Joe Biden

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Anticounterfeiting Amendments of 2002, along with Senators Allen, Hollings, Boxer, Murray, Smith of Oregon, Nelson of Nebraska, and Dorgan. In February of this year, I held a hearing entitled, ``Theft of American Intellectual Property: Fighting Crime Abroad and At Home,'' and I issued a report on the status of our fight against this crime. What I learned is that every day, thieves steal millions of dollars of American intellectual property from its rightful owners. Over a hundred thousand American jobs are lost as a result. American innovation and creativity need to be protected by our government no less than our personal property, our homes and our streets. The Founding Fathers had the foresight to provide for protection of intellectual property, giving Congress the power to ``promote the progress of science and useful arts'' by providing copyrights and patents. American intellectual property represents the largest single sector of the American economy, employing 4.3 million Americans. It has been estimated that software piracy alone cost the U.S. economy over 118,000 jobs and $5.7 billion in wage losses in the year 2000. Even more, the International Planning and Research Corporation estimates that the government loses more than a billion dollars worth of revenue every year from intellectual property theft. To put that in perspective, with a billion dollars in additional revenue, the American government could pay for child care services for more than 100,000 children annually. Alternatively, $1 billion could be used to fund a Senate proposal to assist schools nationally with emergency school renovations and repairs. There's another problem. Counterfeiters of software, music CDs and motion pictures are now tampering with authentication features. Holograms, certificates of authenticity, and other security features allow the copyright owners to distinguish genuine works from counterfeits. But now, highly sophisticated counterfeiters have found ways to tamper with these features to make counterfeit products appear genuine and to increase the selling price of genuine products and licenses. Put another way, not only do crooks illegally copy American intellectual property, they also now illegally fake or steal the very features property owners use to prevent that theft. Copyrights mean nothing if government authorities fail to enforce the protections they provide intellectual property owners. The criminal code has not kept up with the counterfeiting operations of today's high-tech pirates, and it's time to make sure that it does. The Anticounterfeiting Amendments of 2002 update and strengthen the Federal criminal code, which currently makes it a crime to traffic in counterfeit labels or copies of certain forms of intellectual property, but not authentication features. For example, we can currently prosecute someone for trafficking in fake labels for a computer program, but we cannot go after them for faking the hologram that the software maker uses to ensure that copies of the software are genuine. In addition, many actions that violate current law go unprosecuted in this day and age when priorities, such as the fight against terrorism and life-threatening crimes, necessarily take priority over crimes of property, be they intellectual or physical. Moreover, the victims of this theft often do not have a way to recover their losses from this crime. For this reason, the Anticounterfeiting Amendments of 2002 also provide a private cause of action, to permit the victims of these crimes to pursue the criminals themselves and recover damages in federal court. Current law criminalizes trafficking in counterfeit documentation and packaging, but only for software programs. The Anticounterfeiting Amendments of 2002 update and expand these provisions to include documentation and packaging for phonorecords, motion pictures and other audiovisual works. America is a place where we must encourage diverse ideas, and with that encouragement we must protect those ideas. They are the source of our music, our art, our novels, our movies, our software, all that is American culture and American know-how. The Anticounterfeting Amendments of 2002 give our ideas the protection they deserve. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Anticounterfeiting Amendments of 2002, along with Senators Allen, Hollings, Boxer, Murray, Smith of Oregon, Nelson of Nebraska, and Dorgan. In February of this year, I held a hearing entitled, ``Theft of American Intellectual Property: Fighting Crime Abroad and At Home,'' and I issued a report on the status of our fight against this crime. What I learned is that every day, thieves steal millions of dollars of American intellectual property from its rightful owners. Over a hundred thousand American jobs are lost as a result. American innovation and creativity need to be protected by our government no less than our personal property, our homes and our streets. The Founding Fathers had the foresight to provide for protection of intellectual property, giving Congress the power to ``promote the progress of science and useful arts'' by providing copyrights and patents. American intellectual property represents the largest single sector of the American economy, employing 4.3 million Americans. It has been estimated that software piracy alone cost the U.S. economy over 118,000 jobs and $5.7 billion in wage losses in the year 2000. Even more, the International Planning and Research Corporation estimates that the government loses more than a billion dollars worth of revenue every year from intellectual property theft. To put that in perspective, with a billion dollars in additional revenue, the American government could pay for child care services for more than 100,000 children annually. Alternatively, $1 billion could be used to fund a Senate proposal to assist schools nationally with emergency school renovations and repairs. There's another problem. Counterfeiters of software, music CDs and motion pictures are now tampering with authentication features. Holograms, certificates of authenticity, and other security features allow the copyright owners to distinguish genuine works from counterfeits. But now, highly sophisticated counterfeiters have found ways to tamper with these features to make counterfeit products appear genuine and to increase the selling price of genuine products and licenses. Put another way, not only do crooks illegally copy American intellectual property, they also now illegally fake or steal the very features property owners use to prevent that theft. Copyrights mean nothing if government authorities fail to enforce the protections they provide intellectual property owners. The criminal code has not kept up with the counterfeiting operations of today's high-tech pirates, and it's time to make sure that it does. The Anticounterfeiting Amendments of 2002 update and strengthen the Federal criminal code, which currently makes it a crime to traffic in counterfeit labels or copies of certain forms of intellectual property, but not authentication features. For example, we can currently prosecute someone for trafficking in fake labels for a computer program, but we cannot go after them for faking the hologram that the software maker uses to ensure that copies of the software are genuine. In addition, many actions that violate current law go unprosecuted in this day and age when priorities, such as the fight against terrorism and life-threatening crimes, necessarily take priority over crimes of property, be they intellectual or physical. Moreover, the victims of this theft often do not have a way to recover their losses from this crime. For this reason, the Anticounterfeiting Amendments of 2002 also provide a private cause of action, to permit the victims of these crimes to pursue the criminals themselves and recover damages in federal court. Current law criminalizes trafficking in counterfeit documentation and packaging, but only for software programs. The Anticounterfeiting Amendments of 2002 update and expand these provisions to include documentation and packaging for phonorecords, motion pictures and other audiovisual works. America is a place where we must encourage diverse ideas, and with that encouragement we must protect those ideas. They are the source of our music, our art, our novels, our movies, our software, all that is American culture and American know-how. The Anticounterfeting Amendments of 2002 give our ideas the protection they deserve. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, there are times, it seems, when we celebrate ``small-town America'' as an idea, either in nostalgic longing or as an homage to traditional values and a spirit of community that seem elusive in the rush of modern life. But the values and spirit of our small towns is more than just an idea; it is real, it is alive, it not only endures but thrives, to the benefit of us all, in places across this country, and certainly in towns up and down my home State of Delaware. The Town of Selbyville, in Sussex County, the southernmost part of our State, is one such place. And it gives me great pleasure to pay tribute to Selbyville, as we celebrate the 100th anniversary of its incorporation. The history of the Town goes back much further than 1902, to the late 1770s, when Benjamin Long, Arthur McCabe, John Murray, Reuben Stevens and Elijah Campbell bought a 250-acre tract at the head of the St. Martin's River, where a gristmill and sawmill operated. The tract had been known as Sandy Branch, but about 50 years after the purchase, a country store owner named Sampson Selby began to mark packages for delivery ``Selby-Ville.'' In 1872, the Frankford and Breakwater Railroad reached the Town, so that its strawberries could be shipped to more distant markets. By 1918, Selbyville was the East Coast's main supplier of strawberries, and strawberries remained an important commercial base for the Town through the late 1930s. Agriculture is still important to Selbyville, although now it's poultry and pork, corn and soybeans that occupy most of the farmers. And the Town has grown beyond its original business center, reaching out to US 113 with service industries and a shopping center. The highway has become more important than the railroad, Selbyville has grown, but it is still a small Town a place of living history, a place driven by the values that grow from long-time association and the work ethic of an agricultural community, a place that feels like home. We neighbors of Selbyville congratulate Mayor Clifton C. Murray; Town Council members Jay C. Murray, C. Frank Smith, III, Clarence W. Tingle, Jr., and Richard A. Duncan, Sr.; and all the citizens and friends of the Town, as they look forward to their official 100th anniversary celebration on May 25th.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, recently I was asked by a constituent of mine, Mr. Marshall Miller, if I would seek to have an essay on Central Asia that was written by his son, Leland, reprinted in the Congressional Record. Leland Miller is a second year law student at the University of Virginia. I ask that Mr. Miller's essay be printed in the Record. The essay follows: Keeping Central Asia's Kleptocrats at Arm's Length (By Leland R. Miller) As American planes take off from Uzbek airstrips to provide support for the war against the Taliban, another conflict is occurring nearby, underneath the radar of the American media. Kazakhstan, the largest territory in Central Asia, is undergoing a palace coup. Yet few in Washington seem to know or care. As the only major area on earth that is still ``up for grabs,'' Central Asia may very well become a key geopolitical battleground of the 21st century. This is nothing new. In the early 20th century, British strategist Sir Halford J. Mackinder proclaimed that whoever controls Central Asia has the key to world domination. Yet a century later, it is almost an afterthought in American strategic thinking. This is a major mistake, the result of two phenomena. First, the war in Afghanistan has convinced U.S. policy makers that the need for support--both rhetorical and substantive--from Central Asian regimes trumps all other considerations. Second, the promise of the Caspian oil basin and other large business opportunities in the lucrative Central Asian energy markets have seduced Washington into turning a blind eye towards whom we are dealing with. As a result of these dual factors, America is walking into a dangerous trap. As we open our arms to these unstable and authoritarian Central Asian regimes, they are gradually gaining the status not just of America's temporary allies but as our friends. This is a disastrous betrayal of U.S. interests. Granted, the promise of quick rewards is enticing. However, like all Faustian bargains, the sacrifice could be considerable. Perhaps no country sings this siren song more effectively than Kazakhstan. Although it is one of the world's poorest countries, its president, Nursultan Nazarbayev, is ranked as the eighth richest man in the world. The reason? He and his two venal sons-in-law have run Kazakhstan as a family business. The family has sustained itself through gross corruption and the ruthless exploitation of would-be foreign investors. The Kazakh leaders entice investments or loans, take over the investments under some pretext, then ``sell the same horse'' again to someone else. With abundant oil, uranium, and other resources, the country always seems able to find another group of gullible suitors. If that fails, pseudo- investments can be induced to cover up money laundering from the Russian mafia. The recent crisis in Kazakhstan only reinforces this image. It began when Rakhat Aliyev, son-in-law to President Nursultan Nazabayev, was forced to resign his position as deputy chairman of the National Security Committee after reportedly making an Absalom-like run at his father-in-law's authority. He re-emerged just days later as the new head of the presidential guard, seemingly unscathed, but he had driven the first big split in the ruling family. His detractors used this opening to form a new party, Democratic Choice. While some insiders have suggested that this new group may be nothing less than a second tier of crooks fighting Aliyev for a bigger piece of the pie, the government reacted swiftly. Prime Minister Kasymzhomart Tokayev, a Nazarbayev crony, angrily demanded (and received) the resignations of four top cabinet members, all of whom were founding members of the new party. Tokayev's justification?: ``All those disagreeing with our policy and wishing to participate in political movements should resign.'' Perhaps no one outside of the palace in Astana knows what's really going on. But in the world of Kazakh politics, it matters little whether this battle was an intrafamily fight for power or simply a battle amongst politicians unhappy with the current division of spoils. Either way, this is clearly not a regime that America should be too identified with. True, Kazakhstan does draw some favorable comparisons, but only when contrasted with its neighbors. The fact is, Central Asian governments are among the most corrupt and repressive regimes in the world. Most inherited the apparatuses of their communist predecessors and many have been just as ruthless in wielding it. Most, like Nazarbayev's and Turkmenbashi's