Joe Biden

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 16, 2008, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Global Nuclear Detection Architecture: Are We Building Domestic Defenses That Will Make the Nation Safer From Nuclear Terrorism?''

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 16, 2008, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, let me say to both Senator Thune and to my colleague from North Dakota that I think the work they are doing here is first rate. As a matter of fact, Senator Kyl, who is coming to speak on this amendment as well, and I have agreed to, through the Judiciary Committee and through the regular order of business, work on one aspect of the three pieces of this amendment: water, health, and law enforcement. I think we are going to be joined by our colleague as well on further increasing the assistance to the Indian nation. It is not an exaggeration to say that it is fairly astounding how poorly, over the 35 years I have been here, we have treated the Indian nations. An awful lot of people, at least in my neck of the woods, think because they read about some of these Indian nations that have gambling on their reservations and are making tens of millions of dollars that somehow all is well, that we do not have to pay much attention to the moral obligation we have and the treaty obligations--I will not get into all of that but the treaty obligations we have been making and breaking since the 1800s. So I am reluctant--I was reluctant--to talk about beginning to chip away at this bill which Senator Lugar and I and many others have worked so hard on. But I conferred with my Democratic colleagues on the House side who have jurisdiction over this matter. And I wanted to make it clear to Senator Thune, because I do not want to make a commitment I cannot keep, that if and when we get to the point where--I do not speak for Senator Lugar, but I am prepared, on the Democratic side, to accept the amendment at the appropriate time. And I wanted to make it clear that I was kidding yesterday, and I will say in the Record, I want it noted that I am joking, but this is not a Russell Long ``acceptance of a voice vote.'' It used to be, in the old days when I got here, Russell Long would accept anything on a voice vote on a finance bill. And the joke was, before he got to the other side of the House, they were dropped. That is why most people asked for rollcall votes, to make it harder for the conference to drop amendments. It is my commitment to my colleague that I have been told by the House that although they prefer nothing change in the bill, they are prepared to accept this amendment and that there is no intention of dropping this amendment.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, would the Senator yield for a unanimous- consent request?

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be no second-degree amendments in order to the Cornyn amendment.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I will speak briefly, and then we are ready to vote on this amendment. I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the Senator from Indiana, and I would add two points. I am a fan of sunsetting legislation. There used to be a fellow who worked here with us named Lawton Chiles. He got here in 1970 and started sunsetting ideas, and I am a supporter. But here is the deal, what makes this different. One of the problems in getting many of these African governments in particular to sign on to being recipients and participants in the PEPFAR legislation to save the lives of their own constituents has been the uncertainty of whether, if they start the program, it will, in fact, last. What they don't want to do, since they know they can't carry it themselves, they don't want to find themselves out there where they have made a promise, and it turns out that we decide, at some near-term date, to say no, we are out. That is not what the Senator is saying. He is not saying we are going to get out. He is saying we are going to review. I argue that, as the Senator from Indiana has, we are reviewing. There is built-in review here. Let me mention one point. The Ministers of Health from 12 African countries wrote the Congress to express their concern, not about this amendment per se but about the impact of uncertainty around the reauthorization of PEPFAR and what impact it would have on their programs in their countries. They said this uncertainty will cost lives because providing these antiviral treatments for people living with HIV/AIDS or caring for orphans and vulnerable children is a long-term commitment, and if the partners can't be confident we are going to continue the program, they are going to be much less willing to enroll new patients and take on a financial responsibility they can't bear. I understand the intent. But it is particularly dangerous to apply it here. By the way, we don't know whether it applies to PEPFAR specifically, to the tuberculosis program, to the HIV program. Does it apply to all the myriad pieces of this legislation that are holistically designed to prevent and treat the spread of these diseases and the prolonging of life? The last point, we essentially have a sunset provision. It is only authorized for 5 years. At the end of 5 years, it is over. We have hortatory language saying it is our hope and expectation, if it works as well as we anticipate and works as well as it has in the past, it will be continued for another 5 years. But we can only authorize it for that 5 years. For those reasons and others which I will not bore my colleagues with now, some of which, if not all of which, my friend from Indiana has already mentioned, I will at the appropriate time ask for the yeas and nays and suggest to our colleagues that we defeat the amendment. Mr. President, we all want to see effective oversight of taxpayer dollars, but this amendment would exacerbate the very problems it is attempting to solve. It would create an expensive new bureaucracy that would duplicate functions already being performed by numerous inspectors general, the Government Accountability Office, the Office of Management and Budget, and other outside organizations commissioned by Congress to carry out reviews of this program. The Congress just spent the last year reviewing the HIV/AIDS, TB, and malaria programs. The bill before the Senate is based on extensive field examination of the programs, on a GAO review and on an Institute of Medicine study. We are considering a reauthorization based on the widespread view in Congress that these programs are working. We have a near consensus that they are some of the best foreign policy programs that we have. Why do we need another review at this stage to repeat what has just been done? Furthermore, the Senate bill already mandates regular scrutiny by the inspectors general, by GAO, and the IOM. Not only would this Sunset Commission be redundant, it could be harmful. Under this amendment, AIDS, TB, and malaria programs would be abolished within 2 years after the commission's review--even if that review is positive--unless Congress acts to reauthorize them. Aside from the fact that we don't want to be fighting to get these programs to the floor every 2 years, think about what message this would send to the world. As I have said, last year, the ministers of health from 12 African countries wrote to the Congress to express their concern about the impact uncertainty around reauthorization of PEPFAR would have on HIV/ AIDS programs in their countries. They said that uncertainty could cost lives because providing antiretroviral treatment for people living with HIV/AIDS or caring for orphans and vulnerable children are long-term commitments, and if partners cannot be confident that the program is going to continue, they are going to be much less willing to enroll new patients for treatment. This provision would only magnify that problem, calling into question the U.S. commitment to this program. Finally, the amendment does not define what a program is. Is it PEPFAR itself? Is it our treatment programs? Is it a single grant to a faith-based organization working in Kenya? PEPFAR is widely respected as a high-performing program that embraces what works and discards what doesn't.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I have been instructed by the floor staff that they are running traps to make sure people are prepared for a vote. I hope we can do that because if we don't vote by 12:15, we probably will not get back on voting until after 4 because of some luncheons; that is, the caucus lunch, the leadership lunch. There is a Republican meeting as well. In the meantime, if I could take a moment while that is being checked to suggest how maybe we will proceed, if we can, between now and 12:15, hopefully we will be able to get this vote in. Also, I spoke with Senator Kyl on the Dorgan-Thune, et al., amendment, which we are prepared to accept. He says he only needs to speak for a minute or two. My hope was that we could wrap up both those things. Maybe Senator Kyl is available, and we could move to the voice vote on that. In the meantime, if we don't vote by 12:15, there will be no votes until around 4 p.m. One of the things I have learned, in a major bill such as this, if you lose momentum, it just takes longer. I would like to keep some momentum going. I would like to suggest the absence of a quorum. Let's hang here for a few minutes to see if we can clear a vote on the amendment of the Senator from Texas. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BIDEN. A voice vote.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, Senator Vitter has been kind enough to come to the floor. He is trying to help move this process. He has an amendment relating to an inspector general. We have not had a chance to talk to him, but Senator Lugar and I have a second-degree amendment to that amendment that I think it may be worthwhile for the three of us to talk about. Senator Vitter has indicated he would like--and I have no objection, assuming the second degree is in order--that the pending business, when we return, when the leadership meetings are over, be the Vitter amendment. I forget the number, quite frankly, but the Vitter amendment relating to inspectors general. Am I correct, I ask the Senator?

Mr. BIDEN. I have no objection to that, as long as there is a second- degree amendment in order to the Vitter amendment when that occurs. But I yield to my colleague, Senator Lugar.

Mr. BIDEN. Yes.

Mr. BIDEN. There is not a recess, correct.

Mr. BIDEN. So maybe rather than asking unanimous consent, it might be worthwhile to state the intention of the managers that after the vote on the Cornyn amendment, what we will do is move to the Vitter amendment; that he is here on the floor and will seek recognition to move his amendment. In the meantime, we will let him know what the second-degree amendment we are going to be offering to his amendment will be. As a practical matter, it will be the order of business at the time because he will have been recognized to move to his amendment. In the meantime, unless my friend from Texas would like to speak further on his amendment, I would suggest the absence of a quorum. Mr. President, the vote is now set for 12:15 on the Cornyn amendment; am I correct?

