Joe Biden

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendments Act of 2008. As one of the cosponsors of FISA in 1978, I am fully aware of the importance of giving the administration the surveillance tools it needs to keep us safe. This is a very difficult vote and I do not question the judgment of those who have chosen to support the bill. But because I am concerned that this bill authorizes surveillance that is broader than necessary to protect national security at the expense of civil liberties and because it gives blanket retroactive immunity to the telephone companies, I have decided not to support it. One of the defining challenges of our age is to combat international terrorism while maintaining our national values and our commitment to the rule of law and individual rights. These two obligations are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, they reinforce one another. Unfortunately, the President's national security policies have operated at the expense of our civil liberties. The examples are legion, but the issue that prompted the legislation before us today is one of the most notorious-- his secret program of eavesdropping on Americans without congressional authorization or a judge's approval. After insisting for a year that the President was not bound by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act's clear prohibition on warrantless surveillance of Americans, the administration subjected its surveillance program to FISA Court review in January of 2007. Then, last August, citing operational difficulties and heightened threats that required changes to FISA, Congress passed the Protect America Act--over my objection and that of many of my colleagues. I am submitting with this statement the objections I made at that time. The Protect America Act, which sunset last February, amended FISA to allow warrantless surveillance, even when that surveillance intercepted the communications of innocent American citizens inside the United States. The administration identified two problems it faces in conducting electronic surveillance under FISA. First, the administration wanted clarification that it did not need to obtain a FISA warrant in order to conduct surveillance of calls between two parties when both of those parties are overseas. Because of the way global communications are now transmitted, many communications between people all of whom are overseas are nonetheless routed through switching stations inside the United States. In other words, when someone in Islamabad, Pakistan calls someone in London, that call is likely to be routed through communications switching stations right here in the United States. Congress did not intend FISA to apply to such calls, and I support a legislative fix to clarify that point. The second problem the administration identified is more difficult. Even assuming that the Government does not need a FISA warrant to tap into switching stations here in the United States in order to intercept calls between two people who are abroad--between Pakistan and England, for example--if the target in Pakistan calls someone inside the United States, FISA requires the government to get a warrant, even though the government is ``targeting'' the caller in Pakistan. The administration wants the flexibility to begin electronic surveillance of a ``target'' abroad without having to get a FISA warrant to account for the possibility that the ``foreign target'' might contact someone in the United States. I agree with the administration's assessment of the problem, but this bill would go far beyond what is necessary to meet these new technological challenges. This bill's approach would significantly expand the scope of surveillance permitted under FISA by exempting entirely from the warrant requirement any calls to or from the United States, as long as the Government is ``targeting'' someone reasonably believed to be located outside the United States. The Government could acquire these communications regardless of whether either party is suspected of any wrongdoing and regardless of how many calls to innocent American citizens inside the United States were intercepted in the process. Although the bill gives the FISA Court a greater role than earlier bills did, it still fails to provide for a meaningful judicial check on the President's power. The FISA Court's role would be limited to reviewing the Government's targeting procedures and its minimization procedures--the procedures it uses to limit the retention and dissemination of information it has required. But it would be required to approve them as long as they met the general requirements of the statute, which is written broadly. In addition, unlike the Judiciary Committee version of the bill I supported earlier this year, this bill neither limits the Government's use of information collected under procedures the FISA Court later deems inadequate, nor does it expressly give the FISA Court authority to enforce compliance with orders it issues. I am concerned that because of the way this bill is drafted, it could be interpreted to preclude the FISA Court from ordering the Government to destroy all communications of innocent Americans that it incidentally collects during its surveillance. If I were certain that the FISA Court had the power to order the destruction of the communications of innocent Americans, it might tip the balance in favor of my supporting the bill, even though I oppose blanket retroactive immunity. As for immunity, although I can understand why in the immediate aftermath of the attacks on September 11 the telephone companies would have cooperated with the Government, I believe it is inappropriate for Congress to grant blanket retroactive immunity without knowing what it is granting immunity for. Furthermore, cases against the carriers are already making their way through the courts and I have every confidence in the court's ability to interpret and apply the law. Retroactive immunity would undermine the judiciary's role as an independent branch of government. When the Senate passed FISA, after extensive hearings, thirty years ago by a strong bipartisan vote of 95 to 1, I stated that it ``was a reaffirmation of the principle that it is possible to protect national security and at the same time the Bill of Rights.'' I still believe that is possible, but not if we enact this bill. Mr. President, I am in support of Senator Rockefeller's proposal to address shortcomings in our intelligence collection authorities. I have studied Senator Rockefeller's bill closely and believe that it is an appropriate, temporary fix that adequately protects both our national security and Americans' privacy and civil liberties. It includes important safeguards against executive abuse--safeguards that are essential for an administration that has demonstrated so frequently that it simply cannot be trusted. The Rockefeller bill is narrowly tailored to address the two problems the administration has said it faces in conducting electronic surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as that law is currently written. First, the administration wants clarification that it does not need to obtain a FISA warrant in order to conduct surveillance of calls between two parties when both of those parties are overseas. Because of the way global communications are now transmitted, many communications that take place entirely overseas are nonetheless routed through switching stations inside the United States. In other words, when someone in Islamabad, Pakistan, calls someone in London, England, that call may well be routed through communications switching stations right here in the United States. FISA was never intended to apply to such calls, and I support a legislative fix to clarify that point. The second problem the administration has identified is more difficult. Although neither FISA nor the Constitution requires the President to get a warrant if the target of surveillance is in Pakistan calling London, or anywhere else outside the United States, if the target in Pakistan calls someone in the United States, FISA requires the Government to get a warrant, even though the Government is ``targeting'' the caller in Pakistan. Senator Rockefeller's bill would give the Government great flexibility to conduct surveillance of targets abroad, with prior approval of the FISA Court, while protecting the privacy of innocent Americans in the United States. Under this bill, the FISA Court would be required to issue a warrant upon a minimal showing that the targets of surveillance are overseas and not in the United States. The bill provides protection for innocent Americans in the United States--if the foreign target's communications began to involve a significant number of calls into the United States, the Government would be required to end surveillance pending receipt of a new FISA Court order that the target overseas was a suspected terrorist. Senator Rockefeller's approach also ensures robust oversight. Congress would get the actual FISA Court orders, and, every 60 days, Congress would receive the list of targets who turned out to be in the United States and the number of persons inside the United States whose communications were intercepted. This is more information than Congress receives today, and it would enable us to verify the administration's claim that they are targeting suspected terrorists without unnecessarily violating the privacy of law-abiding Americans. Senator Rockefeller's bill sunsets in 6 months, at which point Congress can, if necessary, craft a permanent, sensible, and Constitutional fix to FISA that ensures the American people are protected from terrorism and from encroachments on their civil liberties and individual freedoms. The President has asked that we go further, that we give him more unchecked power and discretion to eavesdrop on Americans' conversations without a warrant and without congressional oversight. His request raises many concerns, and Congress should deny it. The President's proposal would significantly expand the scope of surveillance permitted under FISA by exempting entirely any calls to or from the United States, as long as the Government is directing its surveillance at someone reasonably believed to be located abroad. The Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence would make this determination on their own, and they would merely certify, after- the-fact, to the FISA Court that they had reason to believe the target is outside the United States, regardless of how many calls to innocent American citizens inside the United States were intercepted in the process. This would be a breathtaking and unconstitutional expansion of the President's powers and it is wholly unnecessary to address the problems the administration has identified. Furthermore, the administration would not even limit this unchecked surveillance to persons suspected of involvement in international terrorism--it would cover the collection of any foreign intelligence information, which can include the collection of trade secrets and other information unrelated to the threat posed by al-Qaida. I have said before that one of the defining challenges of our age is to effectively combat international terrorism while maintaining our national values and our commitment to the rule of law, individual rights, and civil liberties. Unfortunately, the President has attempted to protect America by unnecessarily betraying our fundamental notions of constitutional governance and individual rights and liberties. I will support giving the administration the tools it needs to track down terrorists, but I will not give the President unchecked authority to eavesdrop on whomever he wants in exchange for the vague and hollow assurance that he will protect the civil liberties of the American people. This administration has squandered the trust of Congress and the American people. The administration's approach is constitutionally infirm and it is unnecessary to address the specific problems it has identified. The Rockefeller bill is a carefully calibrated approach that protects the American people from both terrorism and violations of their civil liberties. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, for the Committee on Foreign Relations I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Record on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today Senator Lugar and I introduce, by request, a resolution of approval of the proposed agreement for peaceful nuclear cooperation between the United States and the Russian Federation, which the President transmitted to Congress on May 13, 2008, pursuant to sections 123b. and 123d. of the Atomic Energy Act. Pursuant to section 130i.(2) of that Act, the majority and minority leaders have designated Senator Lugar and me to introduce this resolution.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the evidence is clear. We stand at the brink of major losses among the living species on our planet. By the end of this century, as many as two out of every three plant and animal species could be in danger of extinction. This disturbing trend has many causes, but several are clear and manmade--they are our responsibility and they are within our control. Our industrial emissions are changing our world's climate and, in so doing, drastically altering habitats--habitats already threatened by deforestation and other landuse changes. Unsustainable fishing and the spread of invasive species due to enhanced global commerce pose similar manmade challenges. That is why I am introducing, along with Senators Snowe, Boxer, Lugar, Kerry, Specter, Menendez, Brownback, Bayh, Stabenow, and Feingold, a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that the United States should take a leadership role in protecting international biodiversity. With one out of every ten species facing extinction, with habitats declining, and with developing countries searching to build a better economic future while protecting their natural environments, now is the time for renewed efforts to protect our living world. This morning, my colleagues and I hosted a briefing by Dr. Edward O. Wilson, renowned University Research Professor Emeritus at Harvard and author of two Pulitzer Prize-winning books, and Dr. Eric Chivian, who shared the Nobel Peace Prize and is Founder and Director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School. These two eminent scientists made the case that biodiversity is not just a moral, ecological, and economic issue, but also one of major importance to human health. We often find, Mr. President, that the areas most in danger are in developing nations, which have the least ability to protect them. Developing nations face very real economic and human challenges. Many are struggling to provide enough food for their people, especially given the recent rise in food prices. They now face the choice between feeding their people and preserving their environment. We know how that will turn out. We must give them another choice. To do that, the United States and other wealthy nations must help. The 10 colleagues with whom I worked on this resolution understand that protecting our global biodiversity is actually in our own national interest. Sustainable agricultural practices promise sustainable economies in the developing world. A stable climate will reduce the threat of water shortages, shifting growing seasons, population movements, and resource wars. Protecting habitats not only protects the rich diversity of life on earth--protecting habitats will preserve some of the most basic building blocks of our economies and societies. Not least, as Dr. Wilson and Dr. Chivian so persuasively argue, the preservation of biodiversity is an investment in human health. More than a quarter of the world's medicinal drugs possess active ingredients from wild species, and more than half of the most prescribed medicines in the United States are based on natural compounds. If we hope to advance medicine, to ease pain and suffering and to extend lifespans, the bounty of nature offers an indispensable guide and resource. Finally, we have a moral obligation to protect biodiversity. Ensuring that we can feed and clothe and shelter millions more people while preserving the elaborate tapestry of creation will allow our children and grandchildren to inherit the rich planet that we were bequeathed. Species extinctions are nothing new. But species extinctions that are avoidable, that are within our power to prevent, extinctions due to our greed, or our ignorance, impose on us a special responsibility. Those are mistakes that can never be undone. We must resolve to do all we can to replace greed with a better calculation of our long-term interests. We must resolve to replace ignorance with knowledge and with wisdom. That is why my colleagues and I are offering the resolution, to express the will of the Senate to redouble United States efforts internationally to protect our world in all its complexity, and diversity.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fugitive Information Networked Database Act of 2008, or the FIND Act. This bill provides resources to law enforcement to ensure the entry of felony warrants into the national FBI database and to assist in tracking down and extraditing fugitives. It helps ensure that fugitives who flee their States will be located, apprehended, and brought to justice. It protects our communities by taking dangerous criminals off the streets. According to a recent series of articles in the St. Louis Post- Dispatch, anywhere from 1.9 million to 2.7 million felony fugitives are on the run from law enforcement. When State and local law enforcement issue a warrant for a fugitive's arrest, they are expected to enter it into the FBI's National Crime Information Center database as well as into their own State and local databases. The national database is accessible to all State and local law enforcement agencies, which use the national database to track fugitives around the country. The national database is only as good as the information that States enter into it, however. Too often, State and local law enforcement agencies enter warrants into the State and local databases, but not into the national database. It is estimated that more than a third of all felony warrants have not been entered into the national database. That means anywhere from 800,000 to 1.6 million wanted felons can escape justice and remain at large in our communities simply by crossing State lines. Unless a warrant is entered into the national database, a sheriff or police officer who stops a fugitive has no way of knowing that he is wanted in another jurisdiction--sometimes for a violent crime. Many fugitives go on to commit additional crimes in other States. Some know that if they can flee across State lines, there's a good chance they can--in some cases--get away with murder. This is inexcusable. I have heard a range of reasons why State and local law enforcement have not been entering felony warrants into the national database. Some reasons are valid. For instance, if law enforcement is using a person suspected of a felony as an informant, it's understandable that they would not want to enter the informant's name into the database. Many jurisdictions don't enter warrants into the national database, however, simply because they don't have the time and resources to update and validate warrant entries, which is a resource- and time- intensive process. Fortunately, the burden of warrant entry and validation can be alleviated. By developing new databases, or by upgrading existing ones, to ensure compatibility and interoperability with the national database, State and local law enforcement can facilitate information sharing and seamless warrant entry into databases at all levels of government. With additional resources to hire personnel for the validation process, State and local law enforcement can enter felony warrants into the national database without worrying about not having the resources to validate them. The FIND Act addresses the problem of warrant backlogs by providing State and local law enforcement with the resources necessary to develop and upgrade their systems, and hire additional personnel to perform the validation process. Specifically, it authorizes $25 million for fiscal years 2009 and 2010 for grants to States to develop new systems or upgrade existing systems so that they are interoperable with the NCIC database. Another reason law enforcement doesn't enter felony warrants into the national database is concern that the State will not have the resources to extradite the fugitive if he is found outside the State's borders. Helping State and local agencies enter their felony warrants into the national database is therefore only half the battle. We also need to ensure that when a dangerous fugitive is caught, the jurisdiction in which he is wanted can work with the U.S. Marshals Service to extradite him to face justice. While I was drafting this bill, I spoke to one sheriff who apprehended an individual wanted for rape in another State. The sheriff notified that State that he had their criminal in custody, but when the State said they didn't have the resources to extradite him, the sheriff