of Turkmenistan, are even extensions of the same communist party structure that they allegedly replaced. Autocratic and corrupt governance is the rule, not the exception, in Central Asia. The lack of available political channels is so endemic in these countries that frustrated citizens are offered but two choices: attempt to mobilize politically, despite the obvious barriers, or else turn to extra-political means of empowerment. It is this second possibility that so desperately deserves U.S. attention. Across Central Asia, ethnic and religious differences among the populations constitute a sizable obstacle to stability and democratic governance. Unlike the Balkans, however, it is not an insurmountable one. Despite the pervasive following of Islam in the region, religious extremism does not have the same roots in Central Asia that it does in other parts of the world. Radical groups, such as the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (whose leader, Jumaboi Khojiev Namangani, was reportedly killed fighting in Afghanistan--some sources say he has merely gone into hiding) are fortunately still the exception. However, this could certainly change if repressive regimes continue to kindle the flames of religious extremism by stifling virtually all other opportunities for political voice. The horrors of Algeria should not be replicated in Uzbekistan or Tajikistan. Situated in the middle of Russia, China, and India, and with virtually untapped energy potential, Central Asia would be an area of importance to the United States even under the best of circumstances. However, the War on Terror has now considerably upped the ante. Support for the cause of Muslim fundamentalism in Central Asia not only threatens the region's stability, but is sure to mean more fuel for a global jihad. As the events of 9/11 have made clear, America has as much reason to fear that development as any of the regimes themselves. The next generation of America's leaders must not be made apologists for today's policies aimed at the short-term and short-sighted advancement of U.S. interests. This means avoiding marriages of convenience with repressive Central Asian regimes that will inevitably prove harmful to the nation's future. The New Great Game in Central Asia is very much a battle of good against evil. Democracy, not Islamic extremism, must fill the political void. While the U.S. has no role in fomenting or aiding these ``coups of the apparatchiks,'' Americans are still beholden to one obligation: We need to at least make sure we are not rooting for the wrong side.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise to comment on the vote in relation to amendment number 3198, which was offered by my friend and colleague from the State of Delaware, Senator Carper. The vote by the Senate is on a motion to table the amendment. I believe that Senator Carper should be given a straight up-or-down vote on his amendment, and for that reason, I shall vote against the motion to table.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the energy bill that we will pass today is not the most perfect bill--there are a number of things in this bill that I don't like. What we will pass today is the product of two months of debate and changes, and it is a compromise. It offers the basis for a comprehensive and balanced plan to address the energy needs of this country. Anyone who drives a car or pays an electric bill knows that over the past two years there have been huge fluctuations in oil and gas prices. The bill that will pass the Senate today by a bipartisan vote will increase energy supplies--fossil fuels and alternative sources such as ethanol, biodiesel, wind, solar and geothermal--will help stabilize prices, and will do so in an environmentally sensitive way. It provides tax incentives to spur new oil and gas production and development of renewable sources, while also promoting responsible conservation. It includes important consumer protections and assistance for low income persons, particularly the elderly who live on fixed incomes. And I was also pleased that this bill protects the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from oil drilling, and takes important steps toward cutting greenhouse gas emissions. I am voting in favor of this bill today because it provides an important framework for a national energy policy. I think that there is more we can do and I am hopeful that in conference, the House and Senate will work together to improve this legislation.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, today the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Prince Abdullah, met with President Bush in Crawford, TX. Based on the reports from that meeting, there were several items on the agenda, one of which was the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians, and the other was the nature of the Saudi-U.S. bilateral relationship. A report this morning in the New York Times said that the Crown Prince intended to deliver a ``blunt message'' to President Bush. Apparently, a Saudi official indicated after that meeting that oil would not be used as a weapon. Earlier, an unnamed Saudi official said that we, the United States, may face a ``strategic debacle'' unless we alter our relationship with Israel. There is nothing wrong with blunt messages and blunt talk between friends. I am confident the President of the United States was equally blunt in the message he delivered. No doubt the Crown Prince discussed ways to advance his initiative with regard to Israel, a breakthrough that I publicly stated several times in recent weeks has not been fully appreciated by the world. The Saudis had endorsed unanimously at the Arab League meeting last month in Beirut a plan that holds out hope for normal peaceful relations between Arab States and Israel. However, laying down that plan is not enough. It is time for more mature leadership. We have been asked by the rest of the world and the Crown Prince to take an active role in supporting this plan. That is fine. However, I add, I hope the President discussed what active role the Saudis should take in dealing with peace in the Middle East. When the Crown Prince goes home, what concrete steps will he take to move the process forward, to create a new environment that builds trust and hope for a political settlement? I am troubled by the apparent disconnect between the initiatives for peace taken by the Crown Prince and his nation and the contradictory behavior that is prevalent in Saudi Arabia and its policies. For example, in March the Saudi newspaper, Al-Riyadh, carried a vile, anti- Semitic article by someone claiming to be a professor. The article resurrected the centuries-old blood libel that civilized people would have thought was a thing of the past. This Saudi professor, in a leading Saudi newspaper, wrote for the Jewish holidays: ``Blood must be taken from a non-Jew, dried, and mixed with dough to make pastries.'' It goes on to say that using human blood in pastries was a ``well- established fact historically and legally throughout the history of mankind and that this was one of the main reasons for the persecution of Jews and the exile of Jews in Europe and Asia at different times.'' Finally, the article says: ``The needles enter the body extremely slowly causing immense pain that gives the Jewish vampires extreme pleasure and they closely monitor this bloodletting in detail with pleasure and enjoyment that is beyond comprehension.'' That is printed in a leading Saudi newspaper. The editor of that paper says that he was out of town when this article appeared, and later wrote that it was unworthy of publication. Forgive me if I have a hard time believing that the article simply slipped through the cracks and that it was a fluke. I can believe many things about Saudi Arabia, but freedom of the press is not one of them. This article was published because no one who saw it believed that it contained anything offensive or untrue. Imagine the outrage in Riyadh, in Cairo, in Amman, in the United Nations, and elsewhere if a Jewish professor published an article in an American paper saying that Muslim holiday feasts were prepared with the blood of ritualistically sacrificed Jews? Can anyone imagine what the Saudis would expect of the President of the United States, what the Saudis and the rest of the civilized world would rightly expect of all United States Senators who had nothing to do with it being published, but saw it published? The civilized world would demand of us, as they would have a right to, that we, the leaders of this country, stand up one at a time and disavow these vile, vile, vile diatribes. What did people expect of us, and what did our President do, when a group of mostly Saudi citizens killed thousands of Americans on the 11th? The President did the right thing. He stood up and he said: This is not about Saudi Arabia, this is not about Muslims. He did the right thing. I wonder what would have happened had it been the reverse. I wonder what would happen. It is time for some mature leadership here. It is not enough just to lay down a good plan--and it is a good plan the Saudi Crown Prince laid down and which was adopted in Beirut. What would the Saudis expect us to say, though, were the roles reversed? What action would they demand of the President if in fact such vile lies were printed about Muslims and Saudis in an American paper? And what would the rest of the world have us say about such slander, in a country where there is freedom of the press, the United States? Another example of this disconnect that baffles me is the recent telethon, ordered by King Fahd, which, according to press reports, raised over $85 million for families of so-called Palestinian martyrs. According to the Saudi Government, these people are defined as people ``victimized by Israeli terror and violence.'' But in the common parlance of the region, this term often refers to suicide bombers. In the aftermath of September 11, in which 15 Saudis engaged in the most deadly suicide attacks in history, one would hope the Saudi Government might think twice before offering financial incentives for so-called martyrdom. Imagine if the President of the United States and the Members of the Congress contributed to a telethon for someone who walked into a hotel in Riyadh and killed 100 Muslims. What would we say? What would we be expected to say? What would we think? What would happen if the President of the United States said: We condemn it, but we understand the frustration of the Saudi people, in having no democracy? We understand the frustration of the Jewish people, being victims of suicide bombing? It would be an outrage, an outrage. And the whole world would say: Where is the moral leadership of the United States? But the Saudi support for the cult of martyrdom is not restricted to offering financial incentives. Recently the Saudi Ambassador to the United Kingdom wrote a poem entitled ``The Martyrs.'' The poem appeared in Arabic language newspapers and praised Palestinian suicide bombers, particularly a young deranged Palestinian woman from a refugee camp who killed herself and two Israelis on March 29. The Ambassador refers to her as ``the bride of loftiness.'' This is written by the Saudi Ambassador to the United Kingdom. She embraces death with a smile while the leaders are running away from death . . . He goes on to say: We complained to the idols of a white house whose heart is filled with darkness. Given the opportunity to renounce this poem, a Saudi spokesman said on United States television: The ambassador is a very well known poet . . . he was expressing the anger and frustration people feel. Give me a break. That is not good enough. I personally met with this spokesman, who is a fine man. I expected more from a man as educated and sophisticated as Mr. Al-Jubeir. If an American diplomat wrote a poem-- if the Ambassador from the United States to England wrote a poem extolling terrorism and attacking the leader of an ally, the President of the United States would have his or her head on a platter the next day. They would be fired. What would happen if an ambassador of the United States to another great country wrote a poem that extolled the virtues of some Saudi citizen who--like bin Laden--attempted to assassinate or was engaged in a plot to do harm to the royal family? What would the Saudis expect of us? What would the Saudis, or any civilized nation, expect the United States President to do? They would expect him to do exactly what he would do: Fire the person on the spot, and vocally, in more than one language, disavow the poetry. Since September 11, we have become all too familiar with the term ``madrassa,'' a term probably few had ever heard of in the United States. We have learned that madrassas are religious schools. We have learned the extent to which funds from Saudi Arabia have supported madrassas, over 7,000 of them in Pakistan and in Afghanistan. We have learned that many madrassas indoctrinate children with distorted and hateful ideas. But now we have learned that the problem with education is not simply outside of Saudi Arabian borders, but within the kingdom itself. According to an article in last October's New York Times, 10th grade textbooks in Saudi Arabia warn students to ``consider the infidel their enemy.'' Saudis claim such quotes are taken out of context, but in what context is religious prejudice acceptable? Of course, hateful diatribes and words of incitement also are found in Palestinian textbooks. While Arafat is talking about peace in Oslo, the textbooks in the West Bank talk about ``the hated Jew.'' And they have long been accompanied by schoolroom maps in the Middle East that pointedly do not show, even on a map, Israel as a state. When our Saudi friends argue their support and funding for Palestinian causes is for humanitarian and educational purposes, I think it is fair to ask why they continue to turn a blind eye toward this fomenting of hate that exists in their region and their country. I mention these examples to illustrate why there is a disconnect when we hear Saudi leaders talk of making peace with Israel. Peace will not happen by itself. It has to be nurtured. Certainly those Arab nations we put in the moderate camp ought to prepare their people for the ``normal, peaceful relations'' they espoused in Beirut. If the Crown Prince means what he says about normal, peaceful relations with Israel--and I believe he does--then it is time for his government to prepare Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Arab world for this new day. No responsible leaders want to see bloodshed continue in the Middle East. We all want for it to end immediately. All of us would like to see a peaceful settlement. To make it happen, everyone-- everyone--must shoulder responsibility. It is time for big nations and serious leaders to stand up, to stand up and speak the truth. It is time for nations with the ability to directly influence events to exercise simply mature leadership. I am not expecting the Saudis to all of a sudden take a pro-Israeli position. But I am expecting, I do demand of them as a civilized nation and a mature country, to do the right thing. The United States must do its part, too. I have urged the administration to increase its involvement, not only in resolving the current crisis but also convening an international peace conference