Joe Biden

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 16, 2008 at 10 a.m. in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to hold a hearing entitled, ``Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Licensing and Relicensing Processes for Nuclear Plants.''

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate to conduct a hearing on Wednesday, July 16, 2008, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 16, 2008, at 2 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``A Domestic Crisis with Global Implications: Reviewing the Human Capital Crisis at the State Department.''

Mr. BIDEN

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

Mr. BIDEN. The oil on the Senator's side of the country would not. One reason I voted against the Alaska pipeline is instead of going through Canada to the United States, it would go to Japan, figuratively speaking.

Mr. BIDEN. First of all, I agree with everything the Senator just said. But if, in fact, if I am not mistaken, all of the reserves that are estimated to exist off of your shore and ours--in Delaware they want to drill as well--if all the reserves in the entire continental United States, the Gulf of Mexico, the Pacific Ocean, the Atlantic Ocean--if they all exist, and they all meet the expectation of the best, most probable high return, we still only represent 3 percent of the total world oil reserves. My problem is my Republican colleagues who tout themselves as being big businessmen who understand how the business world works in the market economy, it always amazes me how they fail to remember how cartels work. The cartel called OPEC controls the vast majority of the oil resources. Not one of these wells would come on before 10 years-- not one. That is according to our Department of Energy. Not one for 10 years. When they come on, what makes anybody think that the outfit that controls 60 or 70 percent of the world's oil reserves isn't going to just pump 3 percent less? Does anybody think that OPEC, knowing that we had 3 percent of the world's oil reserves, is going to continue to pump at the rate they are pumping? I promise you they will reduce the amount of oil they pump just like they always did to 3, 4, 5, 7 percent less, guaranteeing that whatever the price was will be sustained. What I do not understand is, I do not understand our friends, including the President, who was a businessman of sorts--I don't mean that; I am not being a wise guy--who was in the business world prior to this, doesn't understand how cartels work. Is there anywhere in the President's offshore drilling where he has gotten a commitment from OPEC that they will continue to pump at the rate they are pumping now? Are you aware of any such?

Mr. BIDEN. If the Senator will continue to yield for a moment, the thing I want everybody to understand is, as a guy named Yergin, who chairs the Cambridge Research Group, who advises not all but most of the major world oil companies, explained to me once, he said: You know, oil is like filling your swimming pool. If you put a hose in your swimming pool and you keep filling it and filling it, it takes a long time to raise an inch or two. It has virtually no impact on the total size cubic feet of your swimming pool or the amount of water in it. The second thing is, all the oil that goes into that swimming pool all goes into one big pool. It is all the same price. If you notice, people pumping oil in Texas are not charging less than people pumping oil in Saudi Arabia. If you notice, people pumping oil in California are not charging less than people pumping oil in Venezuela. If you notice, when the OPEC price goes up ``American'' oilfields benefit. I am not suggesting the American oilfields are in collusion with OPEC, but guess what. Americans think, if we pump our own oil, we will be independent. It ``ain't'' our own oil.

Mr. BIDEN. I hope we start talking about basic facts. If everything we think we have under the ground that we control as the United States--on the Continental Shelf, off the Pacific Ocean, in ANWR-- everything out there, we have 3 percent of the world's proven oil reserves. It doesn't give you much of a bargaining chip. It would be one thing if you say: You know, every bit of the oil we pump that we control goes to the United States, and we are only going to charge $2 a barrel. Wouldn't that be great? Or $10 or $20 or $30 or $50. But I kind of notice, those guys down in Texas charge us exactly the same price as those guys wearing robes in Saudi Arabia charge us. Isn't that kind of funny? And if you only control 3 percent of the oil reserves and pump it all, all the folks we don't like so much who control 60 or 70 percent of the reserves, they just pump 3 percent less, and the price is the same. We cannot drill our way out of this. I thank my friend from Washington for pointing this out. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I see my friend from South Carolina is here. I ask unanimous consent there be no second-degree amendments in order to the DeMint amendment, No. 5077.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am shortly going to move to table the DeMint amendment, No. 5078, relating to abortion. Senator DeMint and I had a very brief conversation prior to this. I ask unanimous consent there be 2 minutes equally divided for the Senator to make his position known.

Mr. BIDEN. I yield to my colleague from South Carolina.

Mr. BIDEN. The underlying amendment, first-degree amendment, which I am moving to table would limit U.S. assistance to certain countries. Right now PEPFAR is working in 120 countries, and to limit it to 15 I think is very counterproductive. I move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Yes, we yield back the time in morning business.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a----

Mr. BIDEN. That was a question? Oh. I am sorry.

