Joe Biden

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, are we still in morning business?

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be laid aside so that I may send an amendment to the desk and ask for its consideration.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I have a number of points to make today. The bottom line of what I am proposing is an amendment to the Commerce- Justice-Science appropriations bill relating to law enforcement and COPS. The bottom line is--and I will explain this briefly--No. 1, I propose adding $1.019 billion to assist local law enforcement, support victims of domestic violence and sexual assault, and deal with some aspects of the impact of the hurricane on local law enforcement. No. 2, this amendment contains $1 billion for the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, the so-called COPS Program. It provides $700 million for hiring local officers, and it provides $300 million for interoperable communications equipment for local agencies. If you ever need any evidence of the fact that we need that equipment and need more of it, I think Katrina has demonstrated that, unfortunately, fairly well. It also contains $10 million for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children to help find and reunite children displaced by Hurricane Katrina, and it has $9 million to support victims of domestic violence and sexual assault impacted by what happened during this crisis. It sounds like a lot of money--and it is a lot of money--but we have made a serious mistake relating to our domestic security, our homeland security, and our need to deal with the looming threats that flow from not only national disasters we are facing now--and I hope we don't face another like this--but the terrors spoken about by my friend from Missouri. In 2002, we were aiding local law enforcement collectively by $2.4 billion a year. Although there has been some correction made, this administration proposed cutting that direct aid to local law enforcement down to $168 million. I find that mind-boggling. I find that as misplaced and misunderstood a representation as I do cutting money for levees and cutting money for the Corps of Engineers, as we have done the last 4 years. This is an attempt to not restore all but restore part of the assistance we provided for local law enforcement in the past. The devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina has revealed the best and the worst about our great Nation. It has revealed a great economic divide that exists among our citizens, while it demonstrated as well the capacity of the majority of our citizens to be compassionate and even heroic during times of great need. It also exposed the demons of some who will use any opportunity to prey on the weak. The hurricane also demonstrated the best and the worst in our Government. It is clear by all accounts that the Federal response was insufficient, and we will be discussing that in the coming days, weeks, and months to hopefully address the concerns so that, God forbid, faced with this or an attack, we would not go through the same degree of incompetence that seems to have been spread across the governmental front. It also demonstrates clearly to me we have to do more to support State and local law enforcement officials. These men and women, in my opinion, demonstrated the best the Government had to offer, as opposed to the sudden incompetence we have seen. The men and women in Biloxi, New Orleans, and other police departments in the region have been working 24 hours a day. Many of them have lost their homes, and their families have been displaced. They have been working with limited food and water. Many of them do not even have the facilities to take a shower and use a restroom. Lieutenant Bennelli of the New Orleans Police Department stated: I spent a year in Vietnam. The ordeal that these officials have gone through has been as trying as the time I spent in Vietnam. For everyone who argues that--and I hear this a lot around here these days--local law enforcement is a local problem, they should take a look at what is happening in the Gulf States. I know many of my colleagues-- and I respect my colleagues who have this view, but they are into this devolution of Government stuff, the new paradigm they like to talk about. They talk about the new paradigm in foreign policy. They talk about a new paradigm in local law enforcement in terms of devolution of Government. Translated, that means the only thing the Federal Government should do is those things which no State can do. Or put another way, if the State can do any of what is required to meet the needs of their citizens, only the State should do it. From men and women on this floor who are equally as adamant about fighting crime as I have been in my years, they are saying they support eliminating the COPS Program. Why? They say it is not the business of the Federal Government. The Federal Government should not be involved in local law enforcement. Well, I like to point out that 60 percent of all the crimes committed in America relate to drugs, abuse of drugs, the sale of drugs, illicit drugs. Is that a State responsibility or does not that stuff come across the border? Does not that stuff come from the Andes? Does not that stuff come from Afghanistan? Does not that stuff come from abroad? We can have the best police department, the most significant--and I think we have the best law enforcement agencies in the Nation in the State of Delaware, and you cannot stop the drugs coming down from Aramingo Avenue in Philadelphia. They cross State lines. So I respectfully suggest to the devolution-of-Government guys that Federal responsibility exists as it relates to local crime and local law enforcement. I would like to point out another thing. God forbid we have an attack. Let us assume--and it was not, but let us assume some divers were planting explosives to blow up the levees along the Mississippi as opposed to Lake Pontchartrain, which by the way is a lot higher. Who is going to find them? Is it going to be some brave special forces officer in night vision goggles watching this happen and they are going to capture them or is it going to be my son who is now in the National Guard down in Gulfport, MS, patrolling the streets? Is he the one going to be doing that? No, it is going to be a local cop. Who is going to find the guy or the woman or the terrorist who is going to try to put sarin gas into the Houston Astrodome or a giant shopping mall? It is going to be some cop coming from Dunkin' Donuts riding behind the facility catching someone in a dumpster. I do not know what we are thinking about here. Cutting local law enforcement moneys? Forget Katrina, which only makes the point more starkly, but forget it for a moment. What are we doing? We had a great President named Reagan who said, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Guess what. Nobody has argued the COPS Program has not succeeded. No one has argued it has failed. A former Attorney General said, when it was time to eliminate it, I think the word he used was miraculous, it has been a miraculous program. Let us cut it? Let us eliminate it? I would make the suggestion that law enforcement is not purely a local problem. Look at what is happening in the Gulf States right now. Law enforcement is a national concern and requires a national response and a national commitment. Local communities need robust police departments. They need superior communication technology and equipment. I know my friends in the Commerce Committee know more about the spectrum fight, which I will not get into now, than most do, but the idea that there is not sufficient spectrum available to our first responders because the broadcast industry is unwilling to commit to the deal they made