Joe Biden

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. I thank the senior Senator from Illinois for his question, and for working with us to clarify this issue in the bill. We do not intend this bill to stop the use of substances that are legitimately marketed as dietary supplements, or to limit access to substances that are not abused as steroids by athletes or children. With respect to DHEA, this legislation does not make it a controlled substance, and the legislation should mean that legitimate users of DHEA would continue to have access to it if it is lawfully marketed.

Mr. BIDEN. I will.

Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BIDEN. I, too, am committed to acting whenever any substance, whether it is DHEA or another steroid substance, becomes an abuse problem.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am today in support of H.R. 854, the Belarus Democracy Act. Alexander Lukashenka, President of Belarus, is the last remaining dictator in Europe. After orchestrating an illegal and unconstitutional referendum in November 1996, enabling him to impose a new constitution, abolish the duly-elected parliament, and install a largely powerless national assembly, he has progressively abolished the previously existing democracy in that country. Belarusian authorities under Lukashenka's control have mounted a major systematic crackdown on civil society through the closure, harassment, and repression of non-governmental organizations and independent trade unions. Three leaders of the democratic forces in Belarus--Victor Gonchar, Anatoly Krasovsky, and Yuri Zakharenka--and one critical journalist, Dmitry Zavadsky, have disappeared and are presumed dead. Former Belarus Government officials have made credible allegations, with evidence, that officials of the Lukashenka regime were involved in the disappearances. Lukashenka's administration has repressed freedom of speech and expression, has reversed the revival of Belarusian language and culture, and has harassed religious groups. The Government of Belarus has made no substantive progress in addressing criteria established in 2000 by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe to end repression and the climate of fear, permit functioning independent media, ensure transparency of the election process, and strengthen the functions of parliament. The campaign for the parliamentary elections to be held October 17 has not been fair. Lukashenka has also added a referendum to the ballot to eliminate term-limits for the presidency so that he can run again in 2006. H.R. 854, the Belarus Democracy Act, authorizes funds to assist in the observation of elections and the promotion of free and fair electoral processes; the development of democratic political parties; radio and television broadcasting to and within Belarus; the development of non-governmental organizations promoting democracy and supporting human rights; the development of independent media within Belarus and from outside the country; international exchanges and professional training programs for leaders and members of the democratic forces; and other activities consistent with the purposes of the Act. Like most other legislation, this bill is not perfect. I would have preferred even stronger legislation. In fact, I had prepared such legislation, which I planned to introduce in the form of an amendment to the State Department Authorization legislation if it had reached the Senate floor. My bill would have authorized, with specific numbers, increased funding for the activities described above; would have streamlined and tightened controls on exports to Belarus; and would have imposed visa bans on Lukashenka and his inner circle. Unfortunately, for unrelated reasons, the State Department Authorization bill has not been brought up, and there is no time in the closing days of the 108th Congress to introduce my legislation as a free-standing bill. Nonetheless, I strongly support H.R. 854. It makes unmistakably clear to President Lukashenka and his cohorts that the United States strongly disapproves of his brutal authoritarian rule and that we intend to continue to oppose him. Lukashenka is an anachronism in twenty-first century Europe and is surely destined for the ash-heap of history. The Belarus Democracy Act may hasten this process. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 854. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, tomorrow marks the beginning of October, celebrated nationally as National Domestic Violence Awareness Month. Earlier this week, this body unanimously passed a resolution that commemorates National Domestic Violence Awareness Month and renews the Senate's commitment to raise awareness about domestic violence and its devastating impact on families. While the Violence Against Women Act has been law for 10 years, none of us can afford to stop talking about domestic violence and encouraging victims to come forward and seek help. Throughout the month, cities, organizations, businesses, religious institutions, and many others are organizing events to commemorate National Domestic Violence Awareness Month. For instance, Marie Claire magazine and Liz Claiborne Inc. have joined forces to create ``Its Time to Talk'' Day on October 14 to encourage greater public dialogue about domestic violence. Around the country, media personalities, governmental officials, domestic violence advocates, businesses and the public-at-large will be taking a moment--or more--to talk openly about this ``dirty little secret'' that affects nearly one in three women in this country. The health care community has designated October 13 as Health Care Cares About Domestic Violence Day to raise awareness, and encourage doctors and nurses to screen for domestic violence while delivering routine and emergency care. On October 7, Marshall's will donate a percentage of that day's sales from all of its stores to organizations fighting domestic violence. Many communities, from Morrisville, VT to Lake Charles, LA, are holding candlelight vigils to remember and honor victims of domestic violence. I cannot overestimate the importance of these local and national events that spotlight domestic violence and enlist the whole community to get involved. While much progress has been made at the local, State and Federal level to hold batterers accountable with serious consequences and treat victims with dignity, the scourge of domestic violence is far from over. Progress is not mission accomplished. Tragic statistics reveal the stark truth that we cannot turn our attention away from fighting domestic violence. On average, each day more than three women are murdered by this husbands or boyfriends. Nearly one in three women experience at least one physical assault by a partner during her lifetime. In a recent poll, nine in ten women said that ending domestic violence was their number one priority. One in five adolescent girls becomes a victim of physical or sexual abuse, or both, in a dating relationship. In addition to the incalculable human costs of domestic violence, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently found that violence against women costs our country in excess of $5.8 billion each year. As resolute police chiefs retire, State task forces reorganize or committed district attorneys are replaced by newly elected leaders, we must ensure that the messages, protocols, policies, and dialogues fostered by the Violence Against Women Act become institutionalized across the country. We need to usher the Act into the 21st century and implement it with the next generation--recent police academy graduates who want to be trained on handling family violence, newly elected state legislators who want to update State laws on stalking, and the next generation of children who must be taught that abuse will not be tolerated. Next year the Senate will have the opportunity to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act which may make improvements to core programs, tighten criminal penalties and create new solutions to challenges facing battered women. Some of the initiatives suggested include school-based programs to treat the millions of children who witness domestic violence, home visitation programs to prevent family violence, targeted training and education about domestic violence for health professionals, and greater transitional housing resources. I look forward to working with my colleagues to craft a comprehensive and balanced Violence Against Women Act of 2005. In the meantime, I thank the countless men and women working tirelessly in their hometowns to end domestic violence. As I have said before, these advocates, lawyers, service providers, judges, police, nurses, shelter directors and many more, are saving lives, one woman at a time. During National Domestic Violence Awareness Month, we have a chance to acknowledge their hard work, talk loud and clear about domestic violence and support the courageous women escaping violent homes.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to significantly expand our international broadcasting to the Muslim world. The United States currently broadcasts news and information in over 60 languages to nations in every region of the world. Through both radio and TV, we tell America's story to the world--with news and information programming about not only U.S. Government policy, but life and culture in the United States. We also bring the world to overseas audiences, providing them local, regional and world news that they often may not receive, especially in closed societies. Such broadcasts have been an important foreign policy tool for six decades, since Voice of America broadcasts were initiated during the Second World War. During the Cold War, Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty broadcasts behind the Iron Curtain were a literal information lifeline for millions trapped under Soviet misrule. Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Broadcasting Board of Governors, the Federal agency responsible for these broadcasts, has significantly expanded our outreach to the Muslim world. At the direction of Congress, it reestablished Radio Free Afghanistan broadcasts, which had been curtailed in the 1990s. It initiated a new Arabic-language service to the Middle East--Radio Sawa--featuring a new format of both music and news and information programming designed to reach younger audiences. It started a new Persian service, Radio Farda, broadcast to Iran. And it launched a satellite television station, Alhurra, which is transmitted across the Arab world in an effort to compete with other pan-Arab television outlets like Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya. We have seen dramatic results. In several cities in the Middle East, Radio Sawa is now the leading international broadcaster, and is competitive with local stations. A survey conducted in Morocco earlier this year shows that, in Casablanca and Rabat, Radio Sawa is the No. 1 station among all listeners over age 15. Some 88 percent of people in those cities under the age of 30 listen weekly, and 64 percent of those over age 30 do so. The listener audience is not as high in other countries--ranging from a low of 2 percent in Lebanon to 7 percent in Egypt to 42 percent in the UAE to 45 percent in Kuwait. But these data are phenomenal for international broadcasting, where you are doing well if you are attracting five percent of the audience weekly. Although Alhurra television programming has only been on the air for 7 months, it is already attracting an important audience share. Recent data indicate that some 33 percent watch it weekly in Kuwait, 20 percent watch it weekly in Saudi Arabia, and 19 percent watch it weekly in Jordan and the United Arab Emirates. That's not as high as Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya, other pan-Arab satellite networks that are more dominant, but after 7 months, we are in the game. We can and should build on these successes, by expanding our broadcasting efforts to other nations with large Muslim populations-- from Southeast Asia to Central and South Asia to the African continent. The bill that I introduce today authorizes such an expansion, and would provide for new or expanded services, in both radio and television, to all of these regions. This would not involve a one-sized-fits-all approach, but a targeted effort based on analysis of each individual market. I do not want to imply that this will provide an immediate impact. It will be a significant challenge. It will require additional resources and personnel. It will require diplomatic efforts--to obtain permission for construction relay stations and to procure local broadcast licenses. But we cannot afford not to try. Around the globe, there are some 1.2 billion Muslims. Polling data indicate that favorable attitudes toward the United States and U.S. policy have declined considerably in the last few years. One report, prepared by the Pew organization in June 2003, stated that ``the bottom has fallen out of support for America in most of the Muslim world. Negative views of the U.S. among Muslims, which had been largely limited to countries in the Middle East, have spread to Muslim populations in Indonesia