Mr. BIDEN. Although the question was not asked of me, before the Senator leaves the floor, I say to the Senator from New Hampshire, if I could point out one of the problems--this may well have been mentioned, and I apologize if it has--but essentially what the Senator is suggesting is going to require us not only to set up a new agency, but an agency that does not have any experience overseas and an inspector general who will basically start from scratch. These are two binders full of the reports, which I hold in my hands, that have been done thus far by the present system of the three different agencies: State, Health and Human Services, and AID. They have considerable experience in going into the field overseas, knowing their way around. Part of this has to do with knowing your way around. I used to have a friend who was a great basketball player. He wasn't the brightest candle on the table intellectually, but he had a great expression. He said: You gotta know how to know. These guys know how to know. They know where to look. They have been doing some versions of this overseas for the last 30 years in the case of State and AID. I am not going to dare suggest this material be printed in the Record, but I have here two large binders full of reports of the IGs, the coordinated efforts here, mostly done through State and AID, of overseeing these programs. The last point I will make: It is overwhelmingly in their interest to see that this money is spent well because it affects so many other aspects of their ability to provide the kinds of services the 150 account provides out of the whole effort we have for development and diplomacy. I thank the Senator from New Hampshire for being kind enough to hang around and listen. To use President Reagan's expression, ``If it ain't broke, don't fix it''--it ain't broke. It costs more money to fix it, in my view. I believe the agencies in place, coordinating their efforts, have vastly more experience in knowing where to look and determining whether the money is being spent as intended. Mr. President, the Global AIDS program is operated in this way: a special coordinator, Dr. Mark Dybul, sits in the Department of State, and provides policy development and guidance to the agencies in the field implementing the program. The main agencies implementing the program in the field are the Agency for International Development and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or CDC. Ambassadors in the field, in every country where PEPFAR operates, provide overall supervision. So there are three main agencies involved--the Department of State, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the U.S. Agency for International Development. There are others, such as Peace Corps and the Defense Department, but these are the big three. All three agencies--State, AID and HHS--already have an inspector general. These were created by Congress a long time ago. In the last several years, the volume of audit and inspection reports prepared by these entities on the PEPFAR program and the President's Malaria Initiative fills these two large binders, which run hundreds and hundreds of pages in length. The AID inspector general alone has conducted 25 audits and made nearly 100 recommendations. The State Department inspector general has reviewed PEPFAR activities at 10 overseas posts during embassy inspections. In the last 3 years, there have been five GAO reports, and another one is underway. The Global AIDS coordinator, Dr. Dybul, has formally requested that the PEPFAR agency inspectors general get together on a collective financial audit. In other words, there is already a lot of work that is being done. But in order to ensure that it continues and indeed increases, the bill before the Senate has a provision on this very point--a provision that the Senator's amendment would strike. It requires the three inspectors general from these agencies to come up with a coordinated annual plan to review the programs under this act. And then it provides $15 million that is specifically allocated to this work, out of the $50 billion in this bill. So we have already addressed the Senator's concern in a way that builds on an existing structure, which will save taxpayer dollars and will ensure a coordinated effort. The Senator's amendment, by contrast, requires us to build a whole new outfit from scratch. It calls for $10 million in annual funding, or $50 million over the life of the bill--almost as much as Dr. Dybul's own office spends to manage the entire program. As everyone knows, these programs are implemented overseas, not only in the 15 ``focus countries,'' but dozens of other countries. The inspector general for the Agency for International Development has several overseas offices--including two of them in sub-Saharan Africa, in South Africa and Senegal--that do the bulk of the audit work. The State Department inspector general sends teams out to inspect every embassy every 5 years or so. During these inspections, they review aspects of the PEPFAR program. How will this new office be able duplicate this existing infrastructure? Where will these overseas offices be located? What are the startup costs for all this? Do we really need a special IG for every $6 billion program we create in the Government? Why do we bother to fund the permanent IGs? Where will staff be recruited for this new IG? The community of IGs in the Government is already struggling to find competent auditors and investigators. The new IG will almost certainly end up poaching staff from existing IGs, thereby weakening those offices. Is that a result we want? I think it makes no sense to start over, when we have existing outfits that can do the job. I oppose this amendment. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I understand the Senator's amendment is in order. We have signed onto it. I ask unanimous consent that no second- degree amendments be in order to the Senator's amendment.