is beyond me. Local communities are the ones that not only affect the overall security of the country but the day-to-day lives of their citizens by reducing crime. This also helps local governments be better at responding in periods of crisis. What could be more important to the national priority than the safety of our citizens? We simply have not been doing right by our States and local government partners over the past few years. Throughout the 1990s we allocated billions of dollars to hire local law enforcement, provided them with the technology they needed. We all know the story. Reduce crime each year for 8 consecutive years and we are still reaping the benefits of those successes as crime rates still go down. I would like to point out one other simple fact. Having chaired the Judiciary Committee or been its ranking member for I think 17 years and being on that committee for 30 years, to the best of my knowledge, there is no other time in American history when the cadre of those in their crime-committing years, meaning young people between the ages of 14 and 25, have increased and violent crime has gone down. This program has worked because the States have made it work. We reduced crime, as I said, 8 years in a row. But we did more than reduce crime by this legislation we have cut so drastically. We also demonstrated a commitment to local agencies. We increased their capacity to respond to any situations of the local communities. In this year's budget, we have allocated only $2 million to hire police officers. This amount will hire approximately 25 officers throughout the Nation, hardly a ringing endorsement of our local agencies. Right now, the COPS office has pending applications to hire 8,000 local officers left unfilled due to lack of funds. The amendment I am offering today would provide $700 million to immediately fill these needs with special emphasis on filling the needs of those agencies in the devastated regions. The New Orleans Police Department in particular will need special assistance. If this funding is allocated to the COPS office, it should work with those agencies first. We also know that network capabilities of agencies in the area have been destroyed. We need to help them get those networks back on line so they can continue to do their job. My amendment would add $300 million to the current allocation of $37 million, which is all that has been allocated. It would add $300 million to help agencies in the gulf coast get up and running again. The COPS office has had an overtime program to help local agencies pay overtime. We all understand the need to assist local agencies that have been working around the clock, but based on conversations with the Louisiana Association of Chiefs of Police and the National Sheriffs Association, it is my understanding that the Federal Emergency Management Agency will be reimbursing local agencies for those costs. Because of this understanding, we have not included additional assistance for overtime in this amendment. Finally, we include $19 million for children who have been displaced and to support the domestic violence shelters that have been destroyed. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children has reported that over 1,000 children have been displaced by this storm--that means they are not with their parents or guardians--and in this amendment we provide $10 million for that effort. We also provide $9 million to support domestic violence victims impacted by the storms. We all heard of the reports of sexual assaults in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and we will support those victims who have not been moved to new shelters. In addition, this funding will support the shelters in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama that have been impacted and will help support shelters in adjoining States that have been called upon to do much more in the coming months. I think all of my colleagues have heard me say that I believe there is not a more important responsibility in Government than the safety of its citizens. It comes before their health, before their education, before everything. There are no civil liberties, there are no opportunities if one is not able to be safe on the street. Without safety and security, nothing else matters. Our local law enforcement agencies are there every day fighting crime and responding to emergencies. Hurricane Katrina demonstrated quite starkly the way we rely on them. The Federal support for these officers has been on a steady decline, as I said at the outset, the past few years. We need to reverse that trend. This amendment will help us get back on track. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, on the Craig amendment No. 1644 to S. 397, I was unavoidably absent. Had I been present I would have voted ``no'' on the Craig amendment.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, for over 3 years, we have heard that our most important national security priority is to ``keep the world's deadliest weapons out of the hands of the world's most dangerous people.'' One of the best ways to do that is to secure the world's stocks of fissile material and to destroy such material that is no longer needed for the nuclear weapons programs of the five accepted nuclear weapons states. The Cooperative Threat Reduction program, also known as the Nunn- Lugar program, is an important mechanism for achieving this vital objective. For over a dozen years, Nunn-Lugar has funded the destruction of Russian long-range ballistic missiles, nuclear warheads, and chemical weapons, as well as improved security for Russia's nuclear and chemical weapons. This program has furthered Russian compliance with bilateral and multilateral arms control treaties, and it has done so with great transparency. In short, Nunn-Lugar has been a consistent contributor to our national security. Experts report, however, that since 9/11, the pace of Nunn-Lugar activities has fallen off. Fewer arms are being destroyed and there has been a major delay in activities due to disagreements with Russia over access to activities and liability protection for contractors associated with the program. Another major impediment to Nunn-Lugar activities has been the need either to meet onerous certification requirements or to prepare an annual report justifying Presidential waivers of those certification requirements. This is a needless waste of resources. Worse yet, the certification and waiver requirements often lead to gaps of several months in the flow of funds to Nunn-Lugar projects. Those projects are not undertaken out of the goodness of our hearts; rather, they are designed to improve our national security by lessening the risk that rogues or terrorists will acquire weapons of mass destruction. So, what is the point of requiring onerous certifications or waiver reports? The only effect of those requirements is to slow the process of improving our national security. The truth is that the certification requirements were imposed by people who questioned the wisdom of Nunn-Lugar in the first place. And I cannot believe that anybody could doubt the usefulness of Nunn-Lugar today, given its proven record of achieving U.S. objectives. If we are serious, then, about ``keeping the world's deadliest weapons out of the hands of the world's most dangerous people,'' the time has come to pursue that goal more efficiently. In particular, the time has come to stop putting roadblocks in the way of the Nunn-Lugar program, as we use that program to secure and destroy weapons of mass destruction that might otherwise fall into ``most dangerous'' hands. The Lugar-Levin amendment will clear a major roadblock from the path to national security. I urge all my colleagues to support it.