and Nigeria.'' The negative image of America is perhaps the natural result of our status as a global superpower. It also stems from disagreements in foreign nations with U.S. policy. But it is also the result of a failure to explain U.S. policy, and a failure to engage in a dialogue with foreign audiences. The negative opinion in the world about the United States and U.S. policy is a national security challenge of the fist order. We must deal with this simple fact: most foreign governments, even non-democratic ones, are constrained in their ability to support American policy if their own people oppose the United States and its policies. We must, therefore, greatly expand our efforts to engage foreign audiences, not in a one-way monologue, but in a dialogue. International broadcasting is just one means of conducting that dialogue. We have to explain who we are, what we stand for, and what our motives are. If we don't, we will have ceded the field to people who will misrepresent our policies or our motives. International broadcasting is one of several public diplomacy programs--such as international exchanges and information programs-- that have been underfunded and understaffed for too long. This legislation I introduce today only addresses international broadcasting. We should make similar investments in our other public diplomacy programs, and I will continue to work to ensure that we do so. The 9/11 Commission recognized the lack of adequate funding for these programs, and called on Congress and the administration to invest in them. Among other things, the Commission specifically recommended that we increase funding for international broadcasting: Recognizing that Arab and Muslim audiences rely on satellite television and radio, the government has begun some promising initiatives in television and radio broadcasting to the Arab world, Iran, and Afghanistan. These efforts are beginning to reach large audiences. The Broadcasting Board of Governors has asked for much larger resources. It should get them. The 9/11 Commission did not recommend a specific budget amount, or provide a detailed plan. This proposal does both. It is based on a thoroughly-researched plan. It provides significant resources--$222 million in one-time costs, and annual costs of $345 million. This represents about a 60 percent increase over the current annual budget of $570 million for such broadcasting. Relative to other national security programs, I believe it is a bargain--and an investment that is well worth the price. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to significantly expand our international broadcasting to the Muslim world. The United States currently broadcasts news and information in over 60 languages to nations in every region of the world. Through both radio and TV, we tell America's story to the world--with news and information programming about not only U.S. Government policy, but life and culture in the United States. We also bring the world to overseas audiences, providing them local, regional and world news that they often may not receive, especially in closed societies. Such broadcasts have been an important foreign policy tool for six decades, since Voice of America broadcasts were initiated during the Second World War. During the Cold War, Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty broadcasts behind the Iron Curtain were a literal information lifeline for millions trapped under Soviet misrule. Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Broadcasting Board of Governors, the Federal agency responsible for these broadcasts, has significantly expanded our outreach to the Muslim world. At the direction of Congress, it reestablished Radio Free Afghanistan broadcasts, which had been curtailed in the 1990s. It initiated a new Arabic-language service to the Middle East--Radio Sawa--featuring a new format of both music and news and information programming designed to reach younger audiences. It started a new Persian service, Radio Farda, broadcast to Iran. And it launched a satellite television station, Alhurra, which is transmitted across the Arab world in an effort to compete with other pan-Arab television outlets like Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya. We have seen dramatic results. In several cities in the Middle East, Radio Sawa is now the leading international broadcaster, and is competitive with local stations. A survey conducted in Morocco earlier this year shows that, in Casablanca and Rabat, Radio Sawa is the No. 1 station among all listeners over age 15. Some 88 percent of people in those cities under the age of 30 listen weekly, and 64 percent of those over age 30 do so. The listener audience is not as high in other countries--ranging from a low of 2 percent in Lebanon to 7 percent in Egypt to 42 percent in the UAE to 45 percent in Kuwait. But these data are phenomenal for international broadcasting, where you are doing well if you are attracting five percent of the audience weekly. Although Alhurra television programming has only been on the air for 7 months, it is already attracting an important audience share. Recent data indicate that some 33 percent watch it weekly in Kuwait, 20 percent watch it weekly in Saudi Arabia, and 19 percent watch it weekly in Jordan and the United Arab Emirates. That's not as high as Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya, other pan-Arab satellite networks that are more dominant, but after 7 months, we are in the game. We can and should build on these successes, by expanding our broadcasting efforts to other nations with large Muslim populations-- from Southeast Asia to Central and South Asia to the African continent. The bill that I introduce today authorizes such an expansion, and would provide for new or expanded services, in both radio and television, to all of these regions. This would not involve a one-sized-fits-all approach, but a targeted effort based on analysis of each individual market. I do not want to imply that this will provide an immediate impact. It will be a significant challenge. It will require additional resources and personnel. It will require diplomatic efforts--to obtain permission for construction relay stations and to procure local broadcast licenses. But we cannot afford not to try. Around the globe, there are some 1.2 billion Muslims. Polling data indicate that favorable attitudes toward the United States and U.S. policy have declined considerably in the last few years. One report, prepared by the Pew organization in June 2003, stated that ``the bottom has fallen out of support for America in most of the Muslim world. Negative views of the U.S. among Muslims, which had been largely limited to countries in the Middle East, have spread to Muslim populations in Indonesia and Nigeria.'' The negative image of America is perhaps the natural result of our status as a global superpower. It also stems from disagreements in foreign nations with U.S. policy. But it is also the result of a failure to explain U.S. policy, and a failure to engage in a dialogue with foreign audiences. The negative opinion in the world about the United States and U.S. policy is a national security challenge of the fist order. We must deal with this simple fact: most foreign governments, even non-democratic ones, are constrained in their ability to support American policy if their own people oppose the United States and its policies. We must, therefore, greatly expand our efforts to engage foreign audiences, not in a one-way monologue, but in a dialogue. International broadcasting is just one means of conducting that dialogue. We have to explain who we are, what we stand for, and what our motives are. If we don't, we will have ceded the field to people who will misrepresent our policies or our motives. International broadcasting is one of several public diplomacy programs--such as international exchanges and information programs-- that have been underfunded and understaffed for too long. This legislation I introduce today only addresses international broadcasting. We should make similar investments in our other public diplomacy programs, and I will continue to work to ensure that we do so. The 9/11 Commission recognized the lack of adequate funding for these programs, and called on Congress and the administration to invest in them. Among other things, the Commission specifically recommended that we increase funding for international broadcasting: Recognizing that Arab and Muslim audiences rely on satellite television and radio, the government has begun some promising initiatives in television and radio broadcasting to the Arab world, Iran, and Afghanistan. These efforts are beginning to reach large audiences. The Broadcasting Board of Governors has asked for much larger resources. It should get them. The 9/11 Commission did not recommend a specific budget amount, or provide a detailed plan. This proposal does both. It is based on a thoroughly-researched plan. It provides significant resources--$222 million in one-time costs, and annual costs of $345 million. This represents about a 60 percent increase over the current annual budget of $570 million for such broadcasting. Relative to other national security programs, I believe it is a bargain--and an investment that is well worth the price. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I propose this amendment in the hope that it will help Congress to assess the progress that is being made in reforming Pakistan's secular and religious educational system. This objective, shared by the Governments of Pakistan and the United States, must be addressed. If the next generation of Pakistani youth is denied the benefits of a sound, modern, ideologically moderate education, the results could be tragic for both of our nations. The President has committed the United States to a 5-year, $3 billion package of assistance to Pakistan, a key ally in the South Asia region in the war against al-Qaida, but also a place where radical fundamentalism has taken root. One important element of this U.S. aid package to Pakistan is assistance for educational reform. Because of the many problems plaguing Pakistan's education system, many parents in that country turn to the vast, unregulated system of madrassas, or religious academies. These madrassas range from well-run schools teaching both Western and Islamic subjects side-by-side, to a far larger number of institutions that provide only the very most rudimentary education, in either religious or secular topics. Of greatest concern--to U.S. and Pakistani interests alike--are a small but significant number of madrassas that indoctrinate their students with radical, violent ideology, and sometimes serve as training camps and recruitment offices for militant organizations and terrorist groups. When President Musharraf was our guest in the Senate in June 2003, he specifically highlighted the urgent need for educational reform as a key priority, and one for which he requested U.S. assistance. With regard to the madrassa system, President Musharraf has already laid out what should be done--the task now is to stop strategizing and start doing it. First, all madrassas should be registered with the government. Second, a uniform basic curriculum should be promulgated: this curriculum should include instruction in subjects like math, science and other non-religious topics, so that religious education is a part of the course at these academies, but not the totality. Third, instruction at madrassas should not foster extremist or violent ideology, and should not include military or paramilitary training. For the past 3 years, various officials of the U.S. government have been stating that progress was right around the corner. For years, we have been told that if we provide Pakistan with debt relief, Islamabad will use the savings in debt service to undertake serious educational reform. Yet it is not clear that much has been done. The reporting requirement set forth in this amendment will ensure that the Congress has adequate information about the amount of funding provided for educational reform and the strategy for undertaking such reform. We should have a clear strategy--and the means by which to evaluate the progress of educational reform in Pakistan. desert locusts

