Joe Biden

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I joined 56 of my Senate colleagues and over 200 in the House of Representatives in writing the President asking that he work with the Congress toward a policy that will enable important medical research to proceed utilizing stem cells from frozen embryos that were created to treat infertility problems and which are now slated to be discarded. Continued studies using stem cell technology offer hope for a better future for millions of people afflicted with a wide range of illnesses and conditions, including Alzheimer's disease, diabetes, Parkinson's disease, cancer and others. Presently there are estimated to be more than 400,000 in vitro fertilized embryos that were developed to enable couples to have children, but that are now not needed for that purpose. These frozen embryos are likely to be destroyed. The President could hasten the progress of this important research by modifying his present policy to permit these embryos to be donated, with the consent of the couple, for stem cell research. I look forward to working with the President toward this goal.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. As we both know, the details of that are classified, but we are allowed to say, and I give you my opinion, and I believe it would be the consensus of the intelligence community: No. We are not safer.

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I thank my friend from Florida who knows much more about what I am going to mention today. He and I worked on what I am going to talk about for some time. And that is--there are reports coming in that the home and offices of Ahmed Chalabi were raided today in Baghdad. I do not have clear evidence yet as to whether they were raided by the Iraqi government or by the CPA, but both the Senator and I have been incredible skeptics of this administration's reliance on this fellow, Ahmed Chalabi, who has been indicted, tried, convicted, and sentenced in Jordan. For the last 2 years--although I have nothing personal against Mr. Ahmed Chalabi--I have been urging this administration, particularly the Secretary of Defense, the Vice President, and Mr. Wolfowitz: Do not put our eggs into Mr. Chalabi's basket. Mr. Chalabi is the President of the Iraqi National Congress. I was so concerned about this that my friend from Nebraska, Senator Hagel, and I were literally smuggled into northern Iraq about a month before the war began because we wanted to meet with the Barzani and Talibani clients in northern Iraq to determine what their attitude was, first, toward our invasion with Iraq--would they be with us? There were reports that they would have been, but we wanted to find out firsthand. And B, we wanted to find out whether Ahmed Chalabi spoke for them. The leaders of both those clans said: We want to make it clear that the INC does not speak for us. We did form the INC with him, but he is out for himself, not us. I could never quite understand the incredible preoccupation of the administration with Mr. Chalabi. I think that reliance has done us great damage in terms of establishing legitimacy. Today's raid comes on the heels of an announcement earlier this week that the Defense Department belatedly, after well over a year, has cut off the $340,000 monthly payment to the INC, headed by Mr. Chalabi. Last month, I wrote to the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense asking them to explain why we continue to pay Mr. Chalabi a monthly stipend. The action was seen as sort of putting our thumb on the scale--we say we want the Iraqis to decide their outcome, and here we are pouring into one man, an outfit, $340,000 a month. It is no secret Mr. Chalabi has long been the favorite of the Pentagon civilians and the Vice President, although the CIA, the uniformed military, and the State Department have been adamantly opposed to him. We recently had a meeting with the Secretary of Defense in a closed session, but I am allowed to say this in public, and I raised the question of funds to Chalabi and the phrase--well, I guess I cannot quote exactly what the phrase was. I cannot quote the Secretary. But the point is there has been a real difficulty in pushing back. It has been clear for some time our close association with Mr. Chalabi has damaged American interests in Iraq. Chalabi is the best known figure in the Iraqi Governing Council, according to a poll taken. We appointed him. By the way, a poll taken a couple of months ago in Iraq shows that he is not only the best known member of the Governing Council, but he is also the least popular, with a negative rating of over 60 percent. Chalabi, as my colleagues will recall, was flown in to southern Iraq literally days before the statue of Saddam fell. It was actually during the war; he was flown in to a portion of southern Iraq we had already conquered and passed. He had been flown in without the knowledge of the State Department and other senior officials. I guess he was going to be the triumphant Shi'a who was going to march through the Shi'a territories heading up to Baghdad, except one thing, nobody liked him and nobody followed him. I do not know what it took to get the message to this administration that this guy was not helpful but this guy was hurting our legitimacy. At that time, I rose in the Senate and said, what are we doing here? I think my friend from Florida as well, if not here in the Senate, I know in our hearings, said, what are we doing this for? How are we saying we are liberating the Iraqis, we are going to let them choose their government and we are flying in a handpicked guy? Well, that sort of went south, figuratively speaking. It was clear we were attempting to put him in a place to take over the reins of Baghdad. Toward the end of that year, he organized the militia, which was implicated in instances of looting in Baghdad. The U.S. military wisely ordered the militia to disband, but there were some supporters here saying it is okay for him to set up a militia. We are trying to disband militias, and we wonder why we have so little legitimacy. This is not Monday-morning quarter-backing. If need be, for the record, I will come back and lay out all the statements we made 2 years ago about Mr. Chalabi, a year ago, 8 months ago, 10 months ago, as recently as a hearing 2 days ago in the Senate. It has done us serious damage. High-ranking civilians in the Defense Department continue to back Mr. Chalabi, despite numerous warnings about his past dealings. The King of Jordan made known his country's distaste for Mr. Chalabi. They did not hide it. The Foreign Minister of Jordan came to me personally and said, for God's sake, do not deal with this guy; do you not understand he is going to hurt you? Mr. Chalabi has been convicted on fraud charges stemming from a failure of the Petra Bank which Chalabi headed. In recent months, Chalabi has been moving closer and closer to the religious elements in Iraq, apparently belying his claims to be a secular leader. His close association with hardliners in Iran, including Ayatollah Khamenei, has been a matter of mystery and some suspicion, but we continued to support him. The reason for today's raid is not yet clear, although there were reports earlier this week that one of Chalabi's associates, the finance minister, is being investigated by Iraqi police for a scam involving government vehicles. There have been other reports of corruption allegations as well. I am not making a judgment on that at this moment. We will wait to see. But I am making a judgment, did make a judgment, and will continue to make the judgment that Mr. Chalabi is hurting us, not helping us. One other point; Mr. Chalabi's guys got in and got hold of a whole lot of intelligence data that was Saddam Hussein's. He refuses to give it to us. He refuses to turn it over to the U.S. military. He will let us see it but not keep it. And this is our guy. It is like our guy in Havana. You know, our guy? I do not know what it takes. It is like taking a wombat and banging it up the side of the heads of some of these guys and the civilians in the Defense Department. This guy is bad news for the United States, whether the reason for the raiding of his headquarters and his home relates to corruption or not. We have tarnished our reputation by our association with this man. It is time to begin recouping it by ending our efforts to foist an unpopular leader on Iraqis and supporting a process which will produce more legitimate leaders.

Mr. BIDEN. The bottom line is it is a long time in coming. I hope this means we have listened to the sounds of voices in this administration. I say to my friend, we both know this: We have both tried to help this administration, but it is as though there is a San Andreas fault that runs down the middle of this administration, with two very different views of the world. One is held by Mr. Powell, the State Department, and the uniformed military, and the other being the Vice President, the Secretary of Defense, and Mr. Wolfowitz, who are all fine, honorable, and decent men who have a very different view of the world. The view of their world which they have been promoting has turned out not to be so accurate. I hope this is evidence of the fact the President is starting to listen to saner voices. I facetiously said--nobody asked--if you had a baseball team and you had somebody who batted zero and it came time to put in a pinch-hitter, are you going to look at the batting averages? It is time to look at the batting averages, Mr. President. Listen to those folks in your administration. There are some very good ones who have better batting averages, and I hope this is beginning that recognition.