that would move the parties quickly to a political solution or at least provide a political horizon. The Arab world must demonstrate mature leadership as well. It cannot simply demand that the United States abandon Israel, something we will never do. Let me say that again: Something we will never do. Over my dead physical political body will we ever abandon Israel. But that does not mean we believe everything Israel does is right. It does mean, though, we will fight for Israel's right to exist within secure borders. Mature leadership means taking risks and confronting those forces that hinder progress--not abetting those forces. Mature leadership means condemning terrorism--not extolling the virtues of ``martyrdom.'' Mature leadership means halting the flow of funds to terrorists--not providing financial incentives for more terror. Mature leadership means creating an educational system that provides the foundation for future progress--not text and textbooks that promote religious bigotry. Mature leadership means being responsive to the legitimate demands of one's citizen for political openness and transparency--not stifling dissent and exporting your problems elsewhere. Mature leadership means sitting down with the Israelis and talking peace--not treating them as pariahs. I find it fascinating that the President was criticized for authorizing and directing the Secretary of State to sit down with the person who many Israelis consider a pariah and who many of us consider a pariah--Yasser Arafat. The Saudis thought that was essential. Why will they not sit down? Why will they not sit down with a man who is the elected leader of Israel, regardless of whether or not they think on the West Bank he is a pariah as many Israelis and Americans think is the case with Mr. Arafat? The President has shown mature leadership. I may disagree with his approach, but why is it expected of us and not of them? As the birthplace of Islam and the land of the holiest Muslim sites, Saudi Arabia has a critical role to play in resolving one of the most intractable conflicts of our time. This is an opportunity for the Saudi Royal Family to make a real contribution to peace. They have taken the first steps with bold action that holds out hope for peace as they presented their peace plan. Now let them take the next step of mature, consistent leadership. Let them denounce the Palestinian leadership that uses terror to gain political leverage. Let them denounce hateful language. Let them denounce the incitement to violence in textbooks and in the media. I hope they will take the next step so the Saudi initiative will not become just another missed opportunity--an interesting footnote in history. I hope our relationship with the Saudis can improve. I hope the Saudi Arabian citizens can begin to enjoy the freedom they deserve. But these things can only occur with farsighted, mature leadership. There has never been a time when we have needed such leadership more than it is needed now. I hope that kind of leadership will enable our two countries to move forward together to achieve progress and peace-- not just for the Israelis and Palestinians but for all the people of the Middle East. I urge the administration to increase its involvement--not only in the present circumstance but beyond. Let us be honest. This is a historic opportunity. The Saudis have made a significant proposal. I beg them, do not squander the opportunity to be remembered for the century as the party and the force that was the catalyst for bringing an end to the suffering of the people in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, on May 3, 2002, the Delaware State Bar Association will present its prestigious Liberty Bell Award to Thurman G. Adams, Jr. I could introduce Thurman Adams to my colleagues in any number of ways, he is the dean of the Delaware State Senate, the majority leader, and by the time his current term ends, he will have served longer than any Delaware State Senator in history. And Delaware has a long history. Senator Adams has served on and, in fact, chaired virtually every major committee, including 25 years-and-counting as chairman of the Executive Committee, current chairmanship of the Banking Committee, past chairmanship of the Agriculture Committee, and current service on the Judiciary, Administrative Services, Permanent Rules and Ethics Committees, as well as his role in the Senate leadership. I could also introduce Thurman Adams as, in many ways, the quintessential Delawarean, I should add Sussex Countian, and I can pinpoint it even more to his beloved town of Bridgeville. Like his father, Thurman was born on the family farm on the road now known as Adams Road. His grandson lives there now, and runs the farming operations day-to-day. Thurman graduated from Bridgeville High School, and then from the University of Delaware. After college, he joined the family feed, grain and farm business, T.G. Adams & Sons, which he now serves as president. So, I could introduce Thurman Adams as one of the longest serving and most influential leaders of our State. I could introduce him as representing the great tradition of Delaware agriculture, Delaware towns, Delaware small business and Delaware families. I also have the very great privilege of being able to introduce Thurman Adams as my friend, a friend I deeply admire as a man of his word, a man of conviction, a man of values and of principle. And in a much higher tribute to him, I could introduce Thurman as the husband of one of the truly great ladies I have met in my life, Hilda McCabe Adams. I have been with Hilda and Thurman Adams in times of victory and celebration, and I have been with them in times of tragedy and loss. In every circumstance, they have been the definition of class, and they have more integrity in their little fingers than most of us will be able to summon in our lifetimes. Their journey together has been inspiring to those of us who are lucky enough to be around them, but it has not always been easy. They endured the loss of an infant grandchild, and then tragically in May of 2000, the death of that baby's father, their son, Brent McCabe Adams, Sr., at the age of 45. And now they are facing, with characteristic strength and courage, a serious illness for Hilda. In honoring Thurman Adams, the Delaware Bar Association will, rightly, pay tribute to his decades of service to our State, his particular contribution as a leader on the Judiciary Committee, and his role in leading the Senate confirmation process, never as a mere matter of procedure, but thoughtfully and skillfully, for so many members of the Bar, and other Delawareans, who have been appointed to positions within our State government. For my part, I would like to pay tribute to Thurman and Hilda Adams as, simply, exceptional and inspiring human beings, the best of citizens, the best of neighbors, and the best friends anyone could ask for. They just don't make them like Hilda and Thurman very often. We in Delaware are very lucky.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I rise today, along with my colleague, Senator Santorum, to introduce legislation to reform the way we provide debt relief for the poorest nations of the world. We are joined in this effort by Senators Kerry, Frist, Sarbanes, Chafee, and DeWine. Earlier today, our friends from the House, Chris Smith, John LaFalce, Spencer Baucus, Maxine Waters, Barney Frank met with us to announce the introduction of companion legislation on their side of the Hill. Looking around at that group of people, it would be fair to wonder what we all have in common. Some days, not much. Today, however, what we have in common is a shared concern about the fate of the men, women, and children in the poorest countries of the world. It is true that the war on terrorism has brought home to us more clearly than before that conditions of grinding poverty in the rest of the world are ignored at our peril. Common sense tells us that our national security is at risk in a world where millions of people have little to live for, and are ripe for the seductions of radical, even violent action against the desperate conditions they face every day. As Tom Friedman has said in another context, if you don't visit the bad neighborhoods, they will visit you. But that cannot be the only reason that we all share a concern about poverty in the underdeveloped countries of the world. All of the world's great religions charge us to look after each other, and show special concern for those who need it most. Common decency recoils at the conditions of disease and deprivation faced by others while we are so blessed with abundance here. Common sense, and common decency. That is what brought us all together today. Few things offend both common sense and common decency more than the situations faced by the poor countries of the world who lack the resources to provide the most basic public health care and the most basic education, but yet still send money to the international financial institutions established by the wealthiest nations of the world. They send two billion dollars a year here to Washington, home of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, and to the regional development banks around the world, to pay interest on loans they have taken out over the years, money that they desperately need for basic human services. We set up those institutions to promote conditions for global economic growth and stability, and to promote economic development. And they do many good things. But the blessings that came when those loans went out to poor countries in many cases have turned into a curse. Now many of those countries are stuck in a debt trap, where payments to simply service the interest on those loans weaken their ability to provide the kind of essential public services needed for basic human existence, much less sustainable economic growth. Tragically, most of the countries with the greatest debt burdens are among the worst victims of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. The resources needed in African countries in the fight against HIV/AIDS are already beyond their reach. The burden of debt makes that fight even harder. Two years ago, the United States joined with the other members of the IMF and the World Bank to reduce the debt burdens of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries. The world's churches led that fight, the Jubilee 2000 fight, to undo some of the harm done by this cycle of debt. I was proud to be part of that effort. The result was a real improvement in the debt situation of many countries. Our experience with that program shows that the money we free up with debt relief really does go for the important services the poor citizens of these countries really need. As a matter of fact, about 40 percent of the debt savings in those countries is going for education, and 25 percent for health care. But realistically, these countries will still be stuck in a debt trap far into the future. In fact, just this week the Bank and the Fund honestly admitted that under the current formula, many countries will simply not reach a sustainable level of debt. James Wolfenson, President of the World Bank, has said that he is considering deeper debt relief to achieve the goals of the existing HIPC program. The legislation I am introducing today with Senator Santorum will make success under that HIPC program more likely. Specifically, for the many countries facing a public health crisis, such as the HIV/AIDS epidemic, we say that no more than five percent of their budgets should go to service their debt to the international financial institutions. For those who do not face such a crisis, debt service should exceed no more than ten percent of their budget. While the existing HIPC program sets a sustainable level of debt at 150 percent of a country's income from exports, our bill says that it is also important to measure the debt burden against a country's budget, as well. That's the best way to see the real impact on a country's ability to meet its own pressing domestic needs. In fact, given the deep problems the eligible nations have with trade--most of them export basic commodities whose prices have been declining--using export income should not be the sole basis for determining their ability to pay. The HIPC program currently assumes that the eligible countries will enjoy much higher growth in that export income than they have ever been able to achieve. That is a formula for disappointment. Deeper debt relief, more sustainable debt levels, measured by a country's actual ability to pay as a share of its budget, that is what our legislation would establish as the U.S. negotiating position at the Bank and the Fund. If those reforms are adopted, an additional billion dollars a year of debt service will be lifted from the poorest nations. This weekend, the Bank and the Fund will be meeting here in Washington, and I expect those very issues will be under discussion. The legislation we are introducing today offers a way to achieve the original goals of debt relief, and the goals of our own foreign policy in the developing world. Common sense, and common decency, should help us find some common ground to achieve those goals. The broad coalition of support this legislation already enjoys tells me that we can succeed.