had no choice but to free the rapist into his community. When we in Congress do not provide law enforcement with the basic resources they need to extradite dangerous criminals like this, we fail in our most basic duty to those we represent--the duty to protect them from violent crime. The U.S. Marshals Service is on the front lines of fugitive apprehension and extradition. We authorized funds several years ago for the development of Regional Fugitive Task Forces that combine the resources and expertise of State and local law enforcement and the U.S. Marshals Service. These task forces have been very successful and could do much more to track down and extradite fugitives if they had the proper resources. My bill authorizes an additional $20 million in fiscal year 2009 to fund existing and develop new regional task forces, and it provides $10 million for fiscal years 2010 through 2014. It also authorizes $3 million for each of fiscal years 2009 through 2014 to assist in the extradition of fugitives through the Justice Prisoner and Alien Transport System. The FIND Act provides essential resources to locate, capture, and bring to justice dangerous fugitives. It takes commonsense steps to protect our communities from rapists, murderers, and other violent criminals who have fled across State lines. I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fugitive Information Networked Database Act of 2008, or the FIND Act. This bill provides resources to law enforcement to ensure the entry of felony warrants into the national FBI database and to assist in tracking down and extraditing fugitives. It helps ensure that fugitives who flee their States will be located, apprehended, and brought to justice. It protects our communities by taking dangerous criminals off the streets. According to a recent series of articles in the St. Louis Post- Dispatch, anywhere from 1.9 million to 2.7 million felony fugitives are on the run from law enforcement. When State and local law enforcement issue a warrant for a fugitive's arrest, they are expected to enter it into the FBI's National Crime Information Center database as well as into their own State and local databases. The national database is accessible to all State and local law enforcement agencies, which use the national database to track fugitives around the country. The national database is only as good as the information that States enter into it, however. Too often, State and local law enforcement agencies enter warrants into the State and local databases, but not into the national database. It is estimated that more than a third of all felony warrants have not been entered into the national database. That means anywhere from 800,000 to 1.6 million wanted felons can escape justice and remain at large in our communities simply by crossing State lines. Unless a warrant is entered into the national database, a sheriff or police officer who stops a fugitive has no way of knowing that he is wanted in another jurisdiction--sometimes for a violent crime. Many fugitives go on to commit additional crimes in other States. Some know that if they can flee across State lines, there's a good chance they can--in some cases--get away with murder. This is inexcusable. I have heard a range of reasons why State and local law enforcement have not been entering felony warrants into the national database. Some reasons are valid. For instance, if law enforcement is using a person suspected of a felony as an informant, it's understandable that they would not want to enter the informant's name into the database. Many jurisdictions don't enter warrants into the national database, however, simply because they don't have the time and resources to update and validate warrant entries, which is a resource- and time- intensive process. Fortunately, the burden of warrant entry and validation can be alleviated. By developing new databases, or by upgrading existing ones, to ensure compatibility and interoperability with the national database, State and local law enforcement can facilitate information sharing and seamless warrant entry into databases at all levels of government. With additional resources to hire personnel for the validation process, State and local law enforcement can enter felony warrants into the national database without worrying about not having the resources to validate them. The FIND Act addresses the problem of warrant backlogs by providing State and local law enforcement with the resources necessary to develop and upgrade their systems, and hire additional personnel to perform the validation process. Specifically, it authorizes $25 million for fiscal years 2009 and 2010 for grants to States to develop new systems or upgrade existing systems so that they are interoperable with the NCIC database. Another reason law enforcement doesn't enter felony warrants into the national database is concern that the State will not have the resources to extradite the fugitive if he is found outside the State's borders. Helping State and local agencies enter their felony warrants into the national database is therefore only half the battle. We also need to ensure that when a dangerous fugitive is caught, the jurisdiction in which he is wanted can work with the U.S. Marshals Service to extradite him to face justice. While I was drafting this bill, I spoke to one sheriff who apprehended an individual wanted for rape in another State. The sheriff notified that State that he had their criminal in custody, but when the State said they didn't have the resources to extradite him, the sheriff had no choice but to free the rapist into his community. When we in Congress do not provide law enforcement with the basic resources they need to extradite dangerous criminals like this, we fail in our most basic duty to those we represent--the duty to protect them from violent crime. The U.S. Marshals Service is on the front lines of fugitive apprehension and extradition. We authorized funds several years ago for the development of Regional Fugitive Task Forces that combine the resources and expertise of State and local law enforcement and the U.S. Marshals Service. These task forces have been very successful and could do much more to track down and extradite fugitives if they had the proper resources. My bill authorizes an additional $20 million in fiscal year 2009 to fund existing and develop new regional task forces, and it provides $10 million for fiscal years 2010 through 2014. It also authorizes $3 million for each of fiscal years 2009 through 2014 to assist in the extradition of fugitives through the Justice Prisoner and Alien Transport System. The FIND Act provides essential resources to locate, capture, and bring to justice dangerous fugitives. It takes commonsense steps to protect our communities from rapists, murderers, and other violent criminals who have fled across State lines. I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I wish today to honor Bill McLaughlin, a man as renowned for his vision and leadership as for his soft touch and utter humanity. Bill passed away on May 30, 2008, but his legacy will live on for generations. Many remember Bill as a man who turned the city of Wilmington into one of the financial capitals of the world--I prefer to honor him as the truly decent, caring, and visionary gentleman whom I have admired for my entire career. To summarize Bill McLaughlin's life in a few words is beyond my capabilities. It is impossible for me to speak of this brother, father, and grandfather in terms of his well-documented public accomplishments. To me, Bill McLaughlin was a friend, and a man. As Shakespeare wrote, ``His life was gentle, and the elements / So mixed in him that Nature might stand up / And say to all the world, / This was a man!'' Bill McLaughlin was a man. As we Irish say when we want to pay the highest compliment: Bill McLaughlin was a good man. Bill was, at his core, a family man. He viewed everything through the prism of family. And he was a great city leader because he loved the city of Wilmington. On any given Sunday, you were as likely to see him at an African-American church as you were at Catholic mass. Of all Bill's wonderful qualities, perhaps the most unique--and most useful--was his style of leadership. He had the insight to know what had to be done and the wisdom to make other people think it was their idea. He was one of the last men and women of the ``greatest generation,'' recognizing that the values he was raised with--honor, decency, humility and sacrifice--were universal values that defined who we are as a nation. He used those ideals as his guidance, which is why Bill's courageous decisions as an elected official were both profound and simple for him. They were not difficult for him because they were obvious to him; Bill always knew his true north. Bill McLaughlin was a model for all of us, not just elected officials. He lived his life, from beginning to end, by the same guiding principles upon which our Nation is built. Bill will be sorely missed, but as long as we remember his lessons, the world will be better off. As Yeats wrote in ``The Lake Isle of Innisfree:'' I will arise and go now, for always night and day I hear lake water lapping with low sounds by the shore; While I stand on the roadway, or on the pavements grey, I hear it in the deep heart's core.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Today Senator Lugar and I introduce, by request, the International Space Station Payments Act of 2008. This measure would enable the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to continue payments to Russia related to the International Space Station after 2011. As with any legislation proposed by request, we introduce this bill for the purpose of placing the Executive branch's proposals before Congress and the public without expressing our own views on the substance of the proposals. As chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Foreign Relations, we intend to give the administration's requested legislation careful review and consideration. The Administrator of NASA, Michael Griffin, has submitted this legislation to the committee, along with a section-by-section analysis that helps to explain why NASA wants this legislation and what they believe it will achieve. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support and a section-by-section analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate passed the budget plan this morning. I was hoping to be here in time to cast my vote in favor of this agreement, but I was a few minutes late. I want my colleagues to know, and the record to reflect, that I was paying last respects to one of Delaware's finest citizens and a man who was a good friend to me for the past four decades. I am speaking of William T. ``Bill'' McLaughlin, also known as ``Mr. Mayor,'' who passed away last Friday. He presided as Mayor of Wilmington from 1977 to 1984 and shaped it as the financial center it is today. This morning I attended the mass in his honor and presented the eulogy.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleagues for holding the vote open as long as they could. Unfortunately, both of the trains I hoped would get me here were late, and I missed the vote by 10 minutes. I wish I had been able to get here in time to deliver this statement in support of cloture on the motion to proceed to the Climate Security Act, and to vote aye. Mr. President, this is a historic moment. For the first time we have before the Senate legislation to slow, stop, and reverse greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. When such a plan is finally passed, signed and enacted, we will look back on this day as the beginning. Let us commit ourselves to that goal. And let us begin this historic process today by allowing the Senate to take up the Climate Security Act. In our own country, and among our fellow citizens on this planet, we face a common threat. Now is the time for us to fashion a common response. I introduced climate change legislation over two decades ago, in 1986, at a time when this issue was just on the horizon. It called for the establishment of national strategy to understand and respond to the emerging threat of global warming. Even at that early date, this was a bipartisan effort. I was joined by Senator Mack Mathias, a Maryland Republican. In those early days, Senators Kerry and Gore were also leaders, along with John Chafee. This remains a bipartisan effort today. In fact, on the legislation laid down this afternoon, the Boxer-Lieberman-Warner bill, we have all three political parties represented. This debate would not be happening without leadership from both parties over the years. Senator McCain joined Senator Lieberman in introducing the first Senate cap-and-trade legislation. Senator Warner has made climate change the issue that will cap his already distinguished career in the Senate. We would not be at this point today, without the leadership of Senator Boxer, who has made global warming the signature issue of her Chairmanship of our Environment Committee. Later in this debate, I intend to offer an amendment, with Senator Lugar, along with Senators Kerry, Warner, Menendez, and Snowe, calling for renewed leadership by the United States in international climate change negotiations. I make these points because we all know that this debate hangs now in a delicate balance between the best, bipartisan instincts of the Senate, on the one hand, and the temptation, so strong at this time in an election year, to score partisan points. I hope that we do not succumb to that temptation. Global warming is real, it is happening now, and the American people look to us for the political will to fashion a solution. We know that our physical climate is changing. And we all know that the political climate in the United States is changing, too. For too many years, the United States has stayed on the sidelines of international efforts to combat global warming. We have missed the chance to turn the impending threat of catastrophic climate change into an opportunity to reduce the security threat of our dependence on oil, to reduce the health threat from pollution, to reduce the sheer waste and inefficiency in our economy. And we missed the chance to do what many of the leading businesses in this country know we should do--capture a leadership position in the global competition for the next generation of clean technologies. With this debate, we are taking the first steps toward meeting our responsibilities and seizing those opportunities. The physical consequences of global warming are right before our eyes: the shrinking polar ice cap, retreating glaciers, changing growing seasons, animal migration, and rainfall patterns. In my own State of Delaware, our coastlines are threatened by rising sea levels and the threat of stronger storms from warmer ocean temperatures. Our wetlands, crucial to wildlife, water quality, and fisheries, are threatened as salt water intrudes on the richest biological zones in our State. The groundwater we depend on is similarly threatened by saltwater. As we draw from our aquifers, rising levels of sea water seep into the water table, accelerating their depletion. This is not an abstract threat--it is right here at home, where we live. Our national borders, our cities, our cultures, are all built around patterns of rainfall, arable land, and coastlines that will be redrawn as global warming proceeds. Even the richest nations, the historical source of the emissions behind global warming, will face huge costs coping with those catastrophes. The poorest nations, whose economies have contributed little or nothing to the greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, will be hit the worst, and will have the fewest resources with which to respond. And now a third category has emerged: the rapidly expanding developing nations which will be the leading sources of greenhouse gases in the future. Those nations must be part of the solution. But the United States must be willing to lead. In the course of becoming the wealthiest nation in history, we became the greatest historical emitter of greenhouse gasses now in the atmosphere. Now, other nations are following our path to wealth, and will become the next generation of major emitters. It is no answer to say that we must now wait for poorer nations to act before we take steps to lead the way to a global solution. That is not the leadership this global threat demands, Mr. President. We must first reach agreement here on our domestic approach to global warming. That is why this debate is so crucial. There will be honest differences on the best way to move to a low- carbon economy. But no serious analyst of this issue believes that the world can sustain business as usual. This is a global problem, that demands a global solution. But that solution will be built on the commitments of each individual nation to do its part. For too long, our differences have been stressed at the expense of the global good. Our constituents look to us to reconcile those differences, to find a way to respond in the name of the common good. We are now engaged in the search to define and secure a truly global common good. I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture, to join in a constructive debate, in the best tradition of the Senate. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today we are voting on funding our troops on the front lines. We can disagree about whether we should be in Iraq at all and we can disagree with the President's failed policies, but as long as Americans are in harm's way, we need to give them the best possible protection this country has. To me, that is a sacred obligation. In terms of protection, there are a lot of reasons to vote for this funding--it provides $2 billion to fight deadly improvised explosive devices, it funds 25 C-130s to replace planes worn out by nonstop use moving people and supplies around the war zone, it gives more assets to families, it funds much needed military health care, and it provides $1.7 billion for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles. That is a good thing. Now in our fifth year of the Iraq war and the seventh year of the war in Afghanistan, it often seems that good news is hard to come by. But sometimes good things do happen here on the Senate floor. Sometimes we are able to profoundly improve the odds for American men and women fighting in those wars. For my colleagues, I would like to review one good story. For me, this story begins in the summer of 2006 on one of my trips to Iraq. A Marine commander in Fallujah showed me a new vehicle they were using called a Buffalo. He told me that these Buffalos were saving lives and that they needed more of them. I was impressed. This Buffalo was a huge vehicle with a large claw arm, high off the ground, with a v-shaped undercarriage. I found out later that it was the largest of a group of vehicles called Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, or MRAPs. So, when the next wartime funding bill came to the Senate, I looked into what was going on with these MRAPs. The most important thing that I found out was that military experts were starting to say that MRAPs could reduce casualties from improvised explosive devices, those roadside bombs also called IEDs, by two-thirds. At that time, 70 percent of all the casualties suffered by Americans were caused by IEDs. So even if MRAPs only worked half as well as the military claimed, they would have a tremendous effect reducing deaths and injuries. In a March 1, 2007, memo to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Conway, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, emphasized the importance of the MRAPs, saying, ``The MRAP vehicle has a dramatically better record of preventing fatal and serious injuries from attacks by improvised explosive devices. Multi-National Force-- West estimates that the use of the MRAP could reduce the casualties in vehicles due to IED attack by as much as 70 percent.'' He ended by saying, ``Getting the MRAP into the Al Anbar Province is my number one unfilled warfighting requirement at this time.'' Later that month, in testimony to Congress, General Conway told us that the likelihood for survival in Iraq was four to five times greater in an MRAP. Two weeks after that memo was written, then Chief of Staff of the Army, General Schoomaker told the Committee on Appropriations of the funding shortfalls for MRAP procurement. I will be honest here. I was genuinely surprised. It was clear to me that this vehicle was essential and needed to be fielded as quickly as possible. I could not understand why funding was not already in the supplemental. I looked into it and found out that in fiscal year 2006 and in the bridge fund for fiscal year 2007, there was a total of $1.354 million for MRAPs, but much more was needed because this was a new vehicle. Only one company was making MRAPs then, and the military was only ordering small amounts of them. In February 2007 the military ordered and received 10 MRAPs. That is it. It became clear to me that we needed to do more to push this process. The Marine Corps was running the program for all of the services. They told me that one issue was that the requirements