Mr. BIDEN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Cornyn amendment.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, for the benefit of our colleagues, we are making pretty good progress here. We only have a few amendments to go. To try to get a sense for our schedules and time, I will start by saying I don't see any reason why we will not finish this bill early tonight, No. 1. No. 2, I am told by the leaders that there will be no votes between now and 4. We are prepared to take up, debate, discuss, and accept some amendments. I wish to ask my colleagues who have amendments--Senator Vitter is working with us right now. We may be able to work something out on his amendment. Senator DeMint has an amendment that we have debated. We are ready to vote on it, but he indicated he may have other people wishing to speak to it. We are ready to vote, after 4 o'clock, on that. I wish to set a time for that. Senator Craig has two amendments. One we are prepared to accept, and the other we are prepared to vote on. I believe he is ready to vote when we can set the time. Senator Kyl has an amendment that I believe we are ready to vote on. The only question is whether there will be a point of order on that amendment because it relates to the budget. That is being discussed now. Senator Sessions has an amendment which we are desperately trying to figure out how to proceed on and work out. We may be able to accommodate that and end up with a voice vote on that amendment. I want my colleagues to know that in the next ensuing minutes and hours we are going to try to work out specific times. As my grandfather used to say, ``With the grace of God and the good will of the neighbors,'' by 4 o'clock, we will be able to set a series of votes. I don't see why we cannot finish this by 5 o'clock. That is the intention, but intentions here are not always met with reality. That is the intention. I see my colleague, the ranking member of the committee, standing up. I don't know if he wants to make any comment.

Mr. BIDEN. While we are working on the Vitter amendment--we made an offer and there has been a counteroffer--I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and I send to the desk an amendment by Senator Gregg and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BIDEN. Very briefly, this amendment relates to cost sharing and transition strategies. It has been cleared on both sides. I suggest we move by voice vote. I ask unanimous consent we proceed to a vote.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, unless my friend from Indiana thinks we should proceed, I think we should spend the next few minutes in a quorum call while we try to work out, if we can, the Vitter amendment. So I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BIDEN

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

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I do support the initiative of the Senator from Alabama. I think what he has said about the consequences and effects of what he is doing are absolutely correct. At the appropriate time, with the permission of the Senator from Indiana, and in the context of a unanimous consent agreement here, we would be prepared to accept the amendment. But we are not quite there yet. While I have the floor, if I could say for the benefit of my colleagues and their staffs who are listening as to the status of where we are, the Senator from Indiana and I think we are very close to the wrapping up of an entire unanimous consent agreement which would allow us to have no more than four votes, including final passage--at least that is the expectation--and that we would be able to do that sometime within the next 2 hours, and we would be out of here relatively early. On that point, I thank all the Senators who have had amendments for their cooperation in moving this along, I think a great deal more rapidly than anybody anticipated, at least more rapidly than I anticipated we would be able to do. To conclude where I began, I say to the Senator from Alabama, I think his initiative is first rate. Everything he says about the consequences of what he is talking about is absolutely accurate, as best I know the situation. In the context of a wrap-up unanimous consent agreement, we will be able to handle all of this. So that is the intention, I say to the Senator. I am told in the meantime if and when the Senator from Alabama yields the floor, the Senator from Florida is looking to proceed as in morning business for some relatively short period of time. Amendment No. 5086 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside, and on behalf of Senator Vitter, I send to the desk an amendment to the Vitter amendment, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I wish to correct what I said. I said I send to the desk an amendment to the Vitter amendment. I send the Vitter amendment to the desk, and I ask unanimous consent that we move to its immediate consideration.

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, for the benefit of my colleagues, I believe we are down to three amendments. As my grandfather would say, God willing and the creek not rising, we will get a UC that can wrap this up pretty quickly. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, for the benefit of my colleagues, I am going to propound, very shortly, two unanimous consent requests relative to the legislation. I wanted to make sure Senator Lugar has copies of them. The first one relates to the Sessions amendment. Then the second relates to wrapping up the entirety of the bill, all remaining amendments. With the Senator's permission, I will proceed. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for Senator Sessions to substitute an amendment on promoting blood safety for the amendment he currently has listed under the agreement with respect to S. 2731, with no second-degree amendments in order to the amendment; that the Sessions amendment be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that the Sessions amendment on the list be deleted, and that no point of order be in order to the bill based on section 305.