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I rise today, along with my colleague, Senator Santorum, to introduce legislation to reform the way we provide debt relief for the poorest nations of the world. We are joined in this effort by Senators Kerry, Frist, Sarbanes, Chafee, and DeWine. Earlier today, our friends from the House, Chris Smith, John LaFalce, Spencer Baucus, Maxine Waters, Barney Frank met with us to announce the introduction of companion legislation on their side of the Hill. Looking around at that group of people, it would be fair to wonder what we all have in common. Some days, not much. Today, however, what we have in common is a shared concern about the fate of the men, women, and children in the poorest countries of the world. It is true that the war on terrorism has brought home to us more clearly than before that conditions of grinding poverty in the rest of the world are ignored at our peril. Common sense tells us that our national security is at risk in a world where millions of people have little to live for, and are ripe for the seductions of radical, even violent action against the desperate conditions they face every day. As Tom Friedman has said in another context, if you don't visit the bad neighborhoods, they will visit you. But that cannot be the only reason that we all share a concern about poverty in the underdeveloped countries of the world. All of the world's great religions charge us to look after each other, and show special concern for those who need it most. Common decency recoils at the conditions of disease and deprivation faced by others while we are so blessed with abundance here. Common sense, and common decency. That is what brought us all together today. Few things offend both common sense and common decency more than the situations faced by the poor countries of the world who lack the resources to provide the most basic public health care and the most basic education, but yet still send money to the international financial institutions established by the wealthiest nations of the world. They send two billion dollars a year here to Washington, home of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, and to the regional development banks around the world, to pay interest on loans they have taken out over the years, money that they desperately need for basic human services. We set up those institutions to promote conditions for global economic growth and stability, and to promote economic development. And they do many good things. But the blessings that came when those loans went out to poor countries in many cases have turned into a curse. Now many of those countries are stuck in a debt trap, where payments to simply service the interest on those loans weaken their ability to provide the kind of essential public services needed for basic human existence, much less sustainable economic growth. Tragically, most of the countries with the greatest debt burdens are among the worst victims of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. The resources needed in African countries in the fight against HIV/AIDS are already beyond their reach. The burden of debt makes that fight even harder. Two years ago, the United States joined with the other members of the IMF and the World Bank to reduce the debt burdens of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries. The world's churches led that fight, the Jubilee 2000 fight, to undo some of the harm done by this cycle of debt. I was proud to be part of that effort. The result was a real improvement in the debt situation of many countries. Our experience with that program shows that the money we free up with debt relief really does go for the important services the poor citizens of these countries really need. As a matter of fact, about 40 percent of the debt savings in those countries is going for education, and 25 percent for health care. But realistically, these countries will still be stuck in a debt trap far into the future. In fact, just this week the Bank and the Fund honestly admitted that under the current formula, many countries will simply not reach a sustainable level of debt. James Wolfenson, President of the World Bank, has said that he is considering deeper debt relief to achieve the goals of the existing HIPC program. The legislation I am introducing today with Senator Santorum will make success under that HIPC program more likely. Specifically, for the many countries facing a public health crisis, such as the HIV/AIDS epidemic, we say that no more than five percent of their budgets should go to service their debt to the international financial institutions. For those who do not face such a crisis, debt service should exceed no more than ten percent of their budget. While the existing HIPC program sets a sustainable level of debt at 150 percent of a country's income from exports, our bill says that it is also important to measure the debt burden against a country's budget, as well. That's the best way to see the real impact on a country's ability to meet its own pressing domestic needs. In fact, given the deep problems the eligible nations have with trade--most of them export basic commodities whose prices have been declining--using export income should not be the sole basis for determining their ability to pay. The HIPC program currently assumes that the eligible countries will enjoy much higher growth in that export income than they have ever been able to achieve. That is a formula for disappointment. Deeper debt relief, more sustainable debt levels, measured by a country's actual ability to pay as a share of its budget, that is what our legislation would establish as the U.S. negotiating position at the Bank and the Fund. If those reforms are adopted, an additional billion dollars a year of debt service will be lifted from the poorest nations. This weekend, the Bank and the Fund will be meeting here in Washington, and I expect those very issues will be under discussion. The legislation we are introducing today offers a way to achieve the original goals of debt relief, and the goals of our own foreign policy in the developing world. Common sense, and common decency, should help us find some common ground to achieve those goals. The broad coalition of support this legislation already enjoys tells me that we can succeed.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I oppose the amendment of the Senator from Alaska. I do not disagree with most of the findings in his amendment. Saddam Hussein is clearly in violation of his obligations under United Nations Security Council resolutions. He has repeatedly demonstrated his callous disregard for the plight of the Iraqi people. Humanitarian aid under the oil for food program has been diverted, languished in warehouses, or simply not purchased at all. As much of the Iraqi population goes without adequate health care and nutrition, Saddam lavishes luxury goods on his cronies and builds palaces. While the Senator may be correct in his diagnosis of the illness, it is not clear to me that his amendment is the cure. I have just spoken to a senior official at the State Department, who believes this amendment is a serious mistake. I believe that this amendment puts the President in a very difficult position at a difficult time. I have concluded that we need a regime change in Iraq. In my view, that effort will require us to lay the groundwork by making a solid case and building as broad a coalition as possible. I am concerned that this amendment may make the President's task more difficult. At the very least, we should provide him the opportunity to make his views known on this amendment. While the potential impact of this amendment is great, it has not been scrutinized sufficiently. The Foreign Relations Committee has certainly discussed the issue of Iraq policy, but we have not examined this specific proposal. I also understand that the Energy Committee has held no hearings on this proposal. As I stated at the outset, I do not see how this amendment will address the legitimate issues that the Senator cites. The proceeds for the legal purchase of Iraqi oil made by American companies are deposited in an escrow account controlled by the United Nations. Money in that account is then released for purchases of civilian goods. Before any money is spent, the sanctions committee, on which the United States sits, must approve every contract. In other words, we have a veto on how the money gets spent. To be sure, the oil for food program has flaws. Saddam gets illegal revenues by selling oil outside the program and by collecting illegal surcharges from shady middlemen. It is these revenues that are used by Saddam to prop up his regime, pursue weapons of mass destruction, and pay the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. The Senator's amendment does not address the problem of illegal surcharges or smuggling. I am also concerned that by effectively pulling the United States out of the oil for food program, we may be sending the signal that we are not interested in the welfare of the Iraqi people. I know that is not the Senator's intention, but it may be an unintended effect of his amendment. This could have an impact on the ability to pull together an effective coalition to confront Saddam. This is just one example of the potential unintended impact of this amendment. I think it is important that we understand all of the ramifications of this proposal before proceeding.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess for up to 3 minutes so our colleagues may have a chance to meet His Excellency, President Andres Pastrana, President of the Republic of Colombia, and His Excellency Juan Manuel Santos, Minister of Finance. President Pastrana's term ends in the next 2 months. We just had him before the Foreign Relations Committee. In all the years I have been on that committee, as I said to my colleagues today and I say to my colleagues here, we have never had a better friend of America as a head of state from any country more so than President Pastrana. One distinction that marks his service to his country and to the entire region is that when we lose elections here, we get a pension. When you run for election, stand for election, and take a stand in Colombia, you often literally get kidnapped or killed. I have become a personal friend of the President, and I visited with him and his family. I cannot tell you how much I admire and marvel at his personal courage and that of the other officials in Colombia who have fought to keep the oldest democracy in the hemisphere just that--a democracy. I ask that the Senate recess for up to 3 minutes for my colleagues to be able to meet the President and the Minister of Finance of Colombia. I ask unanimous consent that we recess for up to 3 minutes.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, last month the former Chairman of the Federal Communications Commissions, Newton Minow, delivered the Morris I. Liebman Lecture at Loyola College in Baltimore. Mr. Minow's address was entitled ``The Whisper of America,'' and is focused on the need for the United States to significantly increase the resources it devotes to international broadcasting. I believe Mr. Minow makes a very thoughtful case for expanding our efforts in this area. In order that it may be available to a wider audience, and to call it to the attention of my colleagues, I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, by now I hope that all of my colleagues are aware of the extent of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. The spread of the disease is of grave humanitarian and security concern to the United States. Last year alone, 3 million people died as a result of the disease. I have yet to see a study or data which suggests that the number will not increase in 2002. In January of 2000 the National Intelligence Council released a National Intelligence Estimate entitled ``The Global Infectious Disease Threat and its Implications for the United States.'' The report stated that ``the severe social and economic impact of infectious diseases, particularly HIV/AIDS, and the infiltration of these diseases into the ruling political and military elites and middle classes of developing countries are likely to intensify the struggle for political power to control scarce state resources. This will hamper the development of a civil society and other underpinnings of democracy and will increase pressure on democratic transitions in regions such as the FSU [former Soviet Union] and Sub-Saharan Africa where the infectious disease burden will add to economic misery and political polarization.'' On February 13 of this year I chaired a hearing on the future of America's bilateral and multilateral response to the epidemic. What I learned was both encouraging and discouraging. First, the bad news. The disease continues to spread. Last year, five million people were infected with HIV/AIDS, bringing the total number of people with the disease to 40 million. There are more AIDS orphans than ever before, over 10.4 million, and that number is expected to more than double in the next 8 years as more and more adults fall ill and die. In some parts of the world, women are becoming infected at rates comparable to men. This change in the infection pattern is tragic not only because the increase is a reflection of women and girls' inability to say no, in many instances, to unwanted sexual advances, but also because the more women who are infected, the greater the number of babies there are who are liable to contract HIV during birth or from drinking their infected mother's breast milk. The good news is that the international community is beginning not only to recognize the need for more action, it is beginning to take more action. We are beginning to go beyond rhetoric towards concrete steps. We have established Global Funds for HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. The U.S. Government has increased the amount of spending on bilateral programs. The problem is that we have not yet gone far enough. Despite our efforts to date, the problem continues to grow. There are no easy solutions. I will not stand here and say that I have a magic formula for stopping the spread of HIV/AIDS. We must recognize, however, that while the problem is not going away any time soon, there are some steps we can take immediately and in the long-term that will help mitigate the effects of the disease and eventually stop it in its tracks. A serious commitment is required. A lot of times when we talk about commitment in this chamber we are talking about 6 to 18 months. I am talking about a commitment of years. Not 2 years. Not 3 years. Start thinking in terms of a decade or more. According to the UN, studies of middle and low-income countries where interventions have slowed the spread of the disease, we need to spend $7 to $10 billion annually on treatment, care and support in the developing world for the next 10 years if we are to change current trends. The UN estimates that if we are going to bring HIV infection rates down, by the year 2005 the international community is going to have to scale up spending to $9.2 billion. That money does not include funds for improving the health and education infrastructure in developing countries. It only covers prevention care and support programs. 