in the field had changed dramatically--it started with a request for 185 in May of 2006, then another 1,000 were requested in July, the total went to 4,060 in November and to 6,728 in early February of 2007. By March, the total need was thought to be 7,774 MRAPs for all four services. The plan at the time was to spend $8.4 billion to build those 7,774 MRAPs--$2.3 billion in fiscal year 2007 and $6.1 billion in fiscal year 2008. The administration, however, had not asked for $2.3 billion. Despite this, my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee put $2.5 billion in their bill because they saw the need. The Marine Corps believed that even that plan was not aggressive enough and that production could be accelerated if more funding was moved to fiscal year 2007. So I asked my colleagues to join me in adding another $1.5 billion to the wartime funding bill to produce and field 2,500 more MRAPs by December of 2007. I felt very strongly that we had to accelerate things. Some of you may remember that I came to the Senate floor in a tuxedo, to explain how vital the funding was the night before the vote. On March 29, 2007, we spoke as one. The vote was 98 to 0 to add the $1.5 billion and give the MRAP program a total of $4 billion. This Senate should be congratulated for that decision. We stood up and said, ``We can do better.'' We also made clear our agreement with General Conway, who called this effort ``a moral imperative.'' I know that some had doubts. They were concerned that the vehicles had not been adequately tested and that producers simply could not expand production lines quickly enough. But in the end we all agreed that we had to take a chance on American industry because our kids' lives were at stake. When the bill went into conference, some of our colleagues in the House had not yet realized how critical this was and what a difference early funding could make to the production schedule. So, the total in the final bill sent to the President in late May was reduced to $3.055 billion. The additional funds were important, but equally important was the interest that the debate sparked in the press. Secretary Gates has said that he first heard about the MRAP program after reading a USA Today article. After which, on May 2, he made the MRAP program the Pentagon's top acquisition priority. On June 1, he gave the program a DX rating, giving it priority for the acquisition of critical items like steel and tires that multiple military programs need. He also established the MRAP Task Force to work on any issues that might delay MRAP production. Despite Secretary Gates's clear understanding of the need for MRAPs, the fiscal year 2008 wartime funding request from the administration was only for $441 million. Four point one billion was needed just to produce the 7,774 MRAPs. So, on May 17, I formally asked the Armed Services Committee and the Appropriations Committee to provide the $4.1 billion needed. Again, to my colleagues' credit, 17 others joined those requests and both Committees responded with the $4.1 billion needed in the bills they presented to the Senate. At almost the same time, we began to hear that the requirements in Iraq had grown again. GEN Raymond Odierno, commander of Multi-National Forces--Iraq, indicated that he wanted to replace all of the Army humvees in Iraq with MRAPS. That would mean the Army alone would need close to 17,700 MRAPs. The plan that we had been trying to fund included only 2,500 MRAPs for the Army. That now appeared to be 15,200 too few. Given that MRAPs cost approximately $1 million per vehicle, that also meant that at least $15.2 billion more would be needed. We were now looking at a total price tag of over $23 billion for MRAPs, making the MRAP program the third most expensive in the entire defense budget. It was clear to me, and to many colleagues here, that more needed to be done. Despite Secretary Gates's commitment to expedite production, there still seemed to be a lack of urgency in the administration and plenty of people were still saying that more MRAPs simply could not be produced quickly. So on May 23 I called on the President to personally engage so that the Nation could meet the needs of our men and women under fire. I am sorry to say that we did not see the President engage. To this day, we must wonder how much faster we could have moved if he had. Instead, in early July, the Army finally said publicly that they needed approximately 17,700 total MRAPs. The Joint Requirement Oversight Council, however, did not immediately approve that change. So, Congress was once again left knowing that the needs in Iraq were growing but not having a clear number or plan to meet the needs. In speeches I made last year, I talked about some of the tensions within the military that slowed down the MRAP program, so I won't go into those details today. For now I will only quote Secretary Gates's analysis from May 13 of this year: ``In fact, the expense of the vehicles . . . may have been seen as competing with the funding for future weapons programs with strong constituencies inside and outside the Pentagon.'' Despite the frustration of not having a clear plan, some things were going well. The funding we had added to the supplemental combined with the hard work of the MRAP Task Force and MRAP program management team was making a difference. The Pentagon saw clear increases in production capacity and was ready to try to move faster. I told you that in February 10 MRAPs had been produced. In July, that number was up to 161--an amazing increase but clearly nothing close to the level needed to meet the requirement. The Pentagon asked Congress to approve moving $1.165 billion from other military programs to the MRAP program to try to keep growing the production. Congress agreed. In July, I introduced an amendment to the Defense authorization bill to provide all of the funding that would be needed to get the Army 17,700 MRAPs and to deal with increased costs for the original 7,774 MRAPs that the committees had funded. I was also concerned that we were not moving fast enough to provide protection from explosively formed penetrators, EFPs, so I included funds for that work as well. The total amendment was for $25 billion, which included $23.6 billion for 15,200 MRAPs, $1 billion for cost increases, and $400 million for additional EFP protection. My goal at the time was very simple: to make absolutely clear to the Pentagon and to MRAP producers that Congress would provide all of the funding needed for MRAPs, up front and without delay, so that we could get these lifesaving vehicles to the front lines as quickly as possible. That bill got delayed, but in the end, there was unanimous approval on September 27 for my amendment adding $23.6 billion to purchase 15,200 more MRAPs. The final bill, passed by the Senate on October 1, also raised the basic amount from $4.1 billion to $5.783 billion to address the increased costs for the 7,774 MRAPs already planned. Three weeks later, October 23, the administration finally came to Congress and asked for $11 billion for 7,274 additional MRAPs for the Army. This officially made 15,374 the total request for all services and was approximately 8,000 MRAPs less than the Army appeared to need. However, at that time, Army leaders were telling us that they believed it was important to get MRAPs into the field and see how well they worked before committing to the much larger number. Concerned about this, I went to the floor again when it was time to debate the Defense appropriations bill. Mr. President, $11.6 billion was included for MRAPs, and Senator Inouye promised on the Senate floor to closely monitor the Army needs and he personally guaranteed that if those additional vehicles were needed, they would be funded. By this time, production was truly ramping up. In October, 453 MRAPs were produced. By November we were up to 842, and by December we were at 1,189 MRAPs. That means we got a total of 3,355 MRAPs produced in 2007 even though in February, industry could only make 10 per month. In the span of 18 months, this program went from trying to meet a requirement for 185 MRAPs to meeting the requirement for 15,374 MRAPs. This Senate stepped up and said we will meet the need. We provided over $22.4 billion to give industry the ability to ramp up their production ability. When I argued in March that we could deliver close to 8,000 MRAPs to Iraq by February of 2008, some said it was impossible. We came close. Five thousand seven hundred and twelve MRAPs had been produced by the end of February. As of this week, just under 8,300 MRAPs have been produced. More important, 4,664 are fielded and in the hands of front line forces in Iraq and 456 are fielded in Afghanistan. The rest are on the way, and we are producing well over 1,000 per month. Let me go back to where we started. Something profoundly good happened on this Senate floor last year. Last year, we made it clear that we would provide the best possible protection to our troops. We recognized that this was a matter of honor and a matter of life and death. The results have been phenomenal. Secretary Gates said last Tuesday, ``MRAPs have performed. There have been 150-plus attacks so far on MRAPs and all but six soldiers have survived. The casualty rate is one-third that of a humvee, less than half that of an Abrams tank. These vehicles are saving lives.'' MG Rick Lynch, commander of Multi-National Division--Central, which operates south of Baghdad, told USA Today just over a month ago, ``The MRAPs, in addition to increasing the survivability of our soldiers from underbelly attacks, also have improved force protection for EFP attacks as well. So I've had EFPs hit my MRAPs and the soldiers inside, in general terms, are OK.'' He also pointed out that he had lost 140 soldiers, many in up-armored HMMWVs or Bradleys hit by IEDs and said, ``Those same kind of attacks against MRAPs allow my soldiers to survive. I'm convinced of that.'' And soldiers know it. On April 4, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution quoted SSG Jamie Linen of the 3rd Infantry Division talking about using MRAPs in the Baghdad area. He said, ``It is the one vehicle that gives us the confidence to go out there. Nothing is invincible here. You got tanks with three feet of armor getting blown up. But the MRAPs give us a sense of security.'' MRAPs have not only saved hundreds of lives, they have also saved limbs. The additional protection MRAPs provide usually means that injuries are less severe and complicated. That means more soldiers, airmen, sailors, and marines coming home and able to return to the lives they left behind. There is really no price too high to get this result, so again, I want to congratulate this Senate. What we did last year to support the MRAP program was not all that had to be done--the program managers and producers also had to do their part--but it was essential, and today, every day, it is literally saving American lives. What we did today continues that effort. We have no higher obligation than to give those fighting for us the best possible protection. It is a sacred duty. Today and last year, with the MRAP, we fulfilled that duty, and I congratulate my colleagues.