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I know we are about to vote at 2:30 on two amendments. I wanted this to be the pending business. I will lay this aside until after the successive votes we are about to have. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and I call up amendment No. 1301.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, an important part of U.S. nuclear nonproliferation policy is the continuing effort to deter other countries from testing a nuclear weapon. It is often said that a country could build a relatively simple nuclear weapon, like the bomb exploded at Hiroshima, and use it with confidence even though it has not tested the device. That does not hold true, however, for more complex designs; and military commanders are loath to rely upon any weapon that has not been tested. One major way to deter countries from conducting nuclear weapons tests is to ensure that such a test would be detected. That's because most countries, as signers of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty, the CTBT, are bound to refrain from acts that would undermine the object and purpose of that treaty, even though it has yet to enter into force. In addition, nearly all nuclear weapons states, including some that are not parties to the CTBT, have proclaimed unilateral moratoria on nuclear weapons tests. Thus, there are both legal and political barriers to openly testing nuclear weapons. How can we make it more likely that a covert nuclear weapons test would be detected and identified? One way is through U.S. and allied data collection, including the fine seismic network put together by the Air Force Technical Applications Center, or AFTAC. I support and applaud the work of AFTAC, which is truly a center of excellence. But AFTAC cannot and does not do everything; not every country will cooperate with the United States in the nuclear detection mission; and when we use AFTAC, we pay the full bill. AFTAC's work is supplemented importantly by the International Monitoring System, or IMS, that is being set up by the Preparatory Commission for the CTBT Organization, the CTBTO PrepCom. The worldwide seismic network of the IMS will include sites in Russia, China, Iran and elsewhere that cannot be duplicated through U.S. or bilateral arrangements. It will also combine long-distance, low-frequency, or teleseismic, coverage with high-frequency, regional seismic data that many experts believe will do a better job of detecting a ``decoupled'' explosion that uses an existing cavity to resist detection. The IMS will marshal four different types of data--not only seismic, but also hydroacoustic, infrasound, and airborne radionuclide emissions--collected at 321 sites, mostly seismic arrays. The use of multiple methodologies will make it more difficult for a country to evade detection, as it gets very difficult to design a test that avoids detection by all four means. And the rest of the world is paying more than three quarters of the cost of this robust monitoring system. Finally, while national technical means may include very sensitive intelligence information, the IMS will provide data that can be used openly for diplomatic or enforcement purposes. That will greatly ease the pressure on U.S. intelligence to expose sensitive sources or methods in order to further U.S. foreign policy objectives. The administration rightly supports the IMS and has funded the U.S. share of IMS expenses for several years. Secretary of State Rice confirmed the administration's support for this program earlier this year, in response to a question for the record that I asked after she testified on the foreign affairs budget. In addition, the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, Mr. Joseph, has assured the Foreign Relations Committee that funding the IMS is fully consistent with the administration's position on the CTBT, which it has said that the United States will not join, even though it is a signatory to the treaty. While I wish that the administration were of a different mind on the CTBT itself, I think they are absolutely correct in their view that the IMS serves our national security interests even if this country never ratifies the CTBT. Unfortunately, the Office of Management and Budget imposed a severe cut on this budget item, reducing the State Department's request from $22,000,000 to $14,350,000. The Secretary of State assured the Foreign Relations Committee that the State Department is committed to finding the extra funds, even if they have to be obtained in the fiscal year 2007 budget. That's no way to run a railroad, however, and it could be difficult to get over $30 million next year to make up for the shortfall. It would be far better to find some of that extra money now and not put the United States so far in arrears. I propose, therefore, that an extra $5 million be made available for the U.S. contribution to the CTBTO PrepCom. I am joined in this amendment by the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, my good friend Senator Lugar of Indiana, which I very much appreciate. The additional funds will make it much more likely that the United States will find the money to pay its full assessment for IMS and will help keep the world from becoming a much more dangerous place. Staff to Senators McConnell and Leahy have kindly worked with us on this amendment and identified the budget for economic support funds as an area in which a $5 million cut could be absorbed with less harm to our national security than we would risk by failing to fund the IMS in a timely manner. I understand that the managers of this bill are prepared to accept our amendment and can cover the difference in first- year outlays that will result. I am most grateful for their cooperation. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the following question and answer.

Mr. BIDEN

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

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am told that the time has been running against the 15 minutes, and I may have less than that. But if I run out of time, I have been authorized to maybe take as much as 5 minutes off of Leader Reid's time. Hopefully, I will not get to that point. I rise today to support the Byrd rail security amendment. I know even though the Presiding Officer is new to this body he is aware I have been like a broken record for the past 4 years about rail security. When I look at the clerk, she probably thinks: Here he goes again because I have been talking about this so much since 9/11. Quite frankly, we have an abysmal record, an irresponsible record, dealing with rail security. For the longest time, we had trouble in 2002, 2003, 2004, up until 2005, getting any traction. We have passed serious rail security bills, including Amtrak, in the past under the leadership of Senator McCain, and Senator Hollings, who was my seatmate for years, who is now gone. The McCain-Hollings-Biden amendment that was passed called for $1.2 billion. We even passed a $1.7 billion amendment. The House and the President seem--I do not know what it is. I just do not get it. I thought that maybe this time around my colleagues in this body would understand that, as my dad, God love him, used to say before he died, if everything is equally important nothing is important. There are priorities. How there could be anything from a tax cut to even an education program that could take priority over dealing with our homeland security is beyond my comprehension. I do not get it. But obviously we are not prepared to do what I was prepared to introduce, and did introduce the beginning of the week, to add $1.1 billion for rail security, which would have brought the total number for rail security up to $1.2 billion, which was in the bill we passed last time around which would have provided $670 million to deal with security in tunnels and