on? Pick up the paper. Every day--almost every day for the past months--a bus gets stopped, a group of Iraqi policemen take people off the bus identified as Sunnis and blow their brains out; or the next morning--every morning--you read the paper. What do you find? You find 9, 12, or 30 Sunnis handcuffed with bullets in their heads. So I ask you the question, imagine the United States of America trying to unite the North and the South, and if you had hit squads in the South after the Civil War going after anybody who fought in the Confederacy--this is a big deal. There is no possibility of avoiding a civil war, in my humble opinion, if you don't purge the police and then purge the military of the sectarian thugs. Second, we have a very first-rate Ambassador there. The best thing that has happened to our effort is our present Ambassador. What did he do? Remember when he said the first unity government wasn't legitimate because the Sunnis didn't participate? It was a legitimate point. How do we get the Sunnis to participate in the election? You had the acting Parliament pass a law defining what could kill the Constitution-- changing the law. That is a disaster. So what did our Ambassador do? He said: Change it--quietly; a brilliant diplomatic move. They changed the law going back to what it had been under the law that was written in the first instance. Second, what did he do? He said: This isn't the final document. They amended the Constitution at the last minute it was being voted on to say you can amend it later. Why? For a specific purpose. Everybody knows that unless you get the Sunnis to buy in, there is no possibility of success. So everyone has anticipated from the beginning, beginning with our Ambassador, that you have to amend the Constitution to give the Sunnis a piece of the action. Up to now, our administration has been saying quietly that would be divisive absent the Parliament doing what is called for under the law, convening, as they should be now, and now with about 3 months left, reporting to the entire Parliament amendments to the Constitution that will then be sent out to the people to vote on. Absent that, I do not know how this works. The Sunnis need a piece of the action, to stay in the action. My friend, the chairman, understands that there are three things going on. One, they are so-called insurgents. They are basically the old Saddamists. They are the Baathist Party, they are former military, and they are the Republican Guard. As I said to the President, who asked the question after my first trip from Iraq--he said: We have taken care of--I don't want to put words in his mouth--he said it was a great victory. And it was a great victory. I said: But Mr. President, 400,000 people went home with their guns. I said: Count the bodybags. We had such a blitzkrieg success; what happened? They didn't resist. They took off their uniforms, kept their guns, and raided the 800,000 tons of ammunition dumps we didn't guard. That is the insurgency--not bunch of dead-enders, as the Secretary of Defense said some time ago, and they are getting increasingly organized. There is a second group. The second group is the Zarqawi guys. They are the guys who are the jihadists--mostly from out of the country. As my friends, the chairman and ranking member, know, the military has never estimated them to make up more than 5 percent to 8 percent of the entire insurgency. They do bad things, but they are a separate group, coordinating with but separate, with separate agendas, from the insurgents. There is a third group. The real problem is civil war. Insurgency is not the big problem. It is a problem. The problem is sectarian violence with Sunnis killing Kurds, Kurds executing Shiites, and Shiites mostly eliminating Sunnis. Unless you stop that, what is the deal? I hope I am wrong, but as I say, take a look at my record on this for the last 3 years and tell me. Am I wrong a lot of times? I haven't guessed this one very wrong very many times. Ask the following question: By December of 2007, we are going to have a drastic withdrawal of American forces for one of two reasons: either because we actually have things going in Iraq, the Iraqis have not only stood but stood together, dealt with the Sunnis, dealt with the militia and kept the neighbors out, which means we will be able to draw forces home, or we are going to be in a full-blown civil war. I will make a prediction. This is a dangerous thing to do on the floor, and I pray to God I am wrong about it. I think there is at least an even chance that you will hear the following debate among the foreign policy intellectuals on the left and on the right a year from now. You have to let them fight it out in a civil war. It has to be decided in a civil war; nothing we can do about it. Let the chips fall where they may, and we come back in and try to pick up the pieces. That may be the ultimate strategy we have to deal with. But to my friends who say get out at a time certain, I say I understand your frustration, but what do you do afterward? What do you do if things go to hell in a hand basket quickly and there is civil war that turns into a regional war? What is your plan? The Levin amendment lays out a plan. It says take care of the insurgency by giving the Sunnis a piece of the action so they turn on the insurgents. They have a reason to want to be a part of the deal. I thank the Chair. I have a more detailed plan as to how we should proceed. But don't confuse the Levin plan by ruling it out. The Levin plan lays out what must be done, how to do it, and it is done on the path by which we can leave and leave our interests intact. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleagues for allowing me a few minutes.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a matter that has tremendous potential to decrease cancer deaths among the millions of military dependents and retirees served by the TRICARE health program. I am talking about colonoscopy, a medical procedure used very commonly to screen for colon cancer. Medical specialists tell me that colonoscopy is the most accurate test for detecting colon cancer at the very earliest stages, when it is highly treatable. As my colleagues on the Senate Armed Services Committee are aware, I have been very concerned that DOD's TRICARE medical plan hasn't covered colonoscopy to screen for colon cancer in average-risk beneficiaries over age 50, even though both Medicare and the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program did so. Instead, DOD's policy has been to pay for screening colonoscopy to detect colon cancer only for a very narrow group of high-risk individuals. This limitation meant that many of our military retirees and dependents have not been able to get access to this sensitive cancer screening test, and as a result, they may well have been subject to adverse health consequences from delayed cancer detection. I called this omission to the attention of the committee and introduced legislation to rectify the situation. I was pleased to be joined in these efforts to fix this problem by Senators Mikulski and Bingaman. Mr. President, I am pleased to say today that DOD has done the right thing by modifying the TRICARE criteria for screening colonoscopy so that all average-risk TRICARE beneficiaries over age 50 have access to this important cancer screening test. This new policy, which is retroactive to procedures performed since March 15, 2006, is good news in the ongoing battle against colon cancer, and I would hope that DOD would disseminate widely the news of the availability of this important preventive service.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr President, I am sorry that I was not present on the floor on Monday when my colleagues paid tribute to my friend, Robert C. Byrd, but I would like to add my voice to the chorus speaking on his unsurpassed contributions to the U.S. Senate and to America. I say without hesitation Senator Byrd is one of the most remarkable men I have ever had the privilege to work with. Although I have been here for 33 years, he is the only Member whom I have looked up to as my senior--my senior in every way. When my days are finished in this Chamber, my children, my grandchildren, and my great-grandchildren will know that I served with the greatest servant of the U.S. Senate of all who have served. Once someone said of another West Virginian, Stonewall Jackson, that ``his character and will make him a stonewall and more of a stonewall than any man I've ever known.'' I say the same of Robert Byrd. When he walks on the floor, Constitution in his pocket, and he looks around, raises his voice, points his finger, he is our stonewall. He is the unshakeable rock of this institution. He is our foundation. He is the protector of this body. I am absolutely certain that the Senator's service, knowledge, and contributions to the Senate will never be surpassed. This country gentleman has no peer. No one has given as much to this institution or loved it as much as the senior Senator from West Virginia. The Senate is what it is because of Robert Byrd. And he is our wise senior, not because of the records but because he is a man of his conviction. He has told the truth on every issue that confronts our country. He is our rock of integrity. When I was elected at age 29, and 6 weeks later, before I was sworn in, my wife and daughter were killed in a terrible car accident, Senator Byrd came to the funeral home. He waited in a long line to pay his respects. It was an act of kindness that I have never forgotten. I know how bittersweet this honor is for him, as his lifemate, Erma, would have been 89 years old this week. We all admire the love and devotion the two of them had for each other, in health and in sickness. We know his first love was not in the Chamber; it was at home. We also know how proud she would be of him this week. One of America's favorite West Virginians, who also set a lot of records in his day, is Mr. Clutch, Jerry West. He once said: ``You can't get much done in life if you only work on the days when you feel good.'' Senator Byrd has worked 17,331 days--days that have been good and bad. In all that time, he has made the most out of every one of them and gotten more done than anyone will ever know. It has been an honor serving with him for 12,209 of those days. I look forward to many more days and years together.