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, Congressman Porter Goss will become Director of Central Intelligence at a difficult and important time for the U.S. Intelligence Community. In the coming months, he must help both Congress and the administration to take sensible steps on intelligence reform. In the years to come, if he remains in office, Mr. Goss must lead our intelligence agencies into a new era of flexibility, skill, and inter-agency cooperation. I will vote in favor of confirming Mr. Goss to this position, although not without some misgivings. I will support his confirmation in part because I know him to be a gentleman and a man with a deep and sincere interest in intelligence, as well as substantial background in the field. I will support him because many others who know him well, including our colleagues from Florida and others whose views I respect, have contacted me and testified to his integrity and capabilities. And I will support Mr. Goss because the President wants him. A CIA Director cannot succeed unless the President likes and respects him enough to take seriously the facts and warnings the Director conveys to him. The President must be willing to accept advice when the Director says that something is not ``a slam dunk,'' and I hope that this President will be willing to accept such advice from this nominee. As a matter of general policy, however, I have real concerns about appointing a partisan politician to such sensitive positions as Director of Central Intelligence or Director of the FBI. In 1976, I voted against George H. W. Bush as Director of Central Intelligence for precisely that reason. I suggested: ``The chances for forceful integrity will be infinitely greater if the Director of Central Intelligence is a highly respected nonpolitical figure.'' The need for a DCI to transcend partisan politics is crystal clear. He is the person who must be able to tell the President that the world is not as the President might wish it, that a cherished policy proposal will not work, or that some unforeseen development poses a threat to our national security. As we remove the walls between domestic and foreign intelligence, moreover, the DCI--like the FBI Director--will be handling and presenting sensitive information on American citizens. The next DCI will preside, moreover, over great and perhaps wrenching transition in U.S. intelligence. The report of the 9/11 Commission highlighted a series of long-standing shortfalls in our intelligence agencies. Although the particulars regarding the fight against al-Qaida may have been new, the challenges facing U.S. intelligence are ones that go back many years: We need to provide instant and accurate intelligence to our military forces, and this drives much of our intelligence collection and analysis today. At the same time, however, we need to provide a wide range of so-called ``national'' intelligence to the rest of the national security community. Balancing those needs is a continuing challenge, especially as the funds for intelligence will often compete against other defense priorities. We need intelligence collectors and analysts with a wider range of linguistic and cultural skills than ever before. Once we fought a communist enemy that was worldwide, but centrally directed. Now we must vanquish the twin perils of radical Islamic terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, both of which are nearly world-wide, but no longer controlled by a central, well-defined enemy. And we need technical intelligence collection systems that are ever more powerful, that provide more real-time information, and that will be effective in a world where technology often favors secrecy over transparency. We need seamless sharing of very sensitive intelligence information-- between agencies, between countries, and between Washington and the State and local forces that guard us from terrorism on a daily basis. ``Stovepipes'' and ``rice bowls'' are outmoded and in need of a real make-over to meet the needs of the 21st century. At the same time, however, we need strong protections for our civil liberties, which are the very foundation of our society. When the most recognizable member of this Senate is denied an airline ticket in his home town because his name shows up on some Government list, we know that the intelligence feeding into our homeland security programs leaves a lot to be desired. That is quite a menu of challenges, and they must all be addressed. There is no ``pick one from column A'' option in heading U.S. intelligence. In addition to all that, the Director must be willing and able to ``speak truth to power.'' He must have the stature and Presidential trust that leads top officials to accept his warnings and advice. And he must be an able defender of the independence of intelligence analysis, while still insuring that it is relevant to the needs and concerns of policy-makers. I will support the confirmation of Mr. Goss in the hope that he will transition successfully from a serious congressman and a leading partisan figure to a clear-eyed, independent Director of Central Intelligence who is able to rally his troops, to make them as effective as possible, and to keep policy-makers from misusing or ignoring the work of the thousands of skilled and patriotic men and women who work in U.S. intelligence today. The perilous times in which we live demand nothing less than complete dedication to those objectives.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, Delaware Governor Ruth Ann Minner's requests for Federal disaster relief following Henri and Isabel was approved and FEMA was on the ground in Glenville immediately to assist. Since last September, however, we have come to the realization that more help is needed. Repairs to flood-damaged homes would be difficult because Glenville, hit hard in 1994 by Hurricane Floyd, is certain to suffer repeated flooding. The State of Delaware and New Castle County have now stepped in with $15 million each to purchase and destroy flood-damaged homes.

Mr. BIDEN. I know that no existing FEMA program was intended to buy out an entire community but $30 million is a lot of money in a State like mine. I believe additional Federal assistance for Glenville will help the State and the county finish their work there while maintaining sufficient emergency response capacity to deal with future storms.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I will vote in favor of this Homeland Security Appropriations bill today, but I do so with great reservation and with the knowledge that its funding levels are woefully inadequate for the job of providing an effective defensive front in the war on terror. Our highest priorities, as a Congress and as a Nation, have to be the security of the homeland and prevailing in the fight against terrorism. I fear that the bill before us does not provide the resources necessary to meet these priorities. This bill does not reflect my priorities, nor does it represent a homeland security budget I would write. I voted against the President's budget when it was before the Senate earlier this year. One of the main reasons I gave then for my opposition to the majority's budget resolution was its low level of funding for homeland security. Today, unfortunately, we are seeing the results of that budget. The President's priorities seem to be along the lines of tax cuts for the wealthy and a missile defense system. Those are not my priorities. My priorities are the safety and security of my constituents and of the Nation. This bill reflects the President's priorities, as his tax cuts have left us with too few dollars to adequately secure the homeland. Let me give just a few examples of where this bill is deficient. Senator Byrd offered an amendment to add $2 billion to this $33 billion Homeland Security Appropriations bill. I voted in favor of this proposal; yet, the majority voted in lock-step against it. Senator Byrd included in his amendment funds to double the amounts allocated to deploy radiation monitors at our ports. The Department of Homeland Security estimates it will cost $496 million to deploy enough radiation monitors to screen all inbound containerized cargo at the Nation's busiest ports; yet, the Department has insisted upon deploying this technology over a 5-year period. I do not believe we have 5 years to wait, and Senator Byrd would have doubled the pace of this effort. How can opponents justify voting against these funds? Also included in this $2 billion amendment was an additional $100 million to beef up passenger security screening at airports. One of the portions of the 9/11 Commission's Report that leapt out at me dealt with the security vulnerabilities that remain in our airports. According to the Commission, ``[t]he TSA and the Congress must give priority attention to improving the ability of screening checkpoints to detect explosives on passengers. As a start, each individual selected for special screening should be screened for explosives.'' I expect it would surprise many of my constituents to know that the long lines we all go through at airports do not result in passengers being screened only for metal objects. When Russian airplanes are being blown out of the sky, likely by Chechen terrorists carrying explosives, and when the so-called ``shoe bomber,'' Richard Reid, tries to blow up a Miami-bound plane with carried-on explosives, we know we need to do a better job. But this bill provides only $75 million to continue to test for chemical and explosive material. Industry representatives have reported to me that these systems are ready to be deployed now, and that we need merely to spend the resources necessary to deploy them around the country. The $100 million proposed by Senator Byrd would have started us down that road, and I do not know how those who voted against these funds justify their position. How can my friends on the other side of the aisle vote against additional resources to secure our seaport and railway systems? The $2 billion I referenced earlier also included an additional $350 million for transit and rail security grants, along with an additional $125 million for port security grants. Not once since the attacks of 9/11 has the administration asked for an additional dollar of funding to protect passengers on our Nation's rails. More people pass through Penn Station in New York City every day than pass through all 3 of that city's major airports, to take just one example. But not a dime of new money has been requested by the President to protect those passengers. The Commerce committee, under the leadership of Senator McCain and Senator Hollings, has reported legislation authorizing over $1.1 billion to enhance rail security. As my good friend from California has said, that legislation has not passed the Senate. In fact, since the attacks of 9/11 the Congress has refused to authorize additional security resources for Amtrak. Anonymous holds on the other side of the aisle have blocked action for 2 Congresses. The administration has done nothing to get that legislation--bipartisan bills--moving. That ought to be a scandal. I am pleased that the amendment offered by Senator Carper and Senator Boxer has been accepted. That will give Amtrak a fighting chance to get some of the funding this bill makes available for rail and transit security. But this will not feed the bulldog, Mr. President. This will not close the obvious gaps in our rail security. Given the low priority that rail security has been given, despite known and announced threats, I can only hope that Amtrak will get its share of the funds. I hope that when we revisit rail security in the next Congress, we will not regret the delay and penny-pinching that we have displayed on this issue. This bill is underfunded and shortsighted, and I regret that the amendments I supported to add needed homeland security dollars were not included. While the bill before us today does not reflect my priorities, I will vote for it so that funds can continue to flow to our States, our critical infrastructures, and for the day-to-day operations of the Department of Homeland Security. But I look forward to debating appropriations bills that do reflect my priorities, and that truly do all we should do to secure the homeland and wage an effective war on terror.