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today, Senator Lugar and I are introducing the Naval Vessel Transfer Act of 2008, a bill to permit the transfer of certain U.S. Navy vessels to particular foreign countries. All of the proposed ship transfer authorizations have been requested by the U.S. Navy, with the approval of the Office of Management and Budget. Pursuant to section 824(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1994, as amended, 10 U.S.C. 7307(a), a naval vessel that is in excess of 3,000 tons or that is less than 20 years of age may not be disposed of to another nation unless the disposition of that vessel is approved by law enacted after August 5, 1974. The bill we introduce today would provide that required approval for six transfers: a guided missile frigate for Pakistan; two minehunter coastal ships for Greece; an oiler for Chile; and two amphibious tank landing ships for Peru. These would all be grant transfers under section 516 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321j). If any Member of this body has questions or concerns regarding one or more of the proposed ship transfers, please let us know. The bill also contains provisions that are traditionally included in ship transfer bills, relating to transfer costs and repair and refurbishment of the ships, and exempting the value of a vessel transferred on a grant basis from the aggregate value of excess defense articles in a given fiscal year. The authority provided by this bill would expire 2 years after the date of enactment of the bill. Finally, the Department of Defense has provided the following information on this bill: These proposed transfers would improve the United States' political and military relationships with close allies. They would support strategic engagement goals and regional security cooperation objectives. Active use of former naval vessels by coalition forces in support of regional priorities is more advantageous than retaining vessels in the Navy's inactive fleet and disposing of them by scrapping or another method. The United States would incur no costs in transferring these naval vessels. The recipients would be responsible for all costs associated with the transfers, including maintenance, repairs, training, and fleet turnover costs. This act does not alter the effect of the Toxic Substances Control Act, or any other law, with regard to their applicability to the transfer of ships by the U.S. to foreign countries for military or humanitarian use. The laws and regulations that apply today would apply in the same manner if this section were enacted. The Secretary of the Navy, the Honorable Donald C. Winter, has added: ``Expeditious enactment of the proposal is in the best interests of the Navy's Maritime Strategy as it will allow us to strengthen the capabilities of partner nations.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today, Senator Lugar and I are introducing the Naval Vessel Transfer Act of 2008, a bill to permit the transfer of certain U.S. Navy vessels to particular foreign countries. All of the proposed ship transfer authorizations have been requested by the U.S. Navy, with the approval of the Office of Management and Budget. Pursuant to section 824(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1994, as amended, 10 U.S.C. 7307(a), a naval vessel that is in excess of 3,000 tons or that is less than 20 years of age may not be disposed of to another nation unless the disposition of that vessel is approved by law enacted after August 5, 1974. The bill we introduce today would provide that required approval for six transfers: a guided missile frigate for Pakistan; two minehunter coastal ships for Greece; an oiler for Chile; and two amphibious tank landing ships for Peru. These would all be grant transfers under section 516 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321j). If any Member of this body has questions or concerns regarding one or more of the proposed ship transfers, please let us know. The bill also contains provisions that are traditionally included in ship transfer bills, relating to transfer costs and repair and refurbishment of the ships, and exempting the value of a vessel transferred on a grant basis from the aggregate value of excess defense articles in a given fiscal year. The authority provided by this bill would expire 2 years after the date of enactment of the bill. Finally, the Department of Defense has provided the following information on this bill: These proposed transfers would improve the United States' political and military relationships with close allies. They would support strategic engagement goals and regional security cooperation objectives. Active use of former naval vessels by coalition forces in support of regional priorities is more advantageous than retaining vessels in the Navy's inactive fleet and disposing of them by scrapping or another method. The United States would incur no costs in transferring these naval vessels. The recipients would be responsible for all costs associated with the transfers, including maintenance, repairs, training, and fleet turnover costs. This act does not alter the effect of the Toxic Substances Control Act, or any other law, with regard to their applicability to the transfer of ships by the U.S. to foreign countries for military or humanitarian use. The laws and regulations that apply today would apply in the same manner if this section were enacted. The Secretary of the Navy, the Honorable Donald C. Winter, has added: ``Expeditious enactment of the proposal is in the best interests of the Navy's Maritime Strategy as it will allow us to strengthen the capabilities of partner nations.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008. The Trafficking Victims Protection Act was authored 8 years ago by Senator Brownback and the late Senator Wellstone, and since then, through two re-authorizations, has been a tremendous asset in preventing and prosecuting human trafficking crimes. Today, I am honored to be able to introduce legislation to reauthorize these valuable programs with my distinguished colleague, Senator Brownback. Human trafficking is a major problem worldwide and the challenges remain great. According to the most recent State Department report, roughly 800,000 individuals are trafficked each year, the overwhelming majority of them women and children. The FBI estimates approximately $9.5 billion is generated annually for organized crime from trafficking in persons. The International Labor Organization estimates that, at present, 2.4 million persons have been trafficked into situations of forced labor. These victims are trafficked in a variety of ways. Sometimes they are kidnapped outright, but many times they are lured with dubious job offers, or false marriage opportunities. The traffickers capitalize on the victims' desire to seek a better life, and trap them with lifetime debt bondages that degrade and destroy their lives. Since 2000, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act has provided us effective tools, and in this reauthorization, our aim is to take the successes and lessons of eight years of progress and expand our abilities to combat human trafficking. In Title I, the legislation focuses on combating human trafficking internationally by broadening the U.S. interagency task force charged with monitoring and combating trafficking, and increasing the authority to the State Department Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking. Because of the difficulty in accurately understanding the full scope of the problem globally, we also include provisions to coordinate our multiple federal databases, and set a reporting requirement to address forced labor and child labor. Today's reauthorization bill also expands our ability to combat trafficking in the United States. We've provided for certain improvements to the T-visa program, which protects trafficking victims and their families from retaliation, so that we can have their help in bringing traffickers to justice, without the victim fearing harm to themselves or their loved ones. We also expand authority for U.S. Government programs to help those who have been trafficked, and require a study to outline any additional gaps in assistance that may exist. Finally, we establish some powerful new legal tools, including increasing the jurisdiction of the courts, enhancing penalties for trafficking offenses, punishing those who profit from trafficked labor and ensuring restitution of forfeited assets to victims. Human trafficking is a daunting and critical global issue. I urge my colleagues to support this reauthorization and work with Senator Brownback and me to pass it in the Senate as quickly as possible. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section summary of the bill be printed in the Record. William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 Section-by-Section Description Section 1. Short title; table of contents

