Joe Biden

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, over the past several years, I have become increasingly concerned with the trafficking and use of the newest fad drug, Ecstasy. All across the country, thousands of teenagers are treated for overdoses and Ecstasy-related health problems in emergency rooms each year. And recent statistics from the Partnership for a Drug Free America show that teen use of Ecstasy has increased 71 percent since 1999. Unless we mount a major education campaign across schools and campuses nationwide, we may not be able to counter the widespread misconception that Ecstacy is harmless, fashionable and hip. Much of the abuse of Ecstasy and other club drugs happens at all- night dance parties known as ``raves.'' A few months ago in the Caucus on International Narcotics Control I held a hearing to take an in-depth look at the phenomenon of these all-night dance parties and recent efforts at the Federal, State and local levels to crack down on rave promoters who allow rampant drug use at their events and do everything they can to profit from it. It is common for rave organizers to go to great lengths to portray their events as safe so that parents will allow their kids to attend. They advertise them as alcohol-free parties and some even hire off-duty police officers to patrol outside the venue. But the truth is that many of these raves are drug dens where use of Ecstasy and other ``club drugs,'' such as the date rape drugs Rohypnol, GHB and Ketamine, is widespread. But even as these promoters work to make parents think that their events are safe, they send a different message to kids. Their promotional flyers make clear that drugs are an integral part of the party by prominently featuring terms associated with drug use, such as the letters ``E'' or ``X,'' street terms for Ecstasy, or the term ``rollin,'' which refers to an Ecstasy high. They are, in effect, promoting Ecstasy along with the rave. By doing so, the promoters get rich as they exploit and endanger kids. Many supplement their profits from the $10 to $50 cover charge to enter the club by selling popular Ecstasy paraphernalia such as baby pacifiers, glow sticks, or mentholated inhalers. And party organizers know that Ecstasy raises the core body temperature and makes the user extremely thirsty, so they sell bottles of water for $5 or $10 apiece. Some even shut off the water faucets so club goers will be forced to buy water or pay admission to enter an air-conditioned ``cool down room.'' Despite the conventional wisdom that Ecstasy and other club drugs are ``no big deal,'' a view that even the New York Times Magazine espoused in a cover story, these drugs can have serious consequences, and can even be fatal. After the death of a 17-year-old girl at a rave party in New Orleans in 1998, the Drug Enforcement Administration conducted an assessment of rave activity in that city which showed the close relationship between these parties and club drug overdoses. In a two year period, 52 raves were held at the New Orleans State Palace Theater, during which time approximately 400 teenagers overdosed and were treated at local emergency rooms. Following ``Operation Rave Review'' which resulted in the arrest of several rave promoters and closing the city's largest rave, overdoses and emergency room visits dropped by 90 percent and Ecstasy overdoses have been eliminated. State and locals governments have begun to take important steps to crack down on rave promoters who allow their events to be used as havens for illicit drug activity. In Chicago, where Mayor Daley has shown great leadership on this issue, it is a criminal offense to knowingly maintain a place, such as a rave, where controlled substances are used or distributed. Not only the promoter, but also the building owner and building manager can be charged under Mayor Daley's law. The State of Florida has a similar statute making such activity a felony. And in Modesto, California, police officers are offering ``rave training classes'' to parents to educate them about the danger of raves and the club drugs associated with them. And at the Federal level, there have been four cases in which Federal prosecutors have used the so called ``crack house statute'' or other Federal charges to go after rave promoters. These cases, in Little Rock, AR, Boise, ID, Panama City, FL, and New Orleans, LA, have had mixed results, culminating in two wins, a loss and a draw, suggesting that there may be a need to tailor this Federal statute more precisely to the problem at hand. Today I am proposing legislation, Reducing Americans' Vulnerability to Ecstasy Act, or the ``RAVE'' Act, which will do just that. I am pleased to have Senator Grassley as the lead cosponsor. The bill tailors the crack house statute to address rave promoters' actions more specifically so that Federal prosecutors will be able to use it to prosecute individuals who allow rampant drug use at their events and seek to profit from putting kids at risk. The legislation also addresses the low penalties for trafficking gamma hydroxybutyric acid, GHB, by directing the United States Sentencing Commission to examine the current penalties and consider increasing them to reflect the seriousness of offenses involving GHB. But the answer to the problem of drug use at raves is not simply to prosecute irresponsible rave promoters and those who distribute drugs. There is also a responsibility to raise awareness among parents, teachers, students, coaches, religious leaders, etc. about the dangers of the drugs used and sold at raves. The RAVE Act directs funds to the DEA for that purpose. Further, the bill authorizes nearly $6 million for the DEA to hire a Demand Reduction Coordinator in each state who can work with communities following the arrest of a significant local trafficker to reduce the demand for drugs through prevention and treatment programs. It is the unfortunate truth that most raves are havens for illicit drugs. Enacting the RAVE Act will help to prosecute the promoters who seek to profit from exploiting and endangering young lives and will take steps to educate youth, parents and other interested adults about the dangers of Ecstasy and other club drugs associated with raves. I hope that my colleagues will join me and support this legislation.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I would like to take this opportunity to extend the appreciation of the Senate to a devoted public servant at the Congressional Research Service. Leneice Wu is retiring from CRS after 34 years of service to the United States Congress, a period spanning 17 Congresses and the tenures of eight Presidents. Only five sitting members of the Senate and three Members of the House of Representatives have longer terms of service to the Nation. This length of service is not only a credit to Ms. Wu, but also a demonstration of the dedication that the staff of the Congressional Research Service bring in their support of our work in Congress. After graduating from Mary Washington College in 1968, Ms. Wu began her career with the Library of Congress as a research assistant, and is now concluding it as the CRS Deputy Assistant Director of the Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade Division. During her decades of service, Ms. Wu has provided research and analytical support to Members of Congress on a broad range of international relations issues, with a particular focus upon the difficult challenges of arms control. The Strategic Arms Limitation Talks, START, the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, nuclear non- proliferation, and chemical-biological arms control are but a few of the areas in which she has assisted Congress. A list of her reports and analytical memoranda to Congress would run several pages, but a brief survey finds: Congress and the Termination of the Vietnam War, Nuclear Proliferation: Future U.S. Foreign Policy Implications, Congress and Arms Control Policy, and U.S. Foreign Military Sales Legislation. Ms. Wu also coordinated and contributed to the eight-part Fundamentals of Nuclear Arms Control, issued as a Committee Print by the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. On two occasions, Ms. Wu was detailed to the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency to advise in the preparation of Arms Control Impact Statements, ensuring attention to congressional intent and interests. In addition to her research responsibilities, Ms. Wu has undertaken numerous administrative responsibilities. Prior to her present position, within the Foreign Affairs Division she has served as head of the Central Research Unit, the International Organizations, Development, and Security Section, and the Defense Policy and Arms Control Section. Following these assignments she moved on to become the Foreign Affairs Division's Program Coordinator and later Research Coordinator. Ms. Wu has also overseen a unique and vital resource to the Congress, CRS's Language Services, which provides foreign language translations for both Members and Committees. For the Liberty of Congress as whole, Ms. Wu has served as a member of the Women's Program Advisory Committee, and as both Equal Employment Opportunity Counselor and Officer. Ms. Wu is a fine example of those many staff in this institution who work in virtual anonymity to support the important work of the Congress. On behalf of my colleagues, I extend our deep appreciation to Ms. Wu for her service, and wish her the very best in her future endeavors.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, today I rise to submit a resolution, along with Senator Specter, supporting ``National Night Out,'' a program at the forefront of the Nation's effort to combat crime and terrorism. On August 6 of this year, over 33 million people in 9,700 communities from all 50 States will participate in the 19th Annual National Night Out. These volunteers greet their neighbors, meet with local police, and participate in block parties and parades, all to encourage citizens to become active caretakers of their communities. This resolution would salute and encourage those efforts. This past year has seen our nation both horrified by unthinkable tragedy, and driven to ensure that nothing so terrible ever happens again. Unfortunately, we can't have a police officer protecting us on every block, during every minute, of everyday. And while many of us in the Congress have worked for years to enhance the tools and resources available to law enforcement, few things are more valuable in our ongoing war against terrorism and crime than the eyes and ears of conscientious citizens. A 1995 study by the National Institute of Justice shows that crime rates are 40 percent lower, on average, in communities with high mutual trust among neighbors. By encouraging members of each community to get to know one another, be familiar with their block, and work with local law enforcement officials to spot and address suspicious situations, National Night Out helps all of us sleep more soundly. Today, with terrorists seeking to strike our homeland, our efforts to keep America's streets safe are more crucial than ever. Working side by side with local law enforcement, neighborhood crime watch groups have been, and will continue to be an invaluable resource. In fact, a Justice Department survey indicates that 90 percent of law enforcement officers believe National Night Out enhances their policing programs. Every year, National Night Out provides Americans with a great opportunity to meet their neighbors, show their patriotism, and keep their streets safe. I hope my colleagues will join Senator Specter and me in thanking them for making a difference, one doorstep at a time.