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today marks the 10-year anniversary of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The bill, which was the product of bi-partisan compromise, took a balanced position to criminal justice policy, strengthening many Federal penalties, providing funding to build prisons and promoting truth-in-sentencing. Most importantly, the act made important investments in programs designed to prevent crime in the first place, including putting 100,000 community policing officers on the street and reducing violence against women and children. To ensure this bill's passage, I worked harder than I ever had in the U.S. Senate. Prior to the final vote, in August of 1994, I stated that ``I will vote for this bill, because, as much as anything I have ever voted on in 22 years in the U.S. Senate, I truly believe that passage of this legislation will make a difference in the lives of the American people. I believe with every fiber in my being that if this bill passes, fewer people will be murdered, fewer people will be victims, fewer women will be senselessly beaten, fewer people will continue on the drug path, and fewer children will become criminals.'' Fortunately, this turned out to be right. With the passage of the Biden crime bill we were able to form a partnership amongst Federal, State, and local law enforcement and create programs that helped drive down crime rates for 8 consecutive years. In 1994 we had historically high rates of violent crimes, such as murders, forcible rapes, and aggravated assaults. We were able to reduce these to the lowest levels in a generation. We reduced the murder rate by 37.8 percent; we reduced forcible rapes by 19.1 percent; and we reduced aggravated assaults by 25.5 percent. Property crimes, including auto thefts, also were reduced from historical highs to the lowest levels in decades. How were we able to achieve such great results? Well, we all know it was a combination of factors, but most law enforcement officials credit the Office of Community Oriented Policing with a pivotal role. Indeed, in the words of Attorney General Ashcroft, the Community Oriented Policing program has been ``a miraculous success.'' COPS has funded over 118,000 local officers to patrol our neighborhoods and towns and help drive down crime rates. Because of COPS, the concept of community policing has spread to cities and towns across the country. A testament to the success of the program is the fact that it has been endorsed by every major law enforcement group in the country, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), the National Association of Police Organizations, the National Sheriff's Association, the International Brotherhood of Police Organizations, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Officials, the International Union of Police Associations, the Fraternal Order of Police, and others. Completely disregarding the overwhelming success of COPS, the Bush administration and Republican leadership have set their sights on eliminating this program. President Bush has proposed cuts each year he has been in office, and while we have fought to maintain funding for COPS, we are fighting an uphill battle. Funding for 5 State and local law enforcement programs run out of the Department of Justice is down 75.6 percent since fiscal year 2002. To me, this approach is inexplicable, particularly because the need for Federal assistance remains pressing. Recent articles from USA Today and the New York Times highlighted the fact that many cities are being forced to eliminate officers because of their woeful local budgets. In fact, New York City has lot 3,000 officers in the last few years. Other cities, such as Cleveland, OH, Milwaukee, MN, and Houston, TX, are facing similar shortages. As a result, local police chiefs are reluctantly pulling officers from the proactive policing activities that were so successful in the nineties. This has not been a choice taken lightly. Police chiefs understand the value of proactive policing; however, they simply don't have the manpower to do it all. Basically, we have been asking them to do more with less, and responding to emergency calls must take precedence over proactive programs. However, I fear that we are starting to see the results. Local chiefs are reporting increased gang activity. Murder rates and auto thefts--two very accurate indicators of crime trends-- have gone up for 3 consecutive years. The Bush administration's response to these criticisms is that funding for first responders is way up. Undoubtedly, these are critical, necessary expenditures, and I believe that the administration has not invested enough for our first responders. However, this argument misses the point entirely. We have an obligation to do both. We must fund our first responders and invest in the programs that help reduce traditional crime and prevent terrorism. As the President has stated on many occasions, it is the solemn duty of the Federal Government to keep Americans safe. We simply can't achieve this goal without investing in our State and local law enforcement partners. The COPS office has been a critical lynchpin in the Federal, State, and local partnership that has been effective since the passage of the 1994 Biden crime bill, and I hope that the Bush administration and this Congress will reverse its current course and provide critical funding for this program. Another component of the 1994 Biden crime bill was the Violence Against Women Act. 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, and as a result women and children have become safer. Instead of suffering alone, a rape victim or battered wife can now turn to a trained police officer, an emergency room nurse, or a 1-800 telephone operator. We've transformed so-called ``family matters'' into public crimes that hold the offender accountable and provide the victim with meaningful services. Since fiscal year 1995, nearly $3.8 billion has been appropriated for the programs created by the Violence Against Women Act. In Delaware alone, the Office on Violence Against Women has overseen 21 grant awards totaling $9.5 million. These investments have paid off. Domestic violence has dropped nearly 50 percent. Incidents of rape are down by 60 percent. The number of women killed by an abusive husband or boyfriend is down 22 percent. Today, more than half of all rape victims are stepping forward to report the crime, and over a million women have found justice in our courtrooms and obtained domestic violence protection orders. Of course, we need to do more. As more and more brave women step forward to report a rape or seek a restraining order, more demands are placed on women's shelters, State prosecutors, victim advocates, and other resources. As we encourage victim reporting and swift responses by our criminal justice system, we must continue to create and support services for families in distress. We cannot let the Violence Against Women Act become a victim of its own success. To ensure that VAWA is passed on to the next generation, we have begun working on the next version of the act. This is a collaborative effort. We are 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. Frankly, there are still far too many women and their children vulnerable to cowardly abusers. As such, the new act may include heightened penalties for repeat Federal domestic violence offenders, and update the Federal stalking statute to incorporate new technologies that can terrorize women. This past spring, I was in my home State at an event honoring the winners of our high school poster contest. To enter this first-ever ``Teens Against Sexual Assault'' contest, any Delaware high school student could submit a poster that somehow visually depicted the message ``no means no.'' The two young winners were quite shy, but they both joined me at the podium in front of 200 people. They stunned the audience, admitting that they both had been victims of rape and hoped that through their efforts they could help other young women find the courage to report their attacker and seek help. As I listened to these courageous young women, I was reminded of the essential purpose of the Violence Against Women Act. We simply can't stop now. Prior to the enactment of the 1994 crime bill, many doubted that the Federal Government could have a measurable impact on crime in the United States. Programs such as COPS and VAWA proved the critics wrong. COPS and VAWA have made Americans safer and changed fundamental societal attitudes about domestic violence and sexual assault. In this new age of terrorism, we simply cannot lose site of traditional crimes in our neighborhoods and homes. While the threat of terrorism is very real, the likelihood of becoming a victim of a ``traditional'' crime is exponentially far greater than becoming a victim of a terrorist attack. Last year, there were over one million incidents of violent crime and over 16,000 murders reported to the police. If we are going to continue to progress and make this country safer, we must continue to invest in the programs that have proven successful, and during the last few weeks of this legislative session, I hope Congress and President Bush will do just that.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today Senator Lugar and I, along with several other colleagues, introduce a bill that is designed to increase pressure on the government of Sudan to stop its campaign of genocide in Darfur. There is now--at least in the U.S. Government--no dispute that genocide has occurred in Darfur. The Congress so stated by resolution in July. Today, in testimony to the Committee on Foreign Relations, the Secretary of State affirmed that ``genocide has been committed in Darfur'' and that the Government of Sudan and the janjaweed militia bear responsibility for it. The situation in Darfur is dire. As many as 50,000 black Africans have been killed. Sexual violence is routinely used as a weapon by the Sudanese-sponsored janjaweed militia. Over a million people are displaced from their homes. And, because the Sudanese government refused to allow unrestricted access to war-affected populations at the onset of this crisis--a crisis of the government's making--hundreds of thousands of people are likely to die by the end of the year. Unless we act quickly and decisively to stop the violence in Darfur, history is going to judge us harshly for our lack of action. It may already be too late to avoid the condemnation of future generations. On July 30, following UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's visit to Sudan, the United Nations Security Council passed resolution 1556. The resolution was, in my view, inadequate. It provided an arms embargo and travel ban against the janjaweed, but did little to pressure the very government sponsoring the militia. The resolution provided only a vague threat to apply the sanctions to the government of Sudan if it failed to take certain steps, including ending all restrictions on humanitarian workers, investigating and punishing human rights abuses, immediately beginning disarmament of the janjaweed, and resuming talks with the rebels. Sudan was given 30 days to comply. Sudan has not satisfied the conditions for the resolution. On September 2, the Secretary General's Special Representative to Sudan reported to the Security Council that the government of Sudan has not taken any steps to disarm the janjaweed or improve security of internally displaced persons. The administration's response was to propose a new draft UN resolution yesterday. Unfortunately, this resolution only delays a decision about whether or not to impose sanctions for another 30 days. It does not label what is happening in Khartoum as genocide, although it does call upon the Secretary General to establish a commission of inquiry into violations of international humanitarian law and human rights. It does not call for a chapter 7 peacekeeping mission in Darfur, and it does not call for an expansion of the mandate of the African Union Mission in Sudan. I believe the Congress must do its part to pressure the government of Sudan, and to provide additional tools to the Administration. On July 21, Senator DeWine and I introduced S. 2705, which was aimed at pressuring the government of Sudan to fulfill commitments it made to the UN. On July 22, the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, Senator Lugar, also introduced a bill on Sudan, S. 2720. It had the same objective, though its provisions were different from the Biden- DeWine bill in several respects. Over the recess, the chairman and I worked together to develop a joint bill. I believe it is important that the committee speak with one voice on the genocide in Darfur. I also recognize that this late in the congressional session, most legislation will require unanimous consent to pass. So I hope our joint effort will prove successful. The bill we introduce today authorizes $200 million in humanitarian assistance for Darfur. It holds out the promise of $100 million in assistance for Sudan in connection with a peace agreement between the government and rebels in the south, but only if the President certifies that Khartoum takes demonstrable steps that it has stopped attacking civilians, disarmed the janjaweed and allowed unfettered access to Darfur for humanitarian workers. If the President cannot make this certification within 120 days, the bill requires that the President block the assets of senior members of the government of Khartoum. The bill does not go as far as I would have liked. The Biden-DeWine bill provided additional resources to implement a north-south peace agreement as an incentive to the Khartoum government, and it provided for additional sanctions, including those sanctions already set forth in the Sudan Peace Act. But I have agreed to join with the chairman to take this intermediate action. I want to make clear that this bill should only be considered a first step. If the tragedy in Darfur continues, and if Khartoum continues to ignore the demands of the international community that it cease the violence in Darfur, I intend to introduce stronger legislation next year. Today the Secretary of State spoke clearly, for all the world to hear--genocide has occurred in western Sudan. Hundreds of thousands of lives are on the line. We cannot say we were not warned. We cannot say we did not know. We cannot say that we lacked the means to respond. We are obligated, by the Genocide Convention and our collective conscience, to act to assist the people suffering and to prevent further violence. Immediate support for the African Union is necessary, but not sufficient to respond to the situation in Darfur. In addition, we need to press for a UN resolution that authorizes a multilateral force with a mandate to protect civilians. We also should look outside Africa for military and logistical assistance, rather than relying solely on the African Union. What is occurring in Darfur is a travesty. Our response has not been commensurate with the suffering there. It is imperative that the United States and the international community increase assistance to the displaced, and increase pressure on the government of Sudan to take action.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today Senator Lugar and I, along with several other colleagues, introduce a bill that is designed to increase pressure on the government of Sudan to stop its campaign of genocide in Darfur. There is now--at least in the U.S. Government--no dispute that genocide has occurred in Darfur. The Congress so stated by resolution in July. Today, in testimony to the Committee on Foreign Relations, the Secretary of State affirmed that ``genocide has been committed in Darfur'' and that the Government of Sudan and the janjaweed militia bear responsibility for it. The situation in Darfur is dire. As many as 50,000 black Africans have been killed. Sexual violence is routinely used as a weapon by the Sudanese-sponsored janjaweed militia. Over a million people are displaced from their homes. And, because the Sudanese government refused to allow unrestricted access to war-affected populations at the onset of this crisis--a crisis of the government's making--hundreds of thousands of people are likely to die by the end of the year. Unless we act quickly and decisively to stop the violence in Darfur, history is going to judge us harshly for our lack of action. It may already be too late to avoid the condemnation of future generations. On July 30, following UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's visit to Sudan, the United Nations Security Council passed resolution 1556. The resolution was, in my view, inadequate. It provided an arms embargo and travel ban against the janjaweed, but did little to pressure the very government sponsoring the militia. The resolution provided only a vague threat to apply the sanctions to the government of Sudan if it failed to take certain steps, including ending all restrictions on humanitarian workers, investigating and punishing human rights abuses, immediately beginning disarmament of the janjaweed, and resuming talks with the rebels. Sudan was given 30 days to comply. Sudan has not satisfied the conditions for the resolution. On September 2, the Secretary General's Special Representative to Sudan reported to the Security Council that the government of Sudan has not taken any steps to disarm the janjaweed or improve security of internally displaced persons. The administration's response was to propose a new draft UN resolution yesterday. Unfortunately, this resolution only delays a decision about whether or not to impose sanctions for another 30 days. It does not label what is happening in Khartoum as genocide, although it does call upon the Secretary General to establish a commission of inquiry into violations of international humanitarian law and human rights. It does not call for a chapter 7 peacekeeping mission in Darfur, and it does not call for an expansion of the mandate of the African Union Mission in Sudan. I believe the Congress must do its part to pressure the government of Sudan, and to provide additional tools to the Administration. On July 21, Senator DeWine and I introduced S. 2705, which was aimed at pressuring the government of Sudan to fulfill commitments it made to the UN. On July 22, the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, Senator Lugar, also introduced a bill on Sudan, S. 2720. It had the same objective, though its provisions were different from the Biden- DeWine bill in several respects. Over the recess, the chairman and I worked together to develop a joint bill. I believe it is important that the committee speak with one voice on the genocide in Darfur. I also recognize that this late in the congressional session, most legislation will require unanimous consent to pass. So I hope our joint effort will prove successful. The bill we introduce today authorizes $200 million in humanitarian assistance for Darfur. It holds out the promise of $100 million in assistance for Sudan in connection with a peace agreement between the government and rebels in the south, but only if the President certifies that Khartoum takes demonstrable steps that it has stopped attacking civilians, disarmed the janjaweed and allowed unfettered access to Darfur for humanitarian workers. If the President cannot make this certification within 120 days, the bill requires that the President block the assets of senior members of the government of Khartoum. The bill does not go as far as I would have liked. The Biden-DeWine bill provided additional resources to implement a north-south peace agreement as an incentive to the Khartoum government, and it provided for additional sanctions, including those sanctions already set forth in the Sudan Peace Act. But I have agreed to join with the chairman to take this intermediate action. I want to make clear that this bill should only be considered a first step. If the tragedy in Darfur continues, and if Khartoum continues to ignore the demands of the international community that it cease the violence in Darfur, I intend to introduce stronger legislation next year. Today the Secretary of State spoke clearly, for all the world to hear--genocide has occurred in western Sudan. Hundreds of thousands of lives are on the line. We cannot say we were not warned. We cannot say we did not know. We cannot say that we lacked the means to respond. We are obligated, by the Genocide Convention and our collective conscience, to act to assist the people suffering and to prevent further violence. Immediate support for the African Union is necessary, but not sufficient to respond to the situation in Darfur. In addition, we need to press for a UN resolution that authorizes a multilateral force with a mandate to protect civilians. We also should look outside Africa for military and logistical assistance, rather than relying solely on the African Union. What is occurring in Darfur is a travesty. Our response has not been commensurate with the suffering there. It is imperative that the United States and the international community increase assistance to the displaced, and increase pressure on the government of Sudan to take action.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today, the 9/11 Commission released its report and the Commission Chairman, Thomas H. Kearn, said that an attack ``of even greater magnitude is possible--even probable.'' In fact, intelligence assessments have long warned that al-Qaida is seeking weapons of mass destruction to use against Americans in the United States. The 9/11 Commission specifically recommended today: ``Support the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program'' and went on to state that it ``is now in need of expansion, improvement, and resources.'' Yet the conference report before us today includes a rescission insisted upon by the other body of $50 million in fiscal year 2003 funding for cooperative threat reduction programs. In other words, although this bill appropriates $409 million for these programs in fiscal year 2005, 12 percent of that amount from prior appropriations is being taken away. I think that is a huge mistake. These programs, known as ``Nunn-Lugar'' programs after former Senator Sam Nunn and the current distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Lugar, assist countries of the former Soviet Union in the safe and secure transportation, storage and dismantlement of nuclear weapons and nuclear and chemical materials, as well as preventing the diversion of nuclear materials or equipment. So, we have just cut funding for programs that will help keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists. There has been some confusion about the impact of this cut. The official at the Defense Department charges with administering these programs believes that she will be able to move funds around sufficiently to prevent the cancellation of any programs, this time. I hope she is right. The cooperative threat reduction programs are notorious for how slowly the money is obligated. That is not because the programs are unneeded, or because federal employees are not doing their jobs. Rather, pay-outs are slow because cooperation from the countries concerned and various statutory certifications are required before the funds can be used. This fact makes the program a tempting target for those looking for a pot of money to raid. But such critical programs must not be looked at as ``bill payers'' for other defense needs. Neither should we view cooperative threat reduction programs as ``foreign aid.'' That red herring must be put to rest. As former Defense Secretary Bill Perry used to say, CTR is ``defense by other means.'' There is no more pressing national security need than to secure the sources of weapons of mass destruction and keep them out of the hands of terrorists. I want to put the House on notice today that I will vigorously oppose further cuts in these programs. And should any deobligation of funds be necessary because of this cut, I will urge the President and the Secretary of Defense to reprogram funds to prevent the cancellation of programs and contracts. We have no greater responsibility than to protect our Nation from an attack with weapons of mass destruction and I, for one, will not stand for this critical program to be chipped away until it becomes ineffective.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, when historians look back on American foreign policy in the early 21st century, they will ask a few basic questions. One will be whether we used our immense military strength wisely. Another will be whether we took effective action to avert genocide in the world. But the biggest question will be whether we did all we could to avert the use of weapons of mass destruction, and especially a nuclear catastrophe. The resolution before us addresses one of the most sensitive nuclear non-proliferation issues of our day, that of Iran. Over the last 2 years, public allegations and International Atomic Energy Agency inspections have uncovered nearly two decades of covert nuclear programs that Iran has pursued in violation of its obligations under safeguards agreements with the IAEA. While Iran insists publicly that these programs are all peaceful, all the signs and much of the political rhetoric in Iran point to a nuclear weapons program that has been conducted under the cover of peaceful nuclear activities. Nearly a year ago, Iran promised to come clean on its nuclear programs and to suspend all its uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities. But Iran has yet to comply fully with its commitment. Instead, it has hidden some of its activities and forced IAEA inspectors to pull teeth in order to get information about its programs; it has delayed inspections and, at times, suspended all cooperation; it has continued production of components for uranium enrichment centrifuges; and it has announced an intent to test its uranium conversion facility in a manner that will produce feed material for uranium enrichment centrifuges. All those actions are violations of Iran's legal and political commitments. More importantly, those actions suggest that Iran still has something to hide. They relate to nuclear activities that are difficult to explain as peaceful programs. Some of those actions relate to programs involving the same criminal network that aided Libya and provided it with a nuclear weapon design. And they are accompanied by political statements that suggest Iran may well want to develop nuclear weapons. If Iran wants to gain the confidence of the international community, that is certainly not the way to go about it. I do not believe that Iran poses an imminent threat of testing or deploying nuclear weapons. There is hence no need at this time to threaten or undertake military action, and the resolution before us does not threaten, encourage or authorize such action. Some journalists interpreted a similar resolution in the House of Representatives as authorizing military action, despite the denials of those who supported that resolution, including its co-author, Representative Lantos of California. That is because the House resolution used the words ``all appropriate means,'' which sounded too similar to previous resolutions on other issues that did authorize the use of force. To make it absolutely clear that the resolution before us does not do that, the authors of the substitute amendment have deleted the word ``all'' from that phrase. We do not intend this resolution to encourage the use of military force by any country. Neither can any concurrent resolution authorize the use of force by the United States. Under our Constitution and under the War Powers Resolution, only legislation signed by the President can do that. A concurrent resolution has no legal effect and cannot do so. What we do intend by this resolution is to encourage all countries to help convince Iran that its national security is best served by giving up the urge to develop a nuclear weapons capability. An Iran with nuclear weapons--or with the ability to produce such weapons--will not be a more secure Iran. Rather, it will only prompt great concern among its neighbors and risk their developing nuclear weapons as well; and it will estrange itself from all countries that support the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or that believe in keeping one's international obligations. If Iran wants to understand what nuclear weapons will bring about, it can look to North Korea, which is reduced to begging and threatening the international community in order to feed its people and to provide even minimal energy resources. Those are the wages of proliferation: not security, but insecurity; not acclaim, but ostracism. If the nations of the world--and especially the industrialized countries in Europe and elsewhere that have important trade relations with Iran--will band together to deliver this message, I believe that Iran will hear it and heed it. But the message may well have to be delivered with more than words. Countries may have to take forceful diplomatic and economic actions in order to demonstrate to Iran the risks that it runs if it insists upon building a nuclear weapons capability. The IAEA Board of Governors may well have to report Iran's noncompliance to the United Nations Security Council, and the Security Council may have to take action under Articles 39 through 41 of the United Nations Charter to encourage or order Iran to cease its programs that would contribute to building that nuclear weapons capability. Countries can also remind Iran that concerns which may have prompted its covert nuclear programs are now largely dissipated. The Soviet Union is gone, and Russia does not threaten Iranian sovereignty. Saddam Hussein is now a criminal in the dock, rather than a dictator with imperial ambitions. And the case of Libya demonstrates that the United States will readily adjust its policy toward a country that renounces weapons of mass destruction and international terrorism. Iran's security concerns can be met--indeed, can best be met--without its developing or producing any weapons of mass destruction. It is time that we have a serious discussion with Europe about harmonizing our policies toward Iran. Europe has pursued a strategy of offering positive incentives for Iran to change its behavior, but no penalties if it does not--effectively the reverse of U.S. policy. By coordinating more closely, the United States and Europe are more likely to affect Iran's actions. We should clearly state that if Iran ends its pursuit of a nuclear weapons program and gets out of the terrorism business, then we would be willing to change our policy of isolating and sanctioning Iran. I hope that enactment of the resolution before us will help galvanize world attention to the threat of nuclear proliferation in Iran and to the need to convince Iran to change its ways. I hope that it will also encourage Iran to choose the path of non-proliferation and base its future on engagement with the world, rather than increasing, self- imposed isolation. I want to thank the original sponsors of S. Con. Res. 81, Senators Feinstein and Kyl, for their cooperation in developing a substitute text that we can all support. I believe that Representatives Hyde and Lantos, whose H. Con. Res. 398 provided much guidance to us, will also find this text something that they can accept so as to achieve enactment of this important resolution. And I appreciate the work of their staffs over the past several weeks. My own staff and Chairman Lugar's staff were also instrumental in bringing this work to what I believe will be a successful conclusion. We have all been guided not by politics, but by the importance of the matter before us. When the issue is nuclear proliferation, uncountable innocent lives hang in the balance. On such an issue, the world must act as one.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, Senator DeWine and I have introduced a bill to address the atrocities and human rights abuses inflicted by the Government of Sudan upon its citizens living in the western region of Darfur. By now you are aware of the terrible violence being perpetrated against civilians by the Government of Sudan and its allied militias in Darfur, Sudan. As many as 30,000 black Africans have been killed. Rape has routinely been used as a weapon of war by the Sudanese Government's janjaweed militia proxies. The Government of Sudan has obstructed the delivery of humanitarian assistance--as a result, over 300,000 people are expected to die of disease and malnutrution. Entire villages have been razed to the ground. Crimes against humanity have and are taking place with frightening regularity. Any reasonable person would agree that at the very least, we are witnessing ethnic cleansing. However, I believe that what we are actually seeing is genocide, and that the burden of proof should be on those who deny that such is the case. Secretary of State Powell visited Darfur at the end of June. I applaud him for going. His visit as well as that of United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan served to shine a much needed international spotlight on Khartoum's brutal actions. However, I am disappointed in the actions taken by the administration in the wake of the Secretary's visit. The administration is circulating a draft United Nations Security Council resolution which puts sanctions on the janjaweed. I do not think pursuing a resolution which would impose an arms and travel embargo on the janjaweed will improve the security situation in Darfur. I am sure there must be a strategy behind this resolution, but on its face, it is hard to see. The janjaweed is not a state actor. It is not even an independent actor. It certainly is not accepting arms shipments from foreign governments. The janjaweed is armed and supplied by the Government of Sudan. And last I heard the only place the janjaweed has traveled is across the border into Chad to further harass its victims. I was not aware that militia members applied for visas to do so. So I would like to know what exactly the thought process behind pursuing such sanctions is. I would also like to know just why the administration does not believe the Genocide Convention has been triggered. Article II of the Convention defines genocide as any of the following acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or substantial part, a national ethnic, racial or religious group: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; or forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. Let's consider what we know to be the case in Darfur and compare it to the criteria set out in the Convention. Is there an intent to destroy a national ethnic racial or religious group? A U.N. interagency fact finding team found in April that while villages populated by black Africans were destroyed, villages in the same area populated by Arabs were undisturbed. In some cases the villages that were left undisturbed were less than 500 meters away from those that were bombed and burned to the ground, its residents murdered, raped or tortured, its wells poisoned, its food stores and crops destroyed. This seems to me to be a pretty profound indicator that black Africans are being deliberately targeted. The scorched earth policy of the janjaweed makes it virtually impossible for those who live through the attacks to survive. One can reasonably assume that they were not meant to. We know that the Government of Sudan, through it janjaweed proxies, has murdered an unknown number of people--perhaps 30,000--because of their ethnicity. We also know that the militia has caused serious bodily and mental harm to black Africans in Darfur. According to the Convention only one or the other is necessary to qualify as genocide, but the janjaweed and the Sudanese military have done both. As a recent Washington Post article points out, the text of which I ask unanimous consent be printed in the Record, the janjaweed have engaged in widespread systematic rape in an effort to populate Darfur with Arab babies.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I am submitting a resolution designating October 15, 2004, as ``National Mammography Day.'' I am pleased that 51 of my colleagues have endorsed this proposal by agreeing to be original cosponsors. I might note that I have submitted a similar resolution each year since 1993, and on each occasion the Senate has shown its support for the fight against breast cancer by approving the resolution. Each year, as I prepare to submit this resolution, I review the latest information from the American Cancer Society about breast cancer. For the year 2004, it is estimated that nearly 216,000 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer and slightly more than 40,000 women will die of this disease. In past years, I have often commented on how gloomy these statistics were. But as I review how these numbers are changing over time, I have come to the realization that it is really more appropriate to be optimistic. The number of deaths from breast cancer is actually stable or falling from year to year. Early detection of breast cancer continues to result in extremely favorable outcomes: 97 percent of women with localized breast cancer will survive 5 years or longer. New digital techniques make the process of mammography much more rapid and precise than before. Government programs will provide free mammograms to those who can't afford them, as well as Medicaid eligibility for treatment if breast cancer is diagnosed. Information about treatment of breast cancer with surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy has exploded, reflecting enormous research advances in this disease. So I am feeling quite positive about our battle against breast cancer. A diagnosis of breast cancer is not a death sentence, and I encounter long-term survivors of breast cancer nearly daily. In recent times, the newspapers have been filled with discussion over whether the scientific evidence actually supports the conclusion that periodic screening mammography saves lives. It seems that much of this controversy relates to new interpretations of old studies, and the relatively few recent studies of this matter have not clarified this issue. Most sources seem to agree that all of the existing scientific studies have some weaknesses, but it is far from clear whether the very large and truly unambiguous study needed to settle this matter definitively can ever be done. So what is a woman to do? I do not claim any expertise in this highly technical area, so I rely on the experts. The American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute, and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force all continue to recommend periodic screening mammography, and I endorse the statements of these distinguished bodies. On the other hand, I recognize that some women who examine these research studies are unconvinced of the need for periodic screening mammography. However, even those scientists who do not support periodic mammography for all women believe that it is appropriate for some groups of women with particular risk factors. In agreement with these experts, I encourage all women who have doubts about the usefulness of screening mammography in general to discuss with their individual physicians whether this test is appropriate in their specific situations. So my message to women is: have a periodic mammogram, or at the very least discuss this option with your own physician. I know that some women don't have annual mammograms because of either fear or forgetfulness. It is only human nature for some women to avoid mammograms because they are afraid of what they will find. To those who are fearful, I would say that if you have periodic routine mammograms, and the latest one comes out positive, even before you have any symptoms or have found a lump on self-examination, you have reason to be optimistic, not pessimistic. Such early-detected breast cancers are highly treatable. Then there is forgetfulness. I certainly understand how difficult it is to remember to do something that only comes around once each year. I would suggest that this is where ``National Mammography Day'' comes in. On that day, let's make sure that each woman we know picks a specific date on which to get a mammogram each year, a date that she won't forget: a child's birthday, an anniversary, perhaps even the day her taxes are due. On National Mammography Day, let's ask our loved ones: pick one of these dates, fix it in your mind along with a picture of your child, your wedding, or another symbol of that date, and promise yourself to get a mammogram on that date every year. Do it for yourself and for the others that love you and want you to be part of their lives for as long as possible. And to those women who are reluctant to have a mammogram, I say let National Mammography Day serve as a reminder to discuss this question each year with your physician. New scientific studies that are published and new mammography techniques that are developed may affect your decision on this matter from one year to the next. I encourage you to keep an open mind and not to feel that a decision at one point in time commits you irrevocably to a particular course of action for the indefinite future. I urge my colleagues to join me in the ongoing fight against breast cancer by cosponsoring and voting for this resolution to designate October 15, 2004, as ``National Mammography Day.''

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Reducing Crime and Terrorism at America's Seaports Act, along with Senators Specter, Feinstein, Kyl, Hollings, and Allen. Today's bill is a revised version of legislation Senator Specter and I introduced last year, S. 1587. The bill benefits from the expertise of the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism, Senators Kyl and Feinstein. My colleagues have their own bill on this subject, S. 746, and I am grateful that they are original cosponsors of today's measure. The Ranking Member of the Commerce Committee, my good friend Senator Hollings, has also been a leader in this area and today's bill incorporates suggestions made by him and his able staff. Senator Specter and I have worked long and hard on this issue, and it is my sincere hope and expectation that the bill we introduce today is a consensus measure that will swiftly pass the Senate this year. Today, almost three years after the devastating attacks of September 11, our Nation's transportation infrastructure remains vulnerable to terrorist activity. American ports are critical to the nation's commercial well-being, and we must do all that we can to ensure that our laws keep pace with the threats that they face. Recently, Homeland Security Secretary Ridge traveled to the Port of Los Angeles/Long Beach to announce that the Untied States was in full compliance with the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code, and that his department was working to meet the requirements of the Maritime Transportation Security Act. I welcome those announcements, but there is more we should be doing to protect our ports and close existing gaps in our criminal code. The bill Senator Specter and I introduce today starts to close those gaps. 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 throughout 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. I thank my colleagues for their support of this measure, and I look forward to its prompt consideration by the full Senate. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, last week I had the honor of joining with 52 of my colleagues in introducing a resolution, S. Res. 401, expressing the sense of the Senate that the week that includes Veterans' Day this year be designated as ``National Veterans Awareness Week.'' This marks the fifth year in a row that I have introduced such a resolution, which has been adopted unanimously by the Senate on all previous occasions. The purpose of National Veterans Awareness Week is to serve as a focus for educational programs designed to make students in elementary and secondary schools aware of the contributions of veterans and their importance in preserving American peace and prosperity. This goal takes on particular importance and immediacy this year as we find ourselves again with uniformed men and women in harm's way in foreign lands. Why do we need such an educational effort? In a sense, this action has become necessary because we are victims of our own success with regard to the superior performance of our armed forces. The plain fact is that there are just fewer people around now who have had any connection with military service. For example, as a result of tremendous advances in military technology and the resultant productivity increases, our current armed forces now operate effectively with a personnel roster that is one-third less in size than just 15 years ago. In addition, the success of the all-volunteer career-oriented force has led to much lower turnover of personnel in today's military than in previous eras when conscription was in place. Finally, the number of veterans who served during previous conflicts, such as World War II, when our military was many times larger than today, is inevitably declining. The net result of these changes is that the percentage of the entire population that has served in the Armed Forces is dropping rapidly, a change that can be seen in all segments of society. Whereas during World War II it was extremely uncommon to find a family in America that did not have one of its members on active duty, now there are numerous families that include no military veterans at all. Even though the Iraqi war has been prominently discussed on television and in the newspapers, many of our children are much more preoccupied with the usual concerns of young people than with keeping up with the events of the day. As a consequence, many of our youth still have little or no connection with or knowledge about the important historical and ongoing role of men and women who have served in the military. This omission seems to have persisted despite ongoing educational efforts by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the veterans service organizations. This lack of understanding about military veterans' important role in our society can have potentially serious repercussions. In our country, civilian control of the armed forces is the key tenet of military governance. A citizenry that is oblivious to the capabilities and limitations of the armed forces, and to its critical role throughout our history, can make decisions that have unexpected and unwanted consequences. Even more important, general recognition of the importance of those individual character traits that are essential for military success, such as patriotism, selflessness, sacrifice, and heroism, is vital to maintaining these key aspects of citizenship in the armed forces and even throughout the population at large. The failure of our children to understand why a military is important, why our society continues to depend on it for ultimate survival, and why a successful military requires integrity and sacrifice, will have predictable consequences as these youngsters become of voting age. Even though military service is a responsibility that is no longer shared by a large segment of the population, as it has been in the past, knowledge of the contributions of those who have served in the Armed Forces is as important as it has ever been. To the extent that many of us will not have the opportunity to serve our country in uniform, we must still remain cognizant of our responsibility as citizens to fulfill the obligations we owe, both tangible and intangible, to those who do serve and who do sacrifice on our behalf. The importance of this issue was brought home to me five years ago by Samuel I. Cashdollar, who was then a 13-year-old seventh grader at Lewes Middle School in Lewes, DE. Samuel won the Delaware VFW's Youth Essay Contest that year with a powerful presentation titled ``How Should We Honor America's Veterans''? Samuel's essay pointed out that we have Nurses' Week, Secretaries' Week, and Teachers' Week, to rightly emphasize the importance of these occupations, but the contributions of those in uniform tend to be overlooked. We don't want our children growing up to think that Veterans Day has simply become a synonym for department store sale, and we don't want to become a nation where more high school seniors recognize the name Britney Spears than the name Dwight Eisenhower. National Veterans Awareness Week complements Veterans Day by focusing on education as well as commemoration, on the contributions of the many in addition to the heroism and service of the individual. National Veterans Awareness Week also presents an opportunity to remind ourselves of the contributions and sacrifices of those who have served in peacetime as well as in conflict; both groups work unending hours and spend long periods away from their families under conditions of great discomfort so that we all can live in a land of freedom and plenty. Mr. President, last year, my resolution designating National Veterans Awareness Week had 66 cosponsors and was approved in the Senate by unanimous consent. Responding to that resolution, President Bush issued a proclamation urging our citizenry to observe National Veterans Awareness Week. I ask my colleagues to continue this trend of support for our veterans by endorsing this resolution again this year. Our children and our children's children will need to be well informed about what veterans have accomplished in order to make appropriate decisions as they confront the numerous worldwide challenges that they are sure to face in the future.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I wish to join my colleague, the chairman of the full committee, today in support of the nomination of an old friend, Jack Danforth, to be Ambassador to the United Nations. As many of us, I have known Jack for a lot of years, and I have an inordinately high regard for him. The one point I continue to marvel at, but I am not at all surprised at, is that he keeps answering the call. Every tough job he is asked to do--in or out of government--he steps up to the plate and he does it. I think having Jack Danforth at the United Nations is going to be a very positive thing. People say we should have professional diplomats. Jack Danforth is a professional diplomat. Jack Danforth is the ultimate professional diplomat. Jack Danforth knows how people think. From his years as an ordained minister, as a Senator, and an attorney general of his State, he knows how people think and feel and move. But, Madam President, do you know what I like best about Jack Danforth going to the United Nations? He will be absolutely straight--absolutely straight. I have an incredibly high regard for Ambassador Negroponte, for whom I voted to become Ambassador to Iraq, probably the toughest job in the bag these days. This is not meant as a reflection on Ambassador Negroponte. But Jack Danforth has the stature to go to the President and say: Mr. President, I disagree; I think you should not. Or ``I would recommend the following.'' He has the stature, just because of who Jack Danforth is--just because he knows. There are some men and women who just possess it. He possesses it. He has the stature. We know the expression, ``command presence.'' Jack Danforth has command presence. What makes me feel good is the President is going to get unvarnished advice from Jack. Jack is a team player. Jack is a supporter of the President. Jack feels strongly that the President's mission is correct. But Jack will also, if he disagrees, not hesitate one minute to, in my view, privately tell the President. I think every President is best served when he has women and men around him with the conviction to tell the President honestly what they think. When you walk into that White House, when you walk into that Oval Office, it is an intimidating place if you do not walk in with your shoulders back, your head up, and understand what your responsibility is. That is the quality in Jack that I am excited about in his going to the United Nations. He also has stature, in my view, to turn to the French or Chinese or British Ambassadors, for example, and privately say: Look, cut this stuff this is what we have to get done. This is how we should try to work this. I think stature matters in this job--at this moment, at this time, and in this administration. I think Jack Danforth has always stepped up to the critical moments in recent history. As the June 30 deadline for transfer of sovereignty in Iraq occurs very shortly, Iraq is one of many urgent issues on the United Nations agenda. There are many others: Sudan, Afghanistan, Haiti, just to name three. The administration seems to have finally discovered the virtue of the United Nations. That sounds like a bit of a snide remark for me to stand here and say that the administration ``finally discovered.'' But literally, I say ``finally,'' because this administration ran for office and came to office expressing verbally, in writing and in their actions--it would be extreme to say ``disdain'' but not a particularly high regard for the United Nations. However, since then, the President has honored the United Nations by going to it and making clear America's position on the most urgent issues of the day. Now the administration is back in the United Nations with both feet and is trying to rally international support in a way that, quite frankly, I hoped and wished we had done a year ago, or longer. The reason I mention this is not to highlight when the administration should or should not have done it. I mention returning to the United Nations because it coincides with Jack Danforth being at the helm there. I think that his being there is good for this country. The administration, in its successful and unanimous vote on Security Council Resolution 1546 on June 11, moved in a direction in which it had been hesitant to move, in my view, before. That is good news because we have squandered a number of meaningful opportunities to share the burden in Iraq. I hope we do not miss any more. I know Senator Danforth's leadership can make a real difference on that front. Last weekend, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Senator Daschle, the Democratic leader from South Dakota, and I traveled to Iraq, Kuwait, and Jordan. The trip confirmed to me that turning over sovereignty on June 30 in Iraq is a starting point. It is not a turning point in the transition to self-government. I remain absolutely convinced that we can still get this right in Iraq and that we have to try because of the profound stakes we have in a successful transition. There is so much to lose if it fails. We have to start leveling with the American people about what is and what is not happening on June 30. We are handing over sovereignty, but we are not handing over capacity. That is not a criticism. It is not as if we should be in a position to be able to hand over capacity. I think we could have been in a position to hand over much more, but it is not a criticism. By ``capacity,'' I mean the ability of the Iraqis to provide security for themselves, to defend their borders, to defeat insurgency, to deliver services, to run a government, and to begin to set a foundation for economic success. What is so frustrating is that because of a series of very wrong judgments, we lost at least a year in effectively building that capacity. As a result, we have made an inherently difficult mission even harder. If there is anyplace where humility is in order, it is in suggesting how we should proceed in Iraq. I remember when the distinguished chairman, Senator Hagel, and I visited Iraq last August and we sat with Ambassador Bremer. My friend may remember my looking at Ambassador Bremer in the only room in that whole facility that had air- conditioning and saying: Mr. Ambassador, I want to make it clear to you I think if the Lord Almighty came down and sat in the middle of this conference table and gave you the precise answer to the next 20 critical decisions you have to make, we still only have a 65-percent chance of getting this right. Nobody has ever done this before. The Ottomans could not get it done. The Persians could not get it done. The Brits could not get it done. And they are not even dealing with what the country is today. Iraq is a polyglot made up of essentially what was left over in the region of three groups of noble people. The fact is, this is a hard job by any standard. The central question is what we can do between June 30 when the sovereignty is handed over, and December of 2005 when a constitutionally elected Iraqi government is supposed to be seated. What can we do in that interim to help build that government that will be seated in December 2005? What can we do to help build the capacity for it to stand on its own? I think this should not be the sole responsibility of the United States. The international community, through a unanimous vote on Security Council Resolution 1546, made clear that Iraq is the world's problem. All of the Security Council voted in favor of that. They voted for elements of the whole. One of the elements, for example, just to note parenthetically, says that there will be provided a brigade, 4,000 troops, to protect the U.N. when they go back in. What was not stated is who will provide the troops. There are many other elements that the unanimous resolution laid out in the Security Council. The Permanent Five, and other members of the Security Council signed on. They did not just sign on saying the United States can stay. They signed on saying that Iraq is the world's responsibility. The reason I go into this is to describe that it is going to take a man of Jack Danforth's stature--while we are working it from State, while Negroponte is working it from Baghdad, while the President is working from the White House--to work out the problem of how we get the world's major powers, Iraq's neighbors, and leading international institutions such as NATO, to pick up empowering the Iraqis to govern. In a nutshell, I believe we are going to have to, and Senator Danforth is going to have to play a part in getting other nations to help us train and equip Iraqi security services--including the police and the army--commit to defeat the insurgency, and provide security for Iraqi elections, which is going to require a surge of forces, not a reduction of forces. They should not all be U.S. military forces. The rest of the world has to get in on the deal, preferably with NATO and other foreign troops. We need civil affairs experts from our allies, and more special forces and intelligence assets from America. We have to provide, as called for in UN Security Council Resolution 1546, a special brigade, ideally from NATO, to protect the U.N. mission in Iraq, whose presence is critical for successful elections. I know the Presiding Officer knows this but maybe not all of our colleagues have not focused on this: Thousands of polling places are going to have to open up. There are going to be U.N. people going into villages and going into towns throughout Iraq, over the next 6 months, to set up for the first election. That is going to be dangerous business. You have Zarqawi and others announcing that they are going to try to kill not only the interim government, but anybody who participates in making this work. So we need to assist the U.N. in doing its job--which is essential for our ultimate exit strategy--which is to support a secure Iraqi government--secure within its borders, not a threat to its neighbors, and not harboring weapons of mass destruction or terrorists. How do we get from here to there? Jack, Senator Danforth, is going to have his hands full. We have to deploy an army of technical experts, primarily from other countries, to help Iraq run its government, and deliver essential services like electricity, water, and sanitation. By the way, I am not just talking about the major projects. The Russians pulled back from what seemed to them a pretty good contract, a contract to go out there and build electrical power capacity. Their folks were getting shot and killed, so they pulled back. But there are thousands of little projects that are going to determine whether we succeed or fail in Iraq. One of the most impressive commanders I have met, and I spent a couple of hours with him in a briefing--is the Commander of the First Cavalry, an incredibly proud unit. He said to all of us: Senators, look, I leave my tanks back in America. My tank drivers are now infantrymen. My infantrymen I had associated with this are now engineers. On his big screen during this briefing he showed us Humvees. He has Sadr City as his responsibility. He showed Humvees going through sewage literally up to their hubcaps. There is a company out in California that has done a remarkable job. It has created overlays for a number of things, such as utilities, that you would think were disparate and had nothing to do with one another. The overlays show where the greatest physical needs are, in terms of pollution and water problems, for example. Then the company overlaid, on top of that grid, a diagram of where the most fighters are coming from, and where the most terror is coming from. This commander of the First Cavalry said: Take a look. In the places where we have gone in and done relatively small projects, such as getting potable water to homes, I don't have people coming out of and killing my guys and women. He said, Do you know what I need? I need a better mix of troops--not better troops but a better mix of troops and capability. He said there is about $450 million worth of projects that he has agreed and laid on, in Sadr City. This is a commander who can shoot straight and kill. This is a serious guy. He said: You help me clean up the sewer, I will clean up Sadr City and I will get us peace in that area. We have a lot of needs. The U.N. resolution, in my view, signs on the international community. Now it is time for them to sign up to take on some of these responsibilities. The other thing we have to do, in which Senator Danforth is going to have to play a major part, is insist that other countries follow through on their financial pledges for more assistance, and demand that they provide significant debt relief. As a matter of fact, as my colleague brought up in a very important meeting this morning, we have to get money in there quickly. We can't wait to begin these major projects. We voted for about $18 billion for Iraq to rebuild it. We have spent a pittance of that. It has not been spent. None of it has happened. Less than a half billion dollars, less than $500 million of the $18 billion we appropriated, has been spent on projects. That is tragic. That is not particularly good management, in my view. Furthermore, Senator Danforth will have to bring other Security Council members together to develop a viable U.N. strategy for dealing with this great tragedy that is occurring in western Sudan. If our U.N. Ambassador doesn't take the lead in the Security Council then, in my view, little is going to happen. Senator Danforth was called to get involved, and he did a brilliant job in negotiating the north/south crisis in the Sudan. Over the past several years he has worked very hard as a special envoy to support the peace process between the Government of Khartoum and the Sudanese People's Liberation Movement. With the signing of the last three protocols on May 26, that peace process is on the verge of a success and it is truly a significant achievement for the President and for Senator Danforth. But the impact of that agreement has almost completely been undermined by the horrific attacks on the civilians in Darfur by the Government of Sudan and its allied militias. These attacks have precipitated what the U.N. and U.S. officials call the worst humanitarian crisis in the world today. We have already witnessed ethnic cleansing on a massive scale. Already as many as 30,000 people have been killed. Mr. Natsios, the administrator of the Agency for International Development, stated 3 weeks ago: ``Under optimal conditions, we could see as many as 320,000 people die'' in Darfur by the end of the year as a result of this violence, disease, and famine. The U.N. factfinding team: . . . identified . . . massive human rights violations in Darfur, perpetrated by the Government of Sudan and its proxy militia, which may constitute war crimes and/or crimes against humanity. I believe it is genocide. The violations reported by the U.N. include the targeting of civilians during military strikes, the widespread rape of women and girls, destruction of homes, food stores, livestock, crops . . . the razing of villages, forced displacements, and disappearances. The administration has responded with humanitarian aid and raised the issue of Darfur repeatedly in Khartoum, and the President told us this morning at breakfast that he raised it at the G-8 meeting as well. The U.N. sent teams out to investigate. These are all important steps, but they are not enough. The international community must condemn Khartoum's actions unequivocally. It must insist that Khartoum stop attacks on civilians by government troops and militia, and provide unfettered access to Darfur for humanitarian workers. I will soon introduce legislation that our U.N. Representative, I hope, will push for in a U.N. Security Council resolution which reimposes sanctions on Khartoum if the attacks in Darfur do not stop. This action may not resolve the situation, but it will help. Senator Danforth knows more about this crisis than I do, and do most of us in this place. I hope he will pursue such a resolution as one of his first actions as Ambassador to the United Nations. Congress has to do its part. The United States should bring real money to the table to respond to the crisis, rather than empty promises that the money is on the way. I am working on an amendment to the Defense Department appropriations bill that would provide money for Darfur which Mr. Natsios pledged earlier this month the United States will provide. But bilateral action by the United States is not enough. We need our international partners to assist in pursuing Khartoum to stop the terror campaign in Darfur. There are many other pressing issues facing the United Nations in New York. We have a lot of diplomatic work to do to repair relations. We have a new team at the top in Jack Danforth and, assuming she is also confirmed, his deputy, Anne Patterson. But I think the President has chosen very well. By himself, Jack Danforth cannot repair relations between the United States and other nations at the U.N. But he said in the confirmation hearing that the reason he finally took the job that he initially didn't want to take is that he saw that as his mission, the single most important thing he could do. A recognition as to how important that belief is, is in and of itself an important message to be sent around the world. Jack Danforth is the right person at the right moment to help repair the breach, if the administration is committed to do so. And I am confident with Jack's leadership they will be able to do so. In closing, I would like to extend my gratitude to Jack Danforth for agreeing to take on this difficult assignment. I thank his wife Sally for supporting him. I know I speak for all of my colleagues on this side of the aisle and, I suspect, although I wouldn't presume, the entire Senate. I speak for all us when I say, Thank you, Godspeed, count on us. I know you can count on the chairman of this committee, Senator Lugar, and me to do all we can to help you make your mission at the United Nations workable and doable. I yield the floor.