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008. The Trafficking Victims Protection Act was authored 8 years ago by Senator Brownback and the late Senator Wellstone, and since then, through two re-authorizations, has been a tremendous asset in preventing and prosecuting human trafficking crimes. Today, I am honored to be able to introduce legislation to reauthorize these valuable programs with my distinguished colleague, Senator Brownback. Human trafficking is a major problem worldwide and the challenges remain great. According to the most recent State Department report, roughly 800,000 individuals are trafficked each year, the overwhelming majority of them women and children. The FBI estimates approximately $9.5 billion is generated annually for organized crime from trafficking in persons. The International Labor Organization estimates that, at present, 2.4 million persons have been trafficked into situations of forced labor. These victims are trafficked in a variety of ways. Sometimes they are kidnapped outright, but many times they are lured with dubious job offers, or false marriage opportunities. The traffickers capitalize on the victims' desire to seek a better life, and trap them with lifetime debt bondages that degrade and destroy their lives. Since 2000, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act has provided us effective tools, and in this reauthorization, our aim is to take the successes and lessons of eight years of progress and expand our abilities to combat human trafficking. In Title I, the legislation focuses on combating human trafficking internationally by broadening the U.S. interagency task force charged with monitoring and combating trafficking, and increasing the authority to the State Department Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking. Because of the difficulty in accurately understanding the full scope of the problem globally, we also include provisions to coordinate our multiple federal databases, and set a reporting requirement to address forced labor and child labor. Today's reauthorization bill also expands our ability to combat trafficking in the United States. We've provided for certain improvements to the T-visa program, which protects trafficking victims and their families from retaliation, so that we can have their help in bringing traffickers to justice, without the victim fearing harm to themselves or their loved ones. We also expand authority for U.S. Government programs to help those who have been trafficked, and require a study to outline any additional gaps in assistance that may exist. Finally, we establish some powerful new legal tools, including increasing the jurisdiction of the courts, enhancing penalties for trafficking offenses, punishing those who profit from trafficked labor and ensuring restitution of forfeited assets to victims. Human trafficking is a daunting and critical global issue. I urge my colleagues to support this reauthorization and work with Senator Brownback and me to pass it in the Senate as quickly as possible. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section summary of the bill be printed in the Record. William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 Section-by-Section Description Section 1. Short title; table of contents

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, for the Committee on Foreign Relations I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Record on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I wish to honor an incredible woman, someone who enjoys a prominent and demanding business career while continuously dedicating her time, energy, and expertise to helping those around her. Chris Baron, president of Verizon's Philadelphia Tri- state Region, is receiving a prestigious and well-deserved honor from the Philadelphia Police Athletic League for her tireless community service. It is my honor to add my well-wishes to the festivities. Chris has been involved in many charities in our region, but I got to know her through her commitment to combating domestic violence. Chris led Verizon's HopeLine program in my home State of Delaware, which provides domestic violence victims with free wireless phones and airtime. Victims of domestic violence use the phones to contact family, friends, and employers, and they can be crucial in time of emergency. During Chris' tenure heading the program, victims have received over 6,500 wireless phones and Verizon has given more than $150,000 to local organizations, shelters, and law enforcement in the ongoing struggle to curb domestic violence. Every day, in every State, countless Americans step forward in the face of unimaginable fear. Chris Baron, and those like her, provide safety options, critical support, and services that victims so desperately need. Receiving this award puts Chris in rare company. Past honorees include Walter Annenberg; Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell; Philadelphia district attorney Lynne Abraham; and Julius ``Dr. J'' Erving. I have said many times on this floor that the Violence Against Women Act is my proudest legislative accomplishment. But I will be the first to acknowledge that VAWA means nothing without the hard-working men and women who implement its ideas. Chris Baron exemplifies the true heroes in our fight against domestic violence.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, Mark Twain once said: ``20 years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do, than by the things you did do.'' Well, Mr. Twain had not met Margaret Aitken, the woman I wish to acknowledge today. Margaret is the youngest of eight children--a born negotiator, advocate, and spirited woman who has dedicated her professional career to excellence in public service. She has served the people of Delaware and the U.S. Senate with distinction. She began her career in the Senate as a press secretary on my staff at the young age of 27. She came to us with impeccable credentials from the county executive's team and the Department of Education. Her work ethic and energy are surpassed only by her keen wit and disarming use of humor. Margaret's sense of justice is embedded in her character--a byproduct of her strong faith and commitment to family. Her professional constituency was well served by her 15 years in the public domain. However, Margaret recently decided that there was one constituency that needed her most of all. In August, she and her husband Chris became the proud parents of Ronan William Haggerty, and Margaret is now a full- time mom. She understood the wisdom and the sentiment in Mark Twain's words and so--she will not be disappointed in hindsight. Margaret, a wordsmith herself, also took George Bernard Shaw to heart: ``Perhaps the greatest social service that can be rendered by anyone to this country and to mankind is to bring up a family.'' And so I say to you Margaret--bring up that family--in the image and likeness of the best hopes and expectations for a better world. Thank you for your service, goodness, loyalty, honor, and courage. You are a force unto yourself, and you are very appreciated.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a resolution marking May 2008 as National Drug Court Month. The more than 2,000 drug courts that currently operate across the country are critical to curbing drug use, reducing recidivism, and turning non-violent prisoners into law abiding and productive members of our society. Drug courts closely supervise non-violent drug offenders as they address their addiction or substance abuse problem. When they graduate from the program they are clean, sober and better prepared to participate productively in society. In order to graduate from most drug court programs, participants are required to finish high school or obtain a GED, hold down a job, as well as maintain financial obligations including drug court fees and child support payments. A sponsor is also required to help ensure they stay on track. In 1994, I wrote the law that created the drug courts program because we believed that the programs they oversee were cost-effective, innovative alternatives to prison that would reduce crime and deal with non-violent offenders who are in desperate need of treatment. It turns out we were right. A 2005 report from the Government Accountability Office found that drug court program participants were less likely to be rearrested or reconvicted than those who did not participate in drug court programs. The report also concluded that a conservative estimate of the net benefits to society of sending a non-violent offender throug drug court program ranges from about $1,000 per participant to about $15,000. There is just no question that these alternative to prison programs not only work, but also make great financial sense. Treating non-violent offenders through drug court-monitored programs and other alternatives to prison treatment programs provides them with an opportunity to turn away from drugs and to get on the path to be healthy, contributing members of society. It also helps to reduce America's exploding prison population: more than 2.3 million people are in prisons and jails across the U.S.; 1 in 100 adults in the United States are behind bars. It costs an average of nearly $24,000 to imprison an individual. Drug courts can reduce the financial burden on State and local budgets. I hope that National Drug Court Month raises awareness about the importance of drug courts and other alternatives to prison treatment- based programs. I ask my colleagues to join me in commending these programs and urging state, local and Federal officials to help expand and robustly fund these treatment programs throughout the country.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the 93rd anniversary of the Armenian genocide. On April 24, 1915, an ancient nation faced extermination when officials of the Ottoman Government initiated a series of raids in which hundreds of Armenians were arrested and subsequently deported or killed. Isolated incidents of brutality had occurred before, but sadly this event marked the beginning of a campaign of murder, deportation, and forced starvation. When the violence ultimately ended, as many as 1.5 million Armenians had died and 500,000 were exiled. Armenians all but disappeared from land their people had occupied for centuries. The American Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire at the time was the distinguished Henry Morgenthau who described the horrors perpetrated against the Armenians as the ``murder of a nation.'' Just this week, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which I have the honor to chair, had a hearing on the systematic murder of innocents in Darfur. The incident serves as an important reminder that an open discussion of the Armenian genocide is critical. Since the 1915 ethnic cleansing, the murder by a government of its own citizens has occurred again and again. It is depressing to think that human beings have not learned their lesson. The whole world is diminished, wounded, and made poorer by such tragedies and we must not forget them if we hope to prevent them. The commemoration of this act of brutality and systematic murder 93 years ago is important and relevant not only for the survivors and their descendents, but for humanity as a whole.