Mr. BIDEN. Clearly we are not. That is not to suggest you are suggesting it is not good Saddam is gone. I think we are, in a marginal sense, safer because he is gone. But I think the effect of what we have allowed to happen, or what has happened in the rest of the world, has literally put us in more jeopardy.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I say to my friend--I will make two points here. One is, it was not only the Senator from Delaware and Florida, but also the Senator from Indiana, the Republican chairman, who pointed out we made a mistake by dismissing the policy of engagement of the last administration. Even the Secretary of State of the United States of America, Mr. Powell, when Kim Dae Jong of South Korea came, said we were going to continue engaging the North as Mr. Kim wanted us to and thought we should, as our Japanese friends thought we should, and the President summarily stopped that. I think that was another mistake. I make another point about Iran. The neoconservative view of why we should have gone into Iraq alone is it would teach a lesson to the other malcontents in the world such as the Iranians. They were going to say, My God, look at the unilateral use of force; we better behave. I point out what my friend knows well and we talked about. Prior to our invasion of Iraq, Iran had a genuine democratic movement--not prowestern, democratic movement. It was the Majlis, their parliament, 195 people. There was a genuine movement. You had the mullahs and the apparatus and the clerics who controlled security and controlled the intelligence apparatus, afraid of world opinion if they crushed that democratic movement. What did they do? If, in fact, the neocons are correct, and having 140,000 troops in Iraq was going to teach Iran a lesson, in the midst of our greatest show of force in Iraq, the clerics in Tehran would have been afraid to touch the democratic movement, for fear of world reaction. Obviously they were not frightened by our show of force. There is no democratic movement left. For instead the clerics crushed it. They disbanded it. So that is another example of the two most dangerous states for the United States of America today if they spiral out of control--Iran and North Korea. Both present a greater threat to America today than they did 3 years ago.

Mr. BIDEN. No, we are not. But we could be if the President is willing to not stay the course but change the course. There is an opportunity, if the President begins to listen to the correct voices in his administration, to internationalize this, to bring in the major powers, to actually leave Iraq in December of 2005 with a representative government which will have a positive impact on the region over time. It is still possible, but the President must quickly call a summit meeting of the major powers; quickly get them to agree to sign off on Mr. Brahimi's plan of a new government; quickly get NATO to agree to have a NATO-led multinational force, sanctioned by the United Nations; and quickly, quickly demonstrate he understands the breadth and depth of the damage done by the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, bulldoze that prison down, build a hospital in its place, release those prisoners who should not be there and keep the others in a different environment and open it up. He still can do this. But my friend knows, we can't do it. Only one man, because of the majesty of his office, can do it: the President of the United States. He can do it. I hope he does not squander this last opportunity. I am hopeful he will not. I believe he understands more now. I hope he begins to listen to the uniform military and Mr. Powell, what they have been counseling along with you and I and Senators Lugar, Hagel, McCain, and others all along here. There is still time. But I believe this is the last serious chance he has to get it right by June 30.

Mr. BIDEN. I thank my friend.

Mr. BIDEN. First of all, I thank the Senator for his compliments that are excessive and not accurate, but I thank him nonetheless. But let me say in a second, I took the time 4 years ago to ask my senior staff to go back and get every major work written by the Straussians, the neocons, I mean it sincerely, and Tony Blinken, former National Security Agency, my chief guy, got together 11 or 12 books, the most seminal volumes written in the last decade by the neoconservatives. These are honorable, bright, serious people--patriotic Americans. If you read what they say, they mean what they say. What they say is the value of America----

Mr. BIDEN. The bottom line is the neoconservatives believe our power is enhanced by leveraging power. Meaning if we go alone without any help, the malcontents of the world go: Oh, my God, look at them, they don't even listen to the rest of the world. They have this awesome power. We should listen to them. It might work if we had an army of 12 million and a surplus of $500 billion a year instead of an army that is one-twelfth and a deficit of $500 billion a year. It doesn't work. Now ideology has run head on into reality. For ideologues, like all honorable people, it is difficult to change. It is a little like me as a practicing Roman Catholic denying the Trinity. You can't deny the Trinity and be a Catholic. It is not possible. They cannot acknowledge they need the international community and stick to a thesis that has been theirs for the last 12 years. That is as quickly, succinctly, and as accurately as I can state it. As Samuel Clemens said: All generalities are false, including this one. I made a bit of a generalization, but I believe an accurate one.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I would like to do whatever accommodates the Senate.

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I say to the Senator, I do not want to interfere. I want to speak for about 10 minutes regarding Ahmed Chalabi. I do not have to do it now.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, Delaware is a small State and everyone seems to know everyone else. We know just about everyone in the State. You can't go to the grocery store, church, synagogue, or mosque without running into people you know. We go to each other's events. It is a little like Alaska--small. Alaska is gigantic, but the population is small. We go to each other's gatherings, and we are affected by each other's achievements and each other's milestones, and we are affected by each other's losses. Sometimes the closeness gets us in trouble, but I would not change it for the world. It has been an honor and a pleasure to represent my State and to have the pleasure over the years to invite several members of our clergy to come and be guest Chaplains. Rabbi Ellen Bernhardt is our guest Chaplain today. As Senator Carper said, she is finishing her 11th year at the Albert Einstein Academy in Wilmington, not far from where I live. The academy is open to all students, although it is the only Jewish day school in our State. It has been a pleasure visiting the school on a number of occasions. Over the years, we have spent a fair amount of time in fundraising events together, sharing the dais, and attempting to see to it that the school remains vibrant. That has been going on, actually, before the rabbi was running the school. But the fact is, her dedication, talent, faith, and deep abiding commitment to her students and her work in my State has touched many people in our community. For that, we are all very grateful. I believe I speak for all my colleagues when I say thank you for your thoughtful, inspirational invocation this morning. We need it badly at this moment in the United States. We are honored to welcome you to the floor of the Senate. I arrived here almost 32 years ago and I feel the same amount of pride today that I felt then as I walk out on this floor. I know that sounds corny, but I really do. I am incredibly proud of this institution. I remember the first time I walked on the floor; my temporary desk was the second from the end over there. I realized I was standing next to the desk where Daniel Webster sat. I thought to myself, it is the only time I actually thought, my God, what am I doing here? In the last 31 years, some in my constituency have said: My God, what is he doing there? I have become accustomed to it. My impression at that time--and I don't know the rabbi's impression--was how small this Chamber is. There is a closeness to it. It is a comfort. Anyway, I am proud we are able to share the floor with the rabbi today. Let me say, my relationship and personal connection with the rabbi is a quintessential example of the nature of the State of Delaware. I happen to know that the rabbi grew up over her father's drugstore in Belfonte, which I frequented a lot. I went to St. Helena, a Catholic grade school in Claymont. Everybody knew your father's drugstore. Everybody hung out in your father's drugstore. I am considerably older than the rabbi. So we basically come from the same small neck of the woods, the same small neighborhood. The rabbi's father was a heck of a guy, by the way. As a kid and a member of the Congregation Ades Kodesh Shel Emeth, Ellen would study after school with her rabbi, Rabbi Leonard Gewirtz--a man I always affectionately referred to as literally ``my rabbi.'' He introduced me frequently. He became my first tutor--literally, not figuratively-- because of my interest in theology and the Holocaust. I remember speaking up at a college, a rabbinical school in Philadelphia. I remember those big old thick shoes he used to wear, the kind that laced up the