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I will vote against the Warner amendment. Let me state at the outset my view on several issues that this amendment raises. First, I want to make clear that I do not support the International Criminal Court as it is constituted. The Rome Statute which creates the Court is flawed, and it would be a mistake for the United States to become a party to the Court under the Statute. The President made clear last month that the United States will not do so. I do support protecting American servicemen and women. The Court statute purports to provide jurisdiction over individuals from nations which have not become party to it. That is wrong as a matter of treaty law and of basic fairness. We can and must protect our servicemen from the jurisdiction of this tribunal. I believe the President and Secretary Rumsfeld will do what is necessary to do so. We do not need this amendment to allow a President to use ``a necessary force'' to force any American servicemen from the custody of any international court. I do not want to harm U.S. interest overseas. Many of our closest allies in Europe are strong supporters of this Court. This legislation will further complicate our relationship with those friends. Moreover, it takes aim at allies outside of Europe with punitive measures. Finally, I do not, as a constitutional matter, want to give carte blanche to any President to rescue even American individuals detained by the Court who are not citizens. The amendment contains a sweeping authorization to the President to use force to rescue not only Americans detained by the International Criminal Court, but also nationals of several allied countries. The authority to rescue U.S. nationals, I submit, is probably unnecessary: most scholars would agree that the President has the authority to rescue Americans abroad who are in serious danger from a foreign power or circumstance. If an American is detained by the Court, the President will surely have the support of the Congress to take whatever action necessary to rescue that servicemember. The authority to rescue foreign nationals, such as an accused war criminal from Australia or Egypt, is unwise. As a constitutional matter, I am unwilling to give the President such a blank check to invade the Netherlands--where this Court will be located. Only the Congress has the power to authorize such use of force, and we should not do so in advance, without knowing all the circumstances. I am also concerned about a provision which bars military assistance to countries which join the Court. This would apply, as the Senator from Connecticut noted, to our assistance to Colombia, a country we have been strongly supporting with substantial military assistance. This restriction may be waived on two alternative grounds, but I ask my colleagues: why would we even consider cutting off aid to our ally in Colombia because it made the sovereign choice to join the International Criminal Court? This provision does not apply to our NATO partners, and certain non- NATO allies like Egypt, Israel and Japan. How can we tell our NATO allies or others that they are free to join the Court without fearing an aid restriction, but then turn around and tell other countries that they could face penalties if they join the Court? This provision is directly contrary to the position of the Bush Administration. When the Administration announced its position on the International Criminal Court last month, Under Secretary of State Marc Grossman made it clear that the United States was going to ``respect the decision of those nations who have chosen to join the ICC.'' This provision to cut off military aid would violate that principle. My bottom line is this: we should not join the Court as it is currently constituted. Its provisions purporting to extend jurisdiction to non-parties and the inclusion in the Statute of the crime of aggression and sufficient reason to do so. But this legislation is not necessary to protect our interests. President Bush has adequate powers to do that. It adds very little to the powers he now possesses. But it could complicate our foreign policy with friends in Europe and elsewhere. And it gives future Presidents a blank check to rescue foreign nationals detained by the Court. I think that is a mistake, and therefore will vote no.

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

Mr. BIDEN. Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. BIDEN. Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. BIDEN. Has the Dodd amendment, which reads, ``Nothing in this title shall prohibit the United States from rendering assistance to international efforts to bring to justice Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosovic, Osama bin Laden, and other leaders of al-Qaida, leaders of Islamic Jihad, and other foreign nationals accused of genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity,'' been made a part of what we are about to vote on?

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, assisting Andean countries combat illicit narcotics is an important national security goal for the United States. The Foreign Relations Committee has heard considerable testimony from the administration and other witnesses as to the importance of this issue, both for the United States and for the maintenance of democracy in South America. Much effort and resources are already being devoted to this important goal, and the Administration plans to do still more. The Andean Trade Preferences Act extension passed by the Senate adds important additional support to this effort. At the same time, however, the United States and our allies are also engaged in a war against terrorism. Defeating global terrorism is a goal no less important than eradicating narcotics trafficking. One of the frontline States in the war against terrorism is the Philippines where, at the invitation of the Philippine Government, U.S. troops have been deployed to train the Armed Forces of the Philippines in counterterrorism. The reason our joint counterterrorism mission with the Philippines is relevant to discussion of the Andean trade bill is because one provision contained in this bill, in a laudable effort to support the legitimate economies of Andean countries, will seriously damage our counter-terrorism effort in the Philippines. The problematic provision is one that would give preference to Andean countries that export tuna to the United States. The primary loser in the tuna market would be countries in the Asia-Pacific region, especially our close treaty allies Thailand and the Philippines. Moreover, the Philippines' tuna industry is based in the southern province of Mindanao, precisely the region in which we are engaged in our counterterrorism mission. Indeed, Mindanao's tuna industry is in part the result of a successful U.S. foreign assistance program which helped develop economic alternatives for Muslim insurgents that have been active in the region for many years. I say this economic development program has been successful in Mindanao because most of the former insurgents have laid down their weapons and joined mainstream life in the Philippines. Only the most radical remain terrorists. So, in the Philippines today we have a successful counterterrorism effort underway that incorporates both economic incentives to give people a reason to participate in civil society, and military action against the few extremists who remain committed to violence. We cannot afford to remove one of the pillars of this effort by giving a competing trade advantage to Andean countries. This must be corrected as this bill moves to conference.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. I rise today to support S. Res. 253, which condemns the growing intolerance and acts of persecution against Jews in many European countries. The Resolution urges European governments to own up to this growing evil, to reject any excuse for it, to use every tool at hand to combat these crimes, and to punish the criminals. Finally, the Resolution calls upon European governments to cultivate an atmosphere of cooperation and reconciliation among the continent's Jewish and non-Jewish residents. Making Jews scapegoats for societal ills has an ominous history. The Nazis' Holocaust was preceded by centuries of gradually increasing anti-Semitism--first by religious dogma, then by racial pseudo- theories--spread through preaching, villainous written propaganda, exclusionary laws, and finally pogroms and massacres. The so-called civilized governments of the twentieth century largely remained silent and failed to confront the rising tide of anti-Jewish persecution. As a result, they set the stage for the murder of the vast majority of European Jewry. Some of the individuals committing anti-Semitic acts today are the affluent beneficiaries of unprecedented Western European prosperity. Some may be bigots. Others may simply be ignorant of the hideous causality of the Holocaust, now more than fifty years in the past. Still others are mindless thugs. In France, where a large number of violent attacks have occurred, many of the perpetrators are young anti-Israel Arab immigrants from North Africa who feel alienated from their host country. Nearly all European leaders have condemned physical violence against Jews, although occasionally politicians have tempered their criticism with ill-considered advice. An unfortunate example of this was the well-intentioned Mayor of Berlin who, after a vicious attack on an Orthodox Jewish American tourist, warned Jewish Berliners that if they didn't want to be similarly beaten up on the street, they shouldn't wear clothing identifying them as Jews. Rhetorical anti-Semitism has been met with even less principle. Instead, verbal expressions of anti-Semitism in Europe are increasingly being trivialized. For example, we might consider the recent London dinner party at which the French Ambassador to the U.K. made a demeaning, scatological reference to the State of Israel. What happened when the story was leaked to the press? The major scandal was the so-called ``indiscretion'' of other guests for having revealed the French