2001 expenditures, according to this same report were only $1.8 billion. We have a long way to go. And we will have to readjust our mind-sets such that we are prepared to stay the course financially for a long time to come, or nothing we do is going to have a lasting impact. So what is to be done if we are willing to adopt such an approach? The ultimate solution to this problem is the development of a vaccine. Scientists are working on one, but Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health was quoted in the Los Angeles Times on March 16 as saying that this could take at least ten more years. In the meantime, we have got to undertake action to bring the infection rate down as far as possible, and to care for those who have contracted the disease. Part of the problem we are having in stopping the spread of HIV/AIDS is the basic barrier of underdevelopment. One of the things that has facilitated the spread of the disease in developing nations has been lack of infrastructure, mainly in the communication, education and health sectors. People in remote villages in a poor country do not have the luxury of picking up a local paper or watching the local news on their televisions. There is no easy way to spread the word about the HIV/AIDS. If there are schools, they are irregularly attended, which blocks another avenue of informing people about the disease. Health in poor countries are deplorable. Helping countries improve basic health services will go a long way towards addressing HIV/AIDS. This includes training medical personnel, building and or repairing clinics and providing medical supplies and equipment. The benefits of improved health infrastructure are enormous. HIV/AIDS is not the only disease affecting poor countries. By improving health infrastructure, we improve the level of access to basic health care for other diseases such as tuberculosis and malaria. And devoting more resources to improving the health sector has the advantage of laying down the groundwork for AIDS treatment activities. Addressing educational needs and health infrastructure are two long- term investments that the United States, in conjunction with our international partners need to make. This disease is going to be around for a long time. Especially if we fail to act. What should we do in the short term to address the global epidemic? There are several things that we can do immediately to enhance our response. First, we should strengthen coordination of U.S. agencies so that we are dealing with the problem in the most efficient way. The President has taken some steps to address it, naming Secretary of State Colin Powell and Tommy Thompson, Secretary of Health and Human Services, as co-chairs of a Cabinet-level task force on the global HIV/AIDS threat. I do not believe, however that this really solves the problem. Developing an integrated U.S. response to the global AIDS epidemic will require more time and energy than two Cabinet-level Secretaries can devote to it. We need someone working full time on integrating the great work that different U.S. agencies are doing. He or she must have the authority to develop a U.S. policy response that is informed by all U.S. government agencies spending money on HIV/AIDS. This person should be accountable for the implementation of the strategy, and required to report on the implementation of the consolidated U.S. strategy on a yearly basis. The coordinator must have the authority to bring the point people on HIV/AIDS programs in all the different agencies to one table and have them figure out what tasks their respective agencies should be undertaking based on areas of comparative advantage and expertise. Finally, the coordinator needs the authority to eliminate overlaps where possible, identify gaps and decisively settle turf disputes among agencies about areas of responsibility. The second step to enhancing the U.S. response is beginning the process of providing deeper levels of debt relief to poor nations. It may take a while for countries to realize these savings, but we have got to begin negotiations for an enhanced Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative right away. We must make sure that countries where there is a severe HIV/AIDS emergency and which are at or beyond a decision point in the HIPC process are paying no more than 5 percent their fiscal revenue in debt servicing. Countries where there is no health emergency should be paying no more than 10 percent of fiscal revenue in debt servicing. Why enhance debt relief? Because all the early indicators are that debt relief works. According to the World Bank, Burkina Faso, Uganda, and Malawi are all using debt relief saving to fight HIV/AIDS. Now is not the time to be come complacent, but to make a bold move forward, to capitalize on this success by taking debt relief one step farther. Part and parcel with enhanced debt relief should be the provision of technical assistance to countries, to ensure that an adequate amount of debt relief savings are devoted to programs to combat HIV/AIDS. We must expand the provision of crucial interventions such as voluntary testing and counseling if we are to enhance the U.S. response to HIV/AIDS. Voluntary testing and counseling is a cornerstone of intervention. One particular study conducted in three African countries showed that given the opportunity for such testing, 60 percent of adults would take advantage. It also showed that only 15 percent of those same people had access to this service. Think about it. Fifteen percent of those who wanted to know if they had HIV/AIDS were able to get an answer. The importance of voluntary testing and counseling cannot be overstated. Once people find out whether or not they are infected with HIV, they are able to make decisions about behavior change that can save their lives and the lives of their partners, spouses and children. It is crucial that we provide the funds to training more counselors, and deliver more rapid test kits to areas of need so that those who want testing and counseling can obtain it. In addition to the above activities, I encourage the administration to expand its efforts to help developing nations craft and implement national blood transfusion policies including policies to prevent HIV infection through blood transfusions. Such programs are especially needed in Africa. Some people might contend that this should be a relatively low priority as the HIV infection rate from blood transfusion is only 5 percent. I would argue that we have to do everything we can to address the spread of the disease, and that this is an intervention that is straightforward, and that has benefits that extend beyond combating HIV/AIDS. At the Foreign Relations Committee hearing on HIV/AIDS on February 13, USAID Administrator Natsios indicated that to the best of his knowledge less than fifty percent of African countries have developed a national blood transfusion policy and less than one third of African countries have a system in place to limit HIV transmission through blood transfusions. Here in America we have virtually eliminated the threat of contacting HIV/AIDS through blood transfusion by adopting screening and evaluation policies. We have the expertise to see that health care workers in Africa and elsewhere are properly trained in appropriate clinical use of blood transfusions and in proper transfusions techniques. We can teach best practices for testing. We can show countries how to recruit and retain non-remunerated blood donors from uninfected portions of the population so that a safe, tested bloods supply is available. Last year in Africa, 3.4 million people were infected with HIV. If there had been national systems to monitor, manage and test the blood guppy for HIV, perhaps as many as 170,000 of those people might be HIV free today. Another way to strengthen U.S. response is to expand programs that specifically focus on women and girls. Due to biological vulnerability, and economic and social pressures, women and girls in Africa are far more likely to contract HIV than boys and men the same age. According to UNAIDS, girls age 15 to 19 are almost eight times more likely to be infected with HIV/AIDS than their male counterparts. Women aged 20 to 24 were 3 times more likely to be HIV-positive chant their male peers. There is no easy way to counteract this phenomenon, but there are a number of steps which can be taken. In the long term, social and cultural norms must be changed to increase the economic and social independence of women. It is easier for a woman to reject unwanted sexual advances if she is able to provide materially for herself and her children. Men must be educated as to the dangers of unprotected extramarital sex. In addition, we must emphasize education programs. It is imperative that young people know how to prevent the spread of HIV/ AIDS. There are solutions which we must work on with renewed vigor. Right now, today, we must channel more resources towards research into female controlled and initiated methods of prevention such as the female condom and microbicides. A usable microbicide must be developed so that women, with or without the consent of a partner, can protect themselves from HIV/AIDS. We are at least five years away from the availability of a first generation product. Not only must we see that one is developed, we must make sure that it is usable and made available in developing countries, that women are informed about its availability, and that they are instructed in its use. We should put more money into increasing the availability of the female condom, and continuing to refine the product. The female condom is not a miracle solution. Critics contend that women cannot use them without the knowledge of their partners, therefore it is redundant to make them available when the male condom is so readily available. What I would say is that if we are willing to make the choice available to men to use protection, we should be willing to give women a choice about protecting themselves as well. Right now part of the reason that female condoms are not available is price. A bulk purchase would serve to lower the cost to the consumer. Another problem is information. We must teach people about the female condom's existence, and show people how to use it. The female condom is the only female initiated method of prevention available right now to women living in societies where their ability to make choices about when and with whom they are physically intimate are in some cases limited, and in other cases non-existent. Since the beginning of the epidemic, 10 million women have died of HIV/AIDS, over a million of them in the past year. Women are becoming increasingly affected. We must use every means we have to reverse these trends. I would also submit that it is important that the United States give generously to the Global Fund for AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. The U.S. must consistently show leadership in our donations. In May of last year, the President pledged $200 million in seed money for the fund. Other nations followed suit. None of them pledged more than the United States. The UK, Japan, and Italy all pledged $200 million. This is a perfect example of the fact that where the U.S. leads, others will follow. There are now almost $2 billion in pledges for the fund; $800 million is expected to be available this year. The call for proposals went out in January, and the first grants are expected to be made in April. While I in no way fault the President for his initial pledge, I can't help but wonder how much money would have been donated to the Global Fund this past year if America's contribution had been $500 million instead of $200 million. The Global Fund is a welcome addition to the fight against HIV/AIDS, but it must be just that--an addition. Contributions must not take the place of bilateral programs. Finally, I submit that the job of defeating HIV/AIDS is too big for the United States to handle alone. We need the help of the international community. I cannot state this in strong enough terms. We must encourage other donors to do their share to help halt the epidemic. The U.S. Government provides nearly 50 percent of HIV/AIDS assistance funds. This is 4 times as much as the next donor. It is imperative that other donors be full partners in this fight both in their bilateral programs and their pledges to the Global Fund. We cannot win this war without their help. The steps I have outlined above are just that. None of what I have talked about is a prescription for a solution to the AIDS epidemic. Most of it is not new. I simply stand here before you today to point out that despite our best efforts the virus is marching on. However the situation is not hopeless by any means. The United States has been an innovator, devising effective programs to mitigate and reverse the global spread of AIDS. We cannot stop. I hope that Congress and the Administration can work together to reinvigorate and enhance current efforts to stem the tide of HIV/AIDS infection and care for and support those with the disease. Failure to do so will mean the death of an entire generation of people. That is much too steep a price to pay.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, about 2 months ago I spent half a week in the Afghan capital city of Kabul, and virtually every conversation I had during my time there revolved around a single question: Would America stay the course? After all our successful military actions, after all our promises on reconstruction, after all our commitments to prevent Afghanistan from relapsing into chaos and warlordism, would we really have the stomach to get the job done? Whether I was talking to refugees living in bestial squalor, or to Chairman Karzai in a palace where the electricity barely functione; Whether I was talking to NATO soldiers in the international security force, to representatives of the U.N. and international humanitarian groups, or to our own American servicemen and servicewomen so valiantly risking their lives for a just cause; whoever I was talking to, the questions remained basically the same: Would we have the steadiness, determination, and commitment to remain engaged? Would we demonstrate the leadership necessary to keep the international coalition together? Would we maintain our resolve for the long haul, once the immediate battles had been won and our nation's attention had started to turn away from this remote and forbidding part of the world? I will tell you now what I told them then: We can, we must, and we will. Let me take a few minutes to explain what I mean, and how I see our role in Afghanistan over months and, yes, the years to come. But first, I suggest that we all remember just why we sent troops to Afghanistan in the first place. I can sum it up in three syllables: 9-1-1. Our rationale for entering the fray was very simple: Our Nation had come under attack, the most horrific single attack we had ever experienced in all our history, and the de facto rulers of Afghanistan were actively sheltering the terrorists who orchestrated this deed. We gave the Taliban every opportunity to surrender Usama bin Laden and his band of thugs, but the Taliban chose instead to link themselves ever more closely to al Qaeda. The decision to go to war is never easy, but in this case it was inevitable. The decision was made for us, as I and the rest of the Members here were assembling for morning business on a Tuesday in September. Our troops have done a truly outstanding job fighting this war, as the recent battle in Shahi-kot demonstrates, the Taliban and al Qaeda are scattered and on the run. But we always knew that this would be the easy part. As President Bush, Secretary Powell, and Secretary Rumsfeld have correctly noted, our war on terror will be a long one, and we can't expect our early victories to be the final word. Let's remember that in 1979, it took the Soviet forces no more than 10 days to establish control over every major population center in Afghanistan. The really tough part, we knew from the beginning, wouldn't be ousting the Taliban and al Qaeda--the tough part would be making sure that they stayed ousted. That is why we have no choice but to stay the course. If Afghanistan returns to a state of lawlessness and disorder, two things are pretty much certain to happen. First, the Taliban, or some new and equally brutal group, will establish control over all or part of the country, and they will provide safe haven to any terrorists, drug-traffickers and violent insurgents willing to pay their price; Second, these terrorists will once again use Afghanistan as a base to launch attacks on the United States to destabilize regimes all around the world. If we don't do the job right, mark my words: U.S. troops will be right back in Afghanistan a year or two down the line, only this time, we will be doing the fighting all by ourselves. Let us think about that for a moment. The victories we've seen over the past 5 months have been American victories--but they are not only American victories. At every step along the way, we have relied on our Afghan allies for the bulk of the troops on the ground. Whether we're talking about battles for Kabul or Kandahar, for Mazar- e Sharif or Tora Bora, the pattern has generally been hundreds of American troops spearheading thousands of Afghan fighters. This pattern is far from perfect--as the porousness of our cordon at Tora Bora and, most recently, Shahi-kot demonstrate, sometimes Afghan troops are no substitute for U.S. infantrymen. But without our Afghan allies, imperfect as they have sometimes been, we would not have been able to achieve our impressive victories in anything like the time-frame we have achieved them. And that point is vital to our future strategy: As many people in Kabul told me, from Chairman Karzai right on down to mud-on-the-boots G.I.s patrolling the airbase at Bagram, we have only got one chance to do it right. As I was constantly reminded, the U.S. pulled out of Afghanistan abruptly in 1989, just as soon as our short-term objectives had been met. If we do so again, I was told time after time, then we had better not expect any Afghans to fight on our side when a new nest of terrorists requires military action in the future. The stakes, in short, could not be higher. Some people are of the opinion that we can pull out relatively soon, that any future military action would be as ``easy'' as the present one. ``We've got the most powerful military out there,'' they say, ``we don't need the help of unreliable Afghan and incompetent Europeans--we can go it alone.'' To anyone who labors under this delusion, I say, take a trip to Afghanistan. Go there, talk to the people, have a look at the terrain. Anybody who does, I suggest, will return firmly convinced that we must stay the course. We have got to do the job right this time--because it may be the last chance we get. So what does ``doing the job right'' entail? There are several parts to the equation--economic reconstruction, building political institutions, clearing minefields, creating the educational, medical, and other infrastructure necessary for long-term self-sufficiency. But none of these elements are possible without security on the ground. That's the central piece of the puzzle. If we establish security, all else can follow--and without it, nothing else can grow. For the long term, according to the plans of the U.S. administration and the U.N. organizers, Afghanistan's internal and external security will be provided by a national army and police force. This is the right way to go, and I fully support all the efforts currently under way to create these institutions. But you can't create them overnight. It takes time to recruit, train, equip, and solidify a truly capable, professionalized force. In Kabul I received an extensive briefing from Maj. Gen. McColl, the British commander of the International Security force authorized by the U.N. to maintain order in the capital. Gen. McColl's planners has worked up a detailed strategy for creating an Afghan army and taking at least the heavy weaponry away from local warlords. Even to create a bare-bones force of a few brigades, he found, would take up to 2 years. So what happens in the meantime? What is happening right now? I am afraid the answer isn't very encouraging. In the meantime--right now-- Afghanistan is not-so-slowly falling back into chaos. The interim government of Hamid Karzai exerts very little control over most of the country: In Herat, Gen. Ismail Khan rules as a semi- independent baron--and entertains emissaries from Iran, who are anxious to expand their sphere of influence. In Mazar-e Sharif, the brutal warlord Gen. Abdurrashid Dostum has picked up where he left off when he was ousted by the Taliban--and his record suggests that he will take his current duties as Deputy Defense Minister no more seriously than his past promises to virtually every party in the conflict. In Kabul itself, Defense Minister Fahim maintains the fiction that his own militia, basically the Northern Alliance troops, is serving as a nonpartisan national army. It is clear to all observers, however, that these soldiers owe their allegiance to Fahim and various sub-commanders--and not to the legally- constituted civil authority. In the Pasthun areas, a wide array of local warlords play all sides against every other--accepting money and arms from the U.S. and the Taliban alike, even attempting to use American air power to settle their own petty feuds. There have even been credible reports of various warlords falsely identifying their local rivals as al Qaeda in order to call in American airstrikes--putting U.S. servicemen in harm's way to advance their own sordid objectives. Meanwhile, Afghanistan's predatory neighbors sit on the sidelines-- but not for long. Afghanistan's bloody civil war has long been fueled by arms, money, and recruits drawn from the surrounding nations. The neighboring meddlers include Iran, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, and Russia, but a variety of other nations slightly further afield have got into the game at one time or another. Each has attempted to reshape Afghan politics for its own narrow interests--to the detriment of the people, and the instability of the region. All have basically kept their hands off while U.S. troops have ruled the roost. But the moment the last troop transport takes off, expect the jockeying to begin all over. Ever had a neighbor who pops in to borrow a cup of sugar and invites himself to dinner? Maybe a distant relative who stops by to say ``hello,'' and never seems to leave? Well, the Afghans know how it feels. They have had to suffer with unwelcome houseguests for thirty years. And they know that as soon as the door is open--as soon as the American troops leave--all of these unsavory interlopers will come flocking back. So what's the solution? How do we--together with the rest of the world community--provide Afghanistan with a year or two of breathing room to let it build up a national army and police force of its own? There are basically two possible paths. Have American troops continue to serve as the de facto security force, or get the international community to share our burden. Fortunately, a mechanism exists to make this second option a reality--it's the International Security Assistance Force, ISAF for short, and it can save us from the necessity of being Afghanistan's only policeman. Right now, ISAF is strictly limited by its U.N. mandate. Its 5,000 troops are confined to Kabul, and even there they have to tread gingerly. The unit is currently under the command of the British, but the Brits plan to transfer command as soon as April. The entire mandate ends in June--precisely when its continuing presence is most needed to safeguard the Loya Jirga, or Great Council to be convened as the next step in the process of political rebuilding. So here, in a nutshell, is what we have to do. First, this international security force must be extended from Kabul to several key sites throughout the country. It should be expanded to Mazar, Kandahar, and perhaps other cities such as Jalalabad or Gardez. Such an expansion would entail an increase in troop strength from the current 5,000. Some sources say 25,000 troops would be needed, others say the mission could be accomplished with a more modest increase. I will not presume to venture an opinion on the precise number, I will just say that we should make sure the military planners have as many troops as they deem necessary to do the job right. This expansion should not and will not interfere with ongoing U.S. operations against Taliban and al-Quida remnants. Currently, the ISAF commander is subordinate in theater to the U.S. commander, and there has been no question of ISAF troops encroaching on American operations. Quite the opposite--ISAF troops are a force multiplier, and free up American assets that would otherwise have to be used to guard and protect bases at transport hubs such as Bagram. Second, the mandate of the international security force must be extended for 2 years. This would provide sufficient time for the creation of an indigenous Afghan army and police force, and insure a smooth transition to the new Afghan government. Third, the international security force must be given robust rules of engagement, and all the equipment, airlift, and intelligence necessary to accomplish its mission. Let's make no mistake here--the troops on the ground are not and must not be blue-helmeted peacekeepers. These are, and must be, peacemakers. We need rough, tough, combat-ready forces, with the ability to take names and impose order. Fourth, the U.S. must be fully engaged as the mission's guarantor of last resort. That does not necessarily mean we have send U.S. troops, although we shouldn't rule it out off the bat. What it does mean, however, is that we commit ourselves to insuring the mission's success. Maybe we can achieve this goal by providing airlift, intelligence, funding, and diplomatic support. Maybe we also have to provide the promise of troops extraction, air combat assets, and the ultimate ace-in-the-hole of sending the cavalry to the rescue if things get too hot. But, one way or another, this is a goal we must achieve--not merely for the sake of Afghanistan, but for the national security interest of the United States. When I go around the country talking about the need for a robust security force, with the U.S. providing the ultimate guarantee of success, I'm often asked whether that's an implicit call for the participation of American ground troops. It is a fair question, but it's putting the cart before the horse. I would prefer it if we could accomplish our mission without deploying a single U.S. soldier. I would prefer it if other nations could do the job without our troops on the ground. And maybe they can. But my past experience, both in the Balkans and elsewhere, leads me to doubt that this will be possible. First, there aren't a whole lot of countries out there with the military assets--both human and technological--necessary to get the job done right. Other countries may be able to provide the bulk of the force, but the presence of even relatively small numbers of American troops can mean the difference between success and failure. Look at our battlefield results in Afghanistan--the military effectiveness of our Afghan allies has been increased exponentially by the presence very small numbers of U.S. Special Operations Forces. These troops not only brought in the heavy artillery, by calling in and targeting airstrikes, they stiffened the spine of the brave, but often young, inexperienced, and poorly trained, Afghan fighters. Second, and just as important, is the political side of the equation. Without U.S. boots on the ground, the commitment of other nations often starts to falter. As Maj. Gen. McColl, the British commander of ISAF, said to me in Kabul, ``Once you Americans pull your troops out of Afghanistan, how long do you think my Parliament will authorize the deployment of British soldiers?'' Let me be clear: I'm not advocating any specific deployment of American troops. The specifics of any troop deployment is a decision best left to the President, based on a military assessment of what is needed to get the mission accomplished. My point is merely that we have a mission to accomplish in Afghanistan, and IF the deployment of American troops as part of an international force is deemed necessary, we should certainly step up to the plate. Perhaps we'll be able to continue the status quo--to have U.S. troops currently serving in Operation Enduring Freedom serve as the de facto back-up squad for ISAF troops. Some voices decry using American troops as ``policemen,'' and urge that peace operations be left to other nations. But every big-city police force needs a SWAT team to handle the real bad characters. Perhaps the U.S. can serve as the SWAT team for an expanded U.N.- mandated security force. But we shouldn't be afraid to have our troops integrated to an international force of peacemakers in Afghanistan. Our experience in the Balkans shows that we can work with our NATO allies, and other countries, to make such forces the instrument of U.S. policy. And, as a survey of top brass recently released by the ``Peace Through Law Education Fund'' argues, such operations can be a huge benefit to American military and political objectives. Not all of the generals quoted in the report will agree with all of its recommendations, and the survey was undertaken prior to the campaign in Afghanistan. The opinions expressed related to peace operations in general, not to ISAF in particular. But I think the most valuable part of the report is the wide selection of direct quotes from some of our most respected military commanders. I would like to share a few of these observations--all of them made by American commanders with far more military expertise than I would ever claim to possess. Taken together, they make what I believe is a convincing case for American leadership on--and, if necessary, participation in--a significantly beefed-up international peacemaking force to be deployed at various sites throughout Afghanistan. On American involvement in multinational peace operations: The nation that has the most influence . . . has to play a number of roles. Peacekeeping, peacemaking or peace enforcement is one of those roles. To walk away from those responsibilities, in my judgement, is to invite questioning of your overall leadership character. As a result, people will start to question you and your resolve for the principles for which you stand. Gen. James Jones, Commandant of the Marine Corps. If the United States doesn't participate, the United States can't lead . . . You can't ask other nations to take risks that you won't take yourself. Gen Wesley Clark, Supreme Allied Commander, Europe (1997-2000). In order for us to have influence, we must be engaged . . . If you're not there on the ground . . . you are not able to really influence what's happening on the ground. Maj. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, commander of a NATO multinational brigade in Kosovo, 1999-2000. Whether we like it or not, we're the big dog. If someone calls 911, . . . it's the United States of America that answers. Air Force Lt. Gen. Robert Fogelsong, Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, 1997-1999. I do not believe that any major humanitarian or peacekeeping effort can be successful, long-term, without the support of the U.S. Gen. Peter Pace, USMC, now Vice-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, then CinC of South Com. On unit morale. The re-enlistment numbers are far higher in units in Bosnia and Kosovo than they are in units of the U.S. army overall. Air Force Gen. Joseph Ralston, Supreme Allied Commander, Europe. The re-enlistment rates in [US Army, Europe], which has been involved to the greatest extent in peacekeeping operations in the Balkans, are the highest in the Army. Gen. Montgomery Meigs, commander of NATO's force in Bosnia (SFOR), 1998-1999. Gen. Jones, Lt. Gen. Fogelsong, & Adm. Dennis Blair say the same thing for Marines, Air Force, and Navy. Forget the baloney about people being upset about being down range . . . morale's higher than in garrison. Gen. Meigs (Bosnia) Troops that deploy to Bosnia and Kosovo and other operations like that, have high morale . . . our troops are happiest, morale is highest, when they are out in the world doing what they signed up to do. Gen. Tommy Franks, CinC of CentCom, now commander of the U.S. campaign in Afghanistan. On unit readiness and military training. I feel very strongly that our operation, let's say in Kosovo, is a very positive net effect for the following reasons. The training that the young NCO and younger officer gets is far superior to what he or she would be getting if they were in Germany--because they are dealing with real world problems, 24 hours a day . . . That's what being a troop leader is all about. Their individual, small unit skills, squad level, company, battalion--it's far better training than what they get back in garrison. Gen. Joseph Ralston The small unit leader's development in peace operations is phenomenal. Gen. Meigs--The type of training that isn't available during peace operations is brigade and division level training, but Gen. Ralston notes that this large-scale training is given to troops on a relatively infrequent basis--typically only once every year and a half. He notes that when troops who have served in peace operations are put back in the regular training cycle, they have no troubling picking up where they left off. The words of these American soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines say it far better than I can. The military and strategic objectives of the United States are often best served by American troops participating in multinational peace operations. I am not saying we should send U.S. soldiers on such missions merely for their training or diplomatic value. I AM saying that we should recognize the pro's as well as the con's of U.S. involvement in peace operations. Yes, there are dangers--as President Bush has said, the war against terror will be long, and there will be casualties in the months and years ahead. But the dangers of abdication of our responsibilities is far greater than the dangers of leadership. We must stay the course in Afghanistan--the whole world is watching. Friends and enemies alike want to know whether we'll follow through in Afghanistan, and if we fail to follow through here, how can we ever convince them that we'll follow through in Yemen, the Philippines, or Indonesia--let alone in Iraq. But that is the topic for another day.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, all of us in this Chamber know the dedication of those on our staffs who work tirelessly to keep us informed and keep this process moving forward. And, once in a great while, a staffer comes along who becomes so much a part of the process, so much a presence in this place, that few can't imagine the Senate without them. Ed Hall, staff director on the Committee on Foreign Relations, is one of those people. A dedicated public servant for more almost 25 years now, he has been a rock-solid steady hand, an extraordinary professional, and--above all--a gentleman. Now he is completing his final week with the U.S. Senate. And we wish him well. But before he goes, I hope Ed won't mind too much, though I know he will, if I take a few minutes to pay tribute to him. Ed is one of those rare, talented staffers who always seems to know the answer before we ask the question. He always has the facts. He conscientiously attends to the details of the hearings, the legislation, the briefing books, the negotiations--with a trademark combination of wisdom and graciousness, and without ever expecting a word of thanks, much less an entire speech. All of us know and appreciate the hard work and dogged efforts of our staffs, but too often it goes unspoken. And rarely is it expressed on the Senate floor. Bud Ed Hall is an exceptional man who deserves exceptional recognition for making what we do here possible. He is here when most of us arrive. And he is here long after most of us have gone home. He is one of the most decent, hard-working, fair-minded and open- hearted men I have met, loyal almost to a fault, a professional with no agenda but to promote the work of the committee, and to look after its staff. Ed is perceptive about human nature and profoundly patient with it. But what has always impressed me is his encyclopedic grasp of the legislative process, along with expert insight into parliamentary procedure. It takes that kind of experience, wisdom and finesses to get things done around here, and make no mistake, Ed Hall gets things done. Ed developed these traits, I am sure, at Harvard and Michigan, as an Assistant U.S. Attorney, then in private practice, the Marine Corps Reserve and through a series of positions of distinction on Capitol Hill. He started in 1975 with Senator Claiborne Pell on the Rules Committee, moving 3 years later to the Commerce Committee as Chief Counsel for Senator Howard Cannon. Then Ed practiced law for a while in Idaho, but as anyone who knows him could tell you, Ed Hall is no simple country lawyer, to borrow a phrase that was popularized by my Senate colleague Sam Ervin, who was here and Ed and I first arrived, so he came back to the Senate as Chief Counsel on the Foreign Relations Committee, again working with Senator Pell. A few years later, I had the good sense and the good fortune to retain Ed as Minority Staff Director. If there is one thing that I think I will always remember when I think of Ed, it is his unique take on the legislative process and the goings-on of the Senate. He has been known to say that if you know what to listen for, you learn after a while that the Senate produces a kind of music, combining rhythm, pace and melody wholly unique to this place. Ed Hall has always known what to listen for. As both minority and majority staff director, Ed's role has been a kind of conductor, orchestrating our work to the music of the Senate. During my time on the committee as ranking Democratic member, and then as chairman, Ed oversaw Senate consent to ratify the chemical weapons convention, the reorganization of the U.S. foreign affairs agencies, the debate deciding the expansion of NATO, and the establishment of a way to pay our country's arrearage to the United Nations. He did it in close coordination with his Republican colleagues on the committee--sometimes at odds over small matters of language. Sometimes at odds over major issues of fundamental principle. But Ed has always bridged the gap. He treats all parties with respect, and tries to accommodate all interests involved. His success in so doing is evidenced by the close personal friendship he shared with Admiral James ``Bud'' Nance, Staff Director for my distinguished colleague from North Carolina, Chairman Helms, until Bud passed away in 1999. Bud and Ed genuinely cared for one another, and the maturity and mutual approval that they brought to the job filtered down through all the ranks of their respective staffs. It is not for nothing that some of the younger staff members refer to Ed Hall as ``Daddy Ed.'' He has led by example, bringing out the best in those for whom he is responsible and helping them feel that what they do is more than a mere job. But, though I can't imagine where he finds the time, Ed Hall's work doesn't end when he leaves his office. Ed's collaborative and caring approach to working with others is consistent with his religious convictions. He has been modest about them while in the office, but generous in expressing his faith through intense involvement in community affairs. Ed has long been active in the work of ``The Green Door,'' a nonprofit organization that helps the mentally ill achieve independence and self-sufficiency. He is a member of the board of directors for Episcopal Relief and Development, which provides assistance to those in need in the United States and abroad. And he has been an at-large trustee for the Virginia Theological Seminary, where he will soon be vice president for Institutional Advancement. We can only hope that Ed's new position will give him more time with his family. To his wife, Sherry, let me say thank you for all the times she kept his dinner warm on my account. Ed Hall has always seen to it that I receive the best possible preparation for a speech, and that the staff maintain a modest collection of quotations for such occasions, and that it is always at hand. So it will be no surprise if Ed recognizes something that the English essayist G.K. Chesteron once said: The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried. Well, I am here to tell you that while some may have found it difficult, and perhaps some have not tried hard enough, Ed Hall is living proof of a transcendent ideal that people of all convictions will recognize: he is an abundant spirit, a humble soul. He is a pillar of this institution. In a place where turnover is the order of the day, he has been a rarity, and he leaves a legacy of service for which the Senate will be forever grateful. I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting Edwin K. Hall.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, over the past few weeks, banners have started to appear on light-posts in my home town of Wilmington, DE, announcing the celebration of the 200th anniversary of E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, more familiarly and succinctly known as the DuPont Company. It is a fairly modest call of attention to a remarkable event and a remarkable business institution. DuPont is the oldest company in Delaware, and certainly one of the oldest in our Nation; it has employed hundreds of thousands of people in my State and millions around the world; it is a leader in scientific innovation that has remained dynamic throughout its history, changing with the times and, with more patents than any other American firm, sometimes itself changing the times. One symbol of DuPont keeping and even setting the pace, will soon be seen by NASCAR fans around the country. DuPont is the primary sponsor of Jeff Gordon's race team, and beginning this month, Mr. Gordon will be driving a special DuPont 200th anniversary car, which was unveiled in Wilmington last fall. The name DuPont is familiar throughout and well beyond our Nation, but many of our citizens, even NASCAR fans, may not realize how familiar DuPont products are in their daily lives, and may not know much of the history of the company that has endured and evolved, with a central place in our scientific and economic life, and with such great importance to our State of Delaware. Founded in 1802 by Eleuthere Irenee du Pont, with $36,000 in capital, 18 shares at $2,000 a piece, DuPont began as a gunpowder plant, Eleutherian Mills, on the Brandywine River near Wilmington. By 1811, DuPont was the largest manufacturer of gunpowder in the United States. Explosives long remained an important aspect of the company. During World War I, DuPont supplied the Allies with 1.5 billion pounds of military explosives, as well as providing American industry with half the dynamite and blasting powder needed for construction and mining. And during World War II, DuPont produced 4.5 billion pounds of military explosives, as well as nylon for parachutes, tents, ropes and other military supplies. The company also contributed to the Manhattan Project, with the Hanford plant in Washington and the Oak Ridge plant in Tennessee, and built and operated chemical plants related to the war effort. It was in the company's 100th anniversary year, 1902, that three of E.I. du Pont's great-grandsons bought out old partners, and started to move toward diversification, opening Eastern Laboratory and, in 1903, the Experimental Station in Wilmington. DuPont was soon in the dye business, the rayon business, and after a company researcher named William Hale Church made cellophane moisture-proof in 1927, the food packaging business. DuPont research in the 1920s also led to the development of a quick-drying paint for cars, which helped speed the manufacturing process, so DuPont's automotive history goes back a long way. The 1930s saw the development of, among other products, nylon, the first true synthetic textile fiber, which I mentioned was so important early on in World War II supplies; Teflon', which evolved in part out of war-related research and which we know from our own kitchen supplies; Butacite', which is used in shatter-proof glass; and Lucite'. The 1950s brought the development of Mylar', which has uses from balloons to insulation, as well as Dacron' polyester, Orlon' acrylic fiber and the well-known Lycra' brand fiber, which can stretch to five times its size without losing its shape. DuPont also started its serious global investment, with the opening of the International Department, in 1958. In 1964, researcher Stephanie Kwolek, whom I have had the pleasure of meeting, developed the remarkably strong fiber that we know as Kevlar', which, in its application in body armor, has saved thousands of police officers' lives. Tyvek', which we see so often as building wrap, was also developed for commercial application in the 1960s, as was Nomex'--where we again give credit to Dr. Kwolek, along with Paul Morgan, for their research. Nomex' is a heat-resistant fiber with a range of uses, the most well known of which is in protective gear for fire-fighters. Corian', which is now so familiar as a counter-top surface, followed shortly after. To summarize where DuPont was at the close of the 1960s in terms of its leadership and innovation, especially in textile fibers, I'll note that when Neil Armstrong walked on the moon in 1969, he was wearing a space suit made up of 25 layers; 23 of those layers were DuPont materials. The DuPont Company has continued to explore science-based solutions to real-world problems in a range of markets, from health care and nutrition to apparel and textiles to performance coatings and polymers to construction and electronics, always working to develop new products and to find innovative applications even for old workhorses like polyester and nylon. Just to note two current efforts, DuPont is undertaking leading-edge work in biotechnology, notably soy proteins, and in polymers, with an advanced technology now known as Sorona'. Among the many events in this anniversary year, in April, DuPont will be presented with the National Building Museum's 2002 Honor Award, and I am proud to serve on the Leadership Committee for that event. In announcing the award, the Building Museum folks noted, ``It is difficult to imagine many aspects of modern construction without DuPont products, which make buildings safer, more durable, and more efficient.'' In addition to its industry leadership, the DuPont Company has set the standard, which has been followed by other leading businesses in our State, for outstanding corporate citizenship. The Company has long engaged in generous charitable giving and support of non-profit agencies, both near its corporate home in Delaware and in communities where it operates throughout the world, as well as supporting and encouraging volunteer work and community leadership by its employees. DuPont has made a particular and extensive investment in science education and research, from kindergarten classrooms to university laboratories. So this 200-year-old Company remains an innovator, an investor in sustainable and successful communities, and a charitable leader in Delaware, across the country and around the world. I have not always agreed with the Board Chairs and CEOs of the DuPont Company over the last 30 years, but I have always respected them, and deeply respected the place of honor that the DuPont Company has earned in Delaware and in the international business community. So on behalf of the DuPont Company's neighbors and fellow citizens in Delaware, I am proud to honor its 200th anniversary, and to extend congratulations to the company's board, executive leaders and employees, along with our very best wishes for continued success in bringing ``The miracles of science''' to life in a way that serves us all.