the places where cataclysmic events could take place--$65 million, $4 million immediately to Amtrak to go out and buy canine patrols, put more cops on, put in cameras and detectors, secure the switching stations, and all the things that lend themselves to providing for a catastrophe. The bottom line is I do not have the votes to get that done. So I joined with Senator Byrd, who has been a leader in this area, in my sincere hope that $265 million for rail security in this amendment, which is one-fourth of the amount passed in the Rail Security Act of 2004 last October, will actually pass. The positive piece is that although it does not give us a straight line to deal with the long-term security interests of rail, it would give them enough money and all the money they could reasonably spend in 1 year to be able to begin to upgrade our system. The tragedy in London has focused the Congress and the Nation on rail security again this week, but quite frankly I learned from Madrid. I thought Madrid would be a wake-up call. I thought after Madrid people would say: Hey, Biden, you are right, man. We have a real problem with rail. We should really do something about this. Nothing, nothing, nothing happened. Now, our closest ally and friend maybe gives us a different perspective on the floor. The Madrid attacks should have done it, but they did not. Our negligence to this point has been inexcusable. Many of us have been talking about this for years. The bottom line is that nearly 4 years after September 11, over 1 year after Madrid, our rail system is as vulnerable as it was 4 years ago. I met earlier this week in my office with the head of Amtrak security and all of his attendant folks. I cannot reveal publicly everything I learned, but it is quite alarming. Let me talk about a few things I can reveal. Critics argue that we cannot protect, for example--there are 22,000 miles of rail in this country, and critics say: Joe, you cannot protect all 22,000 miles. That is a little bit like saying we cannot protect the airlines. We should not have air traffic controllers because we get baggage put in the holds that are not inspected? Now, is there anybody on the floor saying that? Right now one gets on a plane and the baggage that is put in the hold is not inspected thoroughly like the baggage that is carried on. But is anyone saying we should not spend the money on TSA to inspect the people going through the gates? Of course not. Let us not make the perfect the enemy of the good. The fact that we cannot do everything does not mean we do not do anything. That has been the mantra with regard to rail. As I said, the argument is 22,000 miles cannot be protected, but guess what. We can prevent a Madrid or a London-style attack in the United States. We can make our rail system much safer and reduce the chance of attack because we understand that the terrorists want spectacular, cataclysmic attacks with large body counts in this Nation. Because we know that, we can narrow our focus to critical areas such as stations and tunnels, areas that security experts and common sense, as well as the CIA, tells us are the most vulnerable. When I first did this 4 years ago, people said, oh, my God; do not point out that the Baltimore Tunnel was built in 1869, has no ventilation, no lighting, no escape, no way out. You are going to alert the terrorists. The terrorists know this. They know all the vulnerabilities. The problem is the American public does not know. So there is not enough pressure put on all of us here to make the right decision. For example, every day over one-half million people pass through New York's Penn Station. This morning there were more people sitting in an aluminum tube below New York City--aluminum tube meaning a train car-- than in a half dozen full 747 aircraft. Tell me what happens when sarin gas is released there. Tell me what happens when there are a series of explosions that far underground. Tell me what happens if anything remotely approaching a chemical weapon is used. There is no ventilation. Riding in New York City today in the tunnels one will see construction going on, as it should, with these great big things that look like jet engines being put up in the ceiling. That is ventilation, exhaust. So, if something goes off in the tunnel, 2 people or 20 people die, not 200 or 2,000. Do you know what the single most visited facility in all of Washington, DC, is? It is 2 blocks down the street. I walk to it every night: Union Station. More people visit Union Station than any other facility in Washington, DC. Go down there with me, Mr. President, and get on a train with me, as I do every night, and stand on the last car as you ride out of the station. Look; tell me if you identify a single camera. Tell me if you identify any barbed wire fencing around the switching devices. Tell me whether you see any security. Tell me whether you see any guards. There are a half-million people going through the station at Penn Station, and do you know how many police officers are on duty at any one time there? Twelve. There are 12 in New York, 5 in Union Station. As I said, if you walk over there with me right now, you will find no real police presence, no fencing, inadequate security cameras, all of which anybody with common sense would say made no sense. For some reason, there is an animus toward Amtrak in Washington. I kind of figured it out, actually. I think a lot of folks here think that it is a back-door way of funding Amtrak. Otherwise, I can't understand why you wouldn't do this, after the billions we spend on airlines, as we should. I am not talking about Amtrak subsidies here; I am talking about protecting American lives. In addition to the 64,000 daily riders on Amtrak, there are 23 locations where Amtrak facilities, stations and rails, overlap with transit facilities. In the Northeast corridor, Maryland Area Regional Commuter, has 400,000 daily commuters that utilize Amtrak--400,000 daily commuters on MARC that utilize Amtrak facilities. They walk in the station, get in a car, and it gets on an Amtrak track. My friend from Rhode Island can tell me more about the transit systems in Rhode Island, and New York Transit, and Long Island Transit, and Connecticut Transit--et cetera. They all use Amtrak facilities. Amtrak can only pay a starting salary of $31,000 to its police officers, and I cannot pay them more than $38,000, no matter how long they have been there, and they have a 10-percent vacancy rate on the force right now. Most of these positions are in New York and Washington where they need them most, but very little anyplace else. As I stated, in an amendment I proposed to add $1.1 billion for rail security, but the Byrd amendment only comes up with some $240 million right off the bat. We can use it. We can use it desperately. It is my understanding the Committee on Commerce and Transportation is going to mark up a comprehensive rail bill again next week, but we cannot wait for that. We need this $200-plus million right now. The $265 million in the Byrd amendment will provide urgent funding for Amtrak, including 200 additional police officers, 40 additional canine patrols, and improved fencing, lighting, and basic cameras--just basic block-and-tackle equipment that, if we have them, we can save thousands of lives. The London bombers were identified by an expansive system of closed- circuit television in the London Metro. They have roughly 6,000 high- quality cameras there. We don't have anywhere near that capacity. We need that capacity. Another area that needs attention is the transportation of hazardous chemicals. We have already voted this down before but, God, we should rethink this. The Naval Research Laboratory was asked what would happen in an attack on a traditional 90-ton chemical tanker. If you look at a train at a railroad crossing, you see the freight rail go by and you see these tankers--not containers, tankers; the whole car is one unit. You see them go. They are about 90 tons. A 90-ton chlorine gas tanker, having an IED like those that explode in the streets of Baghdad placed under it on a track or under the tanker, exploding in a metropolitan area, according to the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, will kill up to 100,000 Americans. Do you hear me now? One chlorine tanker exploding in a metropolitan area will kill 100,000 Americans. And we have trouble getting Homeland Security to come up with a plan to force these kinds of tankers to circumvent the population areas? Because it costs more money? It costs business more to do that. It costs more in the products we will buy. My Lord, what are we doing? I might add to my friends in the Congress, when you leave Union Station and you head south to Richmond, you go under tunnels. Do you know what the tunnel goes under? Straight under the Supreme Court and under the House Office Building. If you explode a chlorine tanker underground, under that, you implode the Congress, you implode the office building called the Supreme Court. If you want to make a statement--again, these are the IEDs, the roadside bombs that are killing our brave soldiers every day in up- armored humvees. There is no camera to detect anybody walking through those tunnels. There is no security. And we sit here like darned fools and say, No, that costs money. That is going to cost us money. I understand the procedural restrictions will prevent us from considering that bill today, but I think this is a critical issue, one we simply have to address. I am going to be pushing this legislation until the cows come home. After Madrid and London, we simply have run out of excuses not to act. This Byrd amendment does not solve every problem, but it goes a long way toward dealing with the beginning attempt to prevent catastrophic damage to American infrastructure and American lives. We will never be able to stop someone placing a bomb on a track somewhere along the 22,000 miles of track we have. We will only be lucky, one in three or one in ten times, with a dog getting someone who walks on a train with dynamite or K-2 strapped to their body or carried in their knapsack. But to use that as an excuse to do virtually nothing, or to use it as an excuse that this breaks the budget--give me a break. We are breaking the budget on the inheritance tax. We are breaking the budget on an additional tax break for the superwealthy. We are breaking the budget on so many less worthy expenditures than homeland security. There is much more to say, but I know my colleagues, over the last 5 years, are tired of hearing me say it. I have a prayer, a literal prayer, that I never have the occasion to walk on this Senate floor and say: We should have done this and we failed. For God's sake, you guys and women who are going to vote on this, think about it in terms of how will you explain to the American people if something tragic and preventable happens after having voted against measures that, if put in place 4 years ago or put in place now, had a reasonable prospect of preventing it? That is a question I think you have to ask yourself. I will end where I began, with my dad. My dad used to say: Champ, if everything is equally important to you, nothing is important to you. Every hard decision we make is about priorities. I ask the rhetorical question: What priority is higher than the public safety of the American people in the face of a demonstrable threat that isn't going away? I yield the floor. I see my friend from Maryland is on the floor.

Mr. BIDEN. I know.

Mr. BIDEN. That is my point.

Mr. BIDEN. But the Senator wanted to do it, and he could not jurisdictionally do it. That is why I appreciate his support for the Byrd amendment as well. That is the only place we could pick up a piece of Amtrak. I see my friend from New York. There are a million people in Penn Station today--more people, as I said--sitting at rush hour in an aluminum tube underneath New York City than a half dozen full 747s, and we are doing nothing about it. I thank the Senator from Maryland. He has done a great job. And I thank Senator Shelby. I hope we can move it.

Mr. BIDEN. If the Senator will yield for a comment, the Senator, who lives in Baltimore and has commuted to Baltimore every day for the last 20-some years--more than that, from when he was in the House--he will remember that there was a fire in an automobile tunnel going into Baltimore Inner Harbor a couple of years ago. It shut down all of Baltimore in the harbor region.

Mr. BIDEN. Just that fire. Even if there were not a terrorist threat, the idea that we are continuing to have, in and out and under the Baltimore harbor, this antiquated, 150-year-old tunnel, without any reasonable upgrade, is mind-boggling.

Mr. BIDEN. If the Senator will yield, I compliment the Senator from Maryland. This is not a mutual admiration society, but he has jurisdiction in the Banking Committee over surface rail, intracity rail, and he has taken care of this amendment. I realize he wanted to reach out further and take Amtrak into this, but he does not have that jurisdiction.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, not that long ago, for the average American, our world was not a threatening place. Not long ago, there was little reason for the average American to feel anxious about the future. The United States was the only superpower; our economy was enjoying record growth and job creation. Those things are no longer true. The rise of terrorism, the war in Iraq, international economic competition from new sources like China and India, as well as increased economic insecurity here at home-- together these forces have cost us a lot of our optimism, a lot of our self-confidence. We are a people whose birthright is a belief in a better future, a belief in our ability to control our own fate, at home and abroad. That is our national character. But these days, our character is being tested. Even in the best of times, trade legislation has been a touchy subject. These days, it can be among the most contentious issues we confront. Our trade deals carry the freight of our insecurities, economic and otherwise. They carry our worries about our place in international competition, about job security, about losing our grip on our standard of living. There are real reasons that Americans are worried these days. Studies by the Federal Reserve and others confirm that income mobility--the opportunity for children to do better in life than their parents is declining, approaching the levels of more static, developing economies. Without poring over statistics, Americans can see that happening. The reality of self-determination, the fact of social mobility, has been the foundation of our optimism. When the facts change, when the pace of mobility slows, it shows. Instead of a generation or two between poverty and a solid middle class living, today it can take five or six generations. We have yet to produce one single new job since this administration came into office. Not one. Whomever you blame or however you explain it, that is a fact that registers in the lives of Americans. Not since the Great Depression has it taken so long to replace lost jobs. That is why long-term unemployment--over half a year looking for a job--is the lot of over a million and a half Americans. These conditions keep wages low, falling behind the cost of living. Real wages are falling at a rate we haven't seen in 14 years. Into these tough times comes the word that 2 billion new workers, in China and India, to take the two biggest examples, are now competing with Americans for new jobs created in the global economy. These workers are highly