Ambassador's crude, bigoted, and amateurish behavior! Or we might note the wife of Wim Duisenberg, the President of the European Central Bank, who after flying the PLO flag from her house in Amsterdam complained that ``Israel is being kept going by those rich Jews in America.'' Her highly respected husband removed the PLO flag but remained silent on her incendiary political commentary. A similar example of objectivity came from Oslo where a member of the Norwegian Nobel Committee declared that she would like to rescind Shimon Peres's Nobel Peace Prize. Needless to say, she didn't choose to mention, let alone criticize, Yasser Arafat or the suicide bombers whom he aids and abets. Even venerable European political institutions no longer seem immune to the anti-Semitic virus. Consider the blatant attempt to woo right- wing voters by Juergen Moellemann, one of the top officials of Germany's Free Democrats, a party with a proud history of liberalism and tolerance. Moellemann explained that the Deputy Director of the Central Council of Jews in Germany had brought on anti-Semitism himself by his supposedly aggressive behavior as a television talk-show host! If this weird argumentation weren't so dangerous, it might almost be funny. But it's not. To Germany's credit, Moellemann's warped demagoguery has come in for massive public criticism, including from both Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and his conservative challenger Bavarian Minister-President Edmund Stoiber. I want to believe that most Europeans reject the nauseating anti- Semitism of the last several months. I want to believe that a trans- Atlantic community of shared values still links us with the continent. But without continuous efforts by European statesmen to combat anti- Semitism, my optimism may prove to be naive. Instant communication means that how Europe responds to these acts of hatred matters around the world. Europe must make bigots, not Jews, its outcasts. No temporizing, no rationalizing, and no excuses. Toward that end, I urge my colleagues to vote for S. Res. 253. The committee amendment was agreed to.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, late last year, I offered a tribute to the legendary University of Delaware football coach, Harold ``Tubby'' Raymond, on the occasion of his 300th career victory. A few short months later, after 36 years as head football coach and a total of 48 years at Delaware, Coach Raymond decided to retire. And now, with a vote by the Board of Trustees this Tuesday, May 21st, the University has decided to designate the football field as ``Tubby Raymond Field.'' Like many Delawareans, present and relocated, I welcomed the University's decision with enthusiasm. I am a graduate of the University of Delaware. For a while, Tubby was my backfield coach, and I am one of many great fans and proud friends of Tubby Raymond. He deserves this honor; as his successor K.C. Keeler, who also played for Tubby--played more and played better, I might add--said, while looking over the Delaware football field, ``the man built this place.'' I will resist the temptation to recount again the remarkable success of University of Delaware football teams under Tubby Raymond, who ended his head coaching career with a record of 300-119-3, a winning percentage of .714. But I would like to share a comment Tubby made, in response to a question he has been asked countless times in the course of his storied career. He was asked if he regretted not moving to coach on Sunday or at a bigger school, a I-A program, like his alma mater, the University of Michigan. Tubby said that he always had everything he wanted at Delaware, adding, ``I'm just as proud of the players who have gone on to be successful in business and other careers, as I am of those who have gone to the NFL.'' As a coach, Tubby Raymond has been a dedicated and very successful teacher, and the fact that he will be the speaker at this Saturday's commencement ceremony reflects the respect he has earned in the University community, well beyond the Athletic Department. Tubby hasn't been able to leave the coaching completely behind, however; as he watched them setting up chairs on the football field for graduation, he shook his head with a slight wince, and said, ``They're going to kill some grass.'' The grass will grow back, and Tubby Raymond Field will be in good shape for the opening game on August 29th, when the name will become official. For the first time that many Delawareans can remember, Tubby will not be the coach. He will be the guest of honor, and it is Tubby Raymond who has honored us by his dedication as a coach and a teacher, his loyalty to the University of Delaware, his leadership in our State--and for those of us who are really lucky, the blessing of his friendship.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, last week I had the privilege of attending a dinner honoring six extraordinary Delawareans, three couples who have generously extended the success, spirit and strength of their own lives to the immeasurable benefit of our State. They were honored for, what I thought was a wonderful phrase, their ``transformational leadership'' by the Delaware Region of the National Conference for Community and Justice, the NCCJ. Lillian and Jack Burris have volunteered for and contributed to more public service organizations than many of us could name. Last year, they were honored as a couple with the United Way's Alexis de Tocqueville Society Award. Among other endeavors, Lillian is a charter member of the Milford Housing Corporation, a trustee of Wesley College and a member of the board of the Kent and Sussex Counties Mancus Foundation, which serves disabled citizens. Perhaps most impressively, she was Delaware's Mother of the Year in 1992. Jack has been chairman of the State Integrity Commission for over a decade; he is a 35-year board member at Milford Memorial Hospital, a former trustee of the University of Delaware, and in 1994, was inducted into the Delaware Business Leaders Hall of Fame. He can still out-work colleagues half his age. Julie and Charlie Cawley have become remarkable leaders, both in the business community and personally, in supporting charitable and educational organizations through their Cawley Family Foundation and the MBNA Foundation, which coordinates the considerable volunteer efforts of the more than 10,000 MBNA employees in Delaware. Julie, a former special education teacher, is a leader in some of the most effective nonprofit organizations and educational efforts in our State, including the Ministry of Caring, Catholic Charities, Meals on Wheels, the Centreville School and Bayard House, a residential program for pregnant teenagers and young women. Charlie serves on the board executive committees of the University of Delaware and the Grand Opera House in Wilmington. His other board memberships, past and present, are too numerous to name I'm afraid I might leave out something important but I know he takes particular pride in his service on the board of the Metropolitan Wilmington Urban League. And Charlie not only serves, he truly leads, inspiring others to get involved. Joan and Stacey Mobley are one of those impressive doctor-lawyer couples, but despite all those advanced degrees, they have made good certainly as community leaders. They currently co-chair the capital campaign of the Delaware Art Museum, which is undertaking a major renovation and expansion. Joan Mobley, M.D., serves on the board of the University of Delaware, is an advocate for the Open College Door Program at Delaware State University, and serves on the board of overseers for the Delaware College of Art and Design. Joan also sits on the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Delaware Supreme Court, and chairs the nominating committee of our YWCA. Stacey Mobley, lawyer, chaired one of the most successful statewide charitable fund-raising campaigns in Delaware history, at a time when it wasn't easy, raising $27 million for the United Way. He, too, has served on numerous boards through the years, including his leadership here in Washington on behalf of the National Building Museum and the Arena Stage. Last year, Stacey was appointed by our Governor to chair the Delaware Strategic Economic Council again, taking the job when the challenge is considerable. Six extraordinary people, and perhaps the most extraordinary thing about them is that for every public effort, every board membership, every charitable contribution that I could name and document, each of them has undertaken many more private acts of generosity and ``transformational leadership.'' It is my very great privilege to know all of them personally, and to be able to honor them as friends, as well as community leaders. I would like to put into the Record the comments made by Stacey Mobley, accepting the NCCJ award on behalf of all six honorees, and I ask that his remarks be printed in the Record. The remarks follows: Remarks by Stacy J. Mobley On behalf of Joan and myself, let me say that we are humbled to be honored by the NCCJ tonight--and to be honored along with Lillian and Jack Burris and Julie and Charlie Cawley. Considering their extraordinary contributions to Delaware over the years, it's truly overpowering to be included with them. The Cawleys and the Burrises have asked me--in the interest of time--to deliver remarks for all six of us. So let me begin by saying we all extend our thanks not only to the NCCJ--which has so generously honored us--but to our family and our friends who have bolstered us through the years, often served with us, answered our pleas for contributions or support, or just agreed to share their ideas at a focus group. As Dr. King once said: ``Our destinies are tied together. None of us can make it alone.'' We're all part of an extended family--a community of friends--that nurtures each other's dreams and shares each other's happiness. So the six of us would like to take a moment to thank all of you who have been such wonderfully supportive family, and great companions through our lives. At the first meeting with Muriel Gilman and Barbie Riegel to discuss this award, they explained that the NCCJ was honoring us for what it calls ``transformational leadership'' in bettering our communities. That seems a most appropriate theme to focus on, considering the work of the NCCJ, itself. For 75 years, the NCCJ has encouraged ``transformational leadership'' across this nation as the organization has helped fight bias, bigotry and racism, while promoting understanding and respect among all peoples. The work has never been easy--and I might suggest that it has never been more important a task than it is today. Sadly, understanding and respect among all peoples seem to be dwindling values in our world. Despite the advanced telecommunications devices we invent, and despite the Internet, which puts the wisdom of the greatest minds at our fingertips, we still seem incapable