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a very sobering report just issued by our FBI--its Preliminary 2005 Uniform Crime Report. This is the gold standard of crime reports in our country, taken from statistics by more than 12,000 law enforcement agencies all across our country. Here is what the report says: Murders are up 4.8 percent. This means that there were 16,900 victims in 2005--16,900 in a single year. This is the most murders since 1998 and the largest percentage increase in 15 years. Violent crime more generally, which also includes forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault, rose 2 percent after seeing decreases over the last 3 years. Some areas of the country were especially hard hit. The Midwest, for example, saw violent crime rise 5.7 percent. Medium-large towns--those with populations between half a million and 1 million--saw an increase in violent crime of 8.3 percent. Murders increased more than 12 percent in towns with populations between 50,000 and 250,000. These troubling increases come after more than a decade of record decreases in crime. These historic decreases in crime happened for a reason and, I fear, the recent and dramatic increase in murders and violent crime are also happening for a reason. Let me explain. In 1994, we passed the most sweeping anticrime bill in history. At the time, we faced a national crisis with respect to violent crime. Despite the tough-on-crime rhetoric of the 1980s, the Federal Government until that point had very little impact on crime rates. This is largely because only about 3 percent of all crimes are handled by the Federal Government. We recognized in 1994 that the only way to seriously address crime in our communities would be to vigorously and consistently support State and local law enforcement. We made a commitment to do just that by creating the Community Oriented Policing Services Program--more commonly known as COPS. This ambitious new program committed to put more than 100,000 new officers on the streets and to expand the concept of community-oriented policing. Crime rates went down every year for 8 consecutive years. Violent crime was reduced by 26 percent. The murder rate went down by 34 percent. In just a few short years, Americans went from being afraid to go out on their streets to living in the safest neighborhoods in a generation. By giving State and local law enforcement the support they needed, we were able to improve the lives of millions of Americans. I recognize there are many factors involved in whether crime rates go up and down and that the COPS Program was not the sole reason for this historic drop in violent crime. At the same time, the legacy of COPS is unmistakable. The Government Accountability Office, GAO, released a report in October 2005 that concluded what many police chiefs and sheriffs have said all along--the COPS Program helps reduce crime. Specifically, the GAO found that ``as a demonstration of whether a federal program can affect crime rates through hiring officers and changing policing practices, the evidence indicates that COPS contributed to declines in crime above the levels of declines that would have been expected without it.'' For every $1 in COPS hiring grant expenditures per capita, there was a reduction of almost 30 index crimes per 100,000 persons. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft called the COPS Program a ``miraculous success.'' But, unfortunately, I fear that some of us have taken our eyes off the ball. Specifically, the Bush administration has forgotten the lessons we learned from the COPS Program. Despite the dramatic and historic COPS successes, President Bush has systematically eliminated the programs that helped to lay the foundation for our low crime rates. President Bush has proposed to cut support for State and local law enforcement every year for the past 5 years, proposing a budget in 2007 that cut $2 billion in guaranteed funding for State and local law enforcement from the amount we provided only 5 years ago. President Bush has steadily tried to kill the COPS hiring program, routinely trying to zero out all hiring funding. And Congress has not held the line. During the 1990s, roughly $1 billion per year was allocated for the COPS Program. In 2002, $385 million was allocated to hire officers. That allocation was steadily reduced until last year when, for the first time, funding to hire officers was completely eliminated. Let me repeat: No Federal COPS funding whatsoever to hire officers. Adding insult to injury, President Bush has also proposed to zero out the Byrnes Justice Assistance Grant Program. From 1994 to 2003, this wildly popular program provided around $900 million per year to our States to improve their criminal justice systems, providing vital resources to our men and women officers. Since 2003, this number has steadily eroded, with President Bush proposing absolutely no funding in his 2007 budget request. And I fear that we are now seeing the results of this vast defunding of the COPS Program and the Byrne Program--a result that was certainly not unpredictable. Earlier this year, in response to the President's latest budget request, the President of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, Mary Ann Viverette, stated: ``these cuts have the potential to cripple the capabilities of law enforcement agencies nationwide and will undoubtedly force many departments to take officers off the streets, leading to more crime and violence in our hometowns and ultimately less security for our homeland.'' Many of us in Congress have also tried to raise the warning flags repeatedly. This February, I released a report entitled, ``Abandoning the Front Line: The Bush Administration's Record of Support for State and Local Law Enforcement'' which warned that we need to keep our eye on the ball, otherwise we risk seeing dramatic increases in crime rates. Another problem facing our local law enforcement agencies is the fact that the FBI is getting out of