side and squeaked on a linoleum floor. I was speaking in this room that was not very commodious for speaking; it was long and with low ceilings, and the podium was in the middle. It was a shoal, actually. He came late and wanted to hear me speak. He opened the door and the congregation was seated and the door smacked against a pew. He walked in and, as you know, he walked right up to the front and sat down. It was kind of a tense moment. Everybody wondered who is this guy walking in. I said, ``My rabbi has arrived.'' After speaking to this all-Jewish congregation, a group of ladies my mom's age, who were in an atrium that connected the shoal to the university, the school--as I walked out, they were arguing. I could hear them saying: Yes, he is. No, he isn't. Yes, he is. A lady grabbed me by the coat and said: You said ``your rabbi. He had a similar influence on me--though much more profound to you but no less significant to me.'' He was a great man. He was famous for his passionate sermons from the pulpit, his love for Jewish education, his love for Israel and the community he served. Rabbi Gewirtz was truly a spiritual leader and, as Ellen will tell you, is the reason she decided to become a rabbi. We truly miss him, but his spirit is with her today. I know he is looking down and is very proud. He was also proud of this place, proud of this country, proud of the Senate. To have you here, I am sure, he is smiling. There are a lot of other things I could and would like to say about Ellen. As I said, we are very similar in the sense that we are truly products of our parents' upbringing and, knowing her story, it is no surprise to me that she has devoted her life to Jewish education, community service, and to her family. Her grandparents came to this country by way of Ellis Island. Her entire mother's side of the family chose to remain in Eastern Europe and were tragically killed in the Nazi Holocaust. Her extended family was conspicuously absent from her life. As one can imagine, this had a profound effect on Rabbi Bernhardt and her family's life, priorities, and values. Her father, Herman Gordon, was one of the many heroic members of the Armed Forces who chose to enlist in the Army Air Corps at the outset of World War II. Mr. Gordon served as a waist gunner on the Flying Fortress B-17 bomber. Based in England, his unit performed missions over France and Germany, clearing the way for our troops to land on the beaches of Normandy. On his 24th mission, his plane was shot down over Germany. As a Jew, he became a prisoner of war in Germany for 9 months. The latter 3 months of his imprisonment was spent marching at gunpoint on the infamous ``death march''--a desperate move by the Nazis to relocate their POWs straight into the heart of Germany, out of the hands of the Allied forces which were closing in, which I always thought was a metaphor for the insanity, the lust of Hitler and Nazi Germany. This nightmare all came to an end when Mr. Gordon's camp was liberated by General Patton's army. It is quite a story, quite a heritage, and quite a family. As my dad, who passed away about a year and a half ago, would say: Girl, you have good blood; you have real good blood. I only hope our children and grandchildren develop an appreciation for the sacrifices of so many Americans, such as Ellen's father, and the thousands of soldiers who are currently serving abroad have done for this country. One of the reasons I am telling this story is to give my colleagues and constituents back home an insight into what motivates our guest Chaplain this morning to energize her students, family, and friends to better the Delaware community and to uphold our American values with the same patriotic zeal exemplified by her father. Last year, for the fourth consecutive year, I submitted a resolution in the Senate to designate the week of Veterans Day as ``National Veterans Awareness Week.'' It explicitly underscores the need for our schools to develop educational programs to highlight the contributions of veterans in our country. This past year, Ellen held a very moving ceremony. The school invited every friend, relative, or neighbor of a student who served in our military to come and speak at the ceremony in front of the entire school and faculty about their experiences. Madam President, included in the list of speakers was the mother of LT Scott Travis, a Wilmington native, a graduate of Brandywine High School and West Point, who is currently serving in Iraq. The ceremony brought real people with real stories into the classroom and gave the kids a tangible sense of what it meant and what it means to sacrifice for one's country. The climax was when students pinned medals on the veterans in attendance as a way to personally thank them for their service. That is the kind of school Ellen runs. That is the kind of person Ellen is. By the way, for the record, let me say that in my 31st year in the Senate, Rabbi Bernhardt is only the fifth guest Chaplain I have invited from Delaware, following in the footsteps of Father Jim Trainer from St. Patrick's Church, Rabbi Kenneth S. Cohen from Congregation Beth Shalom, and Father Robert Balducci from St. Anthony's Parish. From where I sit, you are in good company and so are they. I thank Rabbi Bernhardt for being here this morning. By the way, you should be very proud of your son sitting behind me who is a relatively new member of my staff. He is already having an impact in the conduct of business around here. Again, I know I speak for all my colleagues when I welcome you and your family here today. Thank you for the sacrifices you have made for this country, and thank you for the values you are imprinting on the young men and women of my community. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Democratic side be given an additional 10 minutes of morning business, with the time equally divided between Senator Carper and myself. Before the Chair acts on this request, I am told it has been cleared by the Republican side.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I honor the life of an award-winning columnist, reporter and author. My friend, Bill Fiset, lived a long, distinguished life of 73 years, serving his country in World War II. In addition to his honorable career, he was a devoted husband, father, and grandfather. Bill Fiset was born March 15, 1921 in Seattle, WA and attended Queen Anne High School and the University of Washington, where he was a member of the Delta Kappa Epsilon Fraternity and a member of the golf team. At 21, he was a reporter and wrote a column called ``Strolling Around the Town'' for the Seattle Times. At 22, Fiset saw foreign service in Africa as an ambulance driver in the American Field Service, an organization giving medical aid to the Allies before the U.S. entered the war. He resigned the Field Service in Egypt in April 1942, and enlisted with the Royal Armored Service Corps. As a second lieutenant in the British 8th Army in North Africa, he served as a machine gunner on an armored lorry defending convoys from Italian bombers between Tobruk and Suez. Fiset also filed field reports as a war correspondent. Then America entered WWII. With refugees flooding African transports, Fiset luckily used his recent gunnery experience to sign on with an American freighter as a member of the gun crew, reaching the U.S. 3 months later. In October, 1942, he joined the Navy. He did his preflight training at St. Mary's College in Moraga, CA, and served as a blimp pilot in Airship Squadron 32 on a coastal submarine patrol stationed out of Moffet Field, California. After the war, Fiset worked as a reporter for the Oakland Post Enquirer from 1946 to 1950 and joined the San Francisco Call Bulletin as a staff reporter from 1950 to 1952. Fiset then wrote for the Oakland Tribune from March 1952 to 1955 as a general assignment reporter covering such infamous murder and kidnap trials as Burton Abbott, Carl Chessman; and Barbara Graham, Jack Santo and Emmett Perkins of the so-called Mountain Murder Mob. He also witnessed and reported on their executions at San Quentin Prison. In 1956 he wrote the Tribune's first television column where he became internationally syndicated and was invited to do walk-on acting parts in ``Route 66'' and ``Tales of Wells Fargo.'' He began a general column for the Tribune in 1962. That same year, he was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize and won many awards for his writing. His award-winning public service booklets ``This Is Sherry'' and ``Want To Be Smart,'' written by Fiset and illustrated by artist Ray Marta were discreetly designed to warn children and parents about the dangers of kidnapping and child sex offenders. Over a million copies were distributed free worldwide and locally by the Tribune, the Bay Area Board of Education, and local police departments. The efforts earned a commendation by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover as, ``a graphic message which may mean the difference between life and death for countless youngsters,'' and was requested by police departments throughout the United States, Canada, and Europe. From time to time Fiset continued to file news reports. He wrote about the airlift of Vietnamese-American children out of Vietnam by Ed Daly, a friend and the flamboyant owner of World Airways. In 1973, Fiset was one of the first to file an eyewitness report on the crash of the Soviet SST TU-144 crash at the Paris Air Show. An avid golfer, Fiset participated in many civic groups and fund raisers. He taught news writing and reporting at the College of Alameda and for many years was a board member for JACKIE, an agency that finds foster homes for children. He was married for almost 60 years and is survived by his wife, Marian Fiset of Walnut Creek, his sons Rick Fiset of Danville, Gary Fiset of Alamo, daughter Michele Fiset Rice of Bryn Mawr, PA, and his eight grandchildren. Bill Fiset died peacefully on Sunday, May 2, in Concord, CA.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am proud to co-sponsor the amendment offered by my colleagues, Senator Domenici and Senator Feinstein, which authorizes a program to accelerate U.S. efforts to remove, secure, store, or destroy fissile and radiological material that might otherwise be accessible to rogue states or terrorists. There could hardly be a higher priority--it is clear that terrorists seek to acquire materials to make a nuclear bomb. Many experts believe that terrorists would be capable of creating a nuclear weapon if they took possession of fissile material. Even the simpler, gun-type design, the type of bomb exploded at Hiroshima, could kill from tens of thousands to a million people if detonated in a large city. Terrorists are also known to be interested in radiological material for a so-called ``dirty bomb,'' also known as a radiological dispersion device. While an attack with a dirty bomb would not cause many fatalities, it could render large areas uninhabitable and cause long- term economic devastation and psychological damage. I thank Senator Domenici, and Senator Feinstein for their work and leadership on this issue. Senator Domenici, in his role as Chairman of the Appropriations Energy and Water Subcommittee, has done much to shape the nuclear non-proliferation programs at the Department of Energy. Senator Feinstein, also a member of that subcommittee, introduced legislation to facilitate the removal of nuclear material from vulnerable sites around the world. They have worked together to craft the bipartisan amendment before us today. While many raised the alarm about the possibility of terrorists using weapons of mass destruction before September 11, 2001, the events of that day made clear to all what devastation could have been wrought had the terrorists attacked with weapons of mass destruction. Witnesses at a hearing I chaired before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on March 6, 2002, emphasized the need for multiple layers of defense against nuclear terrorism and said that the very first priority must be controlling fissile and radioactive material in the United States and abroad. Since that time, there has been progress in securing, storing and destroying fissile and radiological material. But much more needs to be done. The Department of Energy's International Materials Protection, Control, and Cooperation Program and its Radiological Dispersion Devices Program seek to secure nuclear weapons, weapons-usable nuclear materials, and radiological sources by upgrading security and consolidating these materials. From fiscal year 1993 through this fiscal year, 2004, Congress has appropriated $1.58 billion for these Department of Energy programs, mostly to secure nuclear weapons and nuclear material in Russia. Because of them, and the related Cooperative Threat Reduction programs at the Department of Defense, hundreds of tons of bomb material is more secure and the nuclear material that could have been made into thousands of nuclear weapons has been destroyed. Why, when so much has been accomplished, is this amendment necessary? One answer is that while much has indeed been accomplished in Russia, highly enriched uranium, or HEU, and plutonium exist in many countries and in both military and civilian sites. There are 345 operational or shut research reactors that used HEU in 58 countries. Many of these countries have inadequate resources to operate or clean up these reactors. Few of them can afford to convert their HEU-fueled reactors, or their HEU targets used to produce medical isotopes, without outside assistance. Another answer is that even in Russia, only a fraction of its highly enriched uranium has been destroyed. Many experts, including those involved with the Project on Managing the Atom at Harvard University, have urged that efforts be accelerated to ``blend down'' highly enriched uranium to low-enriched uranium, which is usable for nuclear power, but not readily for weapons. At current rates, it could take decades to blend down Russia's excess HEU. The urgency of the potential threat from the tons of HEU in Russia argues for a more robust program that would blend down HEU in years, not decades. The amendment before us today wisely authorizes an acceleration of our HEU blend-down programs. In addition to authorizing accelerated HEU recovery and blend-down programs, this amendment would accelerate our efforts to help move nuclear facilities away from the use of HEU in nuclear reactor fuel and medical isotope production. It will also encourage increased efforts to recover and secure plutonium and radiological sources that might otherwise be accessible to terrorists. The Domenici-Feinstein amendment provides for a comprehensive program to: securely ship at-risk fissile and radiological materials; raise processing and packing standards; provide interim security upgrades and improve management of vulnerable sites; manage materials at secure facilities; provide technical assistance to the International Atomic Energy Agency, as well as to countries; and provide assistance in the closure of risky sites. This amendment will also improve our efforts to convert risky sites to, and place displaced nuclear workers in, activities that do not represent a proliferation threat. Both the Department of Energy and the Department of State have programs to help displaced workers, but there many worthy projects in this area go unfunded each year. We can and we must do more to ensure that nuclear weapons scientists and technical personnel are not left prey to the lures of contracts in rogue states or sales to terrorists. The Domenici-Feinstein amendment will not solve all the problems that our non-proliferation programs face. We also need sustained attention by the President to removing roadblocks that have hindered our existing programs in Russia. Whether the question is access to sites, or immunity from taxation, or immunity from liability for U.S. persons involved in these programs, we need effective intervention at the highest level to solve those problems. It would be ironic, indeed, if our authorization of accelerated efforts were to be undone by the inability of President Bush and Putin to work out the implementation of those programs. This amendment must do more than spur the Department of Energy to put more resources into our non-proliferation programs. It must galvanize the government at the highest levels to do more and do it quickly, before some terrorist group gains access to fissile our radiological material and uses it against us. I commend Senators Domenici and Feinstein for their important amendment and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, as was announced yesterday, I was not able to be here for the vote on the amendment offered by Senator Hutchison, No. 3152, which includes service academy cadets and midshipmen in the military's disability discharge and retirement system and allows ROTC cadets to use TRICARE supplemental health care programs when they are injured during training. This amendment makes an important improvement to the health care of our future military leaders, and I would like the record to reflect that, had I been here, I would have voted for that amendment which passed unanimously.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to the 145 law enforcement officers who gave their lives in service to their communities last year. They are true heroes, and their families are owed our gratitude. This is National Police Week. Tonight, the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund will host the 16th Annual Candlelight Vigil on the grounds of the National Law Enforcement Memorial here in Washington. Three hundred and sixty-two names will be added to the memorial tonight--145 officers who were killed in 2003, and 217 who were lost in prior years. Saturday, the Fraternal Order of Police will host the National Peace Officers' Memorial Day Service on the West Front of the Capitol. Together, these two events, along with other events throughout the city this week, should make us all pause and give thanks to police officers throughout the Nation who protect our communities against crime and terrorism. We lost fewer officers in the line of duty last year than we have in years past, and the total is well below the 230 officers killed in 2001, when we lost 72 officers on September 11 alone. But the numbers of lost officers is still far too high. On average, one out of every 9 officers is assaulted per year, one out of every 25 is injured, and one out of every 4,400 is killed in the line of duty annually. Police risk their own lives in our service each and every day, and we should keep these sobering statistics in mind every week, not just during police week. Law enforcement is an inherently dangerous undertaking, and police officers have become our front lines in the war on terror. I fear we are underfunding their efforts as we reorient Federal assistance to local law enforcement post 9/11, but that is a conversation for another day. Today, and this entire week, we give police officers our thanks, we remember those that paid the ultimate price while serving our communities, and we give comfort to the loved ones they have left behind.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, on Tuesday, the Foreign Relations Committee discharged a resolution which speaks to the situation in Darfur, Sudan. I am alarmed by reports of atrocities there. I am worried that genocide may be unfolding. We need to make a determination about what is going on in Darfur and respond accordingly. Administration officials have termed it ethnic cleansing. This would be horrific in and of itself. But we also have to ask whether or not Khartoum's actions are an intent to destroy in whole or in part a particular ethnic or racial group or groups. If so, what should we do about it? These are questions we must answer right away. As you know, the administration has been heavily involved in negotiations between the government in Khartoum and southern Sudanese rebels. If an agreement is reached, it will bring an end to twenty years of civil war between the Muslim north, and non-Muslim south. It will end 20 years of attacks against Muslims in the Nuba mountains and southern Sudanese; 20 years during which the government of Sudan targeted civilians either with its military forces, or through government allied militias; 20 years during which 2 million people have died; 20 years during which millions were displaced both within Sudan and beyond its borders. The war sparked outrage among members of the international community because of the brutality of attacks against men, women and children. Some cast the war as Muslim versus Christian. I think this captures only a fraction of the story. Arab militias took southern, non-Muslims, black Africans captive as slaves. They pursued a scorched earth policy in southern villages. Muslims living in the Nuba Mountains, who happen to be black, were victims of attacks as well. One is left to wonder if the real cause of the attacks wasn't good old fashioned racism. And while the United States continues to spend valuable diplomatic time and political capitol to bring an end to the north-south conflict, history is repeating itself in western Sudan. Early last year, ethnic minorities living in western Sudan took up arms to protest Khartoum's arming of Arab militias in the region, and what they believed was economic marginalization by the government in Khartoum. The wisdom of this course of action on the part of the rebels may be debatable. What is not debatable is the disproportionate response of the government--ethnic cleansing in Darfur by means of a well orchestrated campaign of attacks aimed specifically at non- military persons who belong to the same ethnic groups as the rebels. Khartoum is employing the same tactics in Darfur that they used against those living in southern Sudan: Aerial bombardment of civilians with helicopter gun ships and planes, and attacks by government supported Arab militias known as janjaweed, which employ scorched earth tactics against villages inhabited by black Africans. We are receiving reports of a variety of abuses perpetrated by the janjaweed--routine rape of women, murder of men, the wanton burning of children--from credible sources working in Darfur. In my view, these deliberate attacks and atrocities against civilians constitute crimes against humanity. President Bush's statement on Sudan issued on April 7, while helpful, was inadequate. He condemned the atrocities in Darfur, but the statement does not speak to the ethnic nature of the attacks. We all know that ethnic cleansing has the potential to turn into genocide. By failing to highlight this very dangerous dimension of Khartoum's campaign, the president failed to speak to the most alarming aspects of the crisis. The statement says that President Bush expressed his views condemning the atrocities directly to Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir. Since U.S. officials have acknowledged that the actions constitute ethnic cleansing, describing them as well ``organized,'' and ``comprehensive,'' I sincerely hope the President took Bashir to task about the particular evil of such actions. Given the vagueness President Bush's statement, however, one is left to wonder. Our Ambassador to the U.N. Human Rights Commission, Rich Williamson, has said that 30,000 people are dead as a result of the conflict. One million people--25 percent of the population--are displaced, according to the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, UNHCR. All of them are in dire need of assistance because on top of razing entire villages and firebombing civilians, in addition to burning crops, raping women, torturing men and throwing children into burning huts, on top of all the misery the government has heaped on the people of Darfur for months, Khartoum has refused to allow humanitarian relief organizations free, unfettered, regular access to the region. According to the State Department, it takes aid workers 2 months to get visas. And this is an improvement--it used to take 3 to 4 months. After pursuing a scorched earth policy in Darfur for months--burned crops, stolen cattle and poisoned wells--the government's latest outrage is cynically ordering people to return to their homes. The few agencies on the ground in the area indicate that people cannot venture even 100 yards outside the displaced persons camps without being attacked. Even if they are able to make it home safely, there is absolutely no likelihood of people surviving in communities that literally no longer exist. At this point, return is not an option and Khartoum is well aware of this. And the attacks by the janjaweed continue despite the April 8 cease- fire agreement. Over 100,000 people have fled across the border into Chad. They too are still subject to attack from the janjaweed. UNHCR is in the midst of attempting to relocate refugees farther from the border to enhance their safety. Only half of refugees are living in camps in more secure locations. The other half are making do the best they can. A report issued by Refugees International indicates that many refugees are living in the open with no food, water or shelter. According to UNHCR's public documents, it needs $27 million to address the needs of refugees in Chad. It has less than half of that on hand. Soon the rainy season will make roads impassible, preventing the delivery of food and shelter materials. The World Food Program is attempting to stockpile food in advance of the rains, but they have a 35 percent funding shortfall as well. We have contributed significant funds, but we and the rest of the international community need to do even more. Congress needs to do more as well. S. Con. Res. 99 speaks to the nature of the violence and urges the President to do two main things: First, develop a plan to deliver humanitarian aid to the nearly 1 million people who have been driven from their homes that does not necessitate permission from the government of Sudan. I hope that this plan includes immediate use of the commodities we are holding in the Emerson Trust stockpiles. I would also encourage the administration to come up with a way to deliver food through neighboring countries, including Chad. Let me also say that I expect and welcome a request in the forthcoming supplemental for money to meet the humanitarian needs engendered by the crisis in Darfur. Second, it urges the Secretary of State to develop options to increase sanctions on Sudan if the attacks in Darfur do not stop immediately. I co-sponsored this resolution because I think that these are important steps. They are only steps however. If we do not see any change on the ground by the end of May, we should go even further than this resolution suggests. We should amend the Sudan Peace Act, which was aimed at jump-starting the north-south peace process, so that it is relevant to the situation in Darfur. Three changes are essential. First, the act, Public Law 107- 245, imposes sanctions on the government of Sudan if the President determines that it is not making a good faith effort to negotiate a peace agreement. The act should be amended to require that the President certify that neither the government nor government allied militias have attacked civilians in Sudan 30 days from the enactment of the act and every 90 days thereafter. If the President cannot certify such, then the sanctions in section 6, paragraph 2 should be triggered. The same certification should apply to humanitarian access. This is already in the legislation, however the requirement is obviously not explicit enough for the White House. Despite the restrictions placed on the non- governmental organizations attempting to go into Darfur, on April 21, the President certified the government of Sudan had not unreasonably interfered with humanitarian efforts. Making the law more explicit may prevent another such mistake. Finally, we should add a requirement that our permanent representative to the U.N. Security Council pursue a Security Council Resolution condemning the government of Sudan for its actions in Darfur, and calling for accountability for those who are found responsible for orchestrating and carrying out the atrocities. Mr. President, the administration has said that it will not attempt to secure the north-south peace agreement at the expense of the people in Darfur. I agree. In fact, a north-south agreement will be meaningless in the face of ethnic cleansing in western Sudan. I believe that we must ratchet up the pressure on the Government of Sudan, and our partners in the international community to bring an end to the criminal acts of the government in Khartoum.

Mr. BIDEN

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

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, we are about to vote. I had an opportunity to speak earlier today. Let me conclude and then yield back whatever time remains by saying Mr. Negroponte is a serious diplomat with significant experience. When he appeared before our committee, he impressed me that he was more likely to be straightforward and unequivocal in answering our questions. I will end where I began. I quite frankly think we owe him and his wife a debt of gratitude for being willing to take on what, without exception, in my view, is the most difficult and, at this moment, most dangerous job in U.S. diplomacy. I urge my colleagues to vote for Mr. Negroponte, notwithstanding that they may feel, as I do, that this administration's policy on how to handle the circumstance in Iraq has been seriously wanting. Do not confuse the lack of a coherent policy, from my perspective, anyway, with a lack of competence and ability of Ambassador Negroponte. I urge a yes vote on Ambassador Negroponte. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, it gives me great pride and pleasure today to rise and honor a Delaware jurist who is a recognized leader not only in his native State of Delaware, but throughout this country and around the world. His name is Randy Holland. Justice Holland has served on the Delaware Supreme Court since 1986, with the distinction of being the youngest person ever to serve on my State's highest court. And for the past four years, he has served as the National President of the American Inns of Court. His second term ends next week, and I rise today to commend his leadership to this prestigious legal society. Justice Holland's stewardship of the American Inns of Court, with its roots dating back to England in the 1400s, has earned him an extraordinary, rare and high honor. He is only the third American judge to recently receive this prestigious award. The other two are United States Supreme Court Justices. Lincoln's Inn of London, England, announced that Justice Holland has been elected an Honorary Master of the Bench. The Honorary ``Benchers'' are persons of distinction selected from common law countries around the world. The only American judges to receive this high recognition and distinction are Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg and John Paul Stevens of the United States Supreme Court and now Justice Holland. In commenting upon Justice Holland's election, William Blair, a distinguished Barrister, President of the Commercial Bar Association in England, and brother of Prime Minister Tony Blair, stated ``We feel that this is an important mark of friendship between the Inns of Court of England and the American Inns of Court. What is most gratifying for us is that the common aims of the organization are ethics, civility, professionalism and legal excellence--which are surely more necessary now than ever. My fellow Benchers were greatly impressed by Justice Holland's distinguished judicial record.'' To put this honor in context, Lincoln's Inn is the oldest of the four Inns of Court in London. Its formal records date back continuously to 1422. For six centuries, the Inns of Court in London have educated English trial lawyers, who are known as Barristers. St. Thomas More, Lord Chancellor of England, joined Lincoln's Inn in 1496. The chapel bell at Lincoln's Inn came from Spain in 1596 as part of the spoils of Cadiz. When Dr. John Donne was Preacher to Lincoln's Inn in 1624, he wrote his famous poem ``for whom the bell tolls.'' Along with this international honor, Justice Holland has been recognized by his fellow jurists and attorneys in this country. His numerous awards include: the 1992 Judge of the Year Award from the National Child Support Enforcement Association, the 2002 Alumni Award of Merit from the University of Pennsylvania School of Law, the 2003 American Judicature Society's Herbert Harley Award, and the 2004 Widener Law School Adjunct Professor Distinguished Service Award. Ethics and mentoring are the hallmarks of Justice Holland's service on the bench and his call to his fellow attorneys in the bar. He chaired the national Advisory Committee to the American Judicature Society's Center for Judicial Ethics and currently he chairs the American Bar Association national Joint Committee on Lawyer Regulation. Justice Holland is also a member of the American Law Institute and is an adjunct professor at several law schools. In addition to these many accomplishments, Justice Holland has published three books on the history of the Delaware Constitution and the Delaware Supreme Court. Of course, Justice Holland will tell you that he derives his greatest pride from his family--his wife and friend since grade school, Ilona, and his son, Ethan. Justice Holland deserves a tremendous thank you for his leadership on the bench and bar--from Delaware, attorneys throughout this country, and indeed from jurists and barristers worldwide. Congratulations.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to condemn in the strongest possible terms the violence 2 weeks ago in Kosovo, which claimed the lives of 20 persons, injured more than 600 others, displaced more than 4,000 individuals, destroyed more than 500 homes, and destroyed or damaged more than 30 churches and monasteries. In a reversal of the brutal murders and ethnic cleansing carried out in 1998 and 1999 against Kosovar Albanians by the forces of former Serbian strongman Slobodan Milosevic, the perpetrators of this violence were the former victims--the ethnic Albanians. Their principal targets were Kosovo Serbs, although Ashkali and other minorities in the province also suffered. There is no way to gloss over or disguise these events: They are a disaster of the first magnitude. Five years ago last week, I submitted the resolution that was adopted by this body, authorizing military action against the Milosevic government in order to rescue the persecuted Kosovar Albanians. Over the subsequent eleven weeks the United States and its allies successfully waged an air war, which resulted in the withdrawal of Serbian forces from Kosovo. A United Nations Security Council Resolution created a protectorate administered by the United Nations Interim Administration in Kosovo--known popularly by its acronym UNMIK--under the military protection of NATO's Kosovo Force or KFOR. Since the summer of 1999 the international community, working through these civilian and military structures, has attempted to pacify and stabilize the situation, rebuild the shattered infrastructure, and help guide the embittered and traumatized population toward eventual democratic self-rule. Resolution of Kosovo's final status was understandably deferred until significant progress was achieved. From thousands of miles away it is difficult to appreciate the scope of the effort that the international community has devoted to Kosovo. I might offer a very personal example. My older son, Beau, served for nearly a year in UNMIK as a lawyer, helping the Kosovars to build a legal system that would impartially dispense justice to all inhabitants of the province. Tens of thousands of other Americans, together with citizens of dozens of other countries, have similarly worked in civilian and military capacities for the last five years. Although there has, in fact, been considerable progress in several areas, the recent violence graphically demonstrates that, on the whole, the effort is in danger of failing. The economy is in sad shape with more than half the population unemployed. Kosovar Albanians complain that the lack of action on final status has choked off any significant direct foreign investment, which is the sine qua non for economic development. But it would be irresponsible to move to final status before stability and democracy have been achieved--as clearly they have not yet been. So where do we go from here? Kosovo is a complex problem, for which there are no simple answers. In fact, every policy in the short run carries significant downside potential. Nonetheless, we must immediately take several steps. First of all, through KFOR and UNMIK, we must make it unmistakably clear to all the citizens of Kosovo that the violence must cease completely. Second, all citizens of Kosovo must cooperate with KFOR, UNMIK, and the Kosovo police in identifying for prosecution the perpetrators of violence and the destruction of property. Third, all displaced persons and refugees must be returned to their former towns and villages, guaranteed their personal safety, and granted assistance to rebuild their homes as speedily as possible. In this regard, I am encouraged by the commitment made by the Kosovo Assembly to establish a fund for the reconstruction of homes, churches, and other property destroyed during the March attacks. Fourth, the United Nations should undertake a review of the structure and organization of UNMIK. Fifth, the authorities in Pristina and Belgrade should reinvigorate and intensify their dialogue. A resolution submitted by my good friend from Ohio, Senator Voinovich, and of which I am an original co-sponsor, makes many of these points. I would add a few more important policy recommendations. The so-called ``benchmarks'' established by UNMIK must be reviewed. I have supported the policy of ``standards before status'' whereby Kosovo must fulfill rigorous goals before the province's final status is considered. I still believe that, in general, this is the correct course. The precipitous calls by some people for abandonment of the benchmarks and rapid independence for Kosovo would, I believe, be a cure worse than the disease. The international community simply cannot reward murder and violence. ``Riots before status'' is not the answer. Nonetheless, I believe that the UNMIK benchmarks have been too elaborately constructed. Few countries could completely fulfill their requirements. In the wake of the violence, the benchmarks should be streamlined and prioritized, with emphasis given to personal security, minority rights, and some kind of decentralization of government, although not the apartheid-like ``cantonization'' being demanded by politicians in Serbia. If by the middle of 2005 the benchmarks on personal security and minority rights can be completely fulfilled, and significant progress made on the other benchmarks, then discussion of final status for Kosovo can begin. We should do our best to strengthen the moderates in Kosovo and Serbia, but there are, unfortunately, very few such ``good guys'' on the political scene in Pristina and Belgrade. Short-term political expediency seems to trump principle, despite the occasional lofty sounding speeches. Most Kosovar Albanian leaders hesitated before publicly condemning the ethnic violence, Prime Minister Rexhepi being a very positive and conspicuous exception. General Ceku's call for restraint on the part of members of the Kosovo Protection Corps was also helpful. In the future, all Kosovar leaders must get the message that rewards will flow to those who genuinely try to build a peaceful, democratic, multi-ethnic society. It would be easier to be sympathetic to the cries from Belgrade to defend and give special rights to the Kosovo Serbs if Serbian politicians had not been so demagogically nationalistic in the weeks and months prior to the violence. The new Serbian Government led by Prime Minister Kostunica seems hell-bent on insulting the very international community that it needs for support in the Kosovo question, and in other matters. Above all, the Kostunica administration has repeatedly thumbed its nose at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. In a speech in late February, Kostunica himself candidly explained: ``This country is not a simple deliverer of human goods to The Hague tribunal.'' No political campaign can justify this kind of know-nothing jingoism. Then just last Tuesday the Serbian Parliament outdid even Kostunica's blustering when it voted by a wide margin to pay all Serbian war crimes indictees at ICTY ``compensation for lost salaries, plus help for spouses, siblings, parents, and children for flight and hotel costs, telephone and mail bills, visa fees, and legal charges.'' The measure was supported by deputies from the parties of ultra-nationalist Vojislav Seselj and of Milosevic. Both these gentlemen, of course, are currently residing in prison in The Hague. The party of Prime Minister Kostunica joined in voting for this measure, which, were it not so grotesque, might almost be labeled comic opera. As long as up to 16 indictees, including three former Serbian generals, are openly living in Serbia, and the ``butcher of Bosnia,'' former General Ratko Mladic, is also probably there, the Serbian Government cannot expect much international support. The U.S. Government has just announced that it is suspending all economic assistance not used for democratizing purposes because of Belgrade's unsatisfactory level of compliance with ICTY, and until it cooperates fully, Serbia will not be allowed to join NATO's Partnership for Peace. We can take some solace in the opposition to the Serbian Parliament's resolution by a few smaller parties, including that of Defense Minister Boris Tadic, a genuine democrat and man of principle. During the Kosovo violence, Tadic, who has carried out a vigorous reform of the Serbian military and security services, proved that he has instituted civilian control by keeping the lid on hotheads calling for intervention, reportedly in cooperation with U.S. Admiral Gregory Johnson, NATO's AFSOUTH Commander. There is a chance that later this year Mr. Tadic may run for President of Serbia against a candidate of Seselj's party. In order to get Kosovo back onto the right path, the U.S. Government must alter its policy. And make no mistake about it: Kosovo matters. It matters to the people of Kosovo. It matters to the people of Serbia. It matters to the stability of the entire area of the former Yugoslavia. It matters to the Balkans, since Serbia is the key to regional stability, and because the fate of Kosovo directly impacts ethnic Albanians in neighboring Albania, in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, in southern Serbia, and in Montenegro. In that context, Kosovo matters to the security of all of Europe and, hence, to the security of the United States of America. One thing is crystal clear: the Bush administration can no longer afford to relegate Kosovo, Serbia and Montenegro, and Macedonia to the back burner of its international concerns. The administration has been living in an ideologically driven dreamworld in which victory in the Balkans was prematurely declared in order to get on with perceived higher priorities like national missile defense. Lest anyone think I am criticizing the focus on the war on terrorism in Central Asia and the Middle East, I am not. As early as the fall 2000 election campaign--nearly one year before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001--Presidential candidate George W. Bush announced that he would unilaterally withdraw U.S. ground forces from the NATO-led peacekeeping operations in Bosnia and Kosovo. His future National Security Advisor Dr. Rice echoed this misguided notion in a newspaper interview. The following spring, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, flying in the face of all objective evidence, declared that the problem of Bosnia had been settled three or four years earlier. Even in this body resolutions for withdrawal of U.S. forces were periodically submitted, but, I am happy to say, rejected. Now we are waging war, attempting to quell resistance movements in Afghanistan and Iraq. We all know that our armed forces are stretched perilously thin, and obviously some troop adjustments have had to be made. U.S. forces in Bosnia have been reduced to little more than one thousand, or about 5 percent of their initial strength. Later this year NATO will turn over command of SFOR to the European Union, although some American troops will remain at our base in Tuzla, at the request of the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Let me repeat that for my colleagues: the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina, with the representatives of all three major groups--the Bosnian Muslims, Serbs, and Croats--concurring, requested that American troops stay on in Bosnia after the EU takes command of the peacekeeping force. The fact is that the United States has stature unequaled in that part of the world perhaps even higher in Kosovo than in Bosnia. As in SFOR, we have drastically reduced our troop strength in KFOR. Given the events of the past few weeks, we dare not reduce it further. KFOR troops played a key role in quelling the Kosovo violence. I am told that of the various national contingents, American KFOR troops especially distinguished themselves. Further proof of the Bush administration's downgrading the importance of the region was its abolishing the position of Special Coordinator for the Balkans. This position should be reinstated and filled by a senior career diplomat with extensive experience in Balkan affairs. This new Special Coordinator should immediately engage the political leadership in Pristina and Belgrade in serious dialogue. I do not want to pre-judge what the final international legal status of Kosovo will be, although I cannot imagine that Kosovo will ever revert to direct control from Belgrade. Whatever the end result, direct negotiations between Pristina and Belgrade must be an integral part of the process. No other path would stand the test of time. The United States was Serbia's ally in two world wars in the first half of the twentieth century. The United States is revered by Kosovar Albanians as their savior from the recent tyranny of Slobodan Milosevic. We have earned a credibility that no other country, or group of countries, possesses. This administration should utilize this unique position, in coordination with other members of the contact group, to jumpstart the process of creating a safe, prosperous, democratic, multi-ethnic Kosovo.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am very pleased to recommend that the United States Senate give its advice and consent to ratification of the Additional Safeguards Protocol between the United States and the International Atomic Energy Agency, the IAEA. Ratification of the Additional Protocol will make a real contribution to U.S. nuclear non- proliferation efforts, and it will do so without putting at risk any sensitive national security information. As my colleagues surely know, the Additional Protocol is an outgrowth of the world's discovery in 1991 that Iraq had come perilously close to developing a nuclear weapon, without the IAEA realizing it. One reason for Iraq's near-success was that the IAEA was allowed to inspect only those facilities that Iraq declared to it. If a uranium enrichment facility was across the hall from a declared facility--and in some cases it was about that bad--the IAEA had no mandate to inspect it. We, the world, and the IAEA itself realized that a revised safeguards regime was needed. The Additional Protocol that was developed to address this concern requires a signatory to provide yearly reports covering more nuclear facilities than those included in the declarations required by the so- called ``comprehensive'' safeguards agreements that have defined the IAEA's role in recent decades. It also allows the IAEA to inspect non- declared facilities, if the organization believes that illegal nuclear activities may be taking place there. This is a significant expansion of IAEA inspection rights, and it's something that the United States rightly wants to be adopted by all the non-nuclear weapons states under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (the NPT). The United States, as a recognized nuclear weapons state under the NPT, is not required to provide information to the IAEA or to accept IAEA inspections. In 1967, however, when the NPT was being negotiated, President Lyndon Baines Johnson announced that the United States would voluntarily submit to safeguards on nuclear materials. He did this to assuage the concerns of non-nuclear weapons states that feared that the five nuclear weapons states would otherwise enjoy an unfair commercial advantage regarding their nuclear power industries. Accordingly, a U.S.-IAEA safeguards agreement, also known as the ``Voluntary Offer,'' has been in place since 1980. Truth be told, this Voluntary Offer is more symbolic than real; until 1994, the IAEA only applied safeguards to two commercial power reactors and two fuel fabrication facilities in the United States, from a list of 250 eligible facilities. In recent years, it has inspected only sites for which the United States requested inspections, like the site where we store the highly enriched uranium we removed from Kazakhstan. Our willingness to accept IAEA safeguards helped to secure the world's agreement to the NPT. Similarly, our stated willingness to accept the Additional Protocol was crucial to gaining the world's agreement, in 1995, to the indefinite extension of the NPT. And our ratification of the Additional Protocol will strengthen our ability to convince more non-nuclear weapons states to sign their own additional protocols. When the Additional Protocol enters into force, the United States will submit additional information on civil nuclear facilities on an annual basis and identify additional civilian facilities, a small number of which might someday be inspected. All implementation activities under the Additional Protocol will be subject to a ``National Security Exclusion,'' however, that will allow our Government to exclude the application of the Additional Protocol wherever it would result in ``access by the Agency to activities with direct national security significance to the United States or to locations or information associated with such activities.'' Just as under the Voluntary Offer, the United States will retain the trump card of not declaring a facility, not submitting certain information, or denying or halting an inspection if our national security interests come into play. If we decide to permit an IAEA inspection, we will also have the right to employ ``managed access'' to protect national security information. (All countries will have the right to use managed access to protect confidential business information; because the United States is a recognized nuclear weapons state, we will have the right to use managed access more broadly.) The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has looked carefully at how our special rights would be invoked and whether sensitive facilities will be prepared to accept an IAEA inspection if the President or the interagency process decides to permit that inspection. We are satisfied that a Federal agency with a legitimate national security concern will have no difficulty ensuring that sensitive information is protected. The resolution of ratification that the Committee recommends will ensure that the U.S.-IAEA Additional Protocol does not enter into force until the President certifies that all the necessary regulations will be in place and all the necessary site vulnerability assessments will have been completed within 180 days of entry into force. (No reporting to the IAEA is required until 180 days after entry into force, so no inspections of newly-declared facilities would occur before then.) The resolution of ratification also addresses the protection of classified and proprietary information, the addition or deletion of locations from U.S. reports to the IAEA, U.S. intent to use its special rights as a nuclear weapons state under the NPT, and the adoption of subsidiary arrangements or amendments under the Additional Protocol. In short, the Committee has covered all the bases to ensure that adoption of the Additional Protocol will support our nuclear non-proliferation policy without endangering sensitive national security information. The resolution of ratification also calls for annual reports on U.S. efforts to get all the non-nuclear weapon states to adopt additional protocols and on U.S. help to the IAEA to conduct effective inspections. Those are important efforts that every member of this body should support. For all the difficulties it faces in gaining access to sites of concern, the IAEA has shown a real determination to get into those sites. Getting more states to sign and implement additional protocols will help the IAEA to gain that access. And once they get in, IAEA inspectors have shown a real ability to uncover information that rogue states thought they had concealed. But they are vitally dependent upon member states--and especially the United States--for the equipment and training that enable them to know what to look for and how to detect it in a manner that is scientifically valid, maximizes detection capabilities, and preserves a chain of custody so as to leave no doubt about the validity of their analysis. U.S. ratification of our Additional Protocol is only one step among many that are needed to make nuclear non-proliferation work. Even to bring the Additional Protocol into force, we will then need to enact implementing legislation; the Executive branch will then have to promulgate appropriate regulations; and preparations for possible IAEA inspections will have to be completed. In addition, the United States must marshal all its foreign policy tools to move states of concern away from nuclear weapons and to foster further international cooperation on non-proliferation. Some good work has been done in recent months. Libya signed an agreement with the United States and the United Kingdom to give up its weapons of mass destruction and long-range ballistic missile programs. The Proliferation Security Initiative was created and cooperating states agreed to coordinate their interdiction efforts while adhering to international law. The permanent members of the United Nations Security Council agreed on a draft resolution to bar proliferation to non-state entities. At the same time, however, much remains to be done. For example, North Korea continues to move toward having a large enough nuclear arsenal that it might contemplate using it, or even selling or giving away some of its nuclear weapons or fissile material. Meanwhile, although we have engaged in six-party talks that included North Korea, both we and the North Koreans have yet to give our negotiators the authority to get down to business and discuss a phased agreement under which North Korea would gradually dismantle all its nuclear weapons and long-range ballistic missile programs, in return for various security assurances and diplomatic or economic benefits. So nothing significant has yet been achieved on the diplomatic front, while the clock keeps ticking on the nuclear weapons front. And we face the risk that South Korea, a crucial player on this issue, will develop a policy that is at odds with ours. The situation regarding Iran is also difficult, although much has been achieved in the last year. Exposure of Iran's two decades of lying and deception regarding its nuclear activities has led Iran to sign the Additional Protocol and to permit IAEA inspections that have proven quite embarrassing to Iran. Pursuant to an agreement with the foreign ministers of the United Kingdom, France and Germany, Iran has also agreed to suspend all its uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities. Iran has tried to backtrack on its commitments, and I personally have no confidence that Iran has come clean on its nuclear weapons efforts. So we must continue to press Iran to realize that its national interest will best be served by rejecting nuclear weapons. We must work to maintain solidarity with our European allies, with the Russian Federation, with Japan, and with the IAEA to send the message that Iran's real choice is between international acceptance and world rejection. I don't think that Iran wants to become another North Korea. We must make clear that the path of nuclear weapons can lead only to such a fate, and also that the path of non-proliferation will lead to a better future for Iran and all of its people. We must also work to make the international nuclear non-proliferation regime still more effective. One element of the NPT is a promise to non-nuclear weapons states that, in return for forswearing nuclear weapons, they will enjoy the benefits of peaceful nuclear technology. That bargain has become frayed. Iran, Iraq and North Korea have all used their ostensibly civilian facilities to mask covert weapons programs. In Iran and North Korea, we were at least able to sound the alarm. Both states had secret efforts to produce weapons-grade plutonium and highly enriched uranium and were caught. In Iraq, however, absent the Gulf War of 1991, Saddam Hussein might have obtained highly enriched uranium without anybody realizing it. A smarter state, using a civilian program as the rationale, could build uranium enrichment facilities, spent fuel reprocessing cells, and the like--and properly report these efforts to the IAEA. It could acquire weapons-grade plutonium or highly enriched uranium, and place the material under IAEA safeguards. In other words, it could become a potential nuclear weapons power without violating safeguards. Then it could withdraw from the NPT, and develop and assemble nuclear weapons in a short time. That's the challenge we need to address. How do we counter not just states that do things in a ham-handed manner, but states that skillfully exploit the loopholes of the NPT? The Additional Protocol can help make it much harder to hide a covert nuclear program, if we persuade the rest of the world to sign such protocols as well. But how can we combat the ``breakout'' scenario? One idea gaining currency is to allow non-nuclear weapons states to continue to possess civilian nuclear programs, but not a closed nuclear fuel cycle. A state could have civilian nuclear reactors to produce electrical power, but must import the nuclear reactor fuel and return any spent fuel. This would ensure that a state did not obtain fissile material needed for a nuclear weapon. IAEA Director General Mohammed El-Baradei would allow only multinational facilities to produce and process nuclear fuels, and give legitimate end-users assured access to these fuels at reasonable rates. Gen. Brent Scowcroft and Dr. William Perry recently endorsed this proposal, adding that states that refuse this bargain should be subject to sanctions. President Bush has not endorsed multinational facilities, but called upon members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group to refuse to export enrichment and reprocessing equipment to any state that does not already possess full scale enrichment and reprocessing plants. Any agreement on revising the nuclear non-proliferation regime will be difficult to achieve. Non-nuclear weapons states will ask what they will get for surrendering a well established right. States with nuclear fuel industries may worry that they will go out of business if only a few multinational facilities are allowed to operate enrichment and reprocessing activities. But the United States and other concerned states should set a goal of reaching a consensus in time for next year's NPT Review Conference. We have a window of opportunity, and we should use it. There is another bargain central to the NPT, one that this administration largely prefers to ignore. In return for forswearing nuclear weapons, non-nuclear weapons states received a commitment from the five permanent nuclear powers, reaffirmed as recently as 2000, to seek eventual nuclear disarmament. Nobody, including me, expects the United States to give up its nuclear deterrent any time in the foreseeable future. But the administration's drive to research and possibly produce new nuclear weapons--including low-yield nukes--is a step in the wrong direction. It signals to the rest of the world that even the preeminent global power needs new nuclear weapons to assure its own security. The administration threatens to take another backward step on a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty. An FMCT has been a U.S. objective for eight years, and this administration castigated other countries for preventing negotiations from starting. Now that there is a chance of success, however, the administration says that we may refuse to negotiate. This only undermines solidarity with our allies, which have worked for years to help us convince other countries to negotiate. For all the flaws of the NPT, it is an essential treaty. It has been vital to encouraging states like Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, South Africa, Brazil and Argentina to end their nuclear weapons programs. The United States must work to improve the nuclear non-proliferation regime, and it must also do all that it can to abide by the bargains between the nuclear ``haves'' and the nuclear ``have nots'' that underlie world willingness to eschew the most awesome and awful weapons mankind has ever invented. In conclusion, I want to congratulate and thank my chairman, Senator Dick Lugar, for his fine leadership in bringing this resolution of ratification to fruition. It was not an easy task, and he demonstrated exceptional leadership. I am grateful also to our staffs, especially Ken Myers, III and Thomas Moore on the majority side, and Edward Levine and Jofi Joseph on the Democratic side. Finally, I want to commend the interagency committee that worked with us, and especially Ms. Susan Koch of the National Security Council staff. She is a real professional, and we would not have gotten to this day without her.