of learning from the past. As we look with empathy and helplessness at the conflicts that tear apart peoples around the world, we wonder why these twin values of understanding and respect for each other's differences are so elusive. People of differing religions, races and ethnicity's have caused each other tremendous pain over centuries of recorded time because fear and hatred have too often been instilled from infancy. And regrettably, nobody seems above it. It has been true of Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Buddists, Serbs, Croats . . . and the list goes on. In the places where there is no understanding of each other, there is no mutual respect. And as surely as night follows day, distrust and hatred seem to follow. Conversely, in the places where there is an effort to understand and respect each other's differences, people can live and work side-by-side, gaining strength from their diversity. As our world struggles with seemingly insoluble problems-- in the Middle East, the Balkans, Northern Ireland, India, Africa, and a dozen other global hot spots--we find ourselves praying for an outbreak of peace. We all share such a spectacularly beautiful little island in this massive solar system, you wonder--as Rodney King asked: ``Why can't we all just get along?'' And while those of us in the comparatively little outpost called Wilmington, Delaware, are not in the position to solve the world's problems, we give thanks in our own community for an organization such as NCCJ which has--as its reason for existence--the goal of bringing people together. NCCJ helps build ``communities of justice'' through an array of programs that reach our young people, extend into the workplace, and cross lines of faith. And events, such as this one, tonight, remind us all how important it is for each of us to strengthen our communities by ``giving back'' in some meaningful way. Some of us ``give back'' with our time and talents, enlivening Boards and Task Forces with our creative energies. Some of us ``give back'' by writing generous checks to support capital campaigns to expand our communities. Others of us have chosen to build a business, to pursue public service, or to mentor at-risk kids. But through our individual actions, we're all saying that we understand the interpersonal bonds implied in the word ``community''--and the commitment in the word ``friendship.'' This room is filled with a community of people who are remarkably different from each other--in gender, race, national origin, sexual orientation, age, and religion. Yet we treasure our community so deeply that we have made a commitment to work together to make Delaware the kind of peaceful place in which we'd be proud to raise our children and our grandchildren. . . . A place that teaches not hatred or intolerance, but understanding, and respect among all peoples. Our community is not perfect, and our nation is not perfect. But there's virtue in the ongoing commitment to make it so--and the NCCJ is at the heart of that effort. Speaking for the Cawleys, the Burrises and the Mobleys, I extend a very sincere thank you for honoring us tonight. And we, in turn, salute and thank NCCJ for your tireless efforts at fostering a just and inclusive society, and for enriching the community we all cherish. Thank you.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, for the Committee on Foreign Relations I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records 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 ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, we just adopted, I understand by UC, a sense-of-the-Senate resolution that relates to Jackson-Vanik. With the permission of my colleagues, I would like to speak to that for just a few minutes. The sense-of-the-Senate resolution proposed by Senator Grassley reinforces a commitment that I support, which is to extend all efforts to expand our relationship with Russia. Russia has taken very significant steps toward working with NATO, cooperating with us against terrorism in central Asia and the north Caucasus, providing a stable world oil market, and opening up its domestic markets. But we have to keep in mind that while Russia, under President Putin, is moving toward greater acceptance of the rule of law, free trade, and a market economy, it is not there yet. It hopes to join the World Trade Organization, it is seeking foreign investment, and it is working to revise its legal and business structures toward those ends. But it still falls by the wayside on significant points. Most visibly, on March 1 of this year, Russia imposed an unexpected and arbitrary embargo on imports of U.S. chicken parts, causing serious grief and economic loss to an industry. Now, chickens and chicken parts are a multibillion-dollar industry, bigger than most of the industries in most of your States. And it is a big deal in my State. While I appreciate the worldwide problems of finding common health standards, the timing, as well as the arbitrary and sudden imposition of Russia's ban, indicates that political and financial reasons, not the claimed health reasons, were the cause. They came up with a specious argument. After some intense negotiations and the President basically telling the Russians, ``Hey, look, if you want to play in the world of international trade, you have to play by the rules. You have to be fair''--they went ahead and ``lifted'' the embargo, which was specious from the outset. When they lifted the embargo, though, they lifted it only in principle. The Russian bureaucracy, with or without the approval of the central authorities, continues to delay and limit imports of chicken parts. Let me explain what I mean. You have to have an importer in Russia to accept the chickens when they get there. They changed the law, and said no more embargo, but--guess what--all importers have to get new licenses. Now we cannot ship from Delaware, Allen Chickens or Perdue Chickens or Tyson Chickens, any chicken parts to Russia unless we are sending them to someone who is going to accept them. You have to have an importer's license. Guess what. If you lift an embargo, but if you limit or do not give a license to somebody with whom I can deal, then I am still out of the market. Now, Russian officials and Russian parliamentarians and members of the Russian Senate are very frank with me in my meetings. They have said that the reason this is the way it is, is pure bribery--pure, unadulterated bribery and that the oligarchs have a piece of the action. There are only a couple of chicken outfits in Russia. I am serious, I am not joking about this. As long as imported chicken parts do not come in, the price of chicken goes up. The oligarchs, who own and purchase those chickens, those chicken dealers--what happens? make money. As long as they can keep this dragging on, they are making money. So, in my view, it is possible that this isn't something that is being coordinated at the highest levels. But the bottom line is that responsible governments have to react. Last year, Russia imported $630 million worth of chickens from the United States--8 percent of all U.S. poultry exports. Russian suppliers have not been able to fill that gap, and as a result, many Russian consumers, mostly pensioners who cannot afford the higher prices for Russian chicken, are suffering. Right now, other countries are moving in to take over this lucrative market from our own U.S. suppliers. This move is a direct contradiction to Russia's professed desire to join the world community of fair trade practices and a slap at our efforts to work with Russia in gaining accession into WTO. As everyone in this Chamber knows, I am a strong supporter of good relations with Russia and its President, the first leader since Peter the Great to look as far west as he has. I support and commend every effort the administration is making to support good working relations with Russia, including the discussion that will start in Moscow tomorrow. I met with Condoleezza Rice before they left for an extended period of time to discuss this. I am chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. I have been one of the guys criticized on this floor for being too supportive of Russia. But before I can support taking steps, of any form, to lift trade limits on Russia, I want to make sure they have their act in order, and make sure Russia's commitment to fair and open trade and the rule of law is in the works. Now, look, let me make something clear to you: You put a ban on American chicken. You then lift the ban. You then make it difficult or impossible to get a license to move in, but you give other people licenses to move in. We lose the market. This is not like the drug companies in the State of my friend from New Jersey, or the drug companies in my State of Delaware. If they put a ban on our stuff, we have patents, so they can't get it from anywhere else. We don't lose the market. We lose the profit margin. We lose the market temporarily, but we don't lose it permanently. This is a big deal. This is a multibillion-dollar deal, over time, to us. So I want to let everybody know, I can either be Russia's best friend or worst enemy. And if they keep fooling around like this, they are going to have me as their worst enemy. This resolution expresses a sense of the Senate that supports terminating the application of Jackson-Vanik to Russia in an ``appropriate and timely manner.'' I am the guy who has been pushing that for a year--when the Russians are acting appropriately. But I tell you what. In my view, it will only be appropriate to act on such legislation when it is clear that Russia is living up to its bilateral trade agreements and arrangements with the United States. I am not talking about trade disputes. I am not talking about legitimate trade disputes. I want them not only to live up to the letter of the law, but to the spirit of the law. Only then, only when we can be sure Russia is committed to adhering to commitments already made, should we graduate Russia from Jackson-Vanik, which in principle, I think we should. I am convinced we will be able to do that because I am convinced that President Putin has gotten the message. And I was told personally that the President of the United States of America is going to raise this issue. Tomorrow it begins. He is going to raise this issue personally with the President of Russia. So I will be happy, at the appropriate time, to be one of those who moves for Russia's graduation out of Jackson-Vanik. But I am not going to do that, as one Senator--and I think the chairman of the Finance Committee--unless the Russians begin to act appropriately. I thank my colleagues for their indulgence, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to note for the record this morning the election of a proven leader in my State to serve in national office. Diane J. Callaway has worked in the Seaford School District in Delaware for 28 years. In the course of her career, Mrs. Callaway has been active in professional associations at the local, state and national level, serving in virtually every leadership position, both elected and appointed. It came as no surprise to anyone, when Diane Callaway received Delaware's first Educational Office Professional of the Year award. In 1990, Mrs. Callaway earned a Professional Standards Program certificate and distinction as a Certified Educational Office Employee, CEOE, from the National Association of Educational Office Professionals. She served for four years as the NAEOP's Mid-Atlantic Area Director, and currently serves on the Association's Board of Directors Executive Committee. Mrs. Callaway has been elected to serve as President of the NAEOP for 2002-2003. Needless to say, we in Delaware are very proud of Diane Callaway proud of her success, proud of the prominent role she is playing at the national level, and most of all, proud of her tremendous contribution to the quality of our schools. We congratulate her on her election, and we thank her for her service to us all.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the world is a dangerous place, and the United States is not immune to those dangers. In just the last few days, we have heard warnings that suicide bombers will mount attacks in the United States and that terrorist groups will inevitably obtain weapons of mass destruction from rogue states. My own greatest concern is that rogue states or terrorist groups may obtain nuclear weapons, or the means to produce them, from the former Soviet Union, where less-than-adequate security and under-employed weapons scientists coexist with the world's largest stockpile of excess fissile material. We know that both rogues and terrorists are attempting to exploit the instability in that region in order to gain weapons of mass destruction. Some Russians have been caught stealing radioactive, or even fissile, material. And witnesses at two Foreign Relations Committee hearings warned that even modestly capable terrorists could convert stolen highly enriched uranium into enormously destructive improvised nuclear devices. But I do not share the view that proliferation of nuclear weapons is inevitable. The United States has had real successes in nuclear nonproliferation and there is every reason to think that we can build on that record. Thanks to the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program, the countries of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons. Thanks to the Materials Protection, Control and Accounting program, many Russian facilities have improved their security for fissile materiel. Thanks to our fissile material disposition programs, the United States and Russia will each demilitarize 34 metric tons of excess plutonium, and Russia will downblended 500 metric tons of high-enriched uranium into low-enriched fuel for nuclear power reactors. Thanks to several U.S. programs, thousands of under-employed weapons scientists in the former Soviet Union have obtained at least part-time employment in new, socially useful endeavors. These programs point the way to how we can speed up the day when rogue states and terrorists will find the doors closed to them when they seek dangerous materials or technology from the former Soviet Union. The administration told many months to review these programs last year, but that review led it to the absolutely correct conclusions that the programs are vital to our national security and that nearly all of them should be expanded. The problem now is that we are still not doing nearly enough. The President's budget request for fiscal year 2003 would maintain our nonproliferation assistance programs, but not significantly increase them. The Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 2002 takes important steps to expand these programs, and I am proud to co-sponsor this legislation. Senator Domenici to be both commended and supported for drafting this bill. I am also delighted to be joined by Senators Lugar and Hagel from the Foreign Relations Committee, Senators Landrieu and Bingaman from the Armed Services Committee, and Senator Murkowski, who has paid particular attention to Russian nuclear problems. The Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 2002 will lead to greater levels of effort--and, I believe, greater levels of achievement--in several areas. For example, it authorizes $40 million for a new research, development, and demonstration program to help respond to nuclear or radiological terrorism. Some of these funds would also help other nations to better regulate the protection and control of radiological sources, to prevent any diversion to terrorists. Some of the funds will go to new technologies to detect radioactive and fissile materials being smuggled into the United States. And some will support work with the International Atomic Energy Agency to improve international safeguards for nuclear materials and operations. It authorizes up to $300 million to accelerate and expand current programs to blend down highly enriched uranium (HEU) into reactorgrade material which cannot explode and to dispose of plutonium in Russia. This provision also allows for HEU purchases from other countries. It authorizes $20 million for work with the international community to develop options for a global program for international safeguards, nuclear safety and proliferation-resistant nuclear technologies. This includes efforts to improve sabotage protection for nuclear power plants and other nuclear facilities overseas. These are sensible proposals, and very sensibly priced when one considers the magnitude of the threat that they address. Former Senator Howard Baker and former White House Counsel Lloyd Cutler called on us last year to devote at least $3,000,000,000 dollars a year to this effort. Even with last year's congressionally-mandated budget increases and even with this fine bill, we will achieve less than two-thirds of that objective. But these are important steps, ones that have been vetted with experts inside and outside our government. They deserve the support of all of us, and they will help build a safer world for our children and grandchildren.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the world is a dangerous place, and the United States is not immune to those dangers. In just the last few days, we have heard warnings that suicide bombers will mount attacks in the United States and that terrorist groups will inevitably obtain weapons of mass destruction from rogue states. My own greatest concern is that rogue states or terrorist groups may obtain nuclear weapons, or the means to produce them, from the former Soviet Union, where less-than-adequate security and under-employed weapons scientists coexist with the world's largest stockpile of excess fissile material. We know that both rogues and terrorists are attempting to exploit the instability in that region in order to gain weapons of mass destruction. Some Russians have been caught stealing radioactive, or even fissile, material. And witnesses at two Foreign Relations Committee hearings warned that even modestly capable terrorists could convert stolen highly enriched uranium into enormously destructive improvised nuclear devices. But I do not share the view that proliferation of nuclear weapons is inevitable. The United States has had real successes in nuclear nonproliferation and there is every reason to think that we can build on that record. Thanks to the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program, the countries of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons. Thanks to the Materials Protection, Control and Accounting program, many Russian facilities have improved their security for fissile materiel. Thanks to our fissile material disposition programs, the United States and Russia will each demilitarize 34 metric tons of excess plutonium, and Russia will downblended 500 metric tons of high-enriched uranium into low-enriched fuel for nuclear power reactors. Thanks to several U.S. programs, thousands of under-employed weapons scientists in the former Soviet Union have obtained at least part-time employment in new, socially useful endeavors. These programs point the way to how we can speed up the day when rogue states and terrorists will find the doors closed to them when they seek dangerous materials or technology from the former Soviet Union. The administration told many months to review these programs last year, but that review led it to the absolutely correct conclusions that the programs are vital to our national security and that nearly all of them should be expanded. The problem now is that we are still not doing nearly enough. The President's budget request for fiscal year 2003 would maintain our nonproliferation assistance programs, but not significantly increase them. The Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 2002 takes important steps to expand these programs, and I am proud to co-sponsor this legislation. Senator Domenici to be both commended and supported for drafting this bill. I am also delighted to be joined by Senators Lugar and Hagel from the Foreign Relations Committee, Senators Landrieu and Bingaman from the Armed Services Committee, and Senator Murkowski, who has paid particular attention to Russian nuclear problems. The Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 2002 will lead to greater levels of effort--and, I believe, greater levels of achievement--in several areas. For example, it authorizes $40 million for a new research, development, and demonstration program to help respond to nuclear or radiological terrorism. Some of these funds would also help other nations to better regulate the protection and control of radiological sources, to prevent any diversion to terrorists. Some of the funds will go to new technologies to detect radioactive and fissile materials being smuggled into the United States. And some will support work with the International Atomic Energy Agency to improve international safeguards for nuclear materials and operations. It authorizes up to $300 million to accelerate and expand current programs to blend down highly enriched uranium (HEU) into reactorgrade material which cannot explode and to dispose of plutonium in Russia. This provision also allows for HEU purchases from other countries. It authorizes $20 million for work with the international community to develop options for a global program for international safeguards, nuclear safety and proliferation-resistant nuclear technologies. This includes efforts to improve sabotage protection for nuclear power plants and other nuclear facilities overseas. These are sensible proposals, and very sensibly priced when one considers the magnitude of the threat that they address. Former Senator Howard Baker and former White House Counsel Lloyd Cutler called on us last year to devote at least $3,000,000,000 dollars a year to this effort. Even with last year's congressionally-mandated budget increases and even with this fine bill, we will achieve less than two-thirds of that objective. But these are important steps, ones that have been vetted with experts inside and outside our government. They deserve the support of all of us, and they will help build a safer world for our children and grandchildren.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I support Senator Kerry's amendment to strengthen the protections for State and local government to achieve their environmental and other important priorities. The Kerry Amendment adds to the objectives that our negotiators will seek to achieve in future trade discussions. While we cannot mandate specific outcomes in those negotiations, we here in Congress will be able to look at future trade agreements to make sure that they include additional safeguards for the kinds of regulations that some international investors have challenged under NAFTA's Chapter 11. We all agree that to make trade work, to bring the benefits of expanding markets to American workers and consumers, we must give investors the confidence that the countries they move into will not discriminate against them. They need to know that they will not have plants and equipment expropriated, or rendered worthless through some government regulation or other action. But such protections can go too far, as many observers of actions taken under NAFTA investor-state provisions have concluded. The Kerry Amendment makes sure that our negotiators will be careful to balance the need for investor protections with the need for state and local governments to protect their citizens as they see fit. That is the kind of balance that will help to restore popular support for the many real benefits of expanded trade, and will help to secure Congressional support for future trade agreements.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Reducing Crime and Terrorism at America's Seaports Act.'' This important legislation will update Federal law to address critical security issues at seaports in the United States and, in concert with recent efforts by my good friend Senator Hollings and others, will help keep America safe and secure. Last October, I chaired a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs on ``Defending America's Transportation Infrastructure.'' At the hearing, we heard testimony from experts that confirmed what many of us have known and preached for years: this Nation's transportation infrastructure, our railways, our highways, our seaports, is especially vulnerable to terrorist threats and other nefarious activity. Our trains, trucks and sea vessels, and the systems that carry them, are ripe targets and, if compromised, could jeopardize American lives and devastate the American economy. The U.S. Government has known of this tremendous vulnerability but, until the tragic events of September 11, assessed the risk of an actual attack, at least with respect to seaports, as relatively low. Well, we all know how mistaken that assessment is now. While no one can predict with certainty where the next attack might be, most clear thinkers agree that there will be another attempt. The real question before us is will we cower in a web of fear and bureaucratic inaction, or will we focus on creative problem-solving, building partnerships, and collaboratively fighting the well-funded and well-organized network of criminals that seek to topple us. The choice, my friends, is clear. In the aftermath of September 11, Congress moved expeditiously to bridge the gaps in homeland security, passing landmark anti-terrorism legislation, strengthening security at airports, and providing additional funding for emergency law enforcement and domestic preparedness. Despite our early efforts, however, there is much that remains to be done. We have tackled the obvious and the easy. We must now move as swiftly to resolve the more difficult, but no less pressing, problems. And, as gateways to our largest cities and industries, the protection of U.S. seaports must be at the top of our priority list. Failing to protect our Nation's ports will jeopardize American lives, as well as property. It threatens to undermine national security, especially where terrorists and other criminals illegally traffic weapons, munitions and critical technology. And it will significantly disrupt the free and steady flow of commerce. Let me say a word about the threat to commerce. Ports connect American consumers with global products, and U.S. farmers and manufacturers with overseas markets. The U.S. marine transportation system moves more than 2 billion tons of domestic and international freight and imports 3.3 billion tons of oil. By some estimates, the port industry generates more than 13 million jobs and $494 billion in personal income; it contributes nearly $743 billion to the Nation's gross domestic product, and $200 billion in Federal, State and local taxes. These extraordinary numbers underscore the critical role that seaports play in fueling economic growth. More importantly, they make the point, more forcefully than any number of speeches or platitudes, that port security will be a key element to building and sustaining a stable national economy. With that in mind, I introduce legislation today that would substantially improve the inadequate protections currently contained in the Federal code: first, the effectiveness of Federal, State and local efforts to secure ports is compromised in part by criminals' ability to evade detection by underreporting and misreporting the content of cargo, with little more than a slap on the wrist, if that. The existing statutes simply do not provide adequate sanctions to deter criminal or civil violations. As a consequence, vessel manifest information is often wrong or incomplete, and our ability to assess risks, make decisions about which containers to inspect more closely, or simply control the movement of cargo is made virtually impossible. This bill would substantially increase the penalties for non-compliance with these reporting requirements. Second, we know that cargo is especially vulnerable to theft once it arrives at shore and is transported between facilities within a seaport. To deter such larceny, this bill would significantly increase penalties for theft of goods from Customs' custody. Third, there currently exists no standard system for safeguarding cargo; no requirement that all containers be sealed; and no consistent guidance or protocol to direct action in the event that a container's seal is compromised. This legislation would require the U.S. Customs Service to develop a uniform system of securing or sealing at loading all containers originating in or destined for the U.S. Fourth, my friends at the Customs Service tell me that their ability to conduct ``sting'' operations to detect illicit arms trafficking is significantly curtailed by onerous pre-certification requirements. This bill would give Customs agents the flexibility they need to conduct these investigations where American lives and property are threatened. Fifth, the bill would impose strict criminal penalties for the use of a dangerous weapon or explosive with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury at a seaport. Notably, such a provision already exists with respect to international airports and other mass transportation systems. If my bill is enacted, we would take the common-sense step of extending that same coverage to seaports. Finally, while by all accounts the amount of crime at U.S. seaports is great, there exists no national data collection and reporting systems that capture the magnitude of serious crime at seaports. Indeed, the Interagency Commission on Crime and Security in U.S. Seaports concluded that it was unable to determine the full extent of serious crime at the nation's 361 seaports, primarily because there is no consolidated database. This legislation would help correct this dearth of reliable information by authorizing pilot programs at several seaports that would enable victims to report cargo theft and direct the Attorney General to create a database of these crimes, which would be available to appropriate Federal, State and local agencies. Let me be clear: my legislation is not a cure-all. Comprehensive and effective port security will require an interagency, intergovernmental strategy that works to prevent and deter criminal and terrorist activity, and, where those efforts fail, detect any wrongdoing before harm or destruction results. The Federal Government, with my support and oftentimes at my insistence, has established formal strategies and protocols to address drug trafficking, domestic and international crime, and airport security. But seaport security remains largely unaddressed. If we are to win this new war and truly secure the homeland, not just in word, but also in deed, we must focus the attention of both the public and private sectors on safeguarding America's seaports. We must do it now, and we must do it without sacrificing the country's economic health. My friends, September 11 was our clarion call. How we respond to that call to action will be the real challenge of leadership, and citizenship, in the 21st century.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Reducing Crime and Terrorism at America's Seaports Act.'' This important legislation will update Federal law to address critical security issues at seaports in the United States and, in concert with recent efforts by my good friend Senator Hollings and others, will help keep America safe and secure. Last October, I chaired a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs on ``Defending America's Transportation Infrastructure.'' At the hearing, we heard testimony from experts that confirmed what many of us have known and preached for years: this Nation's transportation infrastructure, our railways, our highways, our seaports, is especially vulnerable to terrorist threats and other nefarious activity. Our trains, trucks and sea vessels, and the systems that carry them, are ripe targets and, if compromised, could jeopardize American lives and devastate the American economy. The U.S. Government has known of this tremendous vulnerability but, until the tragic events of September 11, assessed the risk of an actual attack, at least with respect to seaports, as relatively low. Well, we all know how mistaken that assessment is now. While no one can predict with certainty where the next attack might be, most clear thinkers agree that there will be another attempt. The real question before us is will we cower in a web of fear and bureaucratic inaction, or will we focus on creative problem-solving, building partnerships, and collaboratively fighting the well-funded and well-organized network of criminals that seek to topple us. The choice, my friends, is clear. In the aftermath of September 11, Congress moved expeditiously to bridge the gaps in homeland security, passing landmark anti-terrorism legislation, strengthening security at airports, and providing additional funding for emergency law enforcement and domestic preparedness. Despite our early efforts, however, there is much that remains to be done. We have tackled the obvious and the easy. We must now move as swiftly to resolve the more difficult, but no less pressing, problems. And, as gateways to our largest cities and industries, the protection of U.S. seaports must be at the top of our priority list. Failing to protect our Nation's ports will jeopardize American lives, as well as property. It threatens to undermine national security, especially where terrorists and other criminals illegally traffic weapons, munitions and critical technology. And it will significantly disrupt the free and steady flow of commerce. Let me say a word about the threat to commerce. Ports connect American consumers with global products, and U.S. farmers and manufacturers with overseas markets. The U.S. marine transportation system moves more than 2 billion tons of domestic and international freight and imports 3.3 billion tons of oil. By some estimates, the port industry generates more than 13 million jobs and $494 billion in personal income; it contributes nearly $743 billion to the Nation's gross domestic product, and $200 billion in Federal, State and local taxes. These extraordinary numbers underscore the critical role that seaports play in fueling economic growth. More importantly, they make the point, more forcefully than any number of speeches or platitudes, that port security will be a key element to building and sustaining a stable national economy. With that in mind, I introduce legislation today that would substantially improve the inadequate protections currently contained in the Federal code: first, the effectiveness of Federal, State and local efforts to secure ports is compromised in part by criminals' ability to evade detection by underreporting and misreporting the content of cargo, with little more than a slap on the wrist, if that. The existing statutes simply do not provide adequate sanctions to deter criminal or civil violations. As a consequence, vessel manifest information is often wrong or incomplete, and our ability to assess risks, make decisions about which containers to inspect more closely, or simply control the movement of cargo is made virtually impossible. This bill would substantially increase the penalties for non-compliance with these reporting requirements. Second, we know that cargo is especially vulnerable to theft once it arrives at shore and is transported between facilities within a seaport. To deter such larceny, this bill would significantly increase penalties for theft of goods from Customs' custody. Third, there currently exists no standard system for safeguarding cargo; no requirement that all containers be sealed; and no consistent guidance or protocol to direct action in the event that a container's seal is compromised. This legislation would require the U.S. Customs Service to develop a uniform system of securing or sealing at loading all containers originating in or destined for the U.S. Fourth, my friends at the Customs Service tell me that their ability to conduct ``sting'' operations to detect illicit arms trafficking is significantly curtailed by onerous pre-certification requirements. This bill would give Customs agents the flexibility they need to conduct these investigations where American lives and property are threatened. Fifth, the bill would impose strict criminal penalties for the use of a dangerous weapon or explosive with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury at a seaport. Notably, such a provision already exists with respect to international airports and other mass transportation systems. If my bill is enacted, we would take the common-sense step of extending that same coverage to seaports. Finally, while by all accounts the amount of crime at U.S. seaports is great, there exists no national data collection and reporting systems that capture the magnitude of serious crime at seaports. Indeed, the Interagency Commission on Crime and Security in U.S. Seaports concluded that it was unable to determine the full extent of serious crime at the nation's 361 seaports, primarily because there is no consolidated database. This legislation would help correct this dearth of reliable information by authorizing pilot programs at several seaports that would enable victims to report cargo theft and direct the Attorney General to create a database of these crimes, which would be available to appropriate Federal, State and local agencies. Let me be clear: my legislation is not a cure-all. Comprehensive and effective port security will require an interagency, intergovernmental strategy that works to prevent and deter criminal and terrorist activity, and, where those efforts fail, detect any wrongdoing before harm or destruction results. The Federal Government, with my support and oftentimes at my insistence, has established formal strategies and protocols to address drug trafficking, domestic and international crime, and airport security. But seaport security remains largely unaddressed. If we are to win this new war and truly secure the homeland, not just in word, but also in deed, we must focus the attention of both the public and private sectors on safeguarding America's seaports. We must do it now, and we must do it without sacrificing the country's economic health. My friends, September 11 was our clarion call. How we respond to that call to action will be the real challenge of leadership, and citizenship, in the 21st century.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on a matter at the very heart of our war on terror: the deteriorating security conditions in Afghanistan. If current trends continue, we may soon find that our hard-won success on the battlefield has melted away with the winter snow. In the eastern part of the country, brutal warlords are openly defying the authority of the central government and slaughtering innocent civilians. ``Kill them all: men, women, children, even the chickens.'' Those were the orders of warlord Bacha Khan when a rival drove him out of the city of Gardez in January. Three weeks ago he returned, and rained 200 rockets on the sorry city. About 30 civilians were killed and 70 others wounded, most of them women and children. Today, this thug's tanks still occupy the streets of Gardez, his bandits terrorize the inhabitants of nearby Khost, and the central government can do nothing but watch. Chairman Karzai, the legitimate leader of Afghanistan, sees his authority openly flouted, while his Defense Minister weighs the pros and cons of obeying his superior's lawful orders. Meanwhile, the helpless governor of the province warns that the chaos is rapidly turning the local population against both the Karzai administration and America. He's hardly alone: journalists quote many local residents blaming the United States for the deterioration of security, and even longing for the order of the Taliban period. ``America has replaced the Taliban with the warlords,'' one villager told the New York Times, ``and what we have is the death of innocents.'' Nor is Gardez an isolated example. In Mazar-e Sharif, at the other side of the country, clashes between two rival warlords killed half a dozen people earlier this month. Both of these warlords were, and still are, on the U.S. payroll, but that hasn't brought a cessation of violation. Just last week, the airport at Jalalabad came under missile attack, for the first time since the Taliban vacated the city in November. What is going on? What happened to the images of Afghans dancing in the street that we all remember from the liberation of Kabul last fall? What happened to the widespread joy and optimism that I encountered during my own visit to Afghanistan in January? Why are people actually looking back on the Taliban era with nostalgia rather than horror? It is simple: the very same conditions that enabled the Taliban to come to power in the mid-1990s are rapidly emerging again. Let's remember why the Taliban were able to make their regime stick. It wasn't their military prowess--we found that out in November. It wasn't the popularity of their oppressive ideology--we found that out last fall as well. What enabled the Taliban to hold power was simply that, for a critical mass of the Afghan people, they represented the least-bad option. For many Afghans, the cruel order of the Taliban was preferably to cruel of warlords. And now this same disorder is overtaking Afghanistan once again. Not only is the United States failing to rein in the warlords, we are actually making them the centerpiece of our strategy. Unless we take a serious look at our policy, I greatly fear we may be setting the stage for a tragic replay of recent Afghan history. Why do the people of Gardez blame America for the vicious actions of warlords like Bacha Khan? Well, maybe it is due to the fact that this killer is on the U.S. payroll. He has been taking our money since December, when his troops stood by and let al-Qaeda terrorist escape from Tora Bora; many U.S. military sources believe that Osama bin Laden himself escaped, due to the double-dealing of Bacha Khan and his comrades. Granted, the war effort in Afghanistan forces us to rely on some unsavory characters. I am under no illusions here. Sometimes, in warfare, you have got to make a deal with the Devil. But sometimes the Devil just takes your money and laughs. Bacha Khan is a perfect example. After letting al-Qaeda troops escape from Tora Bora, he conned the U.S. military into bombing his personal rivals--by labeling them al-Qaeda. He, and other warlords like him, are supposedly helping us hunt down Taliban remnants, but with allies like than, who needs enemies? I regret to say that this is exactly the question many Afghans are asking about us. The United States, and the world community, have pledged billions of dollars to the recovery of Afghanistan. But all the money in the world won't do much good without one overriding thing: security. Anyone knows that without security, very little else is possible; humanitarian workers can't move around, internally displaced people won't go back to their homes, refugees won't return to the country, the Afghan diaspora won't be willing to send money in and send in themselves to try to help put structure back into that terribly war-torn nation. This is not just my opinion; it is a direct quote from Secretary of State Rumsfeld, on April 22. So why does the administration steadfastly resist any expansion of the U.N.-mandated International Security Assistance force, or ISAF? Afghan leader Hamid Karzai, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, and just about every expert on the map has called for an expansion of ISAF, in both scope--it is currently confined to Kabul--and tenure. Its mandate expires long before the transition to democratic government is scheduled to take place. The long-term solution is to rebuild Afghanistan's army and police force, and we have taken our first steps in this process. But it can't happen overnight: it will take at least 18 months, more likely several years, just to train and equip a barebones force capable of bringing basic order to the country. In the meantime, there are only three alternatives: having American troops to serve as peacekeepers, building up a robust international force, or permitting Afghanistan to revert to bloody chaos. The first option can be described as status quo-minus. U.S. forces are currently imposing a rough order in the country, but, as the current chaos in Gardez shows, not on any consistent basis. They are spread thin, and they are not officially tasked to perform this function. ``Our mission here is to capture or kill al-Qaeda and senior Taliban,'' said a U.S. military spokesman, as the rockets fell on Gardez, ``But particular factional fighting? I don't think it's for us to get into.'' In the coming months, U.S. forces will be even less able to serve as de facto peacekeepers. As large scale offensive operations shift to smaller scale Special Forces deployments, the number of U.S. troops available will drop accordingly. There are currently about 7,000 American soldiers in Afghanistan--far too few to serve as peacekeepers as well as warfighters--and the assets are already being redeployed. In April the Pentagon cut its naval force commitment to Operation Enduring Freedom in half, to one carrier and 2,000 marines afloat. This month, eight B-1 bombers based in Oman began returning home to Dyess Air Force Base in Texas. The redeployment says good things about our success against al-Qaeda--but does not signal a strong commitment to stay the course. Soon the crunch time could come in a matter of months and our policy will be put to the test. As local warlords keep probing our resolve, we will either have to re-task more and more U.S. troops to de facto peacekeeping operations, or we will have to retreat. Wouldn't it be better to let allies share the burden? An international security force is clearly in our national interest: if we want our military presence in Afghanistan to be focused on fighting al-Qaeda and Taliban holdouts, we should be eager for other countries to take the lead in peacekeeping. We should be lending our full support to ISAF expansion, to view it as a force-multiplier. Instead, the administration treats it as an impediment to ongoing operations. One administration source even described ISAF expansion as a ``cancer that could metastasize'' throughout the country. Is it any surprise, given this attitude, that other nations are reluctant to help fill the security void? Without strong, decisive U.S. leadership, including, but not limited to, an ironclad commitment to back up our allies militarily if their troops come under enemy attack, no international force can possibly succeed. So what about option three--placing our trust in the hands of the warlords? Maybe we can bribe and cajole them into turning themselves into good citizens. Maybe they will behave better in the future than they have in the past, better than they are behaving today. Maybe--but I wouldn't bet on it. Yet this bet--the wager that the warlords will halt their deprivations during the 2 years before an Afghan army can be trained--seems to be the totality of the administration's strategy. Three weeks ago, on April 22, Secretary Rumsfeld essentially admitted as much: ``How ought security to evolve in that country depends on really two things,'' he said. ``One is what the interim government decides they think ought to happen, what the warlord forces in the country decide they think ought to happen, and the interaction between those two.'' I must disagree with the Secretary on this: we should let out policy be dictated by ``what the warlord forces think ought to happen.'' Did we put American troops in harm's way merely to do the bidding of ``the warlord forces''? Did we spend $17 billion in military expenditures in the Afghan campaign merely to serve the interests of ``the warlord forces''? Did we decimate al-Qaeda and remove the Taliban from power merely to hand power over to ``the warlord forces''? Brutal, bloodthirsty, barbaric warlords are not the solution to Afghanistan's problems. These ``warlord forces'' are the source of Afghanistan's problems. Does this matter to America? What about the option of letting Afghanistan degenerate into the state of lawlessness that made way for the Taliban? That is obviously not in the interest of Afghanistan, but is preventing it a national priority for the United States? I submit that it most certainly is. After the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989, America turned its back as the country disintegrated into chaos. The President was right when, in his speech at the Virginia Military Institute last month, he promised not to repeat this mistake. The brutal disorder of the early 1990s created the Taliban--and if we permit this condition to return, the cycle will almost certainly repeat itself. Let's not forget why we went to war in the first place: Afghanistan had become a haven for the mass-murderers who attacked our homeland on September 11. Without internal security, the country will again become a den of terrorists, narcotics traffickers, and exporters of violent insurgency. The President was right to say, ``We will stay until the mission is done''--but I hope he understands what our mission really is. In concrete terms, our mission, in addition to ferreting out remnants of al-Qaeda and the Taliban, is ensuring basic security for the fledgling Afghan Government-- providing it protection from the vast array of internal and external threats to its very existence. For the immediate future, probably 2 years, that means an international armed presence, whether U.S. troops or an expanded ISAF. I believe ISAF makes much more sense, but however the force is constituted it must have the following components: It must be deployed throughout the country, controlling the five to seven major cities and the main highways connecting them. It must have robust rules of engagement, and the weapons to impose order on unruly warlords. These must be peacemakers as much as peacekeepers. It must have the full diplomatic, financial, and military support of the United States. Whether or not American troops are part of this force--they currently are not, but we shouldn't rule this option out--we must provide an unquestionable commitment to back up ISAF as it fulfils its mission. Other nations are willing to take on the dangerous work of patrolling the front lines--but not unless they know that the cavalry stands ready to ride to the rescue. It must have the assurance that the world community--and particularly the U.S.--will stay the course. We can't cut and run if resistance increases. The greater the uncertainty about American commitment to security, the greater incentive our enemies will have to challenge our resolve. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld has suggested that $130 million of funds previously appropriated to the Defense Department be devoted to a fund for quasi-diplomatic endeavors related to the war against terrorism. I suggest that the best use of this money would be to support peacekeeping efforts in Afghanistan, whether conducted by the Defense Department directly or by our coalition partners operating under an expanded ISAF. Funding an effective international security force in Afghanistan would not only free up American military assets for warmaking missions, it would also deter terrorist forces from reclaiming the ground they have so decisively lost. With the Loya Jirga process scheduled to start in mid-June and Afghanistan's nascent government under daily attack by enemies both internal and external, I can think of no better or more urgent use for these funds. We must, I submit, lead the way in guaranteeing the security of Afghanistan for the relatively brief period before it can stand on its own. We must do this to honor the promise that President Bush made, on behalf of all Americans. We must do this to demonstrate our values to the wrest of the world. We must do this to safeguard our own national security interests, to make sure that our military gains since September 11 are not all wiped away. We must do this because it is smart, because it is necessary, and because it is right. I believe that the best way to achieve this goal is through an expansion of ISAF. The immediate devotion of $130 million, money which the Defense Department stipulates that it does not require or want for the costs of war-fighting operations, would be an excellent place to start.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. How much time is available to the Senator from Delaware?

Mr. BIDEN. How much is in the control of the Senator from Virginia?

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I will let the Senator from Virginia close. I can assure my distinguished colleague from Virginia that Senator Lugar, I, and others in the Foreign Relations Committee will have thorough hearings on this, as we did before. This bill merely reaffirms the open-door policy for NATO enlargement which was first enunciated by the Clinton administration and now has been continued by the Bush administration. It does not authorize new funds that would throw the budget out of whack. It merely authorizes monies that have already been appropriated by the Arms Export Control Act. Voting for this legislation does not indicate any Member's intention to vote for or against any potential aspirant to NATO. Exactly which countries will be invited by the alliance is a decision that will be made more than 6 months from now at a NATO summit in Prague, and thorough Senate debate on ratification of NATO enlargement will occur sometime at the end of this year and the beginning of the next. Everyone is going to have an opportunity to decide whether they are for or against this. I remind my colleagues that 4 years ago, the Senate spent 7 lengthy days in floor debate on the ratification of admission to NATO of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. I managed that resolution, and I am certain the Senate will scrutinize the aspirants invited to Prague, just as we did in 1998. What the bill does mean is that the Senate authorizes the foreign military financing assistance to help those candidate countries meet the alliance's stringent membership requirements. This bill will help NATO extend the zone of stability eastward and southward on the continent so that sometime within the next decade we will be able to say for the first time, I think, in all of modern history that we have a Europe whole and free. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Freedom Consolidation Act. I yield the floor to my friend from Virginia.