the crime business. Since 9/11, the number of FBI agents focusing on crime has gone down by over 1,000 agents. As a result, drug investigations have dropped by 60 percent and violent crime investigations have been reduced by 40 percent. This has created a perfect storm for law enforcement, and I hope that these latest dramatic and troubling crime statistics serve as a wake-up call to Congress and the President. We must build on the successes of the past; we must never become complacent. When I speak to law enforcement groups on the subject of crime, I make the point that keeping crime rates low is like cutting the grass. You mow your lawn and it looks great. You let it grow for a week, and it starts looking ragged. You let it grow for a month and you have a jungle. The preliminary numbers released yesterday show that we have not been cutting the grass. In Cleveland, from 1994 to 2001, we spent $3.2 million per year for COPS hiring. From 2002 to 2005, we only spent $875,500 per year. A 2004 news article noted that Cleveland lost 250 officers, a reduction of 15 percent in their force. In their latest crime numbers, murder is up 38 percent; violent crime is up 7 percent. In St. Louis, from 1994 to 2001, we spend $770,000 per year for COPS hiring. From 2002 to 2005, that number was zero. A 2003 study found that St. Louis had lost 168 officers, a reduction of 11 percent in their force. In their latest crime numbers murder is up 16 percent, violent crime up 20 percent. The pattern is, unfortunately, clear. In Philadelphia from 1994 to 2001, we spent $5,250,000 per year for COPS hiring. From 2002 to 2995, that number was again zero, Last year, I asked the Philadelphia police chief about the number of officers they have lost recently. He said since 2003, they were down 600 officers. In Philadelphia's latest crime numbers, murder is up 14.2 percent, violent crime up 3.4 percent. Now is the time to see the error in our recent ways. It is my hope that the Appropriations, Commerce, Justice, and Science Subcommittee will see fit to fully fund the COPS Program, the Justice assistance grants, and other critical crime control programs when it reports out its appropriations bill later this summer. If they do not, I will be offering an amendment to restore full funding for the COPS Program. I have done this for the past several years. The Senate has previously not adopted my amendments, however--with opponents arguing that the COPS Program has worked, so we should kill it, or that it is not a Federal responsibility to fund local law enforcement. Critics will also argue that adding funding to the COPS Program will bust the budget. I believe that the safety of the American citizens is our No. 1 priority, and I cannot accept the argument that we cannot find funding for local law enforcement at the same time we are giving a tax cut to our nation's millionaires. They did not ask for this tax cut, and I know that they would be willing to give that back in order to keep their communities safer. The COPS Program helps us prevent both crime and terrorism, and I hope my colleagues will support me in restoring funding for this critical program.

Mr. BIDEN

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

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today for two purposes: one is to speak against the Santorum amendment relating to Iran--the Iran sanctions--and, two, to offer an amendment relating to the negotiations that are now underway by the President of the United States. Let's cut right to it, if I may. Are we going to stand aside while the President of the United States of America is trying to stop the development of a nuclear bomb in Iran? The President of the United States of America has made a judgment--I would argue, finally, but he has made a judgment--that the best way to keep the worst thing from happening is to cooperate with our friends to put pressure on the bad guy. What do I mean by that? The President of the United States, I assume at the urging of the Secretary of State--although it is not relevant, actually--the President of the United States took a more aggressive course about a month ago in attempting to stop the Iranians from developing a nuclear weapon, a weapon that, if developed in conjunction with a missile, could change, in a material way, the dynamics in the Middle East and particularly relating to our interests, notwithstanding the fact that it might not be able to strike the United States--a development that if it occurred would almost assuredly put great pressure on the Sunni Arabs in the region, who have lots of money, to join with possibly Egypt or another country to develop a Sunni bomb. This is not a good thing. So the President, in conjunction with France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, our three largest European allies, along with China, and Russia, has agreed to and has been sitting down and making a specific proposal, which the President of the United States has pledged the United States to, in order to both entice as well as dissuade the Iranians from pursuing their course. There are two pieces to it. One, it says to the Iranians: If you cooperate and verifiably cease and desist, we, the United States, the three European countries, China, and Russia, will move forward with the following incentives to move you closer to the family of nations as a responsible nation. And there are a set of very specific incentives that the President of the United States