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I respect the Senator from Kentucky and understand his position. I am pleased to see his strong support for the intention of the PEPFAR legislation. But as appealing as the Senator's amendment is, it belies a very important underlying point. Originally, this was authorized for $15 billion. At the time of the authorization, it was clear to everyone that was not nearly sufficient to deal with what is a worldwide dilemma, a worldwide problem. There is also recognition that it is not like you can isolate AIDS to a single country. The notion that we became clearly aware of, as knowledge of this disease became more apparent to the world at large, is that this has no borders. It has no geographic bounds. It has no ideological component. We hear statements that sound very appealing, such as: Why should we help a country like China deal with AIDS? We have the technology and the medical capability and PEPFAR and the world organizations know how to deal with it in ways that individual countries, including developed and developing countries such as China, don't. What happens in China affects what happens in the rest of the world. The idea of us not being part of the world effort to stem the spread of AIDS in China--or Russia, for that matter--impacts on the well-being of all humanity and, specifically, American citizens along the line. That is a generic point I wished to make. Let me be more specific. This would slash funding from the $50 billion mark we have proposed to a $15 billion mark, which would be cutting current assistance substantially. It also assumes that the United States or the U.S. Global AIDS coordinator or our other partners have not learned anything in the past 5 years. In fact, we have learned a great deal. The Lantos-Hyde Reauthorization Act, which we are voting on now, and amendments to it, seeks to build on the current progress we have made. The Senator outlined the real progress, but we ought not to freeze in place or, worse yet, set backward the progress we have made. This bill draws heavily on several reports that have been commissioned by the Congress. The GAO, which is Congress's watchdog, and the Institute of Medicine, which is part of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, both recommended substantial changes in current law in order to improve our programs. This bill acts on a number of those recommendations. First and foremost, it needs to be pointed out that the earmarks established in 2003--it would come back, as I understand it, in the proposal by my colleague from Kentucky--were actually impeding our progress in fighting AIDS, in some ways. These earmarks set specific percentages for spending on HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment and care and, further, they set percentages on certain kinds of prevention activities. In 2003, these earmarks may have served their stated purpose. For example, they emphasized the importance of treatment at a time when treatment was almost unheard of in parts of the world. They also underscored the ideas that abstinence and being faithful were key components of HIV prevention programs. Those principles were important and they are now well established. But the Institute of Medicine also found that such rigid earmarks have ``adversely affected implementation of the U.S. Global AIDS Initiative'' and ``have been counterproductive.'' The GAO also found the 2003 earmarks effectively pitted some of these earmarks against other very highly valued prevention efforts that should be under way to prevent the transmission of HIV from mother to child. As a result, fewer funds were available to expand programs to prevent transmission of the disease from HIV-infected mothers to their children. Every day, for example, over 1,000 children are infected by HIV. The reauthorization bill removes or modifies most of those earmarks in order to promote the approach that better allows each country to fight its own epidemic. Balanced prevention strategies are still important, but they also allow for new science to be brought to bear on the problem. Let me say this. One of the things we found--remember, when we first started discussing this program on the floor, there was overwhelming resistance to many countries in Africa to even acknowledge that they had a problem. There was resistance in other parts of the world to acknowledge that they had a problem. It was viewed as somehow negatively reflecting on the people of a country or on the society and the governance of that society if there was an acknowledgement of the degree to which this disease was prevalent in their country. In order to get it going to begin with, we did a lot of things to sort of break through that membrane of resistance that existed out there. To that extent, the original notions were very productive and positive. We have gone way beyond that now. The problem is larger than we thought when we first initiated this program. Let me conclude by quoting the administration's position on the bill that Senator Lugar and I are proposing for our colleagues today: The administration strongly supports S. 2731, the Tom Lantos-Henry J. Hyde U.S. Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008, and the managers' substitute amendment for this bill, both of which would reauthorize PEPFAR and ensure the continued success of this program. . . . S. 2731 would reauthorize the emergency plan in a manner consistent with the program's successful founding principles and would maintain a continued focus on quantifiable HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment, and care goals. So I say to my colleagues, the starting block from which our friend from Kentucky wishes us to return was just that. It was operating with what we knew and what we needed at the time to get started. We have learned a great deal more since then. We should not, in fact, turn back the clock. This reauthorization represents a true bipartisan compromise. It includes 15 Republican amendments in the bill and suggestions we incorporated even before we reached the unanimous consent agreement last Friday. From the outset, it was a bipartisan effort. It passed out of our Foreign Relations Committee in a bipartisan way overwhelmingly. When the appropriate time comes, I will move to ask our colleagues to join me and my colleague in opposing this amendment. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I have a unanimous consent I am about to propound that has been cleared on the Republican side. I ask unanimous consent that at 5 p.m. the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Bunning amendment, No. 5073; further, that the time until 5 p.m. be equally divided and controlled in the usual form.

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I will use a minute or so of this time. I believe the Bunning amendment is well intended, but I think the irony is the Bunning amendment fails to understand what it was that was intended at the first effort to bring forward PEPFAR and get this underway. As I said, we had a number of nations that needed help badly denying the need for help because they viewed it reflected so negatively on them as a people and as a nation. So we did a lot of things the first time around that now, in the clear light of day, and much broader need, and the fact that PEPFAR and the world Global Fund is being embraced by the rest of the world, that actually acts as an impediment if we went back to Senator Bunning's proposal. So at the appropriate time, 5 o'clock, I am going to suggest again that my colleagues support a ``no'' vote. We will have an up-or-down vote on this amendment and vote no on the Bunning amendment, which would quite frankly eviscerate, literally eviscerate the President's initiative. I will conclude by saying, I am often critical of the President and his foreign policy and his aid programs, et cetera. But the President of the United States, George W. Bush, deserves great credit. If the President did nothing else in his administration, this is justification enough for his legacy to be looked back on favorably because of the phenomenal and dramatic impact this initiative has had and will have in the rest of the world. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the Constitution guarantees all Americans the right to the equal protection of the law. Nowhere is the guarantee of equal protection more important than in our criminal justice system. In a criminal justice system that imprisons a record 2.3 million, even the perception of bias on the basis of race, ethnicity, or any other protected class is unacceptable and should be guarded against at all costs. Unfortunately, studies, reports, and case law from the last several years have documented racial disparities during many of the stages of the criminal justice system--law enforcement contact with a suspect, arrest, charging, plea bargaining, jury selection, and sentencing. Nowhere are the effects of these racial disparities more evident than in our prisons. By some estimates, nearly three-quarters of prisoners in the United States are either African-American or Hispanic. One of every three African-American men born today can expect to go to prison in his lifetime. These numbers, and studies and reports that show similar disparities during other stages of the criminal justice process, engender a crisis of public trust in the integrity of our criminal justice system and raise the possibility that we are failing to make good on the constitutional promise of equal protection. Both the reality and the perception of inappropriate disparate treatment of minorities in the justice system erode respect for the law and undermine public safety. Communities become increasingly reluctant to report crimes to and cooperate with police and prosecutors. They become reluctant to participate in juries and, when they do participate, to vote for conviction where the defendant is a minority. To fulfill the promise of the Constitution, and to effectively fight crime and deliver impartial justice, it is essential to identify and address unjustified disparities in the criminal justice system. The Justice Integrity Act establishes a pilot program within the Justice Department to identify and eliminate unjustified disparities in the administration of justice. Ten U.S. Attorneys designated by the Attorney General will each appoint and chair an advisory group, composed of Federal and State prosecutors and defenders, private defense counsel, Federal and State judges, correctional officers, victims' rights representatives, Civil Rights organizations, business representatives and faith-based organizations engaged in criminal justice work. The advisory group will systematically gather and examine data regarding the criminal process in its district and seek to determine the causes of any racial or ethnic disparity. The advisory group will produce a report on its findings and recommend a plan to reduce any unwarranted racial and ethnic disparities and thereby increase public confidence in the criminal justice system. The U.S. Attorney will consider the advisory group's recommendations and adopt a plan and submit a report to the Attorney General. At the end of the pilot program, the Attorney General will produce a comprehensive report to Congress on the results of the pilot program in all ten districts and recommend best-practices. The Justice Integrity Act has been endorsed by the National Criminal Justice Association, The Sentencing Project, the American Bar Association, and a number of former United States Attorneys. I am proud to introduce this important bill with the support of my colleagues and friends--Senators Arlen Specter, John Kerry, and Ben Cardin. We urge other members to join us. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. The Rev. Dr. Harris is capable of being a Senator. She has the capability and competence to do any number of jobs I can think of. I compliment my colleague for inviting the Rev. Dr. Harris to open the Senate this morning. As you could tell by Senator Carper's reference to Reverend Harris, Senator Carper is a man of deep faith, as I know the Chair is and as I am. We share different faiths, but we share a common set of values, as almost all the confessional faiths do, not just the Christian faith which we share. I am a Roman Catholic, my friend is a Presbyterian, and Dr. Harris is a Methodist. The thing about Dr. Harris--and I will not take a lot of the Senate's time--the thing about Dr. Harris that has impressed me from the many years--my Lord, I think it may be more than a couple decades. I have known her a long time. She was an incredibly well-respected figure in my State before she went to the ministry--before. Since then, she has carried on that same path of excellence that she did prior to the ministry. But if I can take a page from my colleague's book in referencing Dr. Harris's opening prayer, she talked about wisdom, which she knows we need in abundance. But she also talked about--she used the word that, if I had to describe her, would be the word I would use. She talked about tolerance. The thing that most impresses me about the Rev. Dr. Harris is her literal--not figurative, not rhetorical--commitment to the notion of tolerance. She has such an expansive view of human nature. She has such a welcoming--not only faith but personality. I think if I had a wish, if the Lord came down and sat at my desk and said: Joe, you get one wish. What is the one attribute you would like to pervade this Chamber? Maybe even more than wisdom, it would be tolerance. Tolerance is not engaging in relativity. Tolerance does not mean we don't have strong beliefs and strong opinions and strong positions on faith. Tolerance is what not only our Christian religion teaches us but Judaism and Islam and Hinduism. It is about tolerance. It seems to me that is the single most lacking element in American society today. I think if you get to know her--you are not going to get to know her, I realize that is a bit of an exaggeration--I hope you get a chance to engage Rev. Dr. Harris today. She exudes the notion of tolerance which equates with her notion of equality. It gets to what--I will conclude-- my friend Tom said, the two great commandments: love thy God and love thy neighbor. This is all about loving thy neighbor. We are the single most heterogenous democracy in the history of mankind. It is unable to function--I look at the pages wondering: What is this old guy saying? This country is unable to function without the lubricant of tolerance. And Dr. Harris embodies that. I am honored to be here this morning with her. I, again, compliment my colleague on not only his comments but inviting Dr. Harris to be here and introducing her to all of you and to those who are watching C- SPAN this morning, watching her. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the Constitution guarantees all Americans the right to the equal protection of the law. Nowhere is the guarantee of equal protection more important than in our criminal justice system. In a criminal justice system that imprisons a record 2.3 million, even the perception of bias on the basis of race, ethnicity, or any other protected class is unacceptable and should be guarded against at all costs. Unfortunately, studies, reports, and case law from the last several years have documented racial disparities during many of the stages of the criminal justice system--law enforcement contact with a suspect, arrest, charging, plea bargaining, jury selection, and sentencing. Nowhere are the effects of these racial disparities more evident than in our prisons. By some estimates, nearly three-quarters of prisoners in the United States are either African-American or Hispanic. One of every three African-American men born today can expect to go to prison in his lifetime. These numbers, and studies and reports that show similar disparities during other stages of the criminal justice process, engender a crisis of public trust in the integrity of our criminal justice system and raise the possibility that we are failing to make good on the constitutional promise of equal protection. Both the reality and the perception of inappropriate disparate treatment of minorities in the justice system erode respect for the law and undermine public safety. Communities become increasingly reluctant to report crimes to and cooperate with police and prosecutors. They become reluctant to participate in juries and, when they do participate, to vote for conviction where the defendant is a minority. To fulfill the promise of the Constitution, and to effectively fight crime and deliver impartial justice, it is essential to identify and address unjustified disparities in the criminal justice system. The Justice Integrity Act establishes a pilot program within the Justice Department to identify and eliminate unjustified disparities in the administration of justice. Ten U.S. Attorneys designated by the Attorney General will each appoint and chair an advisory group, composed of Federal and State prosecutors and defenders, private defense counsel, Federal and State judges, correctional officers, victims' rights representatives, Civil Rights organizations, business representatives and faith-based organizations engaged in criminal justice work. The advisory group will systematically gather and examine data regarding the criminal process in its district and seek to determine the causes of any racial or ethnic disparity. The advisory group will produce a report on its findings and recommend a plan to reduce any unwarranted racial and ethnic disparities and thereby increase public confidence in the criminal justice system. The U.S. Attorney will consider the advisory group's recommendations and adopt a plan and submit a report to the Attorney General. At the end of the pilot program, the Attorney General will produce a comprehensive report to Congress on the results of the pilot program in all ten districts and recommend best-practices. The Justice Integrity Act has been endorsed by the National Criminal Justice Association, The Sentencing Project, the American Bar Association, and a number of former United States Attorneys. I am proud to introduce this important bill with the support of my colleagues and friends--Senators Arlen Specter, John Kerry, and Ben Cardin. We urge other members to join us. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.