Joe Biden

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I voted against this bill today because I would never do anything that risks the future of Medicare, and I fear this bill takes the first steps toward the breakup of the traditional Medicare Program. In addition, this administration's misplaced priorities put enormous tax cuts first and left us little room to provide the comprehensive and fair drug benefit that seniors deserve. We should have done this right and provided a better drug benefit without jeopardizing the Medicare Program that has given seniors health security for 38 years. My vote today was one of the more difficult decisions I have faced in my Senate career. For starters, let me note that not all of this bill is bad. Some people will get help with their drug costs. We in Delaware are fortunate to already benefit from unique programs that have long helped low-income seniors with their prescription drug costs, and this bill should build upon that foundation. It also offers some coverage to many middle class seniors and disabled citizens. All in all, these aspects of this bill are not enormously different from those in the Senate-passed bill that I voted for earlier this year. This bill also includes sorely needed payment adjustments for hospitals, doctors, and other health care providers, which will ensure that Medicare patients get quality care and continued access to important medical services. On the downside, however, this legislation still has a large gap in coverage--forced by budget constraints--in which the Government provides no subsidy for prescription drugs. I know that many people will find this gap confusing, disappointing, and burdensome. I am also very concerned that this bill does not sufficiently protect millions of retirees who currently receive good health care benefits from their former employers. If we had done this the right way, we would have held back on some of the excessive tax cuts pushed through over the last three years and allocated more of our resources to meeting our obligation to provide a complete prescription drug benefit. Instead, the administration's misplaced priorities tied our hands. If this legislation were just limited to the prescription drug benefit and the provider payment modifications, it would probably have my vote as being about as good as could be done under the current budget circumstances. But I have very serious concerns about other provisions tacked onto this bill that will take the Medicare Program and the health care benefits for 40 million Americans into uncharted and hazardous waters. This bill takes the first step toward monumental changes in the very foundation of how Medicare operates, beginning a push toward the breakup of the entire program. The strength of the Medicare system has been its broad coverage, its simplicity, and the open choices patients enjoy. This bill sets in motion a new system that could tear down each of these advantages. On balance I cannot support this legislation. To me, the negative features have such damaging potential that they overwhelm the benefits. Had the negotiations on this bill been done in the open, with the full participation of both parties, I think we could have crafted a better bill. I cannot vote for a bill that sets us on the path toward undermining the traditional Medicare Program that has worked so well for decades.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, it is with tremendous pride that I rise today to commemorate that after 213 years, Delaware's original copy of Bill of Rights ratified in 1790, is returning home. This is a story steeped in history, mixed with some modern-day political negotiations--worth celebrating. While Delaware holds the distinction as the first State to ratify the Constitution, on December 7, 1787, it was the sixth State to ratify the Bill of Rights--on January 28, 1790. The two signors of this historic document were Jehu Davis and George Mitchell. And they were quite efficient. Instead of drafting a separate letter, as most States did, to notify Congress of Delaware's ratification of the Bill of Rights, they simply penned their signatures on the Bill of Rights document and returned it whole cloth to Congress. Thus, Delaware had no copy of what Davis and Mitchell signed. The National Archives, to its immense credit, conserved Delaware's original copy of the Bill of Rights in pristine condition for more than two centuries. However, two years ago Delaware's Public Archives, State House Majority Leader Wayne Smith, and the Delaware General Assembly asked the congressional delegation to help negotiate the return of our Bill of Rights document. We all agreed that this historic document should be displayed for all to see in Delaware, not stored in the basement of the National Archives in Washington, DC. The National Archives is, justifiably, quite protective of its documents. Suffice to say that it took ten months of negotiations, meetings, letters and conference calls to come to terms on an agreement that returns this document to Delaware, while retaining the National Archives legal and preservation rights to it. Starting this December 7, on my State's 216th birthday, its original Bill of Rights will be on display for all to see. It will be on view at our new, state-of-the-art Public Archives Building in Dover, DE. And that is exactly where this document belongs--on public display where school students and adults alike can appreciate its historic significance. We should all be proud of this accomplishment because it's part of our history. The Bill of Rights is a symbol of who we are and the values we hold dear. It ties us to our past and reminds us of those principles that will guide us into the future.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, one of the greatest challenges we face today is how to address the needs of failed states--or countries that are on the verge of becoming failed states--and how to rebuild post- conflict countries. It is a critical issue, and one that we cannot afford to get wrong--for the sake of the people living in those nations, and for the sake of our own security. Last January, a bipartisan commission organized by the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Association of the U.S. Army found to no one's surprise that ``failed states matter--for national security as well as for humanitarian reasons. If left to their own devices, such states can become sanctuaries for terrorist networks, organized crime and drug traffickers, as well as posing grave humanitarian challenges and threats to regional stability.'' The most obvious case in point is the reconstruction of Iraq. I've spent many hours on this floor making clear that we have to get it right in Iraq. And in addition to Iraq, unfortunately, we can talk about many other states that are either unstable, or are tenuously recovering from past conflicts including Liberia, Afghanistan, East Timor, Kosovo, Bosnia, Haiti, and Somalia. We need comprehensive strategies to address the many needs in rebuilding all of these struggling countries. A significant component of reconstruction, in my view, is to tap into the store of human as well as financial resources here in the United States. We should allow, and indeed encourage, immigrants from post- conflict countries to use their skills, talents,and knowledge to be part of the efforts to rebuild. In fact, the diaspora presents one of the best collective resources that exists: these people know the communities. They know the culture. They know the language--more than any contractors, more than any humanitarian workers from the outside, no matter how well-trained, no matter how much expertise they may have. So today, Mr. President, I am introducing legislation creating a visa ``Return of Talent'' program. The idea is simple: a Return of Talent program would allow legal immigrants in the United States to return home to help with reconstruction. ``Legal Permanent Residents'' will be able to return temporarily to their countries after a conflict to help rebuild, without their time out of the United States affecting their ability to meet their requirements for U.S. citizenship. Under current law, a Legal Permanent Resident who want to apply for U.S. citizenship is required to be physically present in the United States for at least half of the five years immediately preceding the date of filing the naturalization application. This residency requirement could be particularly difficult to meet for those who may have family and friends at home who are in desperate need of help. We should not stand in their way of going home, holding over them their hope for citizenship here in the United States. We should be helping them bring their talent and expertise home, helping them help their country of origin at a time of greatest need. Recent press articles have highlighted stories of such indivduals-- engineers, bankers, teachers and translators--who are willing to contribute to reconstruction efforts. They simply cannot do so without jeopardizing their immigration status. This legislation would encourage those skilled and committed individuals to return to their countries of origin to revive the business, industry, agriculture, education and other sectors that have been weakened or destroyed after years of conflict. The Return of Talent program would include any individual who demonstrates an ability and willingness to make a material contribution to the post-conflict reconstruction in their countries of origin. The program would apply to immigrants from countries where U.S. armed forces are, or have engaged in the past ten years, in armed conflict or peacekeeping, or to immigrants who are from countries where the United Nations Security Council has authorized peacekeeping operations in the past ten years. Estimates of individuals who could participate in this program are relatively low. For example, the United States admitted 1,764 Afghani and 5,196 Iraqi immigrants in 2002, and similar levels since 1992, who are not Legal Permanent Residents eligible to pursue U.S. citizenship. Yet, while the program would have a small impact on the U.S. naturalization process, the contributions of even a few hundred individuals could have a tremendous positive effect on post-conflict reconstruction work. In simple terms, a Return of Talent program makes sense. Everybody wins: The United States is able to support rebuilding efforts; immigrants are able to use their skills and resources to help rebuild their communities without jeopardizing their immigration status; and post-conflict countries, and the people in them, receive much-needed assistance. We have not done enough in Iraq, Afghanistan and many other countries that are--or are on the verge of becoming--failed states. As the ``Winning the Peace'' report also states, ``Despite over a decade of recent experience in trying to address the challenges of . . . rebuilding countries following conflict, U.S. capacity of addressing these challenges remains woefully inadequate.'' A Return of Talent program is an important piece of our overall strategy to stabilize and rebuild countries torn by conflict. I urge my colleagues to support his legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, one of the greatest challenges we face today is how to address the needs of failed states--or countries that are on the verge of becoming failed states--and how to rebuild post- conflict countries. It is a critical issue, and one that we cannot afford to get wrong--for the sake of the people living in those nations, and for the sake of our own security. Last January, a bipartisan commission organized by the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Association of the U.S. Army found to no one's surprise that ``failed states matter--for national security as well as for humanitarian reasons. If left to their own devices, such states can become sanctuaries for terrorist networks, organized crime and drug traffickers, as well as posing grave humanitarian challenges and threats to regional stability.'' The most obvious case in point is the reconstruction of Iraq. I've spent many hours on this floor making clear that we have to get it right in Iraq. And in addition to Iraq, unfortunately, we can talk about many other states that are either unstable, or are tenuously recovering from past conflicts including Liberia, Afghanistan, East Timor, Kosovo, Bosnia, Haiti, and Somalia. We need comprehensive strategies to address the many needs in rebuilding all of these struggling countries. A significant component of reconstruction, in my view, is to tap into the store of human as well as financial resources here in the United States. We should allow, and indeed encourage, immigrants from post- conflict countries to use their skills, talents,and knowledge to be part of the efforts to rebuild. In fact, the diaspora presents one of the best collective resources that exists: these people know the communities. They know the culture. They know the language--more than any contractors, more than any humanitarian workers from the outside, no matter how well-trained, no matter how much expertise they may have. So today, Mr. President, I am introducing legislation creating a visa ``Return of Talent'' program. The idea is simple: a Return of Talent program would allow legal immigrants in the United States to return home to help with reconstruction. ``Legal Permanent Residents'' will be able to return temporarily to their countries after a conflict to help rebuild, without their time out of the United States affecting their ability to meet their requirements for U.S. citizenship. Under current law, a Legal Permanent Resident who want to apply for U.S. citizenship is required to be physically present in the United States for at least half of the five years immediately preceding the date of filing the naturalization application. This residency requirement could be particularly difficult to meet for those who may have family and friends at home who are in desperate need of help. We should not stand in their way of going home, holding over them their hope for citizenship here in the United States. We should be helping them bring their talent and expertise home, helping them help their country of origin at a time of greatest need. Recent press articles have highlighted stories of such indivduals-- engineers, bankers, teachers and translators--who are willing to contribute to reconstruction efforts. They simply cannot do so without jeopardizing their immigration status. This legislation would encourage those skilled and committed individuals to return to their countries of origin to revive the business, industry, agriculture, education and other sectors that have been weakened or destroyed after years of conflict. The Return of Talent program would include any individual who demonstrates an ability and willingness to make a material contribution to the post-conflict reconstruction in their countries of origin. The program would apply to immigrants from countries where U.S. armed forces are, or have engaged in the past ten years, in armed conflict or peacekeeping, or to immigrants who are from countries where the United Nations Security Council has authorized peacekeeping operations in the past ten years. Estimates of individuals who could participate in this program are relatively low. For example, the United States admitted 1,764 Afghani and 5,196 Iraqi immigrants in 2002, and similar levels since 1992, who are not Legal Permanent Residents eligible to pursue U.S. citizenship. Yet, while the program would have a small impact on the U.S. naturalization process, the contributions of even a few hundred individuals could have a tremendous positive effect on post-conflict reconstruction work. In simple terms, a Return of Talent program makes sense. Everybody wins: The United States is able to support rebuilding efforts; immigrants are able to use their skills and resources to help rebuild their communities without jeopardizing their immigration status; and post-conflict countries, and the people in them, receive much-needed assistance. We have not done enough in Iraq, Afghanistan and many other countries that are--or are on the verge of becoming--failed states. As the ``Winning the Peace'' report also states, ``Despite over a decade of recent experience in trying to address the challenges of . . . rebuilding countries following conflict, U.S. capacity of addressing these challenges remains woefully inadequate.'' A Return of Talent program is an important piece of our overall strategy to stabilize and rebuild countries torn by conflict. I urge my colleagues to support his legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, for our national security, for our economic future, for the health of our environment, our country needs an effective, comprehensive national energy policy. We must free ourselves from dependence on foreign sources of energy. We must leave behind costly, inefficient energy practices and invest in cutting-edge technologies that will keep our economy the most productive in the world. And we must protect and heal the natural environment that we will leave to our children and grandchildren. The legislation before us fails to meet those needs. When I, and 83 other Senators, voted for the Energy Policy Act on July 31, it was very a different piece of legislation. Unfortunately, the bill has been drastically changed since then. Without sufficient discussion and input from our side of the aisle, unacceptable parts were added to this legislation and crucial parts were taken away. We have been left with a bloated symbol of lost opportunity. I cannot support it. This is not a trivial matter. This bill would set our energy policy for the next 10 years; we must get it right. Consider how things have changed since we last enacted an energy policy in 1992 and what new challenges we will face in the next 10 years. Cracks in our energy policy, both in infrastructure and regulation, have become evident in the last few years. They have been most clearly shown during the Enron scandal and the August blackout in the Northeast and Midwest. These were clear signals of serious problems in the current system. Sixty million people were affected by the blackout, and it cost New York City alone $1 billion. This should have been a call to action, but it was not. This bill fails to address the weaknesses in our electrical grid that were exposed over the summer. The Federal Energy Regulation Commission is prohibited in this bill, until 2007, from reforming the national power grid through mandating Regional Transmission Organizations, which would be necessary to ensure that further blackouts don't occur. This legislation also requires those who want to construct a Regional Transmission Organization to foot the full bill themselves, basically guaranteeing that it won't happen. I have received complaints from the Public Service Commission in Delaware on this very provision. As our colleagues from the West Coast have reminded us so forcefully, Enron-style energy market manipulation was a major force in undermining the energy system in that part of the country. But this bill does not close the loopholes, with cute names like ``Fatboy'' and ``Get Shorty,'' that allowed Enron to inflate their profits, and that directly caused some of the disruptive and costly power shortages. The bill also rescinds the Public Utility Holding Company Act without providing an adequate replacement. PUHCA has for decades protected energy customers from energy corporations, like Enron, who might undertake predatory actions or make risky acquisitions or mergers. The repeal of this legislation leaves consumers holding the bag if a power company loses money on a non-energy investment. They could just put it on their customers' electric bills. Not only does this bill not address the problems of the past, it doesn't plan at all for the future. Our reliance on oil and gas today is inescapable, but the need to move toward something better is undeniable. We will invest billions of taxpayer dollars in this bill for a resource that can't possibly sustain us. Our dependence on oil ties us to internal politics of unstable countries around the world. It condemns us to unsustainable levels of pollution. It should not be a very radical idea to suggest that we need to shift the type of energy that we use in this country. We consume almost 25 percent of the world's daily production of oil, though we hold only 3 percent of the world's oil reserves. This is a deficit that we will pay for with lack of control over our own economy and security. We are bound to the price fixing of Middle East suppliers and unrest in South America and the states of the former Soviet Union, and we will continue to be unless we invest in alternate sources of energy and curb the rate at which we consume. Unfortunately, this bill takes no major steps toward these goals. In fact, the conference refused to include renewable portfolio standards, supported by 52 Senators, which would have required utilities to generate 10 percent of their electricity from renewable energy sources by 2020. To deal with our dependence on fossil fuels, we must address both supply and demand. But this bill fails to provide us with a sensible energy conservation program. It doesn't address the need to improve fuel efficiency in our cars and trucks. In that regard, we can now count China among the countries with more foresight than this legislation provides on the issue of automobile efficiency. And this bill simply dropped a measure, accepted 99 to 1 by the Senate, that would have instructed the President to reduce our daily oil consumption by a little more than 5 percent by 2013. Instead of a forward-looking policy on energy, this bill has been turned into a vehicle to undermine our Nation's environmental laws to the benefit of fossil fuel producers. The bill spends $1.8 billion in taxpayer dollars for the purchase of conventional coal-burning technologies, which reduces future demand for ``clean-coal.'' At the same time, subsidies to promote the cleanest coal technologies have been cut by 20 percent. It rolls back provisions of the Clean Air Act, by allowing communities to bypass compliance deadlines on ozone attainment standards if they can prove that some of the pollution drifts into their area from upwind locations. Unfortunately, almost all communities with poor air quality can meet this test. The result is a significant weakening of the Clean Air Act and a slap in the face to cities, like Wilmington, DE, who have met clean air standards despite dealing with upwind pollution. This is not only an environmental problem. Currently, 130 million Americans are living in areas that don't comply with the air quality standards, and non-compliance has been linked to an increased occurrence of respiratory problems. A group of health organizations including Physicians for Social Responsibility and the American Lung Association have estimated that this rollback would cause more than 385,000 asthma attacks and nearly 5,000 hospital admissions per year. The Clean Water Act has likewise been weakened. Oil and gas drilling sites are exempted in this bill from run-off compliance, and hydraulic fracturing, an oil and gas recovery technique, has been completely removed from regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. These are two major changes, but there are other assaults on the environment. For instance, royalties charged to oil and gas recovery units on public land were reduced; offshore oil drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf was authorized; and, a Senate-approved provision, authorizing research on global climate change, was eliminated. This bill prefers ignorance to understanding when it comes to the most important environmental issues that our planet faces today. And, in perhaps the most transparent concession to special interests, this bill not only waives liability, retroactively to September 5, for those who have produced the toxic substance, MTBE, that is polluting our ground water supply, but it grants its manufacturers $2 billion in transition funds and doesn't ban the additive until 2014, a provision which can be easily waived by the President or any Governor. This leaves those affected communities with a $29 billion clean up tab. But, that is not the only tab that this bill leaves with the American people. It leaves us to pay $25 billion, mostly in pork, almost half in backward-looking tax breaks to fossil fuel producers. That is simply too much to be spent on a bad idea. This is not a roadmap, a vision on the horizon, to guide us for the next decade. This bill fails to give us the comprehensive energy policy our Nation needs in this new century. It does nothing to free us from our dangerous dependence on fossil fuels. It does not set a clear course toward cleaner, more efficient technologies. And it fails to protect our environment. In too many ways it has sacrificed the long-term interests that we all share for shortsighted special interests. We can, we must do better.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I feel like I am part of New Jersey. The Senator from New Jersey is--I don't want to hurt his reputation--my closest ally in the Senate. We share a common border. Although I always kid him, as big as New Jersey is, the Delaware River is owned by the State of Delaware up to the high river mark in New Jersey. It is one of our claims to fame. We literally lap upon New Jersey's shore. But I thank him. I will be very brief.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I rise today to congratulate French President Jacques Chirac for having taken resolute steps to stop attacks on Jewish sites in France and, more broadly, to address some of the causes of anti-Semitism among Muslim youths in that country. As you know, Madam President, France has a large Muslim minority population. In the past, I have been strongly critical of President Chirac, the French, and other Europeans for not having been sufficiently attentive to the cancer of anti-Semitism that still exists in Europe, and in the United States to some extent. Some have ignored the insidious way criticism of some Israeli policies has been conflated into pure anti-Semitism. Others have shied away from meeting the problem head on because of fears of provoking more violence in Europe. Still others have refrained from speaking out for fear of alienating domestic electoral constituencies. Whatever their motives, until recently, precious few European leaders have demonstrated very much leadership with regard to combatting anti- Semitism, which is on the rise. Last Saturday, a Jewish school near Paris was destroyed by an arson attack. Two days later, President Chirac convened a meeting attended by Prime Minister Raffarin and other top officials to react to this latest outrage. The result of the meeting, as reported in the New York Times, was a package of measures including beefed-up policing and prosecution of anti-Semitic violence, and also an earmark of nearly $8 billion worth of investment in urban renewal to clean up neighborhoods that breed Islamic fundamentalism. President Chirac was quoted as saying: ``Anti-Semitism is contrary to all the values of France,'' and that Jewish Frenchmen and Frenchwomen are at home in France just as are all other groups. Last month, the Committee on Foreign Relations held a hearing on anti-Semitism in Europe, which revealed the shocking extent of the problem. Recent public opinion polls in Europe have confirmed our hearing's testimony. One of the most important weapons in the fight against anti-Semitism is political leadership. Or as Justice Holmes said: The best disinfectant is the light of day. The best disinfectant is light, and shedding light on the anti-Semitism in Europe, and criticizing it, can only be done effectively by Europe's political leadership. France's measures are, to be sure, only a beginning of a long struggle to eradicate this disease from the European body politic. I have been critical in the past when European leaders have not responded. Now President Chirac should be complimented for having had the courage to forcefully show the way. He deserves credit, and I hope it is the beginning of a process. (The remarks of Mr. Biden pertaining to the submission of S. Con. Res. 82 and S. Con. Res. 83 are printed in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I thank my friend from New Jersey. We use that phrase very loosely around here, but he is my friend, and I thank him for his courtesy. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN. I thank the Senator. (The remarks of Mr. Lautenberg pertaining to the introduction of S. 1882 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of the centenary celebration of Ralph Bunche's birth Ralph Bunche was an extraordinary man whose success was a definitive accomplishment in the history of America. His grandmother was born into slavery. His father was a barber in a shop for whites only. His mother was a musician. When his mother and father died his grandmother took him to California where her influence and the perspective she gave him on life and liberty shaped his future and, to some extent, the history of the Nation. He was a brilliant man, a musician, debater, athlete, a summa cum laude student and valedictorian. A loving husband to Ruth and father of Joan, Jane and Ralph Jr. He went to Harvard, taught at Howard University and earned his doctorate comparing French rule in Togoland and Dahomey. And when the civil rights movement came he spoke out loudly and his message was clear: ``Segregation and democracy are incompatible,'' he said. ``Racial prejudice is an unreasoned phenomenon without scientific basis in biology or anthropology.'' But Ralph Bunche did not want to be remembered for his race. He wanted to be remembered for his accomplishments and his competence, for his dedication to service and his commitment to the recognition of the fundamental rights of men and women to live in harmony and peace. He came from a generation of Americans who believed that it was wrong to recognize a man for the color of his skin, that we should, instead, recognize men and women for the power of their ideas and the contribution they make to the community. Ralph Bunche did not want to be remembered as the first African American who was the first to graduate from University of California at Los Angeles as valedictorian or the first to graduate from Harvard with a Ph.D. in government and international relations, or the first to become Chief U.N. Mediator. Least of all, the first to win the Nobel Peace Prize. He wished to be remembered simply as an American who answered his country's call of duty. That is not a shortcoming . . . It is not a slight to any man or woman of color in our society . . . it is, however, a statement of hope, the hope I grew up with, that we can one day be a society that judges us not for our differences but for our accomplishments and the fact that we, as human beings, made a difference. Ralph Bunche was one of those human beings who made a difference and left an extraordinary legacy. By tailoring the language in the 11th and 12th Chapters of the U.N. Charter, Bunche made it possible for the United Nations to recognize the peaceful self-determination of those being exploited by colonialism, and through sheer force of will he recovered from an assassination attempt which killed 4 of his colleagues to negotiate an armistice agreement ending the first Arab-Israeli war. With an eye for the future he presided over the conference which finalized the statues for the International Atomic Energy Agency. And in response to an international crisis he established the foundations for the first international peacekeeping operation in Egypt. This legacy is manifest in his dedication to the United Nations, and to the cause of peace for which we will always remember him. His words were perhaps prophetic when he said: ``If today we speak of peace, we also speak of the United Nations, for in this era peace and the United Nations, have become inseparable. If the United Nations cannot ensure peace there will be none. ``If war should come it will be only because the United Nations has failed. ``But the United Nations need not fail. ``Surely every man of reason must work and pray to the end that it will not fail.'' Those are not popular words today but they are truthful words, a heartfelt notion from a man whose life and work centered on a way to bring people--all people--together to solve problems. In concluding his Nobel Lecture, he said: ``There will be no security in our world, no release from agonizing tension, no genuine progress, no enduring peace, until, in Shelley's fine words, reasons voice, loud as the voice of nature, shall have waked the nations.' '' Today we honor this visionary man of peace as an accomplished scholar, a distinguished diplomat, a tireless campaigner for the civil rights of all people in every nation, and as one of the 20th centuries foremost figures and a role model for every young man and woman, black or white, Christian, Muslim, or Jew. I ask all my colleagues to join with me in recognizing the life and work of Ralph Bunche by passing this resolution.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I rise to support a United Nations Democracy Caucus to address questions that underlie a countless number of our foreign policy decisions, particularly in today's climate: How can the United States be more effective in advancing our foreign policy priorities? How can we be more active in collaborating with our allies on issues of common concern? How can we be more productive in promoting the values upon which this nation was founded and getting our message across to those around the world who look to us for leadership? Three years ago, in Warsaw, Poland, the United States took a step to address these questions when it became one of eight convening countries of the ``Community of Democracies,'' a network of representatives of over 100 nations that meets every 2 years to promote the advancement of global democracy and human rights. Two years later, in Seoul, Korea, many of these countries reaffirmed their commitment to collaborating with one another and agreed to work together in existing international and regional organizations. Hence, the idea of establishing a ``democracy caucus'' within the United Nations began to take form. The idea is simply this: democratic nations share common values, and should work together at the United Nations to promote those values. A simple notion that, in my view, makes extraordinary sense. What has happened in the last several years is that support for the establishment of a democracy caucus in the United Nations has begun to take root among foreign policy experts in the United States. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright has endorsed the idea, as has Jeane Kirkpatrick, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. In addition, it has been endorsed by a broad-based coalition of organizations and advocacy groups like Freedom House, Human Rights Watch, the American Jewish Committee, the American Bar Association and the Council for Community of Democracies. In recent months, even senior Bush administration officials have expressed interest in the establishment of a democracy caucus-- recognizing that the United States would be more effective if we were to work together and organize with other like-minded countries. Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations, Kim Holmes, recently deemed a U.N. democracy caucus as ``an idea whose time has arrived''. Working together with like-minded nations is a logical and practical way to conduct foreign policy. We build coalitions in the Senate. We build coalitions in Congress. And it makes sense to build coalitions in the United Nations, not only for the sake of forging common positions on issues of mutual concern, but also to provide a counterbalance to other coalitions that are well organized in the United Nations, but do not necessarily share our goals. The 115-member nonaligned movement (NAM) is an example. Last year, an Independent Task Force co-sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations and Freedom House argued that ``the United States is frequently outmaneuvered and outmatched at the UN'' because the cooperative work of the NAM ``binds the organization's many democratic nations to the objectives and blocking tactics of its remaining tyrannies.'' A democracy caucus would give us a new and potentially effective tool within the United Nations to counter coalitions that act in a manner inimical to our interests. So today I am submitting a resolution promoting the establishment of a democracy caucus within the United Nations. The resolution is straightforward: it expresses the support of this Congress for a U.N. democracy caucus and outlines the vision that I, and others, have of what such a caucus would do, and how it would go about doing it. The general idea is that a democracy caucus would convene at the U.N. General Assembly, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, and other U.N. bodies on a regular basis. Members of the democracy caucus would work together to forge common positions to bolster democracy and democratic principles, advance human rights, and fight terrorism. Furthermore, this bill also talks about who will join a democracy caucus. We need to establish a criteria for which countries would be considered democracies, and which would not. Fortunately, we are not starting from scratch. The Community of Democracies forum has established such criteria by drawing on major principles of international law and international standards set forth in the U.N. Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Drawing up this criteria was a collaborative process during the First Ministerial of the community of Democracies, and the guidelines have been effective in laying the foundation and advancing the goals of the forum. Therefore, this legislation models the U.N. democracy caucus' eligibility criteria on that already established by and for the Community of Democracies. I envision that the U.N. democracy caucus would advocate that states that are deemed to be gross violators of human rights, sponsors of terrorist activities, or subjects of United Nations sanctions, not be elected to leadership positions in the United Nations General Assembly or other United Nations bodies. This issue has received, and deservedly so, much attention this year--particularly after Libya was elected to serve as chair of the Commission of Human Rights. In my view, the credibility of U.N. institutions is undermined when the members of its bodies--and particularly those in leadership positions--fall into this camp of bad actors. According to the Freedom House 2003 survey, of the world's 192 governments, 63 percent of them have an electoral democracy form of government. Furthermore, in the 2002 meeting of the Community of Democracies in Seoul, 118 nations were invited to participate, based upon their commitment to shred democratic values. These numbers tell us that a democracy caucus within the U.N. would have a strong base from which to begin its work; it could be robust from its inauguration. At the First Ministerial Conference of the Community of Democracies in Warsaw, Poland, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said, ``When the United Nations can truly call itself a community of democracies, the charter's noble ideals of protecting human rights and promoting `social progress in larger freedoms' will have been brought much closer.'' In that spirit, I submit a resolution in support of the establishment of a U.N. democracy caucus.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to reauthorize the so-called ``Drug Czar's'' office with Senator Hatch, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and Senator Grassley, the Chairman of the Caucus on International Narcotics Control. This bipartisan legislation will, I hope, result in speedy action to reauthorize the drug director's office for 5 years. No matter what perspective any of us have on a specific drug policy, this legislation is about whether we will have a drug director and a drug office to be responsible for developing, coordinating and enacting a national drug policy. Some twenty years ago I began fighting to create the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) because I believed then, as I believe now, that we needed a Cabinet-level official who would coordinate Federal drug policy. I argued that Cabinet-level status was necessary because this individual needed to have the clout to stop interagency feuding, fight for necessary budgetary resources and decertify inadequate agency drug budgets. But just as important, I believed that the public needed to have one high profile person to hold accountable for developing and implementing an effective national strategy. In 1982 my bill creating a national drug director passed as part of a larger crime bill, but the President vetoed it. He, like all Presidents--both Democrats and Republicans did not like the idea of being held accountable for what was seen as an intractable problem. But I kept at it and six years later the bill became law. Before we had a drug czar's office there was no official in charge of the Administration's drug effort. And because there was no one Cabinet official in charge, other members of the President's Cabinet could duck responsibility to talk about tough drug policy issues. And that meant no Administration talked enough or did enough about the drug problem and no Administration was held accountable on drug policy. I'm glad that those days are behind us. As the person responsible for coordinating Federal drug policy, the drug czar deals with almost every federal agency, from the Department of Justice on drug courts to the Department of Homeland Security on interdiction issues to the State Department and the Department of Defense on Plan Colombia to the Department of Health and Human Services on groundbreaking research on how drug use changes brain chemistry. It is the drug director's job to make sure that all of these wide ranging issues are addressed in the annual drug strategy so that our national policy is a balanced one, giving proper attention to drug enforcement, drug treatment, drug prevention and research. That is why the bill that Senator Hatch, Senator Grassley and I are introducing today retains the provision in current law requiring the Drug Director to submit to Congress an annual drug strategy, detailing how he proposes to address all aspects of our national drug problem. We also ask him to reach out to state and local officials not only to get their input but also to get their support to advance the national goals on the local level. And just as with my original drug czar legislation, the reauthorization bill retains as its central goal holding every Administration and every President accountable on the drug issue by requiring ONDCP to evaluate the effectiveness of drug policy and programs and develop specific performance measurements and goals. The bill also includes a number of changes to strengthen current drug control policies and programs. In the area of law enforcement, the bill reauthorizes and increases the funding for the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) program which helps to coordinate federal, state and local efforts to reduce drug trafficking and production in designated areas. The bill also requires an evaluation of each individual HIDTA to monitor the program's effectiveness and requires ONDCP to report to Congress on intelligence sharing among HIDTAs and other law enforcement entities. In terms of prevention and treatment efforts, the legislation includes a number of important provisions. First, it reauthorizes the National Youth Anti Drug Media Campaign and modifies the program so that it will be more accountable. Second, it includes a number of provisions that the Senate passed unanimously last Congress as part of the Drug Abuse Education, Prevention and Treatment Act to expand drug treatment for rural states, economically depressed communities, juveniles and women with children as well as to create a demonstration project to fund drug treatment alternatives to prison programs administered by state and local prosecutors. And finally, the bill amends the Higher Education Act to clarify that those convicted of drug offenses are not prohibited from receiving federal student aid unless they commit a drug felony while they are receiving the grant, loan or work assistance. I want to thank Senator Hatch and Senator Grassley for their cooperation in crafting a bipartisan bill to reauthorize the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Both Senators have been leaders on drug policy issues and I am glad to work with them on this important matter. I hope that the rest of my colleagues will support this legislation and that we can pass it without delay.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the fiscal year 2004 Department of Defense Authorization Conference Report provides important benefits as our military personnel continue to do battle in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Balkans, South America, and elsewhere. It is not, however, a perfect bill. I voted for it because I believe that in a time of war we need to take care of our military personnel and our veterans. But, I am concerned that this bill unnecessarily undercuts important environmental protection measures and civil service protections. I am also troubled by some of the nuclear weapons provisions of the bill. First let me describe some of the key provisions that I do support in this bill. This bill provides a 3.7 percent across-the-board pay increase and, because of some of the targeted pay raises for mid-career personnel, an average pay raise of 4.1 percent. It also authorizes increases in the critical pay bonus areas of family separation, hostile fire, and imminent danger pay from October of this year until next December. These increases are much needed and well-deserved. I am also pleased that the bill would allow the Army to add 2,400 additional personnel. I supported adding 10,000 and would still like to see the number grow, but this is, at least, a start. Perhaps most important as we create new veterans daily, this bill starts to live up to our promises to our veterans. I have long believed that the commitment we make to the retirement benefits of a veteran and the commitment we make to care for those veterans injured while serving should not be mutually exclusive. This bill takes a very real step toward allowing veterans full concurrent receipt. Military retirees with 20 years of service, active duty or Reserve Component, and a Purple Heart or a combat related disability will be eligible for full concurrent receipt as of January 1, 2004. The remaining retirees who are disabled at 50 percent and above will get full concurrent receipt phased in over the next 10 years. In addition to the important personnel benefits of this bill, I am also pleased that the bill makes a common sense commitment on strategic airlift. The bill prohibits any decision to retire C-5 As until an A- model is completely modernized under the Avionics Modernization Program and Reliability and Re-Engining Program and then tested for its operational capability. This will allow decisionmakers to have the facts about what capability can be gained from the modernization programs. In addition, the Senate has required a March report updating the military's strategic airlift requirement. We know that the old requirement, defined pre-9-11, pre-Afghanistan, and pre-Iraq, is too low. Until we have a more accurate sense of what is really needed, it will be hard for Congress and the military to determine the best way to meet the need. Let me now detail my concerns with the environmental and civil service provisions of this legislation. I believe it is important to balance our national security needs with the rights of our children and grandchildren to live in a country that has clean air and water. America is the home to tremendous natural bounty and diversity. Those natural treasures are something we hold in trust, not something we should allow destroyed for expediency. As the Nation has advanced, we have striven to find ways to balance environmental protection with our economic and military needs. We have done this in our environmental protection laws, most of which carry national security waiver provisions. It is still not clear to me why the conferees felt it was appropriate to make changes to two key environmental protection laws without taking into account the advice and wisdom of those who oversee that legislation daily. Let me start by saying that I believe realistic military training is absolutely critical to the survival of our military personnel. Until now, we have managed to balance that need with our desire to safeguard our environment. This bill allows the Department of Defense to get around the Endangered Species Act, ESA, and to make enforcement of Marine Mammal Protection Act, MMPA, extremely difficult. With respect to ESA it is particularly troubling since, again, there is a national security waiver provision in that law. In the Senate, we were able to craft a compromise that allowed the Defense Department to avoid making any new critical habitat designations on installations that had Integrated Natural Resources Management Plans that the Secretary of the Interior had determined would in fact conserve the species on the installation and would be adequately resourced. This bill does not provide that safeguard. In the case of MMPA, this bill provides a weaker definition of ``harassment.'' More extraordinary than that, the new weaker definition applies not just to military activities, but rather to any scientific research conducted by or on behalf of the Federal Government. We have been given no rationale or justification for making it easier for federally funded scientists to harm marine mammals. The bill makes it easier for the Navy to get permits if their activities will have no more than a ``negligible impact'' on marine mammals. I also do not see why legitimate Naval activities should not receive the same full scrutiny they have always received. Again, we were not given good justifications for making such a change. At the end of the day, I am very disappointed that the conferees agreed to basically allow the Department of Defense to begin making their own environmental rules. While they have done a very good job managing many environmental issues, their track record is not one that suggests complete self-regulation is warranted or desirable. Their job is to fight and win our nation's wars. As a democracy, it is our job to provide them the legal framework that allows them to do their job while not sacrificing the nation's natural treasures. This bill is a step backwards. In the area of civilian personnel reform at the Department of Defense, I am again troubled that this bill opens the door to cronyism and discrimination, things from which we have long sought to insulate our civil service. While I am open to the notion that civil service reform may be in order, I am again concerned that it is being done in an ad hoc fashion and without the proper input from the committees that oversee the entire civil service. I believe that we must be wary of the potential politicization of our workforce. The employees of the Defense Department are highly dedicated professional, and they must be free from political pressure. I will be taking a close look at how the administration goes forward with its new authorities. I will be watchful that the employees are free from political retaliation and secure in their jobs so that they can perform their vital tasks to the highest of professional standards. Finally, let me say a few words about some of the nuclear weapons provisions in this bill. This conference report does a good job, on balance, of providing for our cooperative threat reduction and non- proliferation assistance programs in the former Soviet Union. It provides roughly the funding requested by the President and, in particular, a needed Presidential waiver provision so that we can continue to help build a chemical weapons destruction facility in Shchuch'ye, Russia. It requires the Secretary of Energy to study and report on the possibility of purchasing and safeguarding excess weapons-grade uranium and plutonium from the independent states of the former Soviet Union, so as to ensure that such dangerous material cannot be diverted to rogue states or terrorists. And it allows the President to use some Nunn-Lugar and non-proliferation funds for projects outside the former Soviet Union, if he determines that this will assist in the resolution of a critical emerging proliferation threat or permit the United States to achieve long-standing nonproliferation goals. I regret that the Congress agreed to repeal the Spratt-Furse prohibition of work on low-yield nuclear weapons. I am pleased, however, that the conference report states that such work may not commence the engineering development phase, or any subsequent phase, of a low-yield nuclear weapon unless specifically authorized by Congress. I am also pleased that the Secretary of Energy is barred from commencing the engineering development phase, phase 6.3, of the nuclear weapons development process, or any subsequent phase, of a Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator weapon unless specifically authorized by Congress. Again, I voted for this bill because it contains many important provisions, particularly in this time of war. But I am very concerned that some of the provisions agreed to by the conferees are ill-advised and premature. I hope that we will be able to reconsider them next year.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to reauthorize the so-called ``Drug Czar's'' office with Senator Hatch, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and Senator Grassley, the Chairman of the Caucus on International Narcotics Control. This bipartisan legislation will, I hope, result in speedy action to reauthorize the drug director's office for 5 years. No matter what perspective any of us have on a specific drug policy, this legislation is about whether we will have a drug director and a drug office to be responsible for developing, coordinating and enacting a national drug policy. Some twenty years ago I began fighting to create the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) because I believed then, as I believe now, that we needed a Cabinet-level official who would coordinate Federal drug policy. I argued that Cabinet-level status was necessary because this individual needed to have the clout to stop interagency feuding, fight for necessary budgetary resources and decertify inadequate agency drug budgets. But just as important, I believed that the public needed to have one high profile person to hold accountable for developing and implementing an effective national strategy. In 1982 my bill creating a national drug director passed as part of a larger crime bill, but the President vetoed it. He, like all Presidents--both Democrats and Republicans did not like the idea of being held accountable for what was seen as an intractable problem. But I kept at it and six years later the bill became law. Before we had a drug czar's office there was no official in charge of the Administration's drug effort. And because there was no one Cabinet official in charge, other members of the President's Cabinet could duck responsibility to talk about tough drug policy issues. And that meant no Administration talked enough or did enough about the drug problem and no Administration was held accountable on drug policy. I'm glad that those days are behind us. As the person responsible for coordinating Federal drug policy, the drug czar deals with almost every federal agency, from the Department of Justice on drug courts to the Department of Homeland Security on interdiction issues to the State Department and the Department of Defense on Plan Colombia to the Department of Health and Human Services on groundbreaking research on how drug use changes brain chemistry. It is the drug director's job to make sure that all of these wide ranging issues are addressed in the annual drug strategy so that our national policy is a balanced one, giving proper attention to drug enforcement, drug treatment, drug prevention and research. That is why the bill that Senator Hatch, Senator Grassley and I are introducing today retains the provision in current law requiring the Drug Director to submit to Congress an annual drug strategy, detailing how he proposes to address all aspects of our national drug problem. We also ask him to reach out to state and local officials not only to get their input but also to get their support to advance the national goals on the local level. And just as with my original drug czar legislation, the reauthorization bill retains as its central goal holding every Administration and every President accountable on the drug issue by requiring ONDCP to evaluate the effectiveness of drug policy and programs and develop specific performance measurements and goals. The bill also includes a number of changes to strengthen current drug control policies and programs. In the area of law enforcement, the bill reauthorizes and increases the funding for the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) program which helps to coordinate federal, state and local efforts to reduce drug trafficking and production in designated areas. The bill also requires an evaluation of each individual HIDTA to monitor the program's effectiveness and requires ONDCP to report to Congress on intelligence sharing among HIDTAs and other law enforcement entities. In terms of prevention and treatment efforts, the legislation includes a number of important provisions. First, it reauthorizes the National Youth Anti Drug Media Campaign and modifies the program so that it will be more accountable. Second, it includes a number of provisions that the Senate passed unanimously last Congress as part of the Drug Abuse Education, Prevention and Treatment Act to expand drug treatment for rural states, economically depressed communities, juveniles and women with children as well as to create a demonstration project to fund drug treatment alternatives to prison programs administered by state and local prosecutors. And finally, the bill amends the Higher Education Act to clarify that those convicted of drug offenses are not prohibited from receiving federal student aid unless they commit a drug felony while they are receiving the grant, loan or work assistance. I want to thank Senator Hatch and Senator Grassley for their cooperation in crafting a bipartisan bill to reauthorize the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Both Senators have been leaders on drug policy issues and I am glad to work with them on this important matter. I hope that the rest of my colleagues will support this legislation and that we can pass it without delay.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the chairman is correct. I don't plan on speaking on mad cow disease. I will speak for approximately 20 minutes. If anybody comes in with a relevant amendment, I will yield the floor. I am going to talk on the subject of Iraq. Two days ago, the Congress completed action on the President's request for $87 billion. In fact, I think later today there is going to be a signing down at the White House for military operations reconstruction money for Iraq, as well as Afghanistan, that relates to that $87 billion request. The debate we had in the Congress over that issue reflected more than our concern about the amount of money. I think it reflected more than the sticker shock that the American people felt when they heard the $87 billion number. I think it reflected the fact that there is a crisis in confidence in the President's leadership in Iraq. To put it more straightforward, there is a grave doubt about the policy we are engaging in now and its prospects for success. The American people not only have those doubts, but I know, and we all know on the floor, that a number of Members on both sides of this aisle have doubts about the policy. I voted for the $87 billion, and I believe we needed to do that. But we cannot afford to fail in Iraq, and there was no option but the one before us. It seems to me that we are going to have great difficulty succeeding in Iraq unless we act more wisely, and I want to discuss that very briefly today. I will be coming to the floor next week with a much more expanded speech on this subject. In order for us to succeed, I think we have to simply change our policy. We have to change the policy we are pursuing now in several very important ways. First, in order to determine whether or not we think this policy is working, it seems we have to understand the situation on the ground in Iraq. There are two realities in Iraq right now. One is that there is some real progress being made: Schools are being opened; hospitals are open; there is a number of reconstruction projects underway; the setting up of local councils is occurring and other things that are good. But all of that progress is being undermined by the other reality on the ground: our failure so far to get security, especially in the Sunni Triangle in Baghdad. The failure to secure that area has undermined not only the progress we are making but, in my view, has created a circumstance where it becomes incredibly more difficult each day to get the kind of help we need to ultimately succeed. That is to the degree to which other nations, and to the degree to which Iraq is, and the degree to which the American people believe we are not making significant progress is the degree to which they withdraw their support or fail to offer support. We need international support, we need the continued support of the Iraqi people, and we need the American people prepared to stay the course by spending billions of more dollars in order to get this done and, even more importantly, risking and losing American lives. I am worried we are going to soon lose the support of the Iraqi people and the vast majority of the American people. The Iraqi people, to make it clear, are happy Saddam Hussein is no longer around. They very much want to build a better future. But the fact is, there has never been a government in Iraq that has been a democracy. In fact, as we all know, Iraq was a nation built and carved out of a colonial circumstance back at the end of the World War I, and it is very difficult, at best, to figure out how to put it together in any form of representative government. It is going to take some time. So the job, No. 1, here for us, it seems to me, is getting the security right, controlling the streets, securing the weapons depots, getting much better intelligence. But that has always been the No. 1 job we have had, and all other success depends upon that occurring-- better security. It has always been the administration's responsibility, not the Congress's responsibility, to figure out how to get the security on the ground correct. For some time, I have refrained from any prescriptive outline as to what I think should be done because we cannot dictate that kind of policy in the Senate. That is a matter for Presidents to determine, administrations to lead. But I am very concerned that we are on a downward spiral in terms of the prospects of getting it right in Iraq. Now, it seems to me, right now, we are not getting the job done. It is not because of the lack of bravery and commitment and steadfastness of American troops or American personnel. These are serious people. These are brave young women and men. It seems to me they have been put in a circumstance that makes it very difficult for them to succeed. Let me lay out very briefly now, and in greater detail next week, what I believe we need to do to succeed. The bottom line is pretty simple. Three groups can provide security in Iraq: First, the Iraqis themselves; second, our U.S. troops and the few coalition partners we have with us there; and third, there is the possibility of a real international coalition of military forces. Over the long term, obviously, the single best way to get security right in Iraq is for the Iraqis to provide that security through indigenous police forces and an indigenous army. That is our goal. Everyone agrees upon that goal. And it is their responsibility, ultimately. They can tell the good guys from the bad guys better than we can. But here is the rub: It takes time to build an effective--an effective--indigenous police force or military force. When I was in Iraq in June, I was told by our experts there on the ground that it would take 5 years to recruit and train the 75,000 Iraqi police force that was needed. I was told it would take 3 years to recruit and train just 40,000 persons for the Army of Iraq--5 years for the police force and 3 years just to train 40,000 Iraqi soldiers. We can and we are putting that effort into overdrive. Let's understand the risks that go into putting it into overdrive. The faster we go on our training, the poorer the training and less legitimate the police and army will be. Putting them in charge prematurely is a recipe for failure. They will lose the confidence of the Iraqi people, and we will lose the ability to recruit them to participate in the police force and/or in the military force. Although it makes sense for us to try to speed up as rapidly as we can the training and the deployment of Iraqis, it is going to take time for it to work. Even on steroids, we are going to need a year at least before we can hand over the keys of security to the Iraqi people, the Iraqi military, and the Iraqi police. The real question is, What do we do in the meantime? The reason I am so concerned about the meantime is that within a year, before we are even able, under this extended and intensive effort, to speed up the training and turn over the responsibility to the Iraqis, if we continue to have the attitude that pervades in Iraq today, or is beginning to pervade and is beginning to pervade in the United States that this is a difficult, if not hopeless, task, we are unlikely to accomplish the circumstance of being able to put the Iraqis in a position even a year from now. We have to do something now to make things better on the ground. That brings us to option No. 2, and that is flood the zone with more U.S. troops. Putting in more troops now will allow us to get them out a lot faster. We especially need MPs, special forces, and civil affairs experts. I listened to my friend John McCain--he and I have been on the same page on this issue for the last 5 months--I listened to him yesterday make a very compelling speech about the need to immediately increase, not decrease, the number of American forces. We understand--John McCain and I and others--that is not a very popular thing to say. Guys like me who thought the administration went about this war wrongly in the first place are in the dubious position of being in the Chamber suggesting to the Americans who don't like the war that we should put more forces in Iraq immediately in order to take them out totally sooner while the administration announces that in the rotation of American forces through next spring, we are going to rotate troops, but we are also going to draw down the total number of American troops. It is somewhat perverse. Here are Biden and McCain talking about putting in more troops, and the administration is talking about taking out more troops. The irony here is, we do not have control of the security on the ground. To the extent we don't, for every Chinook that is shot down, for every American who is killed, every Iraqi who is blown up, every Iraqi policeman who goes to a barracks now and is blown up, every Red Cross depot that is exploded--every one of those events undermines the willingness of the United States, the Iraqis, and the world to stay the course and do the job in Iraq. I might note parenthetically, my real problem is the President has yet to tell the American people why this is so important. He keeps talking about and using the phrase, which is very catchy and very compelling--I am paraphrasing--if we don't fight the terrorists in Baghdad, we will fight them in New York, Washington, Seattle, or wherever. There is some truth to that. The American people are a lot smarter. If you ask the American people if they think if we succeed in Baghdad or if we succeed in Iraq that is going to end terrorism in the United States, or conversely, whether or not that is the source of terrorism and the threat to the United States, about 60 percent of the American people will say no, they don't think that is it. They understand it. They understand the next terrorist attack, God forbid, in the United States is more likely to come from Somalia, Philippines, Iran, or any number of other countries, than it is going to be from something that has been planned in Baghdad. That is not to suggest there is not terror in Baghdad; there is. But there are the beginnings of a classic counterinsurgency in Baghdad, aided and abetted by international terrorist operations that are beginning to mobilize in that area. The real reason we have to succeed in Iraq and the real reason we had better get it straight pretty quickly before we lose the support of the American people is that if we fail to secure the peace in Baghdad and in Iraq, we are going to see a significantly emboldened and radicalized Iran with over 70 million people. We are going to see the prospect of-- that fancy word we use in foreign policy circles--modernity in the Middle East evaporate. The idea that there are going to be more modern democratic states is going to diminish, not increase. We are going to see, I predict, a reconsideration of the attitude about whether to look East or West in Turkey from Ankara from an Islamic government. We are going to see the circumstances in Pakistan deteriorate because, sure as the devil, if things deteriorate in Iraq and we lose the peace there, we are going to lose it in Afghanistan as well. We will have two failed states. It is absolutely essential that we succeed, even though most of us--I shouldn't say most; I speak for myself--even though I did not agree with the way the President went about the conduct of this war. The facts are, we are there and we must succeed. What do we do? We need more civil affairs officers, we need more special forces, and we need more MPs. But this is hard stuff. Our forces are stretched way thin in Iraq already and in Afghanistan. We would have to bring folks back to Iraq for second or third tours, and that is a decision no one wants to make. We have to at least consider it if it would make our troops safer now, increase the chances of success and security in the triangle now being more likely than not because otherwise we just dribble this away. Short of bringing in more U.S. troops, there are things we can do with our forces to get a better grip on security in the region. We have to deal with those ammo depots. There are more than 600,000 tons of ordnance in Iraq. That is one-third of all the munitions the United States of America possesses. Of that, less than 100,000 tons have been destroyed. There are also thousands of shoulder-fired missiles on the loose in Iraq, one of which probably brought down the helicopter last week. We are offering to buy those missiles back at 500 bucks a pop. A recent Newsweek or Time Magazine article this week pointed out a young Iraqi came up to an American military person and said: Do you want to buy one of these missiles? He said: Can you get more of them? He said: Yes, I can get more of them. He got a whole truckload of them and brought them back. I think he got paid $40,000 for them. He said he would have brought back more except the truck was not big enough. We have tens, hundreds, if not thousands, of these shoulder-held missiles on the loose in Iraq. We are paying $500 for the retrieval of each one, and more than 350 have been turned in. The black market price for purchasing those shoulder-held missile launchers is $5,000 a missile. That is kind of hard to compete with. If we had more forces in place, we could do a better job of guarding those depots, but even without those forces we should be getting Iraqis to fence off the depots, put sensors on the gates, put more UAVs in the air to patrol them. We have to destroy the weapons faster. Let me acknowledge this is not a simple task. There are hundreds of depots, many of them used, and we have to be very careful in destroying them. We need to protect civilian populations, and we lack enough demolition experts who know how to destroy this stuff without starting a California-size blaze. The administration has to make securing these weapons a top priority. We need to have better intelligence on the ground. It is really hard for our folks to tell the good guys from the bad guys and that is where intelligence comes in. The Army itself is finding that our intelligence specialists and the reserves trained in civilian affairs and psychological operations do not get the training they need before they are sent to Iraq, so they are not producing very good intelligence. We do not have enough competent interpreters. We have to get help to rebuild Iraq from their own intelligence network. Here, too, we need a much greater sense of urgency. The second way to do this is for the United States to do it itself, but it is going to take more personnel and a different kind of personnel to do that. The President has made clear he is not going to do that. There is another way to buy time until the Iraqis can fend for themselves, and that is to make Iraq the world's responsibility, not just our own. We had that opportunity before the war, and we blew it. We had that opportunity after the war, and we blew it. At the end of the summer, when it became clear the security situation was not getting better, the administration decided it had to reach out, but it did not do it very well. The President's speech to the United Nations was not very well received, so for a third time the administration squandered the opportunity to get international support in significant ways. This is not totally our problem, but for the most part only Americans are being killed. I am convinced we have one last shot to bring the world in to Iraq, and we must do everything in our power to seize that opportunity. This is the meat of what I have to say. I would like to see President Bush not figuratively but literally go to Europe, call a summit and ask for help. We will have to give up more authority in order to get that help, but as I keep saying, and I have been saying for the last 6 months, we should stop treating Iraq as if it is some sort of prize we won. It is not authority I am looking to possess. We would be giving up nothing as it relates to our security interests. There are three things we can and should do to get more countries invested in Iraq with troops, police, and resources. The first is we should make Iraq a NATO mission. The model we should be using is not Afghanistan but Bosnia, Kosovo. There is a NATO general in charge of all the troops there. It happens to be an American most of the time because America runs NATO; America commands NATO. So it should be a NATO operation. We are not getting other NATO forces in because they do not want to work alongside of and/or under the command of a totally US-led operation that is not a NATO operation. So we should make Iraq a NATO mission. General Abizaid would be put in charge of the new NATO command because the way it always works with NATO, as it does with the U.N., whoever is putting up most of the responsibility, putting up most of the money, most of the troops, gets to be the one in charge. So this should be a NATO operation. Secondly, we should create a high commissioner for Iraq who reports not just to President Bush or the Secretary of Defense, but who reports to an international board of directors, reports to the NATO countries, reports to those countries that are participating. That is what we did in Kosovo. We never lost control of Kosovo, but there was a high commissioner. The high commissioner was not an American. The first one happened to be a Frenchman. The second one was a Dutchman. They reported to all of the capitals that were participating in the reconstruction of Kosovo. We have a long way to go in Kosovo and a long way to go in Bosnia, but thank God, knock on wood, there are no American casualties. There have not been American casualties as a consequence of hostile fire. People are not killing one another in those two countries. A lot more has to be done. There is no pure democracy there, but there are not a million people in the mountains about to freeze, there are not 250,000 dead, and Americans are not being shot. The place is secure, and we are only paying 15 percent of the price in terms of money and troops. If we want to get the rest of the world into this deal, because--and people say, well, Joe, why would they even contemplate coming in? They are kind of happy to see us bog down. The reason they would be happy to come in if they had the right environment is because they have as much at stake in a failed state of Iraq as we do. For the Europeans, Iraq is their front yard. It is our backyard. We have to create the environment in which they are willing to participate. So instead of having Mr. Bremer running the operation-- and maybe Mr. Bremer should be the high commissioner. The phrase for that is ``double hatted.'' There has to be a much larger investment by other countries. In return, they have to have much greater participation. As much as people will not like hearing me say this, the second thing we have to do is change Bremer's function into that of a high commissioner reporting to Washington, London, Berlin, Paris, et cetera. Otherwise, we will not get the kind of participation we need. Thirdly, we should transform the Iraqi Governing Council into a provisional government with greater sovereign powers. Putting NATO in charge of security in Iraq offers the possibility of building a truly multilateral force, with far more participation from Europeans, Asians, and neighboring countries. More countries will take part because they would be reporting to the North Atlantic Council, not to the Pentagon. We are the North Atlantic Council as well. It is a model, as I said, that worked in the Balkans and now is beginning to work in Afghanistan. In the Balkans, for example, many non-NATO countries, including Russia and some Arab states, joined the effort because they were not joining the U.S. effort; they were joining a NATO effort. The United States, in all of these models I am suggesting--and they are relatively drastic changes--would retain operational control on the ground with General Abizaid as head of this new NATO command. And we retain effective control in NATO, where the United States is the lead player. Creating an International High Commissioner for Iraq and putting him or her in charge of reconstruction would also attract far more international participation. The recent donors conference in Madrid was a painful example of the price we pay for doing everything ourselves. When you go into a country unilaterally, you get to handle the peace unilaterally. One we didn't need, the other we do. Typically, as in the Balkans, the United States covers reconstruction efforts--pays for about 25 percent of the reconstruction costs after a major conflict. By that ratio, the $20 billion, or $18-point-something billion Congress just approved for Iraq reconstruction should have generated, in Madrid, about $60 billion from the rest of the world. Instead, we got $13 billion, of which $9 billion was loans. As long as the CPA is the sole deciding authority on how Iraq will be rebuilt, other countries will be reluctant to fork over real money. They want a real say in how the money is spent. Again, look at the model in the Balkans. Look at the model in gulf war No. 1, George the first, the first gulf war. We paid only about 20 percent of the total cost. The rest of the world came in and made up the remainder of that $60 billion. What are we doing now? Again, in my view, the model we are operating under is broken. We should fix it. Otherwise, we own it all. This is not something we want to own alone. If we go the route I am suggesting of a special representative who reports to the U.N. Security Council, of which we are a member--either way, that could be Bremer. Bremer could be double-hatted. In Bosnia, the High Commissioner reports to a special steering committee led by the United States and the EEU. In Kosovo, the Secretary General of the United Nations designated a Special Representative who reports to the U.N. Security Council. I ask a rhetorical question to any Americans who may be listening. Would it offend you that a high commissioner reporting to the U.N. Security Council was the model we were using? Would you be angry that we didn't own it all, that we weren't the one having to put up all the money, making all the decisions, and taking all the casualties? What is our reluctance? I said, either way, in a de facto sense, we remain in charge. Finally, it seems to me we should turn the Iraqi Governing Council into a true provisional government with more sovereign powers. This transfer of sovereignty should not be held hostage to the very important but very complicated and time-consuming process of writing a new constitution. I happened to hear General Clark this morning on one of the morning news shows. He pointed this out. I thought it was a great example. He said: It took us 7 years to write our Constitution. Actually, it took a little longer. How would we have felt had the French said: We helped liberate you from the British; we are going to stay here as the regional power while you write your Constitution? I am not so sure we would have greeted that with a warm embrace. So in order for this Iraqi Governing Council, which has not been all that responsible up to now in my view, to be able to function, it seems to me there has to be a transfer of authority that, in fact, should not be held hostage to the constitution having to be written first. It may require some changes in this provisional government to make it more representative, but that is what we should get on with now. Nothing would send a clearer message to the Iraqi people that the future is theirs to build and to inherit, and nothing would make it clearer to them that the enemies of that future are Saddam loyalists and international terrorists who are killing our troops, other than having sovereignty transferred to the Governing Council. In conclusion, I am suggesting that the model we are operating under be changed. No. 1, sovereignty, even requiring, if need be, more representation on the Governing Council, but more sovereignty transferred to the Governing Council. No. 2, a high commissioner, in place of the system we have now, on the Bosnian model, reporting to more than one world capital--that may be Bremer being double-hatted, but it would be a high commissioner--and that to bring in the rest of the world to participate. No. 3, that the military operation should be under NATO command and NATO responsibility. I think by doing those things, we communicate several very important, practical, and substantive messages: No. 1, we, the United States, have no designs on Iraq. We know we don't, but I am not sure the Iraqi people know we don't. No. 2, it communicates the notion that we are not the sole determining power in that country, that it is not solely our problem, it is the world's problem. No. 3, that the military operation is not a U.S. operation, it is a NATO operation. All of those things, I believe, would significantly improve the prospects of success and significantly diminish the prospect that we will carry the entire load for as long as it takes. I will elaborate on those points in more detail next week. But it seems to me we have to change the model now and begin the process. I thank the chairman for allowing me to speak and I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today, joined by my good friend and colleague from Delaware, Senator Carper, to bring to the attention of the esteemed ranking member of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee an important provision in his bill relating to the Delmarva Conservation Corridor Demonstration Program. I just want to take a few minutes to emphasize the importance of this provision for the State of Delaware and for the entire Delmarva peninsula. As you know, the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture was authorized to develop a Delmarva Conservation Corridor Demonstration Program in the 2002 farm bill. Unfortunately, the USDA has not implemented the program. The Delmarva Conservation Corridor Demonstration Program does, however, complement the existing conservation provisions in the bill and allows the USDA to target the benefits of watershed-based conservation programs to farmlands that local stakeholders have determined to be the most ecologically and economically important. We must prevent the shrinking and fragmentation of undeveloped open space that results from increasing growth pressures. By fortifying and restoring green infrastructure, we can maximize the ecological and working lands' potential of our landscape. Creating extensive corridors of both natural and agricultural lands will safeguard wildlife habitat, contiguous headwaters, wetlands and open space. Left unprotected, our remaining green infrastructure is vulnerable and will be further reduced or fragmented. The Delmarva Peninsula is blessed with an abundance of important natural resources and productive working lands that support agriculture, forestry and the seafood industry. We believe that this is the right time to make this commitment to conservation that reaches across state lines and is important to a much larger region.

Mr. BIDEN

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

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I send a resolution to the desk and ask it be appropriately referred.

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

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, this resolution is cosponsored by my distinguished colleague, the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, Senator Lugar, as well as Senators Kerry, Brownback, Dodd, and Hagel. It recognizes the 50th anniversary of the United States- Republic of Korea Mutual Defense Treaty and is thanking the Republic of Korea for its contributions to the global war on terrorism. The United States has no better friend in Asia than the Republic of Korea. South Koreans have been there for us time and again, just as we have been for them. Our alliance has paid dividends on and off the Korean Peninsula. Most recently, South Korea has aided the U.S. effort in Afghanistan and Iraq. South Korea has already sent 700 military engineers and medical personal to Iraq, and President Roh pledged on October 18 to dispatch additional troops to work alongside U.S. forces there. South Korea has also pledged $260 million in grants to help reconstruct Iraq. The resolution I offer today observes the 50th anniversary of our alliance, thanks South Korea for its contributions to the global war on terrorism, and reaffirms the deep cooperation and friendship that exists between our two countries. That cooperation and friendship are sorely needed now, given the challenges posed by North Korea. North Korea today is on the verge of becoming a nuclear bomb factory. The United States needs to redouble its diplomatic efforts to persuade North Korea to change its course. President Bush, I note, has repeatedly called for a ``peaceful, diplomatic'' solution to this crisis, and has worked with our friends and allies in that region toward that goal. I believe President Bush's instincts are correct on this issue. Last week President Bush told the leaders of Asia that the United States is prepared to provide security assurances to North Korea if North Korea takes tangible steps to dismantle its nuclear program. I find that very encouraging. But in my view we need to do more. That is essentially where we left off at the end of the last administration, when we were working within the Agreed Framework. What we need to do is have more contact with North Korea. There were only 40 minutes of one-on-one dialog with North Korea last August in Beijing. That, with the translation requirements in such an exchange, is barely enough time to clear one's throat. Second, we should use the combination of carrots and sticks to convince North Korea to change its course. The sticks are in play, including the proliferation security initiative and a coordinated crackdown on the North's elicit activities, including narcotics trafficking and counterfeiting, among others. We need to identify as well some incentives for the good behavior that would come if, in fact, there is a verifiable North Korean effort along the path toward nuclear disarmament. This is not giving in to blackmail. It is a positive reinforcement, and there is a huge difference between the two. Third, we need to sustain and consider increasing humanitarian food and medical aid to North Korea. Nothing about this crisis will be improved by having more hungry or sick North Korean children. This year, the United States provided only 40,000 tons of food aid to the North a generous donation, to be sure, but a pittance against the world program appeal of more than 600,000 tons is needed, and far below the food aid levels the United States has provided in previous years. I note there is some dispute about the access of this food aid to the people of North Korea, people we need to help. The fact is the World Food Program and the director have reported significant progress towards monitoring delivery of food and ensuring that the aid reaches those most in need. Further, the food aid we have provided we seem fairly well assured is in fact getting where it is intended. Finally, we need to speak with one voice. The administration has yet to fully resolve the deep internal divisions over the direction of the President's policy. Some senior officials in the administration continue to argue against this policy of engagement. As a matter of fact, they seem to occasionally look forward to tweaking the North Koreans. I might add there is very little social redeeming value in the policies of Kim Jong Il in North Korea. I am not arguing he is a particularly reasonable man, but it seems to me there should be one voice and one policy coming out of the administration. Prospects for diplomatic solutions are in direct proportion to one voice. To state the obvious, as I know the Presiding Officer knows, time is not our ally in this crisis. The United States needs to communicate both the risks of North Korea's current path and the benefits North Korea could enjoy if it chooses to verifiably abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons and its export of ballistic missiles. Since the United States first confronted North Korea with allegations about its illegal program to produce highly enriched uranium last October, the North has ended its safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, withdrawn from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, taken its plutonium reprocessing plant out of mothballs, begun to reprocess at least some of its 8,000 spent-fuel rods, and has activated its Yongbyon nuclear reactor to produce still more spent fuel. I am not suggesting we should not have pointed out their violation. I am not suggesting their response is remotely approaching anything rational. What I am suggesting is a sense of urgency and a requirement for us to be on the same page with our South Korean and Japanese friends as well as continuing to engage the Chinese and the Russians in attempting to come to a resolution here. The North's pursuit of nuclear weapons poses a great threat to the interests not only of the United States but to the entire region. As the North's stockpile of fissile material grows, the likelihood the North will test a nuclear weapon and prove the viability of its design increases, as does the difficulty of securing the North's fissile material in any crisis. Moreover, we have no guarantee North Korea will not export fissile material. All we know for certain is if the North puts a nuke on the auction block, the bidders are not likely to be our friends. Finally, the North's nuclear ambitions could prompt other countries in the region--notably Japan and South Korea--to rethink their own opposition to nuclear arms. I don't only think that is probable but I think that is likely. As we all know, once Japan made that decision, it would be a matter of months before Japan would be a nuclear armed power. We think that would be a very bad idea. That, in my view, is why the Chinese have become so engaged now in helping us put some pressure on these multilateral talks with South Korea to get them to change their behavior. I believe China understands that if North Korea continues down this path, there is almost a certainty Japan will. Japan becoming a nuclear power would change the dynamic and the equation for the Chinese, and the race will be on. The President has the right goal--to complete verifiable and irreversible dismantlement of the North's nuclear weapons program. The only debate is how do we get there. I think the way we get there is the President should either endow Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly with more authority to drive North Korean policy or, alternatively, appoint a special envoy with access to the President to represent the United States in future negotiations. Second, we should strive for a noncoercive negotiating environment. This means that North Korea should freeze its reactor, cease all reprocessing and uranium enrichment activities, and place under safeguards any fissile material that it has acquired since the Agreed Framework of 1994 was signed. For our part, the United States should reiterate that it has no hostile intent toward North Korea and pledge not to launch any military strikes or seek new sanctions so long as the freeze remains in place and talks to resolve the crisis continue. Finally, we should pursue a phased, reciprocal, verifiable agreement to eliminate North Korea's nuclear weapons program, terminate its export of ballistic missiles, and more closely integrate the North into the community of nations. Some say North Korea cannot be trusted. They are right. Modifying President Reagan's maxim, we should mistrust, and verify. But the alternatives to negotiating are grim. Our current approach leads to one of two undesirable outcomes: Either the United States will essentially acquiesce to the North's serial production of nuclear weapons or we may find ourselves in a military confrontation with a desperate, nuclear-armed regime. Any preemptive military strike option would place millions of South Koreans and tens of thousands of Americans at risk. How do we go to war with the North if the South does not support it, if that were the second option? Negotiations with North Korea are not easy, but they offer us the best chance--I believe the only chance--to avoid a nuclear nightmare on the Korean peninsula. I would like to submit a bipartisan staff report by the members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who traveled to North Korea immediately following the six-party talks in Beijing in August. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record following my marks.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, let me conclude by saying today's paper carries the news that the quixotic and unreliable and often inscrutable actions of the North Koreans have brought the Supreme Leader of North Korea to the position where he is now saying he will engage in multilateral talks again and resume those talks, and that he is ready to consider what has been rejected before. That is the sense of the article. I have no inherent faith that we can rely upon the President of North Korea. But it seems to me we have everything to gain and nothing to lose by continuing to pursue these talks. We give nothing, and at a minimum what we do is put ourselves in the position where the most isolated remaining country in the world at least is exposed to the notions of other major nations in the world, including China, Russia, South Korea, Japan, and the United States as to what we consider to be appropriate behavior. Hopefully, that will have a salutary impact on the willingness to negotiate an end to these programs. The alternative of not pursuing that is bleak. Therefore, I encourage the President of the United States to continue down this path and to continue down the path more quickly than we have thus far. Exhibit 1 Six Party Talks and the North Korean Nuclear Issue October 14, 2003. Hon. Richard Lugar, Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations. Hon. Joseph R. Biden, Ranking Member, Committee on Foreign Relations. Dear Senators Lugar and Biden: In late August, Keith Luse and Frank Jannuzi traveled to China and North Korea, and Mr. Jannuzi traveled to South Korea, to examine the prospects for a peaceful negotiated solution to the North Korean nuclear issue and to follow-up on an earlier set of visits to North Korea in an effort to gain greater transparency on food aid issues. Throughout the course of the visit, the staff delegation received commendable support from U.S. Diplomatic personnel. The delegation enjoyed high level access to Chinese, North Korean, and South Korean government officials, and also met with numerous academics, think tank specialists, and employees of non-governmental organizations concerned with developments on the Korean Peninsula. Our key findings, including some recommendations for next steps on the Korean Peninsula, are reported below. Sincerely, Keith Luse, Professional Staff Member, Majority Staff, East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Frank Jannuzi, Professional Staff Member, Minority Staff, East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Senate Foreign Relations Committee. summary Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) staff members Keith Luse and Frank Jannuzi traveled to Northeast Asia August 21-September 2 to examine the prospects for a peaceful negotiated solution to the North Korean nuclear issue and to follow-up on their earlier set of visits to North Korea designed to push for greater North Korean transparency and accountability on food aid and humanitarian relief. The delegation expresses its appreciation to U.S. diplomatic personnel at Embassies Beijing and Seoul who helped set up productive meetings and coped with the vagaries of arranging travel to and from the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK). Over the course of three days in Pyongyang, the delegation held a variety of meetings with officials representing the DPRK, the United Nations, and non-governmental organizations (see list of interlocutors, attached). The delegation told senior DPRK officials that the United States views North Korea's nuclear ambitions as a grave threat to international peace and stability and urged the DPRK to seek a peaceful, negotiated solution to the crisis through multilateral dialogue. The delegation visited select humanitarian relief operations, making the point that such efforts are tangible proof that the United States has no hostile intent toward North Korea. SFRC staff strongly advised DPRK officials that they should permit greater transparency for food aid deliveries under the auspices of the World Food Program and various non- governmental organizations. The delegation pressed DPRK officials to adhere to international standards of human rights, including respect for religious freedom, and emphasized that the United States' concern for the human rights situation in North Korea reflects the deeply held convictions of the American people. key findings Six party talks in Beijing helped improve coordination among the five nations trying to reign in North Korea's nuclear ambitions, but DPRK officials left the talks unconvinced that the United States genuinely seeks a peaceful, negotiated solution to the crisis. DPRK officials told the staff delegation that they believe the true aim of the United States is ``regime change,'' and that de- nuclearization is just the first step toward that objective. Under pressure from China, the DPRK probably will come to another round of multilateral talks. However, China's encouragement for DPRK's participation will be contingent on the United States outlining specific steps it will take once the DPRK pledges to dismantle/eliminate its nuclear program. Talks could easily be derailed should North Korea decide to launch a ballistic missile or even test a nuclear weapon. Moreover, North Korea might scuttle the talks in response to the appropriate and necessary U.S. efforts to enforce the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) and the Illicit Activities Initiative, both of which the North interprets as attempts to ``strangle'' the regime. Some North Korean officials believe that the United States continues to station nuclear weapons in South Korea. Decision-making in the DPRK is centralized and ultimate authority rests with Kim Jong-il. Top officials in North Korea are carefully monitoring polling data reflecting opinion on domestic politics in the United States, Japan and South Korea. The World Food Program has taken some small, but significant steps in recent months to enhance its operations in the DPRK and reduce the likelihood of diversion of food aid. The significant reduction in U.S. food aid to North Korea (from a high of more than 300,000 tons/year to this year's 40,000 tons) may have undercut United States leverage in pressing for greater transparency on food aid. North Korean officials are convinced the United States is using food as a weapon. Humanitarian operations run by non-governmental organizations--such as the Nautilus Institute's Village Wind Power Pilot Project and the Eugene Bell Foundation's tuberculosis treatment programs--are making important contributions to the welfare of the North Korean people and help allay DPRK suspicions about the intentions of the United States, thereby contributing to an overall political environment conducive to resolution of sensitive security issues. After extensive discussion with the delegation, Vice Minister Kim Gye Gwan advised the DPRK would allow NGO access to some prison camps on a ``case by case'' basis. There were two key differences to our earlier trips. While we were not allowed to make purchases, street vendors were present throughout Pyongyang and in Nampo, selling food and other small items. Additionally, the DPRK military appeared to be at a higher state of alert. More soldiers were armed than during our previous visits. discussion North Korea isolated . . . Over the course of three days in North Korea, the staff delegation found DPRK officials to be disappointed by the six party Beijing talks, which they described as ``five against one.'' In both formal meetings and informal settings, DPRK officials described the Beijing talks as ``pointless'' and cast doubt upon whether the North would be willing to engage in future rounds of multiparty dialogue. DPRK officials were critical of the fact that they had only 40 minutes of ``direct'' dialogue with U.S. Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly over the course of three days of talks in Beijing, and said they had been misled into believing the multilateral talks would provide a venue for substantive one-one-one discussions with the U.S. envoy. In one particularly blunt exchange, DPRK Vice Foreign Minister Kim Gye Gwan told the staff delegation that the Beijing talks had ``confirmed'' the North's assessment that the United States has no intention of changing its ``hostile policy.'' Kim said the DPRK, ``had no choice but to maintain and reinforce its nuclear deterrent.'' The SFRC delegation conveyed their personal views that a North Korean decision to enhance its nuclear weapons capabilities would be viewed by the United States as a grave threat to international peace and security and would be interpreted by Americans as a hostile act. The delegation urged the DPRK to proceed with multiparty dialogue and to refrain from any provocative actions. DPRK officials were non-committal with respect to any future dialogue, but after the staff delegation's departure, the DPRK Foreign Ministry issued a statement claiming that the North remains ``equally prepared for dialogue and for a war.'' This statement represented a slight softening of the stance articulated immediately after the Beijing talks, and certainly leaves the door open to another round of multi- party talks in Beijing or some other venue. With strong encouragement from China (a senior delegation from China visited the DPRK in late September), the DPRK may agree to another round of six-party talks, if only to avoid being held directly responsible for a breakdown of the diplomatic process. It remains unclear what stance the DPRK will take at any future talks, and at what level they will be represented. Decision-making in the DPRK is highly centralized, with Kim Jong-il wielding the ultimate authority. Junior level DPRK officials such as Kim Yong-il, who represented the DPRK in Beijing in August, often are unable to engage in substantive dialogue, a fact which argues for the United States to try to elevate the talks to engage officials with real authority and the ear of Kin Jong-il. . . . and wary of U.S. intentions The difficult of communicating with the North Koreans was evident throughout the staff delegation's visit to Pyongyang, highlighting the risk that conflict could arise from miscalculation or mis-communication. North Korean officials with whom we met had an imperfect understanding of United States security policy, especially the recently issued National Security Strategy and Nuclear Force Posture Review. They repeatedly expressed their belief that both documents called for pre-emptive nuclear strikes against North Korea, and said the North's own nuclear program was necessary to counter this United States ``nuclear threat.'' Sometimes, confusion arose out of the imprecision of different English terms. DPRK officials asked the staff delegation to clarify the different meanings ``simultaneous,'' ``synchronous,'' ``phased,'' and ``reciprocal.'' Attention to such detail suggests the DPRK is actively studying how the nuclear issue might be resolved given what they characterized as the ``zero trust'' which exists between the two parties. DPRK officials took note of recent U.S. efforts to curtail North Korean involvement in narcotics trafficking, counterfeiting, and other illicit activities. DPRK officials flatly denied North Korean involvement in such illicit activities, and alleged that the United States had trumped up the charges as part of a more general campaign to ``stifle'' the DPRK. Food aid: slow progress on transparency and accountability The staff delegation met with the Flood Damage Rehabilitation Committee (FDRC) director Jong Yun-hyong, who oversees agricultural reconstruction as well as foreign food aid programs. The delegation explained to Yum that it as essential for the DPRK to enhance transparency for food aid, to open up counties currently off-limits, and to provide random access to WFP monitors seeking to verify food aid deliveries. The delegation told Yum that the level of monitoring requested by WFP was consistent with international norms, and that the DPRK could not expect donors and potential donors to contribute food aid if they did not have high confidence that the aid was reaching its intended recipients. Yun said that security issues are paramount for the DPRK, and that the military would not permit international access to certain sensitive regions of the country. He also said that monitoring had greatly improved since food aid began to flow during the North Korean famine of the mid-1990's. Yun specifically cited the recent U.N. nutritional survey, and reported that ``security officials'' had initially objected to the survey, but that FDRC officials had prevailed in an inter-agency battle in order to permit the survey to be conducted. Yun argued that recent significant reductions in WFP food aid--just 300,000 metric tons in 2002, down from 811,000 tons in 2001--had made it more difficult for him to push for greater numbers of monitors and greater access for international observers. Nonetheless, Yun promised progress on monitoring in the future, and invited the international community to shift its humanitarian aid strategy away from food donations and toward ``sustainable development,'' including agricultural reforms, new seek varieties and planting techniques, and ``food for work.'' The delegation met with World Food Program country director Rick Corsino, who reported slow, but significant progress toward enhanced monitoring of food aid and ensuring that aid reaches those most in need. These are the highlights: First, WFP has terminated food aid to 17 of 21 districts of the capital city of Pyonghang after concluding that residents of the capital are on average better fed than those of outlying areas. This is an important step, both symbolically, and substantively. Second, with the full knowledge and support of DPRK authorities, WFP is conducting Korean language training for food aid personnel stationed inside the DPRK. The DPRK continues to object to WFP bringing in Korean-speaking experts from overseas, but the growing language facility of WFP's foreign staff allows for smoother interaction with DPRK officials and higher quality monitoring in the field. Third, WFP has increased the number of monthly inspection visits and now has approximately 50 international staff in residence in Pyongyang and at five sub-offices located in Sinuiju, Wonson, Hamhung, Chongjin, and Hyesan. WFP is the only international agency working in the country with international staff permanently placed outside the capital. Fourth, WFP has sustained its access to 162 of 206 total counties in North Korea. WFP does not deliver food aid to those counties that remain off limits, most of which are concentrated along the sparsely populated mountainous ``spine'' of the country and along the DMZ (see attached map). Finally, through its inspection visits, WFP is gradually building a detailed database of schools, hospitals, orphanages, and other institutions receiving WFP assistance. Although the DPRK still has not provided a comprehensive list of aid recipients--a list long requested by WFP officials-- the WFP is essentially building its own list with each inspection visit. NGO's making contribution to welfare of average North Koreans Although WFP is the largest humanitarian organization working in North Korea, they are not the only international organization operating in North Korea. The staff delegation made a point of visiting two humanitarian operations supported by U.S. non-governmental organizations; the Village Wind Power Pilot Project run by the Nautilus Institute (with significant financial support provided by the W. Alton Jones Foundation) and a tuberculosis treatment hospital and mobile van sponsored by the Eugene Bell Foundation. These initiatives have fostered good will on a ``people-to-people'' basis, and have measurably improved the quality of life for the North Korean beneficiaries. Wind power The US-DPRK Village Wind Power Pilot Project was the first attempt by a United States NGO to work side-by-side with North Koreans in cooperative development. Previously, non- governmental organizations had been limited by both Washington and Pyongyang to delivering food aid to North Korea. The project installed seven technologically advanced wind turbine towers in a rural village on the west coast of North Korea near the port of Nampo. This region is known as a bread basket for North Korea, rich in arable land and other natural resources, including steady breezes off of the Korea Bay. The turbines provide clean, renewable energy to the village's medical clinic, kindergarten, and 67 households. In addition, a wind-powered water pump irrigates the village's fields, and has significantly boosted yields, according to villagers. The combined generating capacity of the turbines is 11.5kW. Since the wind power project was completed in 1999, it has had its share of ups and downs. At present, the delegation found that the facility was not operating at full capacity due to maintenance problems with two inverters and damaged batteries. North Korea lacks adequately trained technicians to service the equipment, and the nuclear stand-off has disrupted visits by foreign experts needed to assess the maintenance requirements and make needed repairs. Despite these difficulties, the DPRK participants in the project remain enthusiastic about it as a model for rural electrification, and hope to press ahead with a major windpower survey project along the west coast in coming months. DPRK authorities told the visiting Senate staff delegation that deciding to proceed with the wind power survey requires approval from military officials worried about the collection of militarily sensitive meteorological information. Notwithstanding the sensitive nature of the data to be collected, DPRK officials believe the project will move ahead. Wind power projects could alleviate severe shortages of power in rural areas, and have the advantage of not requiring major upgrades in North Korea's electric power grid--a grid that experts have found to be in need of major overhaul before it could accommodate the introduction of large new power plants such as the light water nuclear reactors contemplated under the Agreed Framework. Tuberculosis treatment Since 1995, the Eugene Bell Foundation has been working inside North Korea to fight deadly diseases like tuberculosis (TP). Eugene Bell foundation currently coordinates the delivery of TB medication, diagnostic equipment, and supplies to 1/3 of the North Korean population and approximately 50 North Korean treatment facilities (hospitals and care centers). The staff delegation visited one such hospital in Pyongyang, and also inspected one of the 17 mobile x-ray vehicles designed to navigate the North's antiquated road network. The delegation found the Eugene Bell project to be characterized by high standards of transparency and efficiency. The foundation conducts regular site visits (more than 60 since 1995) and is able to donate goods directly to recipients rather than through third parties or government intermediaries. Staff at the hospital we visited appeared well trained and highly motivated. They were deeply appreciative of the support they receive from the United States and recognized that this humanitarian outreach occurs even at a time when the two nations do not maintain normal diplomatic relations. The Eugene Bell foundation supports 16 TB hospitals and 64 TB care centers in the DPRK. More than 200,000 patients have been treated. Moreover, serving as a conduit, the Eugene Bell foundation is currently responsible for sending tuberculosis medicine, medical aid, and equipment for approximately 1/3 of the North Korean population. Joint recovery operations The staff delegation met with Sr. Col. Kwak Chol-hui of the Korean People's Army, the director of the Joint Recovery Operation searching for the remains of U.S. servicemen left behind after the Korean War. The United States estimates that as many as 8,000 remains of U.S. servicemen are on DPRK soil. So far, only 378 of these remains have been recovered. More than 200 remains were found as the result of unilateral DPRK searches and returned to the United States. Just over 170 sets of remains have been recovered through the joint recovery operation. The recovery operations are laborious. Historical records can indicate likely search areas, but only eye witnesses can pinpoint the possible locations for remains. As the population ages and the terrain of North Korea is shaped by construction, erosion, flooding, and other forces, it is becoming increasingly difficult to locate remains. Even after likely sites are identified, time-consuming excavations and careful forensic work are necessary to find and identify remains. U.S. and North Korean military personnel work side by side in the field during the recovery operations. According to U.S. participants in the operation, this interaction in the field has been constructive, deepening our understanding of the Korean People's Army. Colonel Kwak told the delegation that the DPRK would like to expand the joint recovery operation, employing as many as 2,700 investigators to scour the country to conduct interviews with those elderly North Korean who might have knowledge of the location of U.S. remains. He indicated that the DPRK's commitment to the recovery operations is independent of the nuclear issue, and, in his opinion, should remain so. It is unclear, however, what role the DPRK envisions for U.S. forces in such an expanded operation. The staff delegation believes that any expansion should be made contingent on greater U.S. access to those North Korean citizens claiming to have first-hand knowledge of the whereabouts of remains. staff conclusions So as to reduce what we believe is a significant risk of conflict arising out of miscalculation or mis-communication, the United States should greatly expand dialogue with North Korea, both within the framework of multi-party talks, as well as through informal or ``Track II'' bilateral negotiations. The United States should appoint a senior official to represent the United States solely on issues related to the Korean Peninsula. Alternatively, the Administration should endow the current negotiator, Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly, with greater authority to direct and coordinate the President's North Korea policy and gain access to more senior North Korean officials. The United States should acknowledge recent improvements in WFP operations and continue food aid to the DPRK under UN auspices. The United States should also consider funneling a portion of future U.S. food aid through non-governmental organizations, some of which have been able to achieve strong monitoring capability for their humanitarian relief. The U.S. should search for ways to expand outreach efforts by NGOs in the fields of rural energy development, agriculture, and public health. The Joint Recovery Operation to identify the remains of U.S. servicemen from the Korean War affords the United States valuable contact inside North Korea. Any expansion of the operation, however, should be made contingent upon greater U.S. access to those North Korean citizens claiming to have first-hand knowledge of the whereabouts of remains. list of interlocutors In Beijing, China Michael Green, Director Asian Affairs, National Security Council David Straub, Korea Desk, U.S. Department of State Wang Yi, Vice Foreign Minister, Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs Fu Ying, Director General, Asian Department, Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs He Yafei, Director General, North American Department, Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs Liu Jinsong, First Secretary, Asian Department, Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs Piao Jianyi, Executive Director, Center for Korean Peninsula Issues, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences Gu Guoliang, Director, Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation Studies, Deputy Director, Institute of American Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences Wang Jisi, Director, Institute of International Strategic Studies, Central Party School Wu Baiyi, Deputy Director, Research Division, China Institute of Contemporary International Relations Yang Mingjie, Director, Division of Arms Control and Security Studies, China Institute of Contemporary International Relations Wei Zonglei, Deputy Director, Center of U.S.-European Studies, China Institute of Contemporary International Relations Shi Yinhong, Director, Center for American Studies, People's University Ruan Zongze, Vice President, China Institute of International Studies Liu Xuecheng, Director of American Studies, China Institute of International Studies Shen Dingli, Deputy Director, Center for American Studies, Fudan University Zhu Feng, Director of International Security Program, Beijing University In North Korea Kim Gye Gwan, Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs Jong Dong-hok, First Secretary, United States Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs Lee Yong Chol and Kim Yong Nam, United States Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs Jong Yun-hyong, Director Flood Damage, Reconstruction Committee Sr. Col. Kwak Chol-hui, Director, Joint Recovery Operation, Korean People's Army Lt. Col. Li Jong Sop, Deputy Director, Joint Recovery Operation, Korean People's Army Lt. Col. Byon Sol-hok, Joint Recovery Operation Kim Song, Secretary General, Korean National Peace Committee Richard Corsino, Country Director, World Food Program In South Korea Wi Sung-lac, Director General, North American Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs Park Joeong-nam, Deputy Director, North American Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs Yang Chang-suk, Director of International Cooperation, Ministry of Unification Park Ro-Byug, Chief, Policy Coordination Bureau, National Security Council, Blue House Kim Taewoo, Nuclear Policy Specialist, Korean Institute for Defense Analyses Pak Yeong-tae, Korea Institute for Defense Analyses

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, yesterday in my opening statement at a hearing of the Committee on Foreign Relations on anti-Semitism in Europe, I criticized the European Union for not having included in its Brussels summit's so-called ``Presidency Conclusions'' a denunciation of the Malaysian Prime Minister's vile anti-Semitic remarks. I also recognized that French President Chirac wrote a personal letter to the Malaysian Prime Minister, but I said that I doubted that many Muslims would have access to his criticisms. This morning, however, I was informed by my friend the French Ambassador that President Chirac's letter had, in fact, been made public. I am happy to learn this, and I applaud President Chirac for his personal condemnation of the Malaysian Prime Minister's disgusting speech. This does not, however, change my opinion that the European Union should have included a condemnation in the catalog of external issues delineated in its ``Presidency Conclusions.'' Most importantly, as yesterday's hearing pointed out, it is imperative that both the European Union and the United States resolutely and publicly oppose the cancer of anti-Semitism wherever in the world it raises its ugly head.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise tonight to introduce, along with my good friend from Utah, Senator Hatch, the distinguished Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the ``Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2003.'' Over the last several weeks, we have read front-page articles on the dangerous mix of sports and steroids, including a new ``designer'' steroid tetrahydrogestrinone, known as ``THG.'' Several premier athletes have allegedly tested positive for THG, and there is a Federal grand jury investigation into the alleged manufacture and distribution of this new substance. Our bill would make THG, and several other similar substances, subject to the Controlled Substances Act. Thus, these products would no longer be available over the counter. Absent a prescription from your doctor, you will not be able to buy them legally. First, a bit of background on how we got here. Thirteen years ago I held a number of hearings on the dangers associated with steroid use and introduced legislation to make steroids Schedule III substances. After my bill became law, a number of steroid users continued to buy and use steroids only now they were buying them through a developing illicit market. Others relied on new products being developed or rediscovered by scientists, products which may not violate the letter of the law, but certainly violate the spirit of the law. These substances, called steroid precursors or pro-steroids, are one step removed from the substances scheduled in the law: when ingested, they metabolize into testosterone or other illicit steroids. These are products which the United States Anti-Doping Agency, the group in charge of testing Olympic athletes for performance enhancing drugs, has called ``the functional equivalent of steroids.'' In writing about the lack of testing for steroid precursor use in professional baseball, Barry Rozner of the Chicago Daily Herald described the close relationship between steroids and steroid precursors. He wrote: There's still no testing for andro (androstenedione) because technically it's not a steroid. It's a steroid precursor. Technically a cake mix isn't a cake but as soon as you pour it in a bowl and stick it in the oven, it's a cake. You put andro in the body, mix it with the body's chemicals and let it bake, and it turns into a powerful steroid. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, baseball calls it a sparrow. The most well known of the steroid precursors is androstenedione often called ``andro.'' Most recently Hiram Cruz, a 2001 national judo champion, was suspended from competition for two years after testing positive for andro. And it is widely thought that some East German Olympic athletes used it in the 1970s and 1980s to improve their performance. But perhaps the substance gained the most notoriety when professional baseball player Mark McGuire admitted that he used it when he broke Roger Maris's single season record for home runs. After McGuire revealed that he had taken andro, sales of the product quadrupled. Andro increases both testosterone and estrogen levels in the body. According to a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association ``orally administered adrostenedione increases serum testosterone and estrogen levels in healthy men, particularly at higher doses.'' The study further notes that ``long-term administration could be hazardous, particularly in women or children.'' Another study showed that even a single 100 milligram dose of andro can yield unhealthy levels of testosterone in women and can increase estrogen levels by 80 percent. Andro has also been associated with a decrease in HDL the ``good'' cholesterol and elevated levels of estradiol which may increase women's risk of breast cancer. As I will discuss in greater detail later, in addition to the grave health effects associated with using andro and other steroid precursors, the physical effects can also be quite serious: women can develop masculine sex characteristics including changing of the sexual organs; men can develop feminine sex characteristics including breast development; and adolescent users can stunt their growth. The International Olympic Committee, the National Football League and the National Collegiate Athletics Association have banned andro and other steroid supplements. Other sports, particularly baseball, have been criticized for refusing to agree to test players for steroid precursors. I should note that Major League Baseball has endorsed the legislation I am introducing today. And at a hearing in the Senate Commerce Committee last year, Donald Fehr, the Executive Director of the Major League Baseball Players Association, said that ``it may well be time for the Federal Government to revisit whether steroid precursors should also be covered by Schedule III.'' I agree with him. Interestingly enough, so do the 79 percent of major league baseball players and nearly 86 percent of baseball fans who, according to surveys conducted by USA Today last year, support testing for steroids and performance-enhancing drugs. The USA Today survey also revealed that 80 percent of fans believe that steroid use is behind some of the major league records that have been broken recently. It is understandable, therefore, that some players may support testing to preserve the integrity of their records. As Yankees' shortstop Derek Jeter has been quoted as saying: I don't have a problem with getting tested because I have nothing to hide. Steroids are a big issue. If anything like a home run or any injury happens, people say it's steroids. That's not fair. In my view, it is time for Congress to act so that we can put an end to the charade that androstenedione and similar products are any different from the anabolic steroids that are controlled under current law. To be honest I would be less concerned about what professional athletes are doing to their bodies if their actions did not have such a profound effect on kids. A study by the Kaiser Family Foundation revealed that nearly three-quarters of kids say that they look up to and want to emulate professional athletes. Sadly, more than half of those kids believe that their sports heroes use steroids and other performance enhancing drugs to win. That may be why adolescent anabolic steroid use is at its highest level in the past decade, with 1 million teens having used them. As Dr. Bernard Greisemer, a pediatrician and sports medicine specialist, testified before the Senate last year, many of these products are marketed to kids who want to be like their favorite sports hero. Dr. Greisemer said: [P]rofessional athletes are major role models for our young athletes; in the clothes they wear, the cars they drive, the food they eat, and the drugs and dietary supplements they take. The millions of dollars that are spent by major corporations in linking their products to a particular athlete, team, or sporting event, counter any argument that professional athletes are not affecting the lifestyles of our young athletes. Use of and media exposure of the use of, anabolic steroids in professional athletes also directly affects the interest in, the perception of benefits of, and the use of these substances. There are plenty of children and adults who believe that supplements will make them faster and stronger. That they'll have bigger muscles and be more like their favorite athlete. That they'll have a competitive advantage or have what it takes to win. In reality, they are jeopardizing their health. The ignorance of the consequences of using these substances is astounding. A study by Blue Cross/Blue Shield found that 70 percent of kids and half of parents surveyed were unable to identify even one negative side effect associated with performance- enhancing drugs. And 80 percent of kids reported that their parents have never talked to them about the dangers of steroid use. Clearly there is quite a bit of education to be done about these very dangerous substances. Let me go through just a few of the side effects of steroid use. In both males and females it can lead to increased blood pressure, increased risk of heart attack and stroke, liver and cardiac dysfunction, increased libido, aggressiveness and appetite, and acne. For males, steroid use can lead to breast development, premature balding, testicular atrophy, decreased sperm count and prostate enlargement. Females can develop masculine sex characteristics including increased body hair, facial hair, deepening of the voice, male pattern baldness and changes to the sex organs. And among adolescent users, steroid precursor use can lead to stunted growth due to hardening of cartilage. Many of these side-effects are irreversible. Quite troubling to me is that some people are taking these substances unwittingly. It is not unusual for manufacturers of creatine or other performance enhancing substances to put andro or another precursor into their product to give them a competitive edge over a competitor's products. Clearly these substances are dangerous and they should not be widely available over the counter. That is why I am joining with Senator Hatch and Senator Grassley today to introduce the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2003. My bill does four things. First, it amends the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 1990 by adding THG, androstenedione and their chemical cousins to the list of anabolic steroids controlled under the Controlled Substances Act and makes it easier for the DEA to add similar substances to that list in the future. This would prohibit people from obtaining these substances over the counter without a prescription in either their pure form or as an additive to another product. Second, it directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to review the Federal sentencing guidelines for crimes involving anabolic steroids and consider increasing them. Currently, the maximum sentence for offenses involving anabolic steroids is only 33-41 months for first time offenders. And to receive the maximum sentence an offender would have to have between 40,000 and 60,000 units, which is defined as a 10 cc vial or 50 tablets. That means that someone trafficking 300,000 doses faces a maximum of three and a half year behind bars. That does not seem to be enough of a deterrent and I hope the Sentencing Commission will consider raising the guidelines for steroid trafficking. Third, the bill authorizes $15 million for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to award grants to public and non-profit entities to carry out science-based education programs in elementary and secondary schools to highlight the harmful effects of anabolic steroids. Preference will be given to programs based on the Athletes Training and Learning to Avoid Steroids program (ATLAS), the Athletes Targeting Healthy Exercise and Nutrition Alternatives (ATHENA) program, and other programs which the National Institute on Drug Abuse has determined to be effective. ATLAS, which is aimed at male student athletes, has been named as one of the Department of Education's Exemplary Programs and is one of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's Model Programs. ATHENA is ATLAS's companion program designed for female athletes. Finally, the bill directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to include questions about steroid use in the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, an annual survey to measure the extent of alcohol, drug and tobacco use in the United States. The bill authorizes $1 million for this purpose. I'm proud to say that the bill has been endorsed by a wide range of medical, athletic and drug policy organizations including: American Academy of Family Physicians; American Academy of Pediatrics; American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; American College for Sports Medicine; American Council on Exercise; American Medical Association; Association of Tennis Professionals; Blue Cross Blue Shield Association; Boys and Girls Clubs; Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America; Consumer Healthcare Products Association; Council for Responsible Nutrition; The Endocrine Society; The Hormone Foundation; Little League; Major League Baseball; National Athletic Trainers Association; The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University; National Collegiate Athletic Association; National Federation of State High Schools Association; National Football League; National High School Athletic Coaches Association; National Junior College Athletic Association; National Nutritional Foods Association; Pharmacists Planning Services, Inc.; United States Anti-Doping Agency; U.S. Olympic Committee; U.S. Biathlon Association; U.S. Soccer Federation; USA Cycling; USA Luge; USA Swimming; USA Track and Field and Utah Natural Products Alliance. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and I hope that it will be enacted into law soon. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise tonight to introduce, along with my good friend from Utah, Senator Hatch, the distinguished Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the ``Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2003.'' Over the last several weeks, we have read front-page articles on the dangerous mix of sports and steroids, including a new ``designer'' steroid tetrahydrogestrinone, known as ``THG.'' Several premier athletes have allegedly tested positive for THG, and there is a Federal grand jury investigation into the alleged manufacture and distribution of this new substance. Our bill would make THG, and several other similar substances, subject to the Controlled Substances Act. Thus, these products would no longer be available over the counter. Absent a prescription from your doctor, you will not be able to buy them legally. First, a bit of background on how we got here. Thirteen years ago I held a number of hearings on the dangers associated with steroid use and introduced legislation to make steroids Schedule III substances. After my bill became law, a number of steroid users continued to buy and use steroids only now they were buying them through a developing illicit market. Others relied on new products being developed or rediscovered by scientists, products which may not violate the letter of the law, but certainly violate the spirit of the law. These substances, called steroid precursors or pro-steroids, are one step removed from the substances scheduled in the law: when ingested, they metabolize into testosterone or other illicit steroids. These are products which the United States Anti-Doping Agency, the group in charge of testing Olympic athletes for performance enhancing drugs, has called ``the functional equivalent of steroids.'' In writing about the lack of testing for steroid precursor use in professional baseball, Barry Rozner of the Chicago Daily Herald described the close relationship between steroids and steroid precursors. He wrote: There's still no testing for andro (androstenedione) because technically it's not a steroid. It's a steroid precursor. Technically a cake mix isn't a cake but as soon as you pour it in a bowl and stick it in the oven, it's a cake. You put andro in the body, mix it with the body's chemicals and let it bake, and it turns into a powerful steroid. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, baseball calls it a sparrow. The most well known of the steroid precursors is androstenedione often called ``andro.'' Most recently Hiram Cruz, a 2001 national judo champion, was suspended from competition for two years after testing positive for andro. And it is widely thought that some East German Olympic athletes used it in the 1970s and 1980s to improve their performance. But perhaps the substance gained the most notoriety when professional baseball player Mark McGuire admitted that he used it when he broke Roger Maris's single season record for home runs. After McGuire revealed that he had taken andro, sales of the product quadrupled. Andro increases both testosterone and estrogen levels in the body. According to a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association ``orally administered adrostenedione increases serum testosterone and estrogen levels in healthy men, particularly at higher doses.'' The study further notes that ``long-term administration could be hazardous, particularly in women or children.'' Another study showed that even a single 100 milligram dose of andro can yield unhealthy levels of testosterone in women and can increase estrogen levels by 80 percent. Andro has also been associated with a decrease in HDL the ``good'' cholesterol and elevated levels of estradiol which may increase women's risk of breast cancer. As I will discuss in greater detail later, in addition to the grave health effects associated with using andro and other steroid precursors, the physical effects can also be quite serious: women can develop masculine sex characteristics including changing of the sexual organs; men can develop feminine sex characteristics including breast development; and adolescent users can stunt their growth. The International Olympic Committee, the National Football League and the National Collegiate Athletics Association have banned andro and other steroid supplements. Other sports, particularly baseball, have been criticized for refusing to agree to test players for steroid precursors. I should note that Major League Baseball has endorsed the legislation I am introducing today. And at a hearing in the Senate Commerce Committee last year, Donald Fehr, the Executive Director of the Major League Baseball Players Association, said that ``it may well be time for the Federal Government to revisit whether steroid precursors should also be covered by Schedule III.'' I agree with him. Interestingly enough, so do the 79 percent of major league baseball players and nearly 86 percent of baseball fans who, according to surveys conducted by USA Today last year, support testing for steroids and performance-enhancing drugs. The USA Today survey also revealed that 80 percent of fans believe that steroid use is behind some of the major league records that have been broken recently. It is understandable, therefore, that some players may support testing to preserve the integrity of their records. As Yankees' shortstop Derek Jeter has been quoted as saying: I don't have a problem with getting tested because I have nothing to hide. Steroids are a big issue. If anything like a home run or any injury happens, people say it's steroids. That's not fair. In my view, it is time for Congress to act so that we can put an end to the charade that androstenedione and similar products are any different from the anabolic steroids that are controlled under current law. To be honest I would be less concerned about what professional athletes are doing to their bodies if their actions did not have such a profound effect on kids. A study by the Kaiser Family Foundation revealed that nearly three-quarters of kids say that they look up to and want to emulate professional athletes. Sadly, more than half of those kids believe that their sports heroes use steroids and other performance enhancing drugs to win. That may be why adolescent anabolic steroid use is at its highest level in the past decade, with 1 million teens having used them. As Dr. Bernard Greisemer, a pediatrician and sports medicine specialist, testified before the Senate last year, many of these products are marketed to kids who want to be like their favorite sports hero. Dr. Greisemer said: [P]rofessional athletes are major role models for our young athletes; in the clothes they wear, the cars they drive, the food they eat, and the drugs and dietary supplements they take. The millions of dollars that are spent by major corporations in linking their products to a particular athlete, team, or sporting event, counter any argument that professional athletes are not affecting the lifestyles of our young athletes. Use of and media exposure of the use of, anabolic steroids in professional athletes also directly affects the interest in, the perception of benefits of, and the use of these substances. There are plenty of children and adults who believe that supplements will make them faster and stronger. That they'll have bigger muscles and be more like their favorite athlete. That they'll have a competitive advantage or have what it takes to win. In reality, they are jeopardizing their health. The ignorance of the consequences of using these substances is astounding. A study by Blue Cross/Blue Shield found that 70 percent of kids and half of parents surveyed were unable to identify even one negative side effect associated with performance- enhancing drugs. And 80 percent of kids reported that their parents have never talked to them about the dangers of steroid use. Clearly there is quite a bit of education to be done about these very dangerous substances. Let me go through just a few of the side effects of steroid use. In both males and females it can lead to increased blood pressure, increased risk of heart attack and stroke, liver and cardiac dysfunction, increased libido, aggressiveness and appetite, and acne. For males, steroid use can lead to breast development, premature balding, testicular atrophy, decreased sperm count and prostate enlargement. Females can develop masculine sex characteristics including increased body hair, facial hair, deepening of the voice, male pattern baldness and changes to the sex organs. And among adolescent users, steroid precursor use can lead to stunted growth due to hardening of cartilage. Many of these side-effects are irreversible. Quite troubling to me is that some people are taking these substances unwittingly. It is not unusual for manufacturers of creatine or other performance enhancing substances to put andro or another precursor into their product to give them a competitive edge over a competitor's products. Clearly these substances are dangerous and they should not be widely available over the counter. That is why I am joining with Senator Hatch and Senator Grassley today to introduce the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2003. My bill does four things. First, it amends the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 1990 by adding THG, androstenedione and their chemical cousins to the list of anabolic steroids controlled under the Controlled Substances Act and makes it easier for the DEA to add similar substances to that list in the future. This would prohibit people from obtaining these substances over the counter without a prescription in either their pure form or as an additive to another product. Second, it directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to review the Federal sentencing guidelines for crimes involving anabolic steroids and consider increasing them. Currently, the maximum sentence for offenses involving anabolic steroids is only 33-41 months for first time offenders. And to receive the maximum sentence an offender would have to have between 40,000 and 60,000 units, which is defined as a 10 cc vial or 50 tablets. That means that someone trafficking 300,000 doses faces a maximum of three and a half year behind bars. That does not seem to be enough of a deterrent and I hope the Sentencing Commission will consider raising the guidelines for steroid trafficking. Third, the bill authorizes $15 million for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to award grants to public and non-profit entities to carry out science-based education programs in elementary and secondary schools to highlight the harmful effects of anabolic steroids. Preference will be given to programs based on the Athletes Training and Learning to Avoid Steroids program (ATLAS), the Athletes Targeting Healthy Exercise and Nutrition Alternatives (ATHENA) program, and other programs which the National Institute on Drug Abuse has determined to be effective. ATLAS, which is aimed at male student athletes, has been named as one of the Department of Education's Exemplary Programs and is one of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's Model Programs. ATHENA is ATLAS's companion program designed for female athletes. Finally, the bill directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to include questions about steroid use in the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, an annual survey to measure the extent of alcohol, drug and tobacco use in the United States. The bill authorizes $1 million for this purpose. I'm proud to say that the bill has been endorsed by a wide range of medical, athletic and drug policy organizations including: American Academy of Family Physicians; American Academy of Pediatrics; American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; American College for Sports Medicine; American Council on Exercise; American Medical Association; Association of Tennis Professionals; Blue Cross Blue Shield Association; Boys and Girls Clubs; Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America; Consumer Healthcare Products Association; Council for Responsible Nutrition; The Endocrine Society; The Hormone Foundation; Little League; Major League Baseball; National Athletic Trainers Association; The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University; National Collegiate Athletic Association; National Federation of State High Schools Association; National Football League; National High School Athletic Coaches Association; National Junior College Athletic Association; National Nutritional Foods Association; Pharmacists Planning Services, Inc.; United States Anti-Doping Agency; U.S. Olympic Committee; U.S. Biathlon Association; U.S. Soccer Federation; USA Cycling; USA Luge; USA Swimming; USA Track and Field and Utah Natural Products Alliance. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and I hope that it will be enacted into law soon. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Reserving the right to object, did you say the Byrd amendment?