of America has signed on to--quote, an ``offer,'' if you will, to the Iranian Government. It also says, as was reported in the New York Times and the Washington Post today, that the Chinese, as well as the Americans and Russians, have communicated a second piece of information to the Iranians: If you do not cease and desist, these bad things are going to happen to you, and we are all jointly--jointly--going to impose them on you. I think that was a stroke of significant diplomacy on the part of the President, which basically, as I understand it, the Europeans, Russians, and Chinese said: Will you join us in some of the carrots? And the President, as I understand it, said: Yes, if you join me in the strikes. It is carrots and sticks. I know of no way to avoid one of two alternatives: one is the resignation to the acceptance of an Iranian weapon, and relying upon deterrence; or, two, the use of military force against Iran to prevent the development of that weapon. My friend from Pennsylvania, as well as all of us on this floor, have received, I expect, the same extensive briefings I have on just how limited those alternatives are at this point militarily. So I think the President has chosen a very reasonable course here. But even if you disagree with it, one of the things that--and I have been here during seven Presidents, and I have been very critical of this President's foreign policy--but the idea, in the midst of a negotiation, at the point at which the world is expecting and waiting and wondering what Iran's response will be, that the U.S. Senate would go on record as tying the President's hands in this negotiation--I find that amazing, absolutely amazing. I spoke this morning with the Secretary of State who authorized me to say, unequivocally, the administration opposes this amendment. It limits their flexibility in doing what we all want: preventing the construction of a nuclear weapon in Iran. How much clearer can the administration be? And as my Grandfather Finnegan from my home State of Pennsylvania used to say: Who died and left you boss? Since when do we negotiate for a President? We are in the midst of a negotiation. The only thing we have going for us now, with China, Russia, and Europe all siding with us, we are about to mess up? Folks, I think this is such a tragic mistake--well-intended but tragic. The underlying amendment, Mr. Santorum's amendment, in my view, and in the view of the Secretary of State, actually advocates a policy that would jeopardize President Bush's initiative and, I believe, play directly into the hands of Iranian hard-liners. I think if you read the language, it also has the potential to damage relations with some of the key countries whose cooperation we need to pressure Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions. If this approach were adopted, we would be in the untenable position of sanctioning companies located in countries that we are asking to impose sanctions on Iran if they fail to accept the offer put forward by Russia, China, Europe, and the United States. It does not, with all due respect to my friend, because I have joined him in Iran sanctions legislation in the past--I have joined him--but this is a different amendment and it is a fundamentally different time. I remember going down to see the President when he was making his first trip to Europe. He asked whether I would come down and speak with him and his staff and I did. It was very gracious of him to ask my opinion, which was very nice of him. He said he was going to Germany. And he said--I am paraphrasing--I understand you have been asked to speak to the Bundestag, the German Parliament. I said: Yes, I have, Mr. President. He said: I understand you have turned it down. I said: Yes, I have, Mr. President. He said: Why? I said: Mr. President, we only have one President. You are my President. My disagreements with you on foreign policy--at that time it related to the Balkans and some other things--I think it is totally inappropriate, while you are in Europe, while you are in discussions with the very people who invited me to speak, for me to go and publicly afront you in a foreign capital before their--their--Parliament, the very Parliament you are going to be speaking to. I am not President. You are our President. And he pressed: Well, why? And I said, somewhat facetiously--and I have had this discussion with Newt--I am not Newt Gingrich. I don't go to the Middle East and speak to Middle Eastern Parliaments while the previous Secretary of State is there negotiating. I think it is inappropriate. The President of the United States is in the midst of the most important negotiations, absent Korea--and not much is going on there-- that we have had since he has been President. And even if everything in here makes sense, why would we now do this? My plea to my friend from Pennsylvania is: Withhold this amendment. See what happens in the negotiations. If, in fact, they fail--as they have an overwhelming prospect that could happen--then come back to the Senate and the Congress to put on these restrictions. Mr. President, may I ask how much time the Senator from Delaware has remaining?

Mr. BIDEN. I say to my friend from Pennsylvania--I have not had a chance to speak to him personally--I say to the Senator from Pennsylvania, I have an amendment. Mr. President, have I sent my amendment to the desk? Is the Biden amendment at the desk?

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment.