Joe Biden

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I checked with the majority staff and they have no objection to my seeking to be recognized for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, yesterday the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia at the Hague, known by the acronym ICTY, indicted a fellow that I met several years ago, a guy who was very much involved in the carnage that took place at the time of the war in Kosovo. His name is Ramush Haradinaj. This is a young man who looks like he could lift an ox out of a ditch. A very hard, tough guy. Until yesterday he happened to be the Prime Minister of Kosovo. He was indicted for war crimes in Kosovo during the period of 1998 and 1999. Mr. Haradinaj declared himself entirely innocent but resigned as Prime Minister, surrendered voluntarily, and flew to the Netherlands today to turn himself in. He also did something highly unusual in the Balkans. He issued a statement calling for calm in Kosovo. From the creation of the Hague Tribunal a decade ago, I have supported its vitally important work. Beginning with Judge Goldstone, my staff and I have met with its chief prosecutors over the past decade. I have great respect for Carla Del Ponte, the current chief prosecutor and for the court's judges. I am confident that Haradinaj will receive a fair trial. Without presuming to pass judgment on his innocence or guilt, though, I would like to comment--this is the first time I have ever done this--on my personal impressions of him and also to put his arrest in a larger context relating to the entire territory of the former Yugoslavia. Let me begin with my meeting with him in Pristina in January of 2001. We discussed Kosovo's future, and he seemed genuinely to recognize that the only way forward was for the rights of the Kosovo Serbs, and of other non-Albanian minorities to be guaranteed. During that trip, I flew by helicopter to western Kosovo where I visited the Serbian Orthodox Visoki Decani Monastery, a 14th century architectural masterpiece which last year was named a UNESCO World Heritage site. During the fighting in 1999, the Serbian Orthodox monks of this monastery had saved Kosovar Albanians from persecution by Serb forces. Again, these were Serbian Orthodox monks saving Kosovar Albanians most of them Muslims--from persecution by Serb forces. Nevertheless, when I visited the Visoki Decani Monastery nearly 2 years later, Father Sava and other monks told me that they were in great danger. In fact, Italian KFOR armored personnel carriers were lined up in the snow just outside the monastery's stone walls as a deterrent. Knowing that the territory around Decani is Mr. Haradinaj's political base, I sent him a confidential letter after I returned to Washington. In it I wrote that I was counting on him to personally guarantee and protect the Serbian Orthodox monastery I had just visited. In March of 2004, serious riots against Serbs and other non-Albanian minorities broke out across Kosovo. Hundreds of homes were destroyed, and many medieval Serbian Orthodox churches and monasteries were burned to the ground. KFOR proved unable or unwilling to prevent this destruction. In fact, in several cases, the outrages occurred while European KFOR troops stood by. One of the few venerable monasteries that remained untouched was Visoki Decani. Mr. Haradinaj had kept his promise. During the 1998-1999 war, Haradinaj was a leading commander of the Kosovo Liberation Army, the KLA. Hence, his election as Prime Minister last year was greeted with considerable skepticism. From all reports, however, in his brief tenure, he has earned nearly unanimous praise, including from the head of the U.N. mission in Kosovo, for his constructive and effective leadership. I am told that even Serbian leaders in Belgrade privately acknowledge that of all of the Kosovar political leaders, it is Haradinaj with whom they could potentially negotiate with the greatest degree of confidence. Mr. Haradinaj's call for calm, which so far has been heeded, was based upon a realization that a repeat of the violence of March 2004 would deal a fatal blow to the Kosovars' hope that the process toward negotiations on the final status of Kosovo can begin later this year. I have said repeatedly that self-determination by the people of Kosovo is ultimately the only realistic solution to the problem. Since more than 90 percent of the population is ethnic Albanian, as is Mr. Haradinaj, with a collective memory of extreme persecution by the Serbian government of Slobodan Milosevic, I can't imagine they would ever vote for a return to being governed by Belgrade. On the other hand, I have coupled my advocacy of self-determination for Kosovo with the precondition that the personal safety and freedom of movement of all Kosovo Serbs, Roma, Ashkali, Egyptians, Turks, Bosniaks, Gorani, and other non-Albanian minorities are being provided and are guaranteed for the future. As yet, unfortunately, this has not occurred. Mr. Haradinaj's statesman-like actions are intended to keep Kosovo on the path toward Final Status negotiations. In the overall post-Yugoslav context, Mr. Haradinaj's willingness after his indictment to surrender voluntarily and go to The Hague is striking. It stands in glaring contrast to the behavior of the three most infamous individuals indicted by The Hague, all of whom are still fugitives, resisting arrest: former Bosnian Serb General Ratko Mladic, former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic, and former Croation General Ante Gotovina. By their evasion of ICTY's indictments, all three are blocking their countries' progress toward entering Euro-Atlantic institutions, a necessary precondition for stabilizing the Western Balkans. The surrender of Mladic, who is thought to be in Serbia, is necessary for Serbia's joining NATO's Partnership for Peace and for eventual NATO and EU membership. Karadzic's unwillingness to give himself up is blocking Partnership for Peace membership for Bosnia and Herzegovina. Gotovina's fugitive status is holding up Croatia's promising candidacy for EU membership. Whatever the eventual adjudication of his indictment, Ramush Haradinaj by his dignified departure and public statement has proven himself to be a patriot. The same cannot be said of Mladic, Karadzic, and Gotovina, whose selfish actions are standing in the way of much needed progress for Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Croatia. Whatever Mr. Haradinaj's fate, I want to publicly salute him for his personal courage, for the statesmanship he has demonstrated over the last two days, and for having kept his word by doing exactly what he told me he would do with regard to the monastery. I wish him well. I hope justice is served, and I applaud him for his wise decision to cooperate with the Hague Tribunal. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, as we stand here today women and children are suffering the ravages and privations of war and natural disasters. They are suffering food shortages and lack the most basic necessities in so many nations around the world. Five million people have been affected by the tsunami. Of that 5 million, 1.5 million are children, many alone and parentless, vulnerable to human trafficking, forced recruitment into military service or worse. We can help. We can do our share by making sure U.S. programs do their share. Today, I am introducing--along with Senator Lugar--the Protection of Vulnerable Populations During Humanitarian Emergencies Act of 2005, to make vulnerable people, especially women and children, an absolute priority of our foreign assistance programs. As a Nation, as a people, we probably should do more, but we certainly can do no less than to ensure the international community has a system in place to prevent the exploitation of so many lost, vulnerable, suffering women and children who are struggling to survive the most God-awful conditions imaginable. Over the past fifty years the nature of war has changed dramatically. In today's world, 90 percent of the casualties in any war are civilians, most of them women and children. Since 1990, more than 2 million children have been killed, and 6 million maimed or injured as a result of a war somewhere in this world. It is extraordinary to think that, in what we believe is the most sophisticated, technologically advanced period in world history, rape has become a routine weapon of war used at will by bands of marauding military forces--some of them young boys--everywhere from Burma to Bosnia, and from Sierra Leone to Sudan. Forced displacement of civilians, rather than being one of the unfortunate results of war is now a deliberate tactic of war. Look at Darfur in the last 18 months. Civilians have been targeted by Khartoum in one of the most horrific genocides we have seen in recent years. Homes have been bombed, and villages attacked. Government sponsored militia are destroying crops and have fouled the water supply. They're burning homes, leaving mothers no choice but to flee for their lives and their children's lives. Civilians forced to flee during war find their way to camps, but instead of relative safety what do they find? They find more suffering. The camps become virtual prisons. Women and girls are beaten and raped if they venture outside the camps for firewood. When I recently read a report by a United Nations investigatory team which states that a number of U.N. peacekeepers--U.N. peacekeepers, mind you--deployed to protect civilians from ethnic violence in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo were sexually exploiting girls as young as 13 years old, it reinforced my belief that we cannot stand by any longer. Something must be done and this bill only begins to do it. Let me read you what that report said: Interviews with Congolese women and girls confirmed that sexual contact with peacekeepers occurred with regularity, usually in exchange for food or small sums of money . . .'' . . . ``Many of the contacts involved girls under the age of 18.'' What's more horrifying to me: the investigators found that the abuse was going on while they were there, on the ground, conducting the investigation. These incidents as well as allegations of sexual exploitation by camp residents and humanitarian workers in refugee camps in West Africa and Nepal in 2002 are incredible, real life examples of the sad fact that women and children remain vulnerable even in the very places they flee for safety. This bill seeks to do something about it. It enhances the U.S. government's ability to see that women and children are protected before, during, and after a complex humanitarian emergency. It directs the Secretary of State to designate a special coordinator for protection issues who will be charged with making sure our embassies and consular posts are made aware of the warning signs that an emergency which may put the lives and safety of women and children at risk is imminent. It directs the coordinator to compile a watch list of such countries and regions so that the Agency for International Development can plan to meet potential need. It prohibits U.S. funding for relief agencies that do not sign a code of conduct that outlaws improper exploitative relationships between aid workers and recipients. It expresses the Sense of Congress that the U.N. Department of Peacekeeping Operations should improve its mechanism to prevent and respond to allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse by peacekeepers. It establishes a fellowship with the AID for someone with expertise and skills in preventing and responding to violence and exploitation of those made vulnerable by war. It calls upon the United States Executive Director of the International Bank of Reconstruction and Development to try to make sure World Bank demobilization, disarmament, and reintegration programs extend the same benefits that ex-combatants receive to women and children who were associated with them. As it now stands, women and children who were used as cooks and porters and so called ``wives,'' a euphemism for women who were kidnaped to serve as sexual slaves, may well not be given a single thing through these programs--nothing with which to rebuild their lives despite the fact that they were not there by choice. Yet the very people who forced them into such conditions receive assistance with no qualms or reservations. Finally, it amends the Foreign Assistance Act to authorize programs and activities specifically aimed at making people--especially women and children--who are affected by humanitarian emergencies safer from further exploitation and abuse. This bill is by no means a panacea, but it is a decent beginning. It is the least we can do to mitigate the extraordinary violence against women and children in times of war and natural disasters the results of which we see all too often in a world that seems to have gone mad. To do nothing in the face of it would be sinful, inhumane, and wrong. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, as we stand here today women and children are suffering the ravages and privations of war and natural disasters. They are suffering food shortages and lack the most basic necessities in so many nations around the world. Five million people have been affected by the tsunami. Of that 5 million, 1.5 million are children, many alone and parentless, vulnerable to human trafficking, forced recruitment into military service or worse. We can help. We can do our share by making sure U.S. programs do their share. Today, I am introducing--along with Senator Lugar--the Protection of Vulnerable Populations During Humanitarian Emergencies Act of 2005, to make vulnerable people, especially women and children, an absolute priority of our foreign assistance programs. As a Nation, as a people, we probably should do more, but we certainly can do no less than to ensure the international community has a system in place to prevent the exploitation of so many lost, vulnerable, suffering women and children who are struggling to survive the most God-awful conditions imaginable. Over the past fifty years the nature of war has changed dramatically. In today's world, 90 percent of the casualties in any war are civilians, most of them women and children. Since 1990, more than 2 million children have been killed, and 6 million maimed or injured as a result of a war somewhere in this world. It is extraordinary to think that, in what we believe is the most sophisticated, technologically advanced period in world history, rape has become a routine weapon of war used at will by bands of marauding military forces--some of them young boys--everywhere from Burma to Bosnia, and from Sierra Leone to Sudan. Forced displacement of civilians, rather than being one of the unfortunate results of war is now a deliberate tactic of war. Look at Darfur in the last 18 months. Civilians have been targeted by Khartoum in one of the most horrific genocides we have seen in recent years. Homes have been bombed, and villages attacked. Government sponsored militia are destroying crops and have fouled the water supply. They're burning homes, leaving mothers no choice but to flee for their lives and their children's lives. Civilians forced to flee during war find their way to camps, but instead of relative safety what do they find? They find more suffering. The camps become virtual prisons. Women and girls are beaten and raped if they venture outside the camps for firewood. When I recently read a report by a United Nations investigatory team which states that a number of U.N. peacekeepers--U.N. peacekeepers, mind you--deployed to protect civilians from ethnic violence in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo were sexually exploiting girls as young as 13 years old, it reinforced my belief that we cannot stand by any longer. Something must be done and this bill only begins to do it. Let me read you what that report said: Interviews with Congolese women and girls confirmed that sexual contact with peacekeepers occurred with regularity, usually in exchange for food or small sums of money . . .'' . . . ``Many of the contacts involved girls under the age of 18.'' What's more horrifying to me: the investigators found that the abuse was going on while they were there, on the ground, conducting the investigation. These incidents as well as allegations of sexual exploitation by camp residents and humanitarian workers in refugee camps in West Africa and Nepal in 2002 are incredible, real life examples of the sad fact that women and children remain vulnerable even in the very places they flee for safety. This bill seeks to do something about it. It enhances the U.S. government's ability to see that women and children are protected before, during, and after a complex humanitarian emergency. It directs the Secretary of State to designate a special coordinator for protection issues who will be charged with making sure our embassies and consular posts are made aware of the warning signs that an emergency which may put the lives and safety of women and children at risk is imminent. It directs the coordinator to compile a watch list of such countries and regions so that the Agency for International Development can plan to meet potential need. It prohibits U.S. funding for relief agencies that do not sign a code of conduct that outlaws improper exploitative relationships between aid workers and recipients. It expresses the Sense of Congress that the U.N. Department of Peacekeeping Operations should improve its mechanism to prevent and respond to allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse by peacekeepers. It establishes a fellowship with the AID for someone with expertise and skills in preventing and responding to violence and exploitation of those made vulnerable by war. It calls upon the United States Executive Director of the International Bank of Reconstruction and Development to try to make sure World Bank demobilization, disarmament, and reintegration programs extend the same benefits that ex-combatants receive to women and children who were associated with them. As it now stands, women and children who were used as cooks and porters and so called ``wives,'' a euphemism for women who were kidnaped to serve as sexual slaves, may well not be given a single thing through these programs--nothing with which to rebuild their lives despite the fact that they were not there by choice. Yet the very people who forced them into such conditions receive assistance with no qualms or reservations. Finally, it amends the Foreign Assistance Act to authorize programs and activities specifically aimed at making people--especially women and children--who are affected by humanitarian emergencies safer from further exploitation and abuse. This bill is by no means a panacea, but it is a decent beginning. It is the least we can do to mitigate the extraordinary violence against women and children in times of war and natural disasters the results of which we see all too often in a world that seems to have gone mad. To do nothing in the face of it would be sinful, inhumane, and wrong. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution to commemorate the outstanding life and tragic but courageous death of Enrique ``Kiki'' Camarena, a Special Agent of the Drug Enforcement Administration. Enrique grew from a boy in the small town of Mexicali in Baja California, Mexico to a man as a United States Marine. During his two year tour as a Legal Clerk with the Marine Corps in San Diego, Enrique received the National Defense Service Medal. It was during this time that Enrique first demonstrated his dedication to the United States. Following his honorable discharge from the Marine Corps in 1970, Enrique demonstrated his courage as a fireman for the City of Calexico while demonstrating his intelligence as a student at Imperial Valley College, where he earned an Associates degree in 1972. It was also in 1970 that Enrique Camarena first showed his interest in law enforcement by joining the Calexico, CA Police Department. In May 1973, he began what would be his life-long fight against drug abuse when he was assigned to El Centro, CA, where he served for 13 months as a Narcotics Investigator for Imperial County. Those 13 months as a Narcotics Investigator proved to be a life- altering time for Enrique. In June 1974, he took his determination to dismantle drug organizations to the Federal level, as a Special Agent of the Drug Enforcement Administration. During his time with DEA, Special Agent Camarena returned to his hometown in California for several years prior to his assignment in Guadalajara, Mexico, which began in July 1981. During his 11 years with DEA, Special Agent Enrique Camarena received two Sustained Superior Performance Awards and a Special Achievement Award. Each award recognized Enrique's dedication to the fight against drug abuse and determination to scourge our country of illegal drugs. His frustration with the drug trade was perhaps most evident by a statement that would later prove to be prophetic: He asked, ``What's gonna have to happen? Does somebody have to die before anything is done? Is somebody going to have to get killed?'' On Thursday, February 7, 1985, at 2:00 p.m., Special Agent Camarena left the American Consulate in Guadalajara to meet his wife for lunch. Having come dangerously close to unlocking a multi-billion drug pipeline, Enrique was awaiting a reassignment, which was just three weeks away. Enrique never met his wife for lunch that day and he never received his reassignment. As he neared his truck that afternoon, five men approached him and shoved him into a car. By February 10, DEA Administrator Francis ``Bud'' Mullen had flown to Guadalajara and to help begin the search for Enrique. On March 5, Enrique's body was found on a ranch outside of the town of Zamora, Mexico, approximately 60 miles outside of Guadalajara. Autopsy reports indicated that Special Agent Camarena had been tortured and beaten. Three days after his body was discovered, twenty years ago today, he was returned to the United States for burial. Following the death of Special Agent Enrique Camarena and the press attention that the killing generated, ``Camarena Clubs'' started throughout the El Cajon, CA area. These ``Camarena Clubs'' were formed to create a united front against drug abuse among students, teachers and others in the community. The summer of 1985 saw a surge in national interest in Enrique's memory and the problems of drug abuse. The Virginia Federation of Parents and the Illinois Drug Education Alliance called on every American to wear red ribbons to symbolize their commitment to help reduce the demand for drugs in their communities. Since then, the Red Ribbon campaign has taken on national significance. Red Ribbon Week is celebrated annually in cities across the country. The DEA and many other drug abuse prevention organizations around America help to sponsor this annual event. In Delaware, the Substance Abuse Awareness Committee sponsors Red Ribbon Week each October to take a visible stand against drugs through the symbol of the Red Ribbon. Special Agent Enrique Camarena was a devoted husband to Geneva ``Mika'' Alvarado and a loving father to three sons, Enrique, Daniel and Eric. Today, I ask that the United States Senate formally recognize the life and death of Kiki, as his family lovingly calls him, to place official emphasis on the impact he made on America.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to address the problem of substance abuse in our country. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation has called substance abuse America's No. 1 health problem. I don't think that overstates it. Most of us knows someone--a family member, maybe a neighbor, a colleague, or a friend--who is addicted to drugs or alcohol. In fact, nearly 15 million people in this country abuse alcohol or are alcoholics. More than 19 million use drugs, and an estimated 4 million are in need of treatment but not receiving it. Drug and alcohol abuse has far-reaching consequences. It exacerbates social ills. It is a public safety problem. It is a public health problem. It is a public expenditure problem. There is an undeniable correlation between substance abuse and crime. Eighty percent of the 2 million men and women behind bars today have a history of drug and alcohol abuse or addiction or were arrested for a drug-related crime. Illegal drugs are responsible for thousands of deaths each year. They fuel the spread of AIDS and hepatitis C. They contribute to child abuse, domestic violence, and sexual assault. And we all pay the price. It costs this Nation almost $275 billion in law enforcement, criminal justice expenses, medical bills, and lost earnings each year. That means that preventing and treating substance abuse makes sense. It makes good criminal justice sense. It makes public health sense. It makes budgetary sense. Not to mention the fact that it is the right thing to do. Yet there remains a reluctance to recognize substance abuse as a health issue. There is a reluctance to accept addiction as a disease. It is a reluctance that has kept public policy from asserting that addicts should be in treatment. Whether addicts are in prison or out, it seems to me, treatment is the only legitimate choice. But it is not only about increasing access to treatment. It is also about moving treatment into the medical mainstream. Unless family doctors, nurses, physician assistants, and social workers can identify addiction when they see it, unless they know how to intervene, we will never make any real progress. That aspect of the challenge came into sharp focus for me when I read a report a few years ago by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, CASA. That report said that fewer than 1 percent of doctors presented with the classic profile of an alcoholic older woman could diagnose it properly. Eighty-two percent misdiagnosed it as depression, some treatments for which are dangerous when taken with alcohol. A follow-up study showed that 94 percent of primary care physicians fail to diagnose substance abuse when presented with the classic symptoms, and 41 percent of pediatricians fail to diagnose illegal drug use in teenage patients. No one recognizes this problem better than the doctors themselves. Fewer than one in five--only 19 percent--feel confident about diagnosing alcoholism. And only 17 percent feel qualified to identify illegal drug use. Having said that, even if they diagnose it, most doctors don't believe that treatment works. Among practitioners, as well as policymakers, we need to get the message out loud and clear: Addiction is a chronic relapsing disease, and as with other such diseases, while there may not be a cure, medical treatment can help control it. The medical professionals have to be educated to recognize the signs of substance abuse and to pursue the effective therapies that are available. That is why I am introducing legislation to help train medical professionals to prevent and recognize addiction and refer patients to treatment if they need it. Representative Patrick Kennedy will introduce companion legislation in the House of Representatives. Like treatment, training works. According to a study published in the Brown University Digest of Addiction Theory and Application, 91 percent of health professionals who took part in training on addiction at Boston University were using the techniques they learned 1 to 5 years later. Every family doctor does not need to be an addiction specialist, but they do need to be able to recognize the signs. And they need to know what help is available. My legislation does the following three things: authorizes $9 million in grants to train medical generalists to recognize substance abuse in their patients and their families and know how to properly refer them for treatment; authorizes $6 million to fund substance abuse faculty fellows at educational institutions to teach courses on substance abuse, incorporate substance abuse issues into to required courses at the institution, and educate health professionals about issues related to non-therapeutic uses of prescription medications; and establishes centers of excellence at medical centers or universities across the United States to (1) initiate, promote and implement training, research and clinical activities related to special areas of substance abuse and (2) provide opportunities for interdisciplinary collaboration in curriculum development, clinical practice, research and policy analysis. The bill authorizes $6 million for this purpose. These are additional steps--and, in my view, crucial ones to help bridge the divide between research and practice. They will help chip away at the incredible substance abuse-related costs we face each year in human as well as monetary terms. I hope my colleagues will join me to support this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to address the problem of substance abuse in our country. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation has called substance abuse America's No. 1 health problem. I don't think that overstates it. Most of us knows someone--a family member, maybe a neighbor, a colleague, or a friend--who is addicted to drugs or alcohol. In fact, nearly 15 million people in this country abuse alcohol or are alcoholics. More than 19 million use drugs, and an estimated 4 million are in need of treatment but not receiving it. Drug and alcohol abuse has far-reaching consequences. It exacerbates social ills. It is a public safety problem. It is a public health problem. It is a public expenditure problem. There is an undeniable correlation between substance abuse and crime. Eighty percent of the 2 million men and women behind bars today have a history of drug and alcohol abuse or addiction or were arrested for a drug-related crime. Illegal drugs are responsible for thousands of deaths each year. They fuel the spread of AIDS and hepatitis C. They contribute to child abuse, domestic violence, and sexual assault. And we all pay the price. It costs this Nation almost $275 billion in law enforcement, criminal justice expenses, medical bills, and lost earnings each year. That means that preventing and treating substance abuse makes sense. It makes good criminal justice sense. It makes public health sense. It makes budgetary sense. Not to mention the fact that it is the right thing to do. Yet there remains a reluctance to recognize substance abuse as a health issue. There is a reluctance to accept addiction as a disease. It is a reluctance that has kept public policy from asserting that addicts should be in treatment. Whether addicts are in prison or out, it seems to me, treatment is the only legitimate choice. But it is not only about increasing access to treatment. It is also about moving treatment into the medical mainstream. Unless family doctors, nurses, physician assistants, and social workers can identify addiction when they see it, unless they know how to intervene, we will never make any real progress. That aspect of the challenge came into sharp focus for me when I read a report a few years ago by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, CASA. That report said that fewer than 1 percent of doctors presented with the classic profile of an alcoholic older woman could diagnose it properly. Eighty-two percent misdiagnosed it as depression, some treatments for which are dangerous when taken with alcohol. A follow-up study showed that 94 percent of primary care physicians fail to diagnose substance abuse when presented with the classic symptoms, and 41 percent of pediatricians fail to diagnose illegal drug use in teenage patients. No one recognizes this problem better than the doctors themselves. Fewer than one in five--only 19 percent--feel confident about diagnosing alcoholism. And only 17 percent feel qualified to identify illegal drug use. Having said that, even if they diagnose it, most doctors don't believe that treatment works. Among practitioners, as well as policymakers, we need to get the message out loud and clear: Addiction is a chronic relapsing disease, and as with other such diseases, while there may not be a cure, medical treatment can help control it. The medical professionals have to be educated to recognize the signs of substance abuse and to pursue the effective therapies that are available. That is why I am introducing legislation to help train medical professionals to prevent and recognize addiction and refer patients to treatment if they need it. Representative Patrick Kennedy will introduce companion legislation in the House of Representatives. Like treatment, training works. According to a study published in the Brown University Digest of Addiction Theory and Application, 91 percent of health professionals who took part in training on addiction at Boston University were using the techniques they learned 1 to 5 years later. Every family doctor does not need to be an addiction specialist, but they do need to be able to recognize the signs. And they need to know what help is available. My legislation does the following three things: authorizes $9 million in grants to train medical generalists to recognize substance abuse in their patients and their families and know how to properly refer them for treatment; authorizes $6 million to fund substance abuse faculty fellows at educational institutions to teach courses on substance abuse, incorporate substance abuse issues into to required courses at the institution, and educate health professionals about issues related to non-therapeutic uses of prescription medications; and establishes centers of excellence at medical centers or universities across the United States to (1) initiate, promote and implement training, research and clinical activities related to special areas of substance abuse and (2) provide opportunities for interdisciplinary collaboration in curriculum development, clinical practice, research and policy analysis. The bill authorizes $6 million for this purpose. These are additional steps--and, in my view, crucial ones to help bridge the divide between research and practice. They will help chip away at the incredible substance abuse-related costs we face each year in human as well as monetary terms. I hope my colleagues will join me to support this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I appreciate the sentiment behind Senator Durbin's amendment, but the fact of the matter is that it is not needed. In the first instance, it is simply not the case that the means test in this bill will prevent our men and women in uniform from receiving the full protection of our bankruptcy laws. The means test will not apply to any one in military service under the median income in their State. The median income in Delaware for a family of four is $72,680. If a staff sergeant at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware had to file for bankruptcy, he would automatically be exempt, at his pay scale of $34,319. So there is no way, under the means test in this bill today, that he would be denied the full protection of chapter 7. That is precisely why I insisted on that safe harbor in the means test two Congresses ago. So the very assumption behind the amendment, that we need to exempt service men and women from the means test, is wrong. And if a pilot at Dover, who might well fall above the median income, were to file, he would only be subject to movement to chapter 13 if, and only if, he had enough income after deducting all of his normal expenses, to continue to pay some of his bills. And under chapter 13, he could keep his house and other assets, something filers under chapter 7 cannot do. As Senator Hatch pointed out earlier, and Senator Sessions, too, special protections exist in current law--the Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act--that prevent foreclosure on a house, that cap interest payments. The extra protections sought by the Durbin amendment are already in place. On the point of the payday loans, I agree that is an abuse that should be halted. Truly unscrupulous lenders that take advantage of anyone, in uniform or not, should be put out of business. But that is in fact a matter for banking regulations, not bankruptcy law. This amendment is closing the barn door after the horse is already gone. Under the bankruptcy reform bill before us, the test to determine a filer's ability to pay specifically allows for the ``special circumstances'' that could reduce their ability to pay. The Sessions amendment, that we just passed, makes it crystal clear that those special circumstances include service in the armed forces--if that service puts you into a situation where you are unable to pay your legal debts. That can happen to someone called up in the reserves, and it is precisely why that category of special circumstances was put into the bill in the first place. I could not support this bill if I did not belief that it is already fundamentally fair. This is a bill that received 82 votes the last time the Senate voted on it. I would never call those Senators callous or indifferent to the difficult circumstances our servicemen and women face. They are not. The Durbin amendment assumes all 82 of us got it wrong last time. I do not agree. With the additional clarification of the Sessions amendment, I am convinced that the concerns raised by Senator Durbin are fully addressed.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, my resolution, S. Res. 63, calls for an international investigation into Monday's assassination of Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri of Lebanon. The resolution also urges the President to take steps to pressure Syria to leave Lebanon. I am pleased that Senators Lugar, Reid, Levin, Dodd, Corzine, Allen, and Chafee have joined in co-sponsoring this resolution. The despicable murder of Rafiq Hariri has deprived Lebanon of a dedicated and effective leader. It also is an attempt at intimidating the Lebanese people and pushing the country backward toward chaos. It must not succeed. In Lebanon and beyond, many suspect that Syria is responsible. That's understandable--Syria has an extensive intelligence and military presence in Lebanon, its opposition to Hariri is well known, and it continues to play a destabilizing role in Lebanese affairs. Syria must get out of Lebanon--now. Prime Minister Hariri's emergence as an opponent to Syrian meddling in Lebanon was seen as a serious threat in Damascus. The fact that he was a Muslim holding such opinions was even more problematic, as this reflects the spread of anti-Syrian sentiment in recent years beyond the Maronite Christian community. Cooperation across confessional lines in Lebanon complicates the ability of Syria to maintain its grip over Lebanese affairs. That is why Syria forced Prime Minister Hariri to resign last October. And that is why Syria, through its Lebanese allies, had been trying to dilute Hariri's influence by redrawing electoral districts ahead of parliamentary elections due later this Spring. The resolution I have introduced condemns the assassination, extends condolences to Mr. Hariri's family and the Lebanese people; it demands that Syria immediately withdraw its troops and intelligence personnel from Lebanon; it urges the President ask the United Nations Security Council to go beyond Tuesday's statement condemning the assassination by passing a resolution establishing an independent investigation. I would add parenthetically that many in Lebanon are skeptical of an investigation that would be carried out by a government they perceive as taking its orders from Syria. The resolution urges the President to consider imposing additional sanctions under the Syria Accountability Act. Finally, it supports the call of the Lebanese people for an end to Syria's presence in Lebanon, and for free and fair elections for parliament this Spring monitored by international observers. Mr. President, I'd like to add a word about what this resolution does not do. It does not in any way, shape, or form even hint at supporting the use of force against Syria. I think it is important to state that clearly, given the mistrust of many in Congress over the administration's intentions after the mishandling of Iraq. The intent of this resolution is to encourage the President to work with the international community to investigate the assassination and to use diplomatic pressure for Syria to leave Lebanon. In fact, this tragic incident offers an opportunity to work closely with France. It was French-U.S. cooperation which resulted in the passage of a United Nations Security Council resolution last September calling for the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Lebanon. And just yesterday President Chirac made a personal visit to Lebanon to console Hariri's family. I commend him for this important gesture. I urge President Bush to use his meeting with President Chirac on Monday to coordinate the next diplomatic steps. If France were to recall its Ambassador to Syria, the rest of Europe would follow France's lead. If France and the United States together called for a United Nations Security Council resolution to establish an independent investigation, I believe such a resolution would pass. Such cooperation would send a signal more powerful to the Syrians than any unilateral U.S. moves. Given the lingering mistrust between Europe and the U.S. over Iraq, France may at first be hesitant. That is why I believe President Bush should engage personally with President Chirac to develop a joint diplomatic strategy and to dispel any apprehensions about our intentions. Mr. President, Rafiq Hariri's assassination was about more than the murder of one leader. It was an attempt to kill the hopes and aspirations for freedom in Lebanon. There are those who argue that we have no national interest in the independence of Lebanon. Given our bitter experiences in Lebanon, I can understand their apprehensions. But I disagree that we have no interest in Lebanese independence. The Syrian presence in Lebanon enables the terrorist group Hezbollah to continue to operate as the only significant armed militia 14 years after the end of the Lebanese civil war. Hezbollah enables Syrian and Iranian hardliners to try and derail renewed hopes for Israeli- Palestinian peace. Based on my recent meetings with Israeli and Palestinian leaders, it is clear that Hezbollah, through its support for Palestinian terrorist groups, is seen as a significant threat to a fragile peace process. That is why I believe we do have an important interest in diminishing Syria's involvement in Lebanon. At this moment, it is essential that the forces of terror hear a unified voice from the civilized world. They must not be seen as succeeding, lest they are emboldened to take even more aggressive action in other arenas. Instead, Monday's attack must be seen as a decisive setback for Syria and its allies. I urge the President and the Secretary of State to act quickly on the recommendations offered in this resolution. Rafiq Hariri's death must not be in vain, and the Lebanese people whom he served deserve answers--and action. Let us hope that this barbarous murder marks the beginning of the end of Syria's presence and interference in Lebanon. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Reducing Crime and Terrorism at America's Seaports Act, along with the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee Senator Specter, and the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Terrorism Subcommittee, Senators Kyl and Feinstein. My colleagues and I have worked on this legislation for the past four years and I am hopeful this package of common-sense criminal law improvements will be approved by the Senate early this Session. The bipartisan legislation we introduce today should be familiar to my colleagues. It was introduced as S. 2653 in the 108th Congress, where I worked closely with the then-Chairman of the Committee Senator Hatch and Senator Leahy to ensure they were comfortable with the bill's provisions. The language has been reviewed by the United States Coast Guard, the American Association of Port Authorities, the American Institute of Marine Underwriters, the Inland Marine Underwriters Association, the Maritime Exchange for the Delaware River and Bay, the Transportation Security Administration, and the AFL-CIO. Senator Kyl included this language in his Tools to Fight Terrorism Act of 2004 and it was the subject of a hearing in the Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism on September 13, 2004. This Congress, identical language was introduced by Senator Gregg at Title IV of S. 3, the majority's Protecting America in the War on Terror Act of 2005. Our bill will double the maximum term of imprisonment for anyone who fraudulently gains access to a seaport or waterfront. The Interagency Commission on Crime and Security at U.S. Seaports concluded that ``control of access to the seaport or sensitive areas within the seaports'' poses one of the greatest potential threats to port security. Such unauthorized access continues and exposes the nation's seaports, and the communities that surround them, to acts of terrorism, sabotage or theft. Our bill will help deter those who seek unauthorized access to our ports by imposing stiffer penalties. Our bill would also increase penalties for noncompliance with certain manifest reporting and record-keeping requirements, including information regarding the content of cargo containers and the country from which the shipments originated. An estimated 95 percent of the cargo shipped to the U.S. from foreign countries, other than Canada and Mexico, arrives through our seaports. Accordingly, the Interagency Commission found that this enormous flow of goods through U.S. ports provides a tempting target for terrorists and others to smuggle illicit cargo into the country, while also making ``our ports potential targets for terrorist attacks.'' In addition, the smuggling of non-dangerous, but illicit, cargo may be used to finance terrorism. Despite the gravity of the threat, we continue to operate in an environment in which terrorists and criminals can evade detection by underreporting and misreporting the content of cargo. Increased penalties can help here. The legislation we introduce today would also make it a crime for a vessel operator to fail to slow or stop a ship once ordered to do so by a Federal law enforcement officer, for any person on board a vessel to impede boarding or other law enforcement action authorized by Federal law, or for any person on board a vessel to provide false information to a Federal law enforcement officer. The Coast Guard is the main Federal agency responsible for law enforcement at sea. Yet, its ability to force a vessel to stop or be boarded is limited. While the Coast Guard has the authority to use whatever force is reasonably necessary, a vessel operator's refusal to stop is not currently a crime. This bill would create that offense. In addition, the Coast Guard maintains over 50,000 navigational aids on more than 25,000 miles of waterways. These aids, which are relied upon by all commercial, military and recreational mariners, are critical for safe navigation by commercial and military vessels. They could be inviting targets for terrorists. Our legislation would make it a crime to endanger the safe navigation of a ship by damaging any maritime navigational aid maintained by the Coast Guard, place in the waters anything which is likely to damage a vessel or its cargo, interfere with a vessel's safe navigation, or interfere with maritime commerce, or dump a hazardous substance into U.S. waters with the intent to endanger human life or welfare. Each year, thousands of ships enter and leave the U.S. through seaports, smugglers and terrorists exploit this massive flow of maritime traffic to transport dangerous materials and dangerous people into this country. This legislation would make it a crime to use a vessel to smuggle into the United States either a terrorist or any explosive or other dangerous material for use in committing a terrorist act. The bill would also make it a crime to damage or destroy any part of a ship, a maritime facility, or anything used to load or unload cargo and passengers, commit a violent assault on anyone at a maritime facility, or knowingly communicate a hoax in a way which endangers the safety of a vessel. In addition, the Interagency Commission concluded that existing laws are not stiff enough to stop certain crimes, including cargo theft, at seaports. Our legislation would increase the maximum term of imprisonment for low-level thefts of interstate or foreign shipments from 1 year to 3 years and expand the statute to outlaw theft of goods from trailers, cargo containers, warehouses, and similar venues. These are improvements we should make to our criminal code. I am under no illusion, however, that enactment of our bill will guarantee the security of our seaports. We need to dramatically increase the financial assistance we are giving our ports so that they can harden their own facilities against potential attackers. I was disappointed to read in the Administration's budget that the President wants to eliminate the Department of Homeland Security's dedicated port security grant program. His budget instead will force our ports to compete against all other transit systems for scarce federal funds. We've spent only about $750 million to secure seaports since September 11th--the Coast Guard reports that is not nearly enough to meet the requirements of the Maritime Transportation Security Act. We also need to increase the number of inspections of ships and shipping containers that are coming into our ports. But the amendments to Federal criminal law that we propose here will provide an important deterrent effect and they will give Federal prosecutors new tools to go after terrorists who would target our seaports. I urge my colleagues to support our bill, and I look forward to its prompt consideration.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Reducing Crime and Terrorism at America's Seaports Act, along with the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee Senator Specter, and the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Terrorism Subcommittee, Senators Kyl and Feinstein. My colleagues and I have worked on this legislation for the past four years and I am hopeful this package of common-sense criminal law improvements will be approved by the Senate early this Session. The bipartisan legislation we introduce today should be familiar to my colleagues. It was introduced as S. 2653 in the 108th Congress, where I worked closely with the then-Chairman of the Committee Senator Hatch and Senator Leahy to ensure they were comfortable with the bill's provisions. The language has been reviewed by the United States Coast Guard, the American Association of Port Authorities, the American Institute of Marine Underwriters, the Inland Marine Underwriters Association, the Maritime Exchange for the Delaware River and Bay, the Transportation Security Administration, and the AFL-CIO. Senator Kyl included this language in his Tools to Fight Terrorism Act of 2004 and it was the subject of a hearing in the Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism on September 13, 2004. This Congress, identical language was introduced by Senator Gregg at Title IV of S. 3, the majority's Protecting America in the War on Terror Act of 2005. Our bill will double the maximum term of imprisonment for anyone who fraudulently gains access to a seaport or waterfront. The Interagency Commission on Crime and Security at U.S. Seaports concluded that ``control of access to the seaport or sensitive areas within the seaports'' poses one of the greatest potential threats to port security. Such unauthorized access continues and exposes the nation's seaports, and the communities that surround them, to acts of terrorism, sabotage or theft. Our bill will help deter those who seek unauthorized access to our ports by imposing stiffer penalties. Our bill would also increase penalties for noncompliance with certain manifest reporting and record-keeping requirements, including information regarding the content of cargo containers and the country from which the shipments originated. An estimated 95 percent of the cargo shipped to the U.S. from foreign countries, other than Canada and Mexico, arrives through our seaports. Accordingly, the Interagency Commission found that this enormous flow of goods through U.S. ports provides a tempting target for terrorists and others to smuggle illicit cargo into the country, while also making ``our ports potential targets for terrorist attacks.'' In addition, the smuggling of non-dangerous, but illicit, cargo may be used to finance terrorism. Despite the gravity of the threat, we continue to operate in an environment in which terrorists and criminals can evade detection by underreporting and misreporting the content of cargo. Increased penalties can help here. The legislation we introduce today would also make it a crime for a vessel operator to fail to slow or stop a ship once ordered to do so by a Federal law enforcement officer, for any person on board a vessel to impede boarding or other law enforcement action authorized by Federal law, or for any person on board a vessel to provide false information to a Federal law enforcement officer. The Coast Guard is the main Federal agency responsible for law enforcement at sea. Yet, its ability to force a vessel to stop or be boarded is limited. While the Coast Guard has the authority to use whatever force is reasonably necessary, a vessel operator's refusal to stop is not currently a crime. This bill would create that offense. In addition, the Coast Guard maintains over 50,000 navigational aids on more than 25,000 miles of waterways. These aids, which are relied upon by all commercial, military and recreational mariners, are critical for safe navigation by commercial and military vessels. They could be inviting targets for terrorists. Our legislation would make it a crime to endanger the safe navigation of a ship by damaging any maritime navigational aid maintained by the Coast Guard, place in the waters anything which is likely to damage a vessel or its cargo, interfere with a vessel's safe navigation, or interfere with maritime commerce, or dump a hazardous substance into U.S. waters with the intent to endanger human life or welfare. Each year, thousands of ships enter and leave the U.S. through seaports, smugglers and terrorists exploit this massive flow of maritime traffic to transport dangerous materials and dangerous people into this country. This legislation would make it a crime to use a vessel to smuggle into the United States either a terrorist or any explosive or other dangerous material for use in committing a terrorist act. The bill would also make it a crime to damage or destroy any part of a ship, a maritime facility, or anything used to load or unload cargo and passengers, commit a violent assault on anyone at a maritime facility, or knowingly communicate a hoax in a way which endangers the safety of a vessel. In addition, the Interagency Commission concluded that existing laws are not stiff enough to stop certain crimes, including cargo theft, at seaports. Our legislation would increase the maximum term of imprisonment for low-level thefts of interstate or foreign shipments from 1 year to 3 years and expand the statute to outlaw theft of goods from trailers, cargo containers, warehouses, and similar venues. These are improvements we should make to our criminal code. I am under no illusion, however, that enactment of our bill will guarantee the security of our seaports. We need to dramatically increase the financial assistance we are giving our ports so that they can harden their own facilities against potential attackers. I was disappointed to read in the Administration's budget that the President wants to eliminate the Department of Homeland Security's dedicated port security grant program. His budget instead will force our ports to compete against all other transit systems for scarce federal funds. We've spent only about $750 million to secure seaports since September 11th--the Coast Guard reports that is not nearly enough to meet the requirements of the Maritime Transportation Security Act. We also need to increase the number of inspections of ships and shipping containers that are coming into our ports. But the amendments to Federal criminal law that we propose here will provide an important deterrent effect and they will give Federal prosecutors new tools to go after terrorists who would target our seaports. I urge my colleagues to support our bill, and I look forward to its prompt consideration.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I will be speaking as the designee of Senator Reid, the Democratic leader. I rise to speak to the resolution congratulating the people of Iraq for their historic elections which took place on January 30. The Iraqi elections were an important step forward and a tribute to the courage of the Iraqi people. It was actually incredible to see them go to the polls literally as they heard explosions in the streets. The images that we saw were quite moving. The election is only the first step in a long road filled with potentially lethal potholes, and the next months are going to be very critical. If the elections are to be a true turning point in the history of Iraq, then it is critical, and I believe the administration fully understands, that the administration act with the urgency that is needed in several key areas to sustain this very positive momentum. In my view, the first priority is to build Iraqi capacity. The election, hopefully, strengthened the political legitimacy of the Iraqi government, but it did nothing to build its governing capacity. The Iraqi government is no more capable today than it was the day before the elections of providing law and order, defeating the insurgents, or delivering basic services like water, gasoline, and electricity. We have squandered 2 years developing these capabilities, and now it is time to move into high gear, especially in training Iraqi forces that are able to operate independently and effectively. Our ability to draw down responsibly in Iraq depends on that happening. Second, we must promote political power sharing. Because many Sunni Arabs stayed home or, quite frankly, were scared away, understandably I might add, from the polls, they may feel even more alienated and continue to support the insurgency. I am encouraged by conciliatory statements by some Sunni-affiliated organizations that suggest they are willing to work with the new government in drafting Iraq's permanent constitution. We all should remember this election was primarily about electing people who are going to be the people who write the constitution. In a sense, it is a little bit like our Constitutional Convention that took place in Philadelphia. These folks are going to write a constitution, then they are going to present it to the Iraqi people essentially in a referendum at the end of this year, next fall. If the Sunni Arabs are not in on the deal, it is not likely to be accepted. We must use our influence with the Shi'a and the Kurds to reach out to those who were left out, that is the Sunni Arabs, who are willing to participate in the writing of that constitution. They also have to be well represented in the cabinet of this transitional government. Finally, just as the international community appointed a first-rate representative to the independent Iraqi election commission, so, too, should it consider similar assistance as Iraqis begin to grapple with the complexities of drafting a constitution. Thirdly, we have to make Iraq the world's problem, not just our own. Secretary Rice said before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee ``the time for diplomacy is now.'' The proof will be the administration's efforts and success in getting more help to train Iraqi security forces and to build Iraq's infrastructure. The administration has to make a diplomatic full court press. Our allies claim to be concerned about the plight of the Iraqi people. Well, now is their chance to prove it. The Europeans have to get over it. George Bush has been elected for the next 4 years. The fact is, they must get involved and stop shirking their responsibility. We also must help the Iraqi government develop positive relations with its neighbors and regional states. Our Presidential elections are over, the American people have spoken, and it is time for our allies to get over their past differences with the Bush administration and act in their own self-interest to promote a stable, unified, representative Iraq. A week ago, several of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle had the chance to visit with President Chirac. I think it is fair to say we sensed a new willingness to work with us if France is given a seat at the table. Similarly, Chancellor Schroeder, during Secretary Rice's visit last week, offered additional German assistance to train Iraqi security forces, build Iraqi ministries, and support Iraqi civil institutions. We must not squander yet another opportunity to bring our key allies into the effort. Last April, I called for the creation of a board of directors--a contact group--consisting of the major powers, the Iraqi government, and key regional countries to support Iraq's transition. It would meet on a monthly basis to coordinate diplomatic, political, economic, and security support for Iraq. I urge the administration to reconsider creating a contact group. The President could use his forthcoming visit to Europe to launch the effort. A broader group which includes other nations on the U.N. Security Council, the G-8, and the multinational force can meet on a regular, but more infrequent basis to discuss ways to support the contact group's efforts. Fourth, we must show reconstruction results. More than a year ago, the administration told Congress it urgently needed $18.4 billion for Iraq's reconstruction. Congress delivered but the administration has not: Less than 20 percent of that money has been spent. Electricity production in Iraq has fallen to below the level it was under Saddam. Lines for gasoline stretch for miles. Oil production is lagging behind targets. The administration must develop a plan to spend the money efficiently, with clear benchmarks. We should emphasize small-scale, Iraqi-run projects that deliver quick benefits to the Iraqi people--at least 40 percent of whom are unemployed and on giving our military commanders more flexibility to spend money directly on reconstruction. Finally, I know that I do not need to remind my colleagues that we must support our military. Our troops in Iraq must be equipped and trained for the mission in Iraq. The troop rotation schedule must not degrade readiness or diminish retention. Above all, the administration must do what it has consistently failed to do in Iraq: Level with the American people. A week ago Sunday was a good day for democracy, but there are many hard days and more sacrifice ahead. The President must make that clear if he is to sustain the support of the American people.

Mr. BIDEN

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

Mr. BIDEN

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

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: How much time is allotted to the Senator from Delaware on the Rice nomination?

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to support Dr. Rice's nomination to be Secretary of State. I don't do it as fulsomely as I rose to support the nomination of the previous Secretary of State. I will explain why. I believe the President of the United States is entitled to his Cabinet unless the person he selects is so far out of the mainstream, incompetent, clearly of questionable character, or, as some in the past have been, dedicated to the express purpose of dismantling the very agency to which they were being assigned, such as President Reagan--as my mother would say, God love him--who wanted to do away with the Department of Education and assigned two people to be the head of the Department of Education for the express purpose of eliminating an agency that I thought needed to remain, or in the special case when the office calls for an unusually different relation, as the Attorney General does. The Attorney General does not work for the President. He is the people's lawyer. He is hired by the President, but he or she is the people's lawyer and, in the worst of all cases, sometimes required to investigate the President himself and in the best of cases is required to interpret the constitutional laws of the land. I very reluctantly voted against Attorney General Gonzales's nomination to be Attorney General because I believe he has so wrongly interpreted law on torture and did such great damage as a consequence of that decision. There were significant consequences. There is a fundamentally different relationship and a fundamentally different constitutional obligation. It is his judgment that I question, and I currently believe he should not be Attorney General. Dr. Rice does not fit in any of those categories. I have known and worked with her for the past 4 years. She is knowledgeable, she is smart, she is honorable, and her relationship with the President is essentially to be the public face of the President of the United States here. As the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I have a special responsibility to work with Dr. Rice, so I am going to vote for Dr. Rice, but I am going to do so with some frustration and reservations. Let me explain why. I have said this to Dr. Rice, so she is not hearing this for the first time. Last week, we gave Dr. Rice an opportunity to acknowledge the mistakes and misjudgments of the past 4 years. The point is not to play the game ``gotcha.'' It is not about embarrassing the President. It is about learning from our mistakes so we do not repeat them. A second term is also a second chance. Instead of seizing that opportunity, Dr. Rice stuck to the administration's party line: Always right; never wrong. It is as if acknowledging mistakes or misjudgments is a sign of weakness. I do not think it is. I think it is powerful evidence of strength and maturity. But during the hearing, Dr. Rice claimed that my colleague, Barbara Boxer, was impugning her integrity when she asked about her changing rationale for the war in Iraq. Now, I wish instead that Dr. Rice had acknowledged the facts. This administration secured the support of the American people, and of Congress, for going to war based on what it insisted was an imminent threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Now, when it turns out there are no such weapons, Dr. Rice and the President claim the war was now about removing a dictator. I am glad Saddam is gone. He deserves his own special place in hell, but removing him from power was not the justification initially offered by this administration to go to war. Again, it is an example of what Barbara Boxer was talking about: a changing rationale for war. Why Dr. Rice would not acknowledge that is beyond me. Reading the resolution that Congress passed giving the President the authority to use force if necessary, it was about ``disarming'' Saddam. And reread the words of the President and other senior officials. In speech after speech, television appearance after television appearance, they left the American people with the impression that Iraq was on the verge of reconstituting nuclear weapons. In fact, Vice President Cheney said they already had them. The administration left the American people with the impression, even today, that Saddam had other weapons of mass destruction, and that he was complicit in the events of 9/11 and that he collaborated with al- Qaida--I assume collaborated with al-Qaida for purposes of the 9/11 attack. Back then the administration liked to claim that President Bush never said Iraq was ``an imminent threat.'' Well, this is what he and other senior officials did say. They referred to it as an ``immediate threat,'' a ``mortal threat,'' an ``urgent threat,'' a ``grave threat,'' a ``serious and mounting threat,'' a ``unique threat.'' And it would be funny, the denial that they did not say ``imminent threat'' if it were not so deadly serious. This is my point: Especially in matters of war and peace, we have to level with the American people if we want not only to secure their support but to sustain their support. My poor colleagues are tired of hearing me say, for the last 2 years, the following: No foreign policy can be sustained without the informed consent of the American people. And this administration has been very reluctant to keep them informed. Informed means all the information and a truthful rendition of the balance of the information they have. During the time I was criticizing President Bush for his assertions about aluminum tubes and his administration's assertions about other things, the press kept saying to me: Why won't you say the President is a liar? He was not lying. But what the President did--he got the intelligence, as we did on the committee. We can argue whether a minority or a majority, but a significant number of the intelligence assets in the U.S. Government said: We think those aluminum tubes are or could be used for gas centrifuges. A significant number said: No, they are not used for that. They are for artillery. Well, my criticism of the President was not that he, in fact, chose to believe that portion of the intelligence community which said they were used for gas centrifuge systems, which is needed to build a nuclear capability and if you are going to use uranium; my problem with it was, both he and Dr. Rice implied there was no dissent, that this was the view of the intelligence community, when it was not. There was, at a minimum, a significant dissent both in Energy and at the CIA, and other places. So they did not lie. They chose to pick the portion--I am not saying they did it for any reason other than they believed it, but they chose to pick the portion of the intelligence community's assessment which fit with their objectives, without ever mentioning, acknowledging, or suggesting there was any dissent within the intelligence community. I love my colleagues now who keep saying: Don't blame it on Rice. Don't blame it on Gonzales. Blame it on the intelligence community. I think our former Director of the CIA is getting a bad rap here. The fact is, we have to be honest with ourselves and the world; otherwise, we are going to do terrible damage to our most valuable asset, our credibility. After Iraq, it is going to be much harder to rally the world to our side if we have to face a truly imminent threat to our security from, say, Iran or North Korea. The same goes for the way Dr. Rice answered my questions about training Iraqi security forces. Time and again, this administration has tried to leave the American people with the impression that Iraq has well over 100,000--as high as 120,000; or I think there was even a higher number offered--of fully competent police and military. They don't say fully competent; they say trained. Now again, it is like that story I have told. We Catholic kids go to Catholic school. We learn to go to one of the Sacraments in the Catholic Church, Penance. You go to confession. They explain to us that when we go to confession, we should confess all our sins. My nuns told me the story about Johnny, who said to the priest: Bless me father for I have sinned. I stole a gold chain. And he failed to tell the priest that attached to that gold chain was an antique gold watch. He did not lie. He stole the chain. But when you say what you did, you should say all of what you did. Failure to acknowledge, as my grandfather used to say, the ``hull'' of it, failure to do that is, at a minimum, misleading--at a minimum, misleading. That is what has happened here. So 120,000 troops trained. There may be 120,000 people who we put uniforms on--and I will not go through it in the limited time I have; I will submit for the Record the facts as I believe them based on talking to our military and police trainers--but the real question is, How many American forces doing the job of policing the streets, going after insurgents, guarding the borders, whatever functions we are now providing, how many of those could be replaced with an Iraqi now? I think the number is closer to somewhere between 4,000 and 18,000. Now, the good news--when I asked the question, I thought she would say we have made mistakes. We went for quantity not quality. We realize we had to fundamentally change our training programs. We brought in General Patraeus, who is a first-rate guy. He is well underway of doing that--which he is--and we are going to get it right. But, no, we have 120,000 trained forces out there. Well, the fact is, we are months, if not years, from reaching the target we need of putting uniformed soldiers, uniformed cops, and uniformed National Guard with Iraqi uniforms into Iraq. The bottom line is, we should focus on real standards, not raw numbers. To my mind, there is a real simple standard. An Iraqi soldier and policeman should be considered fully trained when he or she is capable of doing the job we are now asking an American young man or woman to do. How many meet that standard today? Nowhere near, as I said, 120,000. In my judgment, it is closer to 14,000 total. Army trained is probably closer to 5,000. So last week's hearing was a chance for Dr. Rice to wipe the slate clean with the American people and with our allies. I wish she had seized it. This is not about revisiting the past. It is about how Dr. Rice and the administration will meet the challenges of the future. I notice, in the defense of Dr. Rice, I no longer hear on the floor disagreements--I don't want to get him in trouble--disagreements with the position taken by my friend, the chairman of our committee, or by my friend, Mr. Hagel, or Mr. McCain, or myself, or others. I do not hear people saying we have conducted this postwar policy very well. I do not hear anybody defending that. They are now saying, which is good: Hey, wait a minute, I guess we have made mistakes. Why the administration cannot do that is beyond me. They are not up for reelection again. It would seem to me it would be a way to coalesce support. In my judgment, America faces two overriding national security challenges in this new century. First and foremost, we must win the struggle between freedom and radical Islamic fundamentalism. Secondly, we must keep the world's most dangerous weapons away from its most dangerous people. On the latter point, the man we owe the greatest debt of gratitude to on making progress on that score is my friend and colleague, Senator Lugar, and former Senator Nunn. Senator Lugar is the guy who is following up on this and the guy forcing us all to face the reality that much more is needed to be done. To prevail, we have to be strong. We also have to be smart, wielding the force of our ideas and ideals together with the force of our arms. Today, after a necessary war in Afghanistan and an optional war in Iraq, we are rightly confident in the example of our power. But we have forgotten the power of our example. Foreign policy is not a popularity contest. We must confront hard issues. Sometimes they require us to make hard choices that other countries do not like. But above all, they require American leadership, the kind of persuasion that brings along others to our side. We have been having a tough time doing just that the past few years. So despite our great military might, in my view, we are more alone in the world than we have been in recent memory. As a result, we are much less secure than we could or should be. That is because virtually all the threats we face--from terrorism, to the spread of weapons of mass destruction, to rogue states that flout the rules, to endemic and pandemic diseases--cannot be solely met by the unilateral use of force. I had hoped to hear from Dr. Rice how she planned to help rebuild America's power to persuade, and to restore our Nation's respect that it once enjoyed. For she said, now is the time for diplomacy. Parenthetically, I think diplomacy was needed 4 years ago. I am happy now is the time for diplomacy. I also had hoped to hear her ideas for contending with a series of problems the administration has put on the back burner but whose pots are boiling over, such as the nuclear programs in North Korea and Iran, the dangerous backsliding of democracy in Russia, and the genocide in Sudan, to only name a few. Over the past few years, North Korea has increased its nuclear weapons capacity by as much as 400 percent. It may now have as many as eight nuclear weapons to test, hide, or sell to the highest bidder. Dr. Rice told us it is ``unacceptable'' for North Korea to have these nuclear weapons, but she did not tell us what that meant or how the administration proposed to stop this growing threat. Over the past few years, the reform movement in Iran has been crushed and the regime has accelerated its own nuclear program. There may be nothing we can do to persuade Iran not to develop these weapons by diplomacy, but our European allies are trying through a combination of carrots and sticks. They believe they cannot succeed, though, unless the United States engages directly in this effort. I asked Dr. Rice whether we should be a party to a deal in which the Iranians agreed--if there was a way to verify--that they would stop their attempts to build a nuclear weapon and end their missile program. She said: Well, we have a lot of other problems with Iran. Of course we do. But our No. 1 problem is the growing danger they will develop nuclear weapons. Our best chance of stopping that is to work with the Europeans in showing Iran it can get more if it does the right thing, and what it risks if it does not. But we are sitting on the sidelines, in my view. Nothing Dr. Rice said gave me confidence we are really going to get on the playing field. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: How much time do I have?

Mr. BIDEN. Over the past few years, President Putin has reversed the course of democratic development and the rule of law in Russia. The administration has been largely silent. How can we be so concerned about the advancement of democracy in the Middle East and so unconcerned about the regression in Russia? The President gave a powerful, eloquent inaugural address about expanding freedom around the world. Every American shares that ideal-- it goes to who we are as a people, to our experience, and to our interests. The question isn't the goal, it's how you achieve it. I wonder if the President plans on bringing a signed copy of his address to President Putin when he meets with him next month. I fear that in Russia and many other places, the gap between the administration's rhetoric and the reality of its policies is only going to get wider. At the same time, we have gotten little in return for turning a blind eye to Russia's regression. One of the most important programs to protect America' security--the effort to help Russia account for, secure and destroy weapons of mass destruction and related materials-- has become mired in redtape that the two Presidents need to cut through. Finally, in Darfur, Sudan we have watched a terrible tragedy unfold. Militia supported by the government have killed as many as 100,000 civilians and chased as many as 2 million from their homes. Four months ago, before the Foreign Relations Committee, Secretary Powell rightly called it genocide. Since then, the situation has gotten even worse. Yet we heard virtually nothing from Dr. Rice about what the administration and Congress can do, now, to stop this slaughter and to help African allies develop their own peacekeeping capacity. Let me end with something hopeful that Dr. Rice talked about: putting diplomacy back at the center of America's foreign policy. That effort is long overdue. Be that as it may, I strongly agree with Dr. Rice that this is the time for a new diplomatic offensive with old allies, rising powers, and even hostile regimes. But our diplomacy has to be sustained. It has to do as much listening as it does talking. And it has to use all the tools at our disposal. Our military might is critical. It gives credibility to our diplomacy. And it gives us the most powerful tool in the world to act, if necessary, against dictators who are systematically abusing the rights of their people, or against regimes with no democratic checks that are harboring terrorists and amassing weapons of mass destruction. But there are many other critical tools that have atrophied under this administration--our intelligence, our public diplomacy, our alliances, international organizations, treaties and agreements, development assistance, trade and investment. We need to wield them with the same determination with which we use force--even if it can be frustrating and even if the payoff takes years, even a generation. That is what we did after World War II. That is why we prevailed in the Cold War. Now, faced with a new but no less dangerous set of challenges, we must recapture the totality of America's strength. Mr. President, I will conclude by suggesting that we are now faced with a new but no less dangerous set of challenges than we were in World War II, and we have to recapture the totality of America's strength. Above all, we have to understand that those who spread radical Islamic fundamentalism and weapons of mass destruction, although they may be beyond our reach and there is no choice but to confront them and to defeat them, there are still hundreds of millions of hearts and minds around the world who practice Islam who are open to American ideas and ideals, and we have to reach them. Dr. Rice says she is going to make diplomacy her primary task. I will work with her in that effort. One of my colleagues said--by the way, I want to note parenthetically that I think it is totally appropriate for Senator Dayton and Senator Kennedy and my friend from California to say what they have said, to take the positions they have taken. It is consistent with the facts as they see them. They choose to view one side of the coin. I am viewing the other side of the coin. One of my colleagues said he is voting his notion that this is going to get worse. I forget the exact phrase my friend from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry, used. Well, it reminded me of a comment by Samuel Johnson who described second marriages as the triumph of hope over experience. Well, I may be guilty in this second term of choosing hope over experience, because my experience thus far with this administration on foreign policy has been very disquieting. My hope is that the new--and I suspect she will be; I hope she will be confirmed-- the new Secretary of State will, in fact, play a role in trying to change that policy, engage in diplomacy, and use the totality of our strength, which includes our ideas and our ideals, as well as our military power. I reserve whatever time I may have and thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I don't speak for those who are going to vote no today. But I think the irony here is that their no vote is a demonstration of how clearly we are united on one point: We want to win in Iraq. The reason they are voting no is they believe Dr. Rice has misled, in many ways, and as a consequence undermined our ability to succeed. I choose to believe and take the opposite view. But I want to make it clear that those who say no today are actually doing a service to the Senate and possibly making it less likely that the Secretary of State will be less candid with us, or not as candid as she has been in the past. I think the no votes are likely to encourage candor, because that is what it is about. They are voting no in large part because they think she has not been candid and has undermined our ability to succeed. I look forward to working with Dr. Rice. I suspect there will be an overwhelming vote. Please don't read a no vote as not being united in the effort to win in Iraq. That is why some of my colleagues are voting no; they think she has undermined our ability to win in Iraq. I choose to differ with them, but we do not differ on the point that we need to succeed in Iraq. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the Democratic Leader in introducing S. 12, a bill to combat international terrorism. We all know that the primary security threat facing America is from terrorists motivated by a radical Islamic fundamentalism. Since the 9/ 11 attacks, we have done much to confront this threat, but we must do much more. As the 9/11 Commission reported, we are safer, but we are not yet safe. I know that all Senators are committed to the objective of making our country safer. We must understand that those who would spread radical Islamic fundamentalism and weapons of mass destruction are beyond the reach of reason. We must--and we will--defeat them. But hundreds of millions of hearts and minds around the world are open to American ideas and ideals. We must reach them. This bill contains a range of proposals that are designed to strengthen our anti-terrorism efforts in a broad range of areas. It will strengthen our military by expanding our special forces. It will strengthen our intelligence operations by increasing the cadre of the trained linguists in the government. It will strengthen our public diplomacy by increasing funds for State Department programs, international exchanges, and international broadcasting. It will strengthen our effort to expand basic educational opportunities in the Muslim world and combat radical madrassas. It will strengthen our assistance to non-governmental organizations working to build democratic institutions. It will strengthen our programs to help Russia account for, secure and destroy dangerous nuclear materials. And it will strengthen our law enforcement by increasing support for cops on the beat--the people who labor on the front lines of homeland security. I cannot take credit for every proposal in this bill. Many of them are ideas contributed by my Democratic colleagues. The Democratic Leader has graciously allowed me to be the lead sponsor of the bill, for which I am grateful. I look forward to working with all my colleagues to strengthen America's defenses against the threat of terrorism--through this and other legislation--in the coming Congress. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. president, I wish to speak briefly about section 7109 of the bill, which relates to public diplomacy responsibilities of the Department of State. I commend the conferees for setting forth the important statement that public diplomacy must be integral to American foreign policy. I don't have any doubt that Secretary Powell understands that fact, but it is worth codifying this statement in law. Section 7109 adds a new section 60 to the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956, which, as the name implies, is the main operating statute for State Department activities. Subsection (b) of section 60 instructs the Secretary of State to make every effort to coordinate the public diplomacy activities of the Federal Government, and to coordinate with the Broadcasting Board of Governors to develop a strategy ``for the use of public diplomacy resources.'' The Broadcasting Board of Governors, BBG, is an agency that is separate and distinct from the Department of State. It was established as a separate agency in 1998 for an important reason: to place a ``firewall'' between the foreign policy makers and the journalists who operate our international broadcast services as a means of protecting journalistic integrity. The Board consists of nine members, one of whom is the Secretary of State. Of course, the two agencies do cooperate, as current law already instructs. The State Department has a voice in the Board's activities through the Secretary's seat on the Board, and the Department has a statutory mandate under the U.S. International Broadcasting Act of 1994 to provide ``information and guidance on foreign policy issues to the Board.'' And, by law, the Secretary must be consulted whenever decisions are made about adding or deleting language services. The requirement for a strategy under section 60 must be read in light of this existing law. It does not breach the firewall. Rather, it recognizes the reality that creating a public diplomacy strategy for the Government will involve collaboration between the State Department and the BBG. The provision in this legislation does not give the Secretary any more authority with regard to the international broadcasting activities of the BBG than he has under current law, nor does it give the BBG any authority over other public diplomacy activities outside of international broadcasting. Subsection (b) of section 7109 amends current law to further delineate the responsibilities of the Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy. Among other things, this subsection tells the Under Secretary to assist the Broadcasting Board of Governors to ``present the policies of the United States clearly and effectively,'' and to ``submit statements of United States policy and editorial material to the [BBG] for broadcast consideration.'' These provisions are consistent with the current practice under which editorial statements of U.S. policy are reviewed by the Department of State. The language in the bill that material is to be submitted for ``broadcast consideration'' makes clear that final authority about what is to be broadcast rests with the BBG.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. BIDEN. Isn't it true that the disadvantage to U.S. businesses of requiring smaller, more frequent shipments to each country of use is substantial? When a foreign entity seeks to import a schedule I or II drug, or a schedule III or IV narcotic from the United States, they must first secure an import permit that is shared with the U.S. manufacturer and DEA. Our companies then have 60 days in which to obtain independent safety and quality testing on each separate product batch to be shipped. Upon completion of that testing, the manufacturer submits a highly detailed export permit application for DEA's approval. If DEA fails to issue the permit within 60 days, the entire process must be restarted. Because independent testing is expensive and the export process is highly paper intensive, it is not unusual for companies to struggle against the 60-day deadline only to have to begin again. Unfortunately, while we engage in this burdensome process, patients suffer without their drugs and foreign physicians seek out substitutes to unreliable U.S. supplies. This process was put in place long before the adoption of our international drug control treaties and the anti-diversion protections they provide. It is now outdated and unnecessary.

Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield for another question?

Mr. BIDEN. While the Controlled Substances Act restrictions made sense when they were adopted over 30 years ago, would you agree that changes in the way international pharmaceutical markets work, and in the way controlled substances are tracked, and have since rendered the requirements unnecessary? Our legislation was developed in cooperation with the Drug Enforcement Administration to ensure that all necessary anti-diversion controls remain. Under our bill, each country is required to have an established system of controls deemed adequate by the DEA. Only DEA permit or license holders in those countries may receive regulated products. Re- exports are limited to one single cross-border transfer. The DEA must be satisfied by substantial evidence that the exported substance will be used to meet an actual medical, scientific or other legitimate need and that the second country of receipt will hold or issue appropriate import licenses or permits. The exporter must notify the DEA in writing within 30 days of a re-export, and an export permit must have been issued by the DEA. The legislation specifically retains the Drug Enforcement Administration's authority to deny a request to export or re-export a controlled substance. A company seeking to export a drug for subsequent transfer must provide the DEA with exhaustive information on both the country of initial export and the countries to which the controlled substances would ultimately be destined. In addition, DEA must be provided follow-up notification of any cross border shipment within 30 days of that transfer. The U.S. Government will know where all drugs are being shipped and for what purpose. Without that information, U.S. pharmaceuticals will never leave our soil.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, much of the Senate's attention this week was consumed with completing lingering business, be it, appropriations bills or debt extension. In contrast, I rise today to ask my colleagues to cast their eyes forward to a new matter that we must focus on when Congress reconvenes in January--the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. As most know, I consider the Violence Against Women Act the single most important legislation I've championed during my 30- year tenure in the Senate. I care deeply about this law, and take seriously my responsibility to ensure it is funded and renewed. After more than 5 years of hearings, and legislative drafts and redrafts, in September 1994, the Congress passed and President Clinton signed into law the Violence Against Women Act. The Violence Against Women Act created new Federal criminal laws addressing domestic violence and rape, and established discretionary grant programs within the Department of Justice and the Department of Health and Human Services for State, local, and Indian tribal governments and non-profit service organizations. The Violence Against Women Act of 2000 renewed these programs, made targeted improvements to certain provisions and introduced new initiatives. Since the bill was enacted, we've witnessed an incredible transformation in State and Federal criminal and civil law enforcement, communities' victim services, and societal attitudes towards domestic violence and sexual assault. In 2004 alone, Congress spent $520 million for Violence Against Women programs. Over the past decade, nearly $3.8 billion has been appropriated to make women's homes and communities safer. We've made extraordinary progress in ending violence against women and its devastating impact on families. With the passage of the Violence Against Women Act we started talking about that dirty little secret that no one wanted to say out loud. A rape victim or battered wife can now turn to a trained police officer, an emergency room nurse, or a 1-800 Hotline operator. We transformed private ``family matters'' into public crimes with true accountability and meaningful victim services. The Violence Against Women Act is working. Since its enactment, domestic violence has dropped by almost 50 percent. Incidents of rape are down by 60 percent. The number of women killed by an abusive husband or boyfriend is down by 22 percent. More than half of all rape victims are stepping forward to report the crime. Over a million women have found justice in our courtrooms and obtained domestic violence protective orders. The signs of success abound. But progress is not enough. Sadly, domestic violence and sexual assault persist. As more and more brave women are stepping forward to report a rape or seek a restraining order against an abusive husband, more demands are placed on women's shelters, state prosecutors, courtroom victim advocates, and other resources. We cannot let the Violence Against Women Act become a victim of its own success. Instead, it must be soundly and quickly reauthorized next year. Despite best efforts, a complete bill reauthorizing the Act is not yet ready for introduction today. However, a draft is near completion. I am listening closely to those on the front lines--police, trial judges, emergency room nurses and many others--and making targeted improvements to existing grant programs and tightening up criminal laws. We are learning about the new challenges and the persistent problems of old. A wide variety of groups are working with me to put together the next iteration of the Violence Against Women Act, including the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the National Network to End Domestic Violence, the Family Violence and Prevention Fund, the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape, Legal Momentum, the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, the American Bar Association's Commission on Domestic Violence, the National Association of Attorneys General, the National Center for Victims of Crime, National District Attorneys Association, the National Council on Family and Juvenile Court Judges, the National Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Sheriffs' Association and the American Medical Association. The Violence Against Women Act of 2005 that I intend to introduce at the commencement of the next Congressional session is a comprehensive and ambitious bill that will move our country forward in our fight to end family violence. The reauthorization will include at least nine titles. Major components of title I on the courts and crime include provisions to: 1. renew existing foundational programs for law enforcement, lawyers, judges and advocates; 2. stiffen existing criminal penalties for repeat federal domestic violence offenders; 3. appropriately update the stalking criminal law to incorporate new surveillance technology like Global Positioning Systems (GPS); and 4. ensure that offender re-entry programs develop procedures and resources for prisoners with a history of family violence. Title II on victim services would, among other items: 1. create a new dedicated program for rape crisis centers; 2. reinvigorate programs to help older and disabled victims of domestic violence; and 3. strengthen existing programs for rural victims and victims in underserved areas. I am particularly heartened by new titles that deal with children and teenagers. Reports indicate that from three to ten million children are experiencing domestic violence in their homes each year. Treating children who witness domestic violence, dealing quickly with violent teenage relationships and teaching prevention to children and teenagers are keys to ending the violence. In some instances, women face the untenable choice of returning to their abuser or becoming homeless. Indeed, 44 percent of the Nation's mayors identified domestic violence as a primary cause of homelessness. In response, efforts to ease the housing problems for battered women are contained in my draft bill. Doctors and nurses, like police officers on the beat, are often the first witnesses of the devastating aftermath of abuse. As first responders, they must be fully engaged in the effort to end the violence and have the tools they need to faithfully screen, treat and study family violence. My bill would strengthen the health care system's response to family violence with programs to train and educate health care professionals on domestic and sexual violence, foster family violence screening for patients, and more studies on the health ramifications of family violence. Leaving a violent partner often requires battered women to achieve a level of economic security. The next iteration of the Violence Against Women Act should seek to help abused women maintain secure employment, insurance coverage, and child support resources. In addition, my bill would improve and expand the immigration protections for battered women. I am very appreciative of Senator Kennedy's leadership and expertise on this issue. In addition, it would ensure that victims of trafficking are supported with measures such as permitting their families to join them in certain circumstances, expanding the duration of a T-visa, and providing resources to victims who assist in investigations or prosecutions of trafficking cases brought by State or Federal authorities. Finally, my bill will focus more closely on violence against Indian women and suggest ways to better coordinate services to Indian women. I am pleased to be working on such a thorough effort to renew the Violence Against Women Act. I believe this bill raises important issues, and pushes local and federal policymakers to ask what more should be done for battered women and their children. In the coming weeks, I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to craft a compromise measure. Senator Hatch and the Judiciary Committee's new Chairman, Senator Specter and Ranking Member Senator Leahy, have long supported the Violence Against Women Act and I am confident that we will work together to create an effective reauthorization bill. I also appreciate the efforts in the House of Representatives including those of a long-standing champion of the Violence Against Women, Representative Conyers.