motivated--the poverty they are rising from, the pace of growth they can see in their cities, is a powerful incentive. Their governments are increasingly sophisticated about attracting investment and expertise from here and around the world to fuel their national economic strategies. With these troubling trends, Americans are in no mood to accept text book platitudes about the benefits of free trade. They want to see some of the gains come home. I am personally convinced that trade is in fact not only ultimately good for us, but inevitable. Standing at our shores, commanding the tides of trade to retreat, is not a plan for our Nation's economic future. We fought and won a Cold War in the last century a war against a totalitarian economic ideology, to protect and project American values of political and economic freedom in the world. Now is not the time to doubt those values. They are still the right values for us, and the right values for the citizens of other nations. Free men and women, freely exchanging goods and ideas, innovating, creating. That is the world we fought for, that is the evidence of our success. And what is the alternative? Do we expect to close our ports to products Americans want to buy? Can we expect to successfully block American companies from seeking profitable investments overseas? In today's world, American leadership is a reality. We cannot lead the world in the search for security but at the same time retreat economically. Trade can help cement peaceful ties, raise living standards, give desperate people hope and put idle hands to work. Trade must be part of our security strategy, or that strategy will not succeed. If there is to be a better world ahead of us, wealthier, healthier, freer--and I am certain that there is--then expanding international trade will be part of it. I don't think you can envision that world without expanding trade ties, expanding economic integration. But there is no free lunch. This world comes at a cost. It comes at the cost of predictability, at the cost of stability. The economist Joseph Schumpeter called capitalism a process of creative destruction. And that it is. The telephone replaced the telegraph, the automobile replaced the horse, supermarkets replaced mom-and-pop grocery stores. Our farms are mechanized; our manufacturing is robotized; our information is computerized. With every new idea, with every new invention, an old product, an old technology, and the jobs they sustained, are left behind. Our Nation has become wealthy riding the waves of innovation, opportunity, efficiency, and economic growth. That, in part, is the American way. But another part of the American way is our shared commitment to each other. With every wave of change, from agrarian nation to manufacturing power, to the world's richest economy, we have created the institutions to cope with the human costs of economic change. Child labor laws, minimum wage, the 40-hour workweek, these are evidence of our values. And we have Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance--all ways to share the costs and spread the burdens of a churning economy. Most fundamentally, we have established the rights of working men and women to bargain collectively for their wages and working conditions: these things are also the American way. When it is done right, trade makes us more efficient and more productive. With the economic gains from trade we can afford to take care of those whose jobs are lost as the new ones are created. There is a human logic to this, a logic that says the men and women, and their families and communities, who are displaced by economic change are not to blame for their fate. They should not shoulder alone the costs of change while others reap the benefits. There is an economic logic, as well--by compensating some for bearing the cost of change, we keep innovation and opportunity expanding for everyone. And finally there is a political logic. When we all know that we are not alone, that there are resources we can draw on in tough times, we don't have to fight change. Without that assurance, in our open political system, those who bear the cost of change and innovation will--understandably--resist it. If trade is ultimately good for our economy as a whole, we must make sure that it is good for American workers and their families, too. This trade deal does not do that, and that is why I cannot support it. I said 2 years ago that I was concerned about the lack of effective enforcement provisions for the labor standards in the Chile and Singapore trade deals, and the precedent that might set for the CAFTA negotiations. What we now call the ``Jordan standard,'' that treats labor provisions on the same terms as intellectual property and commercial provisions, allows for effective enforcement when a party fails to live up to its labor rights commitments. That effective enforcement standard is part of the Jordan Free Trade Agreement, now in effect. But instead of building on that success, CAFTA comes to us today without that effective means of enforcement. At a time when the political support for trade is shaky at best, with American families justifiably anxious about the volatility and insecurity just below the surface of our economy, why would we roll back the standards for labor protections in our trade deals? It just doesn't make any sense. I notice that there is a lot of new language in this trade agreement about labor rights in the countries of Central America and the Dominican Republic. That shows that our negotiators are getting the message about how important those provisions are to the political support we need for trade. But instead of providing labor standards with the same level of effective enforcement that American businesses will get for their concerns, this deal leaves labor a second-class citizen. But it is not just the specific terms of this trade deal that concern me today. If we are going to compete in today's global economy, we need a plan to protect American living standards and a plan to keep our Nation the most competitive on Earth. We need a good defense, but we need a good offense, too. We need a strong trade adjustment assistance program, and we need the will to enforce it. We need to make sure that health insurance, pensions, and other basic benefits are protected and portable in a changing world. I think we should consider a real wage insurance policy that addresses not just the jobs lost by trade--in reality, trade is a small part of the churning in our economy--but any job loss that could put a family's standard of living at risk. If we do it right--and right now we just have a small pilot program out there--wage insurance could provide real help to families in transition from one job to another and keep our labor markets open and dynamic. But important as those kinds of protections can be, they are just playing defense. Right now, I don't see a plan for an offense, a plan for us to take on the rising competition from around the world, a plan to make American working men and women the winners. That is going to take investments in education, in research, and in new technologies. That is going to take a commitment to making our workforce the most productive in the world, giving them the tools and the skills they need to compete. That is going to take a plan to create a new generation of good-paying jobs. On the education front, Bill Gates has told us that our high school graduates are not up to the standards his company needs. Newt Gingrich has called the administration's lack of investment in basic research, and I quote, ``unilateral disarmament'' in the face of international competition. Those are not partisan attacks. Those are warnings we cannot ignore. Because we don't have an adequate defense for the families who are affected by economic change, because we don't have an effective offense to win in a globalizing economy, I cannot lend my support to this trade deal. It sends the wrong message, it sets the wrong example. The CAFTA countries themselves are no more than 1 percent of our trade. In many ways, they are not the issue here. I believe it will be good for our country if these nations can enter our markets. It will make those economies stronger, make them better neighbors, and open markets for the products made by American workers. But only if the deal is done right. Only if we have the protections in place that can truly lift human rights, labor, and environmental standards there, and build the protections for American workers and producers here. So I will vote against CAFTA not because I oppose trade but because I support smart trade, trade that works for American families, trade that is good for both sides. I am afraid that more trade agreements along these lines will weaken domestic support for expanding trade. We need the full, informed consent of American citizens for trade, we need a trade agenda Americans can support, and we need to a plan to defend our standard of living here and to compete to win in the global economy. We need to win the support of American working families for expanded trade, and restore their faith in our ability to win. Until then, trade deals like this one will just add to their worries.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I joined my colleagues in voting for the Energy Policy Act of 2005 which passed the Senate by a vote 85 to 12. This legislation is not perfect, but it is a bipartisan framework that offers the basis of a comprehensive and balanced plan to address the energy needs of our country. This bill takes important steps in shifting our dependence away from foreign oil. It spurs the development of renewable sources--biodiesel, wind, solar, and geothermal. Importantly, the Senate-passed bill contains a national renewable portfolio standard, requiring utilities to generate at least 10 percent of their electricity from renewable energy sources by 2020. The legislation also requires that we quadruple the amount of renewable fuels, such as ethanol, used annually in gasoline. Furthermore, this bill advances conservation by promoting energy-efficient homes and appliances, fuel cell vehicles, hybrid vehicles, and alternative fuel vehicles. Among my greatest disappointments, however, is the Senate's failure to adopt the McCain-Lieberman climate stewardship amendment to establish an effective domestic program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and the Kerry-Biden resolution to return the United States to its leadership role in the global deliberations on climate change. We have to be creative and to recognize the many different ways we can begin to make real progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, with the goal of stabilizing the still-growing human impact on our climate. By not adopting these amendments, the Senate missed the chance to get back on the right side of history. Although I supported passage of this bill before us today, I have grave concerns about what may be brought back to the Senate after final negotiations with the House of Representatives. If certain provisions in the House-passed Energy bill, including those that permit leasing the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil and gas development, are in the conference report, I will not support passage of the bill. If the conference report steals from these new investments in renewable energy and diverts even more taxpayer dollars to oil companies, when this week oil is at $60 a barrel, I will not support passage of the bill. We have seen comprehensive energy policy legislation doomed in the past when those negotiating the final bill have sacrificed the long-term interests that we all share for shortsighted special interests. I urge my colleagues to preserve the progress toward energy independence promised in the bipartisan bill passed today.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, in our search for ways to eliminate the crushing poverty that afflicts billions of people around the world, experience has taught us to be humble. There is no single policy or program that can deal with the underlying causes and symptoms of poverty. But as the Hippocratic Oath reminds us, in the search for cures, ``First, do no harm.'' Right now, the burden of debt owed by the poorest nations of the world to the richest does harm not only to them, but to us. In our new global environment, countries whose peoples live in abject poverty are not just a moral challenge to those of us who are blessed with affluence. They can threaten the entire edifice of political and economic stability. New technologies that have brought so much good to the world have shrunk the gaps in time and distance that once allowed us the luxury of inattention. Now the very symbols of the technological superiority of our age, from the cell phone to the internet to jet airliners, have been transformed into weapons in the hands of those who are the declared enemies of our way of life. They allow stateless actors to reach out from the shadows, from weak and failed states, to attack us here at home. Poverty-stricken states are fertile ground for drug production and trafficking, feeding our own drug problems here. With the scourge of AIDS and other diseases loose in the world, we cannot afford the existence of more states that cannot feed, house, educate, or innoculate their citizens. For all of these reasons, we ignore the poverty that plagues other nations at our own peril. That is why we need the legislation I am introducing today, with Senators DeWine, Feingold, Lugar, and Obama, the Multilateral Debt Relief Act of 2005. This legislation takes a first step in addressing that poverty it relieves the poorest nations of the world, specifically those who qualify for the Heavily Indebted Poor Country initiative of over a billion dollars a year in debt service payments that they are obliged to send the World Bank, the IMF, and the African Development Bank. Since I worked with the President Clinton on the Enhanced HIPC initiative in 1999, we have searched for a workable definition of ``sustainable debt'' an amount that would not cripple a country's ability to take care of its own citizens and achieve economic growth. In the end, it became clear that definition would continue to elude us. Whatever the best use of the limited resources of the poorest nation may be, sending checks to the multilateral banks established by the richest nations of the world is nowhere near the top of the list. With the strong leadership of Prime Minister Blair, who will preside over the upcoming G8 Summit in July, we have cut the Gordian Knot of debt owed by the poorest nations of the world. The announcement of the G8 Finance Ministers earlier this month on 100 percent debt relief cuts through years of debate and opens the way for a fresh start. One hundred percent debt relief for those countries who meet the HIPC qualifications gets that debt out of the way of the many tasks before those countries in their search for economic growth. None of our own foreign assistance programs will work to their best advantage if we send that assistance into nations who will turn around and send some of their money right back here to Washington, to the World Bank, to the IMF. We must remember that this is indeed only the first step on a long path. With the funds this legislation will authorize, a burden of debt will be lifted, but we will still need to promote health, education, and other pillars of economic development. We will need a more creative approach to trade with the poorest nations, who represent no economic threat, except for the threat that comes from their poverty itself. We have nothing to fear from a world in which fewer people wake up hungry, sick, and uneducated. But with as much as $40 billion in outstanding debt stock owed by 18 countries to be removed from the books right away, our efforts in those areas have a greater chance to succeed. Up to $56 billion will be forgiven under this plan, once all 38 eligible countries are fully qualified. I am pleased to note that this is a bipartisan initiative, one I share with Senators DeWine, Feingold, Lugar, and Obama, an effort that began with the Clinton Administration and has progressed to this historic agreement under President Bush. This legislation authorizes the funds needed for our share of the debt relief. It provides for further relief for other countries as they become eligible. It lifts not only a debt burden from poor countries, but a moral obligation from our shoulders. The poverty reduction it will promote will help millions around the globe and contribute materially to a more stable and secure world. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting it.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, in our search for ways to eliminate the crushing poverty that afflicts billions of people around the world, experience has taught us to be humble. There is no single policy or program that can deal with the underlying causes and symptoms of poverty. But as the Hippocratic Oath reminds us, in the search for cures, ``First, do no harm.'' Right now, the burden of debt owed by the poorest nations of the world to the richest does harm not only to them, but to us. In our new global environment, countries whose peoples live in abject poverty are not just a moral challenge to those of us who are blessed with affluence. They can threaten the entire edifice of political and economic stability. New technologies that have brought so much good to the world have shrunk the gaps in time and distance that once allowed us the luxury of inattention. Now the very symbols of the technological superiority of our age, from the cell phone to the internet to jet airliners, have been transformed into weapons in the hands of those who are the declared enemies of our way of life. They allow stateless actors to reach out from the shadows, from weak and failed states, to attack us here at home. Poverty-stricken states are fertile ground for drug production and trafficking, feeding our own drug problems here. With the scourge of AIDS and other diseases loose in the world, we cannot afford the existence of more states that cannot feed, house, educate, or innoculate their citizens. For all of these reasons, we ignore the poverty that plagues other nations at our own peril. That is why we need the legislation I am introducing today, with Senators DeWine, Feingold, Lugar, and Obama, the Multilateral Debt Relief Act of 2005. This legislation takes a first step in addressing that poverty it relieves the poorest nations of the world, specifically those who qualify for the Heavily Indebted Poor Country initiative of over a billion dollars a year in debt service payments that they are obliged to send the World Bank, the IMF, and the African Development Bank. Since I worked with the President Clinton on the Enhanced HIPC initiative in 1999, we have searched for a workable definition of ``sustainable debt'' an amount that would not cripple a country's ability to take care of its own citizens and achieve economic growth. In the end, it became clear that definition would continue to elude us. Whatever the best use of the limited resources of the poorest nation may be, sending checks to the multilateral banks established by the richest nations of the world is nowhere near the top of the list. With the strong leadership of Prime Minister Blair, who will preside over the upcoming G8 Summit in July, we have cut the Gordian Knot of debt owed by the poorest nations of the world. The announcement of the G8 Finance Ministers earlier this month on 100 percent debt relief cuts through years of debate and opens the way for a fresh start. One hundred percent debt relief for those countries who meet the HIPC qualifications gets that debt out of the way of the many tasks before those countries in their search for economic growth. None of our own foreign assistance programs will work to their best advantage if we send that assistance into nations who will turn around and send some of their money right back here to Washington, to the World Bank, to the IMF. We must remember that this is indeed only the first step on a long path. With the funds this legislation will authorize, a burden of debt will be lifted, but we will still need to promote health, education, and other pillars of economic development. We will need a more creative approach to trade with the poorest nations, who represent no economic threat, except for the threat that comes from their poverty itself. We have nothing to fear from a world in which fewer people wake up hungry, sick, and uneducated. But with as much as $40 billion in outstanding debt stock owed by 18 countries to be removed from the books right away, our efforts in those areas have a greater chance to succeed. Up to $56 billion will be forgiven under this plan, once all 38 eligible countries are fully qualified. I am pleased to note that this is a bipartisan initiative, one I share with Senators DeWine, Feingold, Lugar, and Obama, an effort that began with the Clinton Administration and has progressed to this historic agreement under President Bush. This legislation authorizes the funds needed for our share of the debt relief. It provides for further relief for other countries as they become eligible. It lifts not only a debt burden from poor countries, but a moral obligation from our shoulders. The poverty reduction it will promote will help millions around the globe and contribute materially to a more stable and secure world. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting it.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BIDEN. Why don't we change the standard, the CAFE standard? Why is no one recommending that? Why don't we say that every vehicle, based on weight, no matter where it is made, must meet the same exact standard? Why don't we do that?

Mr. BIDEN. If the Senator will yield, I have trouble with the amendment of the Senator from Illinois, but I also have trouble with the amendment of the Senator from Michigan. It seems to me we have a problem, a big problem. I don't think we can meet the standard of the Senator from Illinois in time, and I think it would damage American jobs significantly. But I don't understand why we do not bite the bullet and say, whether NHTSA does it or not, you can't drive a Toyota that gets less miles than a Dodge Durango or an American-made car because you have a fleet average.

Mr. BIDEN. I have trouble explaining to my Chrysler workers when I want to raise the CAFE standard. They are not happy with me. I voted against it last time. My friend from Michigan, if you can drive a Toyota into that Chrysler parking lot that gets less mileage than the vehicle being made in that Chrysler plant under the way CAFE standards are set up, you would be able to do that because the fleet average means you can drive in a big old Toyota getting 16 miles to the gallon or 17 miles to the gallon, but you could not drive the Dodge Durango that gets 18 miles a gallon-- 1 mile better--because the fleet average causes the Durango to be out of the ballpark. That is my problem with all of this. That is why I cannot vote for what the Senator is suggesting even though I agree with the thrust of what he is saying. That is why I have difficulty with my friend from Michigan. He solves that problem in a sense, but he does not solve the larger problem of kicking the requirements higher. I thank the Senator.