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, April 25 is World Malaria Day. That is the day that the world pauses to acknowledge that over a million people a year die of a disease borne by mosquitoes, a disease that we know how to prevent, a disease that we know how to treat. The most vulnerable are children under the age of 5; every 30 seconds a child dies of malaria. Pregnant women are also at high risk; 10,000 expectant mothers perish each year from the disease. Malaria exacts an enormous economic and social toll as well, costing the poorest countries in the world billions of dollars each year in lost productivity, working days, revenue, and investment. With global weather patterns changing, malaria is spreading further, reaching areas that were previously unaffected. Last month, the Foreign Relations Committee approved a bipartisan bill that could, over the course of time, help to save millions of lives by providing people with the means to prevent and treat malaria. I am proud to have sponsored this bill, along with Senator Lugar and our other colleagues. This legislation, S. 2731, the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008, authorizes up to $5 billion over the next 5 years to combat malaria, a dramatic increase in resources. It also formally establishes the position of a global malaria coordinator to oversee U.S. programs and strengthens U.S. participation in the multilateral global fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. These efforts will build on the dramatic early success of the President's malaria initiative, which was launched 3 years ago by President Bush. Already, under this initiative, the island of Zanzibar has witnessed a 95 percent reduction in infection rates among children. Through bednets, spraying of homes, and providing drugs, we can replicate that success on a much broader scale. Similar legislation has passed the House of Representatives, and our bill received a strong vote of support in committee here. It is my hope that the Senate will soon take up S. 2731, that we will debate whatever differences we may have and vote on it, and that the President will be able to sign it into law well in advance of the G-8 meeting in July. If so, he will be in an excellent position to help convince other countries to undertake similar commitments. Even more important, we will let the people of Africa and other hard-hit areas of the globe know that the United States is sustaining the commitments that it first made in 2003 when Congress passed the original United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, America has come a long way in addressing discrimination in the workplace since the days my ancestors faced ``No Irish Need Apply'' signs. Yet discrimination today still exists. Even now, women still earn on average 77 cents for every dollar a man earns performing the same work. This is not fair. And with a record 70.2 million women in the workforce, this wage discrimination hurts American families across the country. Since passage of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, working women have been able to challenge discriminatory pay. Most appellate courts, including the Third Circuit that incorporates Delaware, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission operated under a rule that gives workers a reasonable time limit to file complaints and receive a fair hearing in our country's courtrooms. Last year, the Supreme Court in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., ignored the basic reality of how--and indeed, when--workers discover that they have been the victim of paycheck discrimination. The Court ruled that employees must sue within 180 days of the employer's pay decision. That Supreme Court's ruling, in the words of Justice Ginsberg, is at best a ``cramped interpretation'' of title VII and at worst reverses the hard-won gains women have made in the workplace. As a practical matter, employees often do not know what their peers earn, the amount of annual raises, or how wages are determined. Given the typical confidentiality rules covering pay issues, the Supreme Court's ruling means that women will in many instances be shut out from recovering what they are owed after years of unfair pay. This interpretation makes title VII of the Civil Rights Act an empty promise. The Supreme Court's decision will hurt Americans from all walks of life. It perpetuates inequality by allowing workers to receive lower pay because of their age, gender, religion, ethnicity, or disability. It threatens to stop and reverse the steady progress we have made toward job equality by letting employers off the hook for prolonged discrimination. The House took the first step toward correcting this injustice when it passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2007. The Senate now has the opportunity, and an obligation, to do the same. I am a cosponsor and strong supporter of this bill, which would simply clarify and restore the rule the country operated under before the Supreme Court's decision. That rule was strong and simple--each separate paycheck based on a previous discriminatory decision is itself an unlawful employment practice. Mr. President, this Fair Pay Restoration Act isn't a radical change of direction. It is really nothing new. We know the consequences of the act because for years American businesses and their workers operated under the standards it restores. It will not open the floodgates for litigation or force employers to fork out exorbitant sums of money--it will just restore the rules of the game before the Court changed them. It gives Americans who are doing the same job as someone else--but for lower pay--access to courts and equality. In today's economy, coping with a recession and a housing crisis, American workers need our help. The basic social compact that built our economy, that created our middle class, that provided opportunities for millions--that compact is breaking down. This is one small step to restore some fairness. Mr. President, equal work should mean equal pay. I urge my colleagues to join me and restore that principle.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, for the Committee on Foreign Relations I report favorably the following nomination list which was printed in the Record on the date indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that this nomination lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, 11 years ago this month, the Senate gave its advice and consent to U.S. ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention, or CWC. Those of us who were here then remember all too well how contentious and difficult a task that was. Eleven years later, I have no doubt in my mind that the Senate did the right thing. The CWC clearly serves the national security interests of the U.S. It continues to enhance international peace and security. Since the CWC entered into force, 183 States have signed on to the treaty's commitment to forgo poison gas forever, and have subjected themselves to the treaty's verification procedures. States Parties to the CWC have destroyed over 27,000 tons of chemical weapons--over a third of the world's declared stockpiles--and 11 destruction facilities around the world are working to destroy even more. Sixty-five chemical weapons production facilities that, without a Chemical Weapons Convention, could have churned out still more poison gas are no longer carrying out that horrible work, and all but 4 of those former weapons production facilities have been verifiably destroyed or converted to peaceful purposes. Most importantly, there has been no use of chemical weapons by any country in the last 11 years, and no international support for the use of such weapons by terrorist groups. Under the able leadership of its Director-General, Ambassador Rogelio Pfirter, the Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons runs a tight ship. It works with all States Parties to improve national declarations, to mount effective inspections, and to secure the adoption of effective national laws, regulations and procedures that criminalize and guard against the production or stockpiling of chemical weapons. The States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention are gathering over the next 2 weeks in The Netherlands for the Convention's Second Review Conference. Senator Lugar and I have introduced this resolution during the Review Conference in order to reaffirm the Senate's commitment to the goals of the CWC. We are proud of the progress that has been made so far, and we call upon all States Parties to continue to meet their commitments under the CWC and to do all they can to further the noble aims of the Convention. I urge all my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I wish today to commend a standout chapter of a renowned organization, one that has been responsible for bringing light to the lives of countless Americans throughout its existence. Easter Seals Delaware and Maryland's Eastern Shore is celebrating its 60th year of providing critical help to those in need. In 1948, the organization was started to meet the needs of children with disabilities, and it has grown exponentially since then. This chapter served 18,000 Delawareans last year through eight locations, and they now have an annual operating budget of $15 million. The services provided by the staff and volunteers at Easter Seals are well known: speech and hearing therapy, assistive technology, and job training are just a few of the ways they help children and adults with disabilities lead independent lives in their communities. As we embark on spring this year, it is appropriate to recall the symbol of Easter Seals: the lily. The lily makes us all think of rebirth and new life, which is exactly what Easter Seals provides to those they help. It is why the lily has appeared on every Easter ``Seal'' produced since the 1950s. I would be remiss if I thanked Easter Seals Delaware and Maryland's Eastern Shore without recognizing its driving force for the last half century. Sandra Tuttle, who has been associated with the organization for nearly 50 years--including as its president and CEO since 1978--is stepping aside from her formal role. Her leadership has been the engine of this remarkable organization; her devotion, professionalism, and guidance are known to all associated with Easter Seals. I wish her the best of luck in all her future endeavors and thank her from the bottom of my heart for what she has helped this organization become. The lives she has touched are without number. She truly is an angel walking among us. I know I am not the first to thank Easter Seals in this Chamber, and I doubt I will be the last. This incredible organization, started by a few people trying to make a difference for disabled children, has blossomed into the model for all such groups in America. I thank my local chapter for its work, congratulate it on this momentous occasion, and hope that its influence will continue to grow for years to come.