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. Madam President, as my colleagues know and the staff knows, it must be important to me to come to the floor after there are no votes and miss a train home to Delaware. As I think I can verify, there probably has not been 10 times in my career that I have spoken after there are no votes, so I apologize for keeping the staff here and keeping folks in, but this is of consequence to me and my State. My good friend--and we all say that; we use that phrase, and he really is a good friend not only politically but personally--John McCain came to the Chamber and asked the rhetorical question of who has a hold on two nominees for the Department of Transportation. He does not like secret holds. He was being very polite because he did not want to point out what he already knew: That I have a hold on those two nominees. I have been a Senator for 29 years. I have never, not one single time but this, in my entire career ever put a hold on any nomination, legislation, or anything on the Senate floor. I know Senator McCain understands holds. He has put holds on Department of Transportation nominees before, but I agree with him, the holds should be made public. I wish to publicly acknowledge what I thought everyone knew. I am the guy who has put the hold on those two nominees. Madam President, let me explain to you why, very briefly. After September 11, Congress moved very quickly and effectively to provide necessary funds for aviation security improvements and ultimately for port security improvements. I supported those bills wholeheartedly, as did almost all of my colleagues. At the time, however, it was my understanding, given to me in the Chamber of this body and, I believe--and I am not suggesting she is any part of this--but I believe the Presiding Officer will recall, as every other Senator will, there was a commitment that there would also be a move to quickly address a similar and equally vexing problem of railroad security. Passenger rail is a critical component of our national transportation infrastructure as, I might add, September 11 so vividly has shown. Imagine what would have happened if we had no passenger rail system September 11 when the skies shut down. And yet all of those passengers continue to travel at their risk. They continue to ride in poorly lit, poorly ventilated, and poorly maintained tunnels, some of which were built as long ago as 1879. They remain serious targets for acts of terrorism. There is no ventilation. There is no lighting. There is no escape. There are more people, right now as we speak, in tunnels on railcars underneath New York City than in seven 747s completely filled. We have done nothing to improve the security and safety of the people who are riding these rails right now. Imagine what happens if a bomb, a chemical weapon, or a biological weapon is dispersed in that confined area? I might point out to my friends, they may remember a little over a year ago there was a fire in the Baltimore Tunnel. It shut down Baltimore. It not only shut down the rail, it shut down the south end of Baltimore for a long time. My frustration is reaching the boiling point. Because of these security threats, immediately following the attacks of September 11, I attempted to authorize funds for rail security improvements as part of the aviation bill. Because of the objections raised, however, I then went to Senators Hollings and McCain, and instead, based on their commitment, which they kept, they offered to pass a separate bill in the Commerce Committee authorizing rail security monies. True to their words, on October 17, they did just that. S. 1550 authorized $1.8 billion for passenger rail security improvements, even though Amtrak had originally requested $3.2 billion; $1.8 billion was a barebones minimum the committee believed it would provide for essential security upgrades in safety improvements, mainly a billion of that to improving the tunnels and the safety in the tunnels against threatened attacks. The other $800 million went to having dogs on trains sniffing bombs, and additional police. Yet here we stand 6 months later, and we still do not have the money for rail security. I still do not even have a vote on rail security. This completely defies logic. The reason is because a number of my colleagues have objected secretly, not publicly, to S. 1550, and they have put holds on the bill. This despite all it will do to safeguard our passenger rail system and despite the backing of the Commerce Committee. Remember, this other stuff we did immediately did not even go through any committee originally. That is why for the first time in my 29-plus years in the Senate I have placed holds on two Department of Transportation nominees, both fine, decent, and competent people. The issue is not their nomination. The issue is rail security. I know of no other way to get the attention of anybody. I do not know what else I have to do--stand on my head in the middle of the well to get the attention of people around here? Granted, not everybody has Amtrak go through their areas. I understand that. Granted, Amtrak is not as important to passenger rail service for them as it is to the Northeast and to me. This is my farm bill. This is my bill relating to airport security. This is my bill relating to the poultry industry. This is my bill relating to the most critical need that exists relating to security in my region. This bill is not controversial. It is completely bipartisan and it has completely been vetted by the committee of jurisdiction. It is important to passenger rail travelers. There is absolutely no reason for the Senate not to go on record today, right now in fact, and support this bill, to give Amtrak the resources it needs to upgrade the system and make all the safety improvements possible with this limited amount of money. In 2 hours or 3 hours of debate we came up with $15 billion or $14 billion to bail out the airlines that were already in trouble, by the way. Had there never been 9-11, half of them would have gone out of business anyway--if not half, a significant number. So I do not know why my asking for this for my region, based upon a legitimate need, is so difficult for people to understand. In fact, I want to hear someone stand up and tell me how it is that my friends across the aisle have taken the liberty of blocking this bill after both Senators Hollings and McCain saw fit to pass it out of the Commerce Committee without any amendments. It is time for my colleagues to put aside their political goals and join me and many of my colleagues who support what the Commerce Committee has done and at least allow us to have a vote. We cannot afford to wait much longer. We do not have that luxury. Let me conclude by saying that I have great respect for Secretary of Transportation Norm Mineta; I worked with him when he was in the House when he was a Congressman. I worked with him in the last administration. I have worked with him in this administration. He came to see me. He made a personal plea that I free up these two nominees. I said to him: I understand. He said: It is unrelated. Why? We are for you. We agree. I said: Well, then make the case. Somebody in the administration has to stand up and holler with me. They say they are for it. When they were for the airport security bill that got tied up, they stood up and hollered. All I am asking is my colleagues who have a secret hold, unlike my very public and uncharacteristic hold, come forward and debate the subject. Let me have a vote. I should not say ``me.'' It is my colleague, Tom Carper; it is my two colleagues from Pennsylvania; my colleagues from Maryland; my colleagues from New Jersey; my colleagues from Connecticut; my colleagues from New York; my colleagues from Massachusetts; my colleagues from Rhode Island; my colleagues from Maine. I really find it offensive that something of such exceptional importance, as the young kids say, is ``dissed'' as this is. We would not do this to the Midwestern Senators. We would not do this to the Southern Senators if this was something regional to them. We would not block the chance to vote on water projects for Western Senators. I think this is unfair. I have been around the Senate long enough to know one takes their lumps. You win and you lose, and I usually do not make the argument ``unfair'', but I think it is uncharacteristic that something so important regionally to me, and to my colleagues, is not even able to get a single opportunity for a vote. Only because the hour is so late I am not going to move, by voice vote, to accept the amendment that I was about to send to the desk. But I can tell the Democratic leader, Senator Reid, the first opportunity I have, I am going to move the legislation, and I want to find out who objects. My guess is the majority leader will object on behalf of some unknown person. So in conclusion, I understand the frustration of my friend, John McCain, because he very much wants to free up these two nominees. I agree they should be freed up, but I have no other way.

Mr. BIDEN. I am happy to yield.

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I will just take 10 seconds. I conclude by saying, I say to my friend, Senator McCain, I will lift the hold on these two nominees the moment we get a vote on the security bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN. I thank my colleague. I take his observation and acknowledge it is absolutely true that it helps the whole country. I would like to bifurcate two points: One, the emergency, immediate need for security. The security will help Amtrak in Los Angeles as well as help Amtrak in Florida. The place with the biggest, clearest targets where the most people could be devastated is in those tunnels, primarily. They happen to be mostly in the Northeast. There is a second issue. I have not addressed the second issue. We have not kept our promises at all to Amtrak in terms of Amtrak's operational capability and capital needs. We cannot get votes on that either. I am trying to deal with the littlest piece. I cannot fathom how anyone could disagree. I have not heard one substantive argument why we would not provide for dogs and police to see that people are not carrying onto the trains dynamite or explosives or weapons in New Orleans, LA, as well as in Philadelphia, PA. The real point is, this is an urgent need. Ask any of the folks in the intelligence community: If you were a terrorist and decided you had one last opportunity, what would you hit? People will say you are giving ideas; these terrorists already have these ideas, I assure you. What did we do during the Olympics? We knew that would be a likely target because there were a lot of people and it would be a big statement. To the great credit of the State of Utah and the Federal Government, we had no incident. But you are sitting around, and where will you look to use the chemical weapon if you have it? The dirty bomb, if you possess it? That biological weapon, if you want to use it? Where will you use it? I am chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. I was on the terrorism subcommittee and the Judiciary Committee and in the Intelligence Committee for 10 years. Unfortunately, it seems as if I have been going to school for my whole life to prepare for the issue of terrorism. Prioritize where the likely targets are. There are millions of container ships that come into ports each year. We had to deal with that, and we dealt with it. Everybody knew that was a likely target. We were not telling the terrorists anything they didn't know. We knew it was a problem. I hope to God I am never in a position where, by even implication, I have to say, I told you so. There is no way out of the tunnels. There is no lighting. There is no ventilation. There is no way out. I apologize, I am getting angry about it. Again, I can understand my friend from Arizona and others objecting to Amtrak. They do not think Amtrak is efficacious. I got it. I understand. They are wrong. I am willing to debate that. I would love a chance to debate it. However, this is drop dead common sense. I close to resent not being able to have a chance for the Senator from Pennsylvania, the Senator from Delaware, the Senators from New York, in addition to the Senators where Amtrak goes--these are gigantic targets. They once asked Willie Sutton: Why rob banks? And his answer was: That is where the money is. What do terrorists do? Why do they pick the two largest buildings in the United States, instead of coming to Delaware and hitting a 12-story building in Delaware? Why? Because that is where the most people are. That is where the biggest targets remain. I thank my friend from Nevada. He has been a staunch supporter and tried like the devil to help. The concluding point I make: My hold is not secret. I would like to know who is holding up the ability of the Senate to pass a bill that we were promised on October 15 would get action; that we passed out of the Commerce Committee unanimously, without amendment; that, in fact, nobody has made a substantive argument why any of this is not needed. I want to know why. I want to know why and who. Who is saying we cannot vote on it? And why do they think we should not have this? I am a big boy. We have a vote. I win; I lose. But I want a vote. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN. The Senator is preaching to the choir. I fully agree with the Senator. As the Senator knows, that is above my pay grade. There are only six Senators who have been here longer than I, but a lot have more institutional power than I do. I think it is a reasonable proposal, and I have shared that view of the Senator for a long time.

Mr. BIDEN

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

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I introduced a Senate resolution designating March 8 as International Women's Day. A similar resolution will be introduced in the House of Representatives by Representative Schakowsky with the support of the Women's Caucus. International Women's Day was first observed in 1909, and since then it has provided an opportunity for us to take a moment to remember, celebrate and honor the remarkable steps women have made in their fight for equality all over the globe. This year, Afghan women are the symbol of International Women's Day. Afghan women are triumphant examples of women empowered and able to transform their lives. We have much to admire in the courage and endurance of Aghan women. Afghan women withstood for more than 5 years systemic oppression by the Taliban. For more than 5 years, women in Afghanistan--solely because they were women--were silenced, forbidden to enter public life, forbidden to be seen unaccompanied on city streets, forbidden to teach or attend schools, forbidden to seek health care and forbidden to work. If women disobeyed, they were beaten. The threat of violence kept women quiet and compliant. Since the downfall of the Taliban, the veil has lifted for women in Afghanistan. Today we see news clips of women walking the streets of Kabul without burkas and girls learning to read in a city school. Women are resuming their jobs as teachers, government workers and doctors. The Health Minister in the new interim government is a Tajik woman surgeon from Kabul. There is a new Ministry of Women's Affairs led by Dr. Sima Samar who is steadily pushing and pulling to restore women's rights. These are enormous strides to regain women's rights in Afghanistan and a testament to the strength of Afghan women. The collaboration, persistence and support of international women's groups to expose the Taliban's oppression should also be recognized. While the plight of Afghan women surfaced on the cover of American magazines only this year, many women's groups have been working on the situation for years--writing letters, pressing for action, and supporting refugees. Indeed, in December, an incredible array of international women's groups gathered in Brussels from all over the world to discuss and strategize ways to change Afghanistan. The international women's community understands that this is a long and complicated process for change, and they remain strongly beside Afghan women. International Women's Day gives us an opportunity to acknowledge their tireless efforts and achievements. As we have seen in Afghanistan, an essential component to achieving gender equality is ending violence against women--an issue about which I care deeply. Women cannot fully participate in a society when they live in fear of violence. Supporting International Women's Day means supporting an end to violence against women. Without a doubt, we must start in our living rooms. Unfortunately, there is still much to be done in the United States. But steadily we are making significant improvements. According to United States Justice Department data, the overall rate of intimate partner violence against all females decreased a dramatic 41 percent between 1993 and 1999. I am proud to say that some of the improvements come directly from my bill, the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, and its reauthorization in 2000. We have transformed a ``private'' family matter into a serious, public crime. Now we are setting our sights on cultural changes and creating a society that has zero tolerance for violence against women. Men who hit or assault women must become the pariahs of our society. We need to teach our young men and boys that violence against girls is completely and utterly unacceptable. And then spread the word around the globe. International Women's Day reminds us that as we are fighting to end violence against women in America, we need to extend our reach, and fight violence against all women. The range of gender-related violence is staggering. It occurs in every segment of society, without regard for class, color, ethnicity, or country. The violence includes honor killings, sexual trafficking in women, dowry-related violence, female infanticide, sexual assault, and domestic violence. Studies indicate that 1 out of every 3 women in the world has been battered by an intimate partner. Data on rape indicates that as many as 1 in 5 women worldwide are victims of rape, with young women as the most frequent targets. Women everywhere cannot fully participate in society until the violence ends. We will get there. Despite the threat of violence, women have made incredible strides. Worldwide, there is a closing gender gap in primary and secondary school education. In 1998, 8 percent of the world's cabinet ministers were women, compared to 4 percent in 1994. All over the world women are actively engaged in the economy as workers, producers, traders, managers, and owners. On International Women's Day let us imagine what women can accomplish when they no longer fear violence. Mr. President, I sincerely hope that all of my colleagues join me to support this resolution to designate March 8 as International Women's Day, to celebrate the enormous progress of women and to reaffirm our commitment to end violence and discrimination against women.