Joe Biden

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, to reaffirm what the Senator says, I do not think anyone should read in this that the Senator from West Virginia and I aren't happy that the President wants to bring down the number of nuclear weapons.

Mr. BIDEN. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 30 seconds.

Mr. BIDEN. We are very supportive of that. We want to make sure when it is done, it is done.

Mr. BIDEN. And we know it is done. I thank the Senator and I thank the Chair, and I particularly thank Senator Baucus for his kindness in allowing us to proceed.

Mr. BIDEN. That is correct.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Bioterrorism Preparedness Act, a comprehensive package of measures to improve our Nation's capability to respond to a future biological weapons attack against the United States. This bill, introduced by Senators Kennedy and Frist, would authorize $3.25 billion in funding for fiscal year 2002, a substantial boost in resources for the measures outlined in the bill. I applaud Senators Kennedy and Frist for coming together in a bipartisan spirit and putting forth a bill that takes the first important step towards truly protecting our Nation against future acts of bioterrorism. When Sam Nunn testified in early September before the Foreign Relations Committee on the threat posed by biological weapons, he was very clear, bioterrorism is a direct threat to the national security of the United States and we need to invest the necessary resources to counter this threat accordingly. As troubling as the recent spate of anthrax by mail attacks was, we were very fortunate that this was a comparatively small-scale attack. Seventeen Americans contracted inhalation or cutaneous anthrax; unfortunately, four individuals died. The next time a biological weapons attack occurs, we may not be so fortunate in dealing with a small number of victims who emerge over a period of weeks. Instead, we may face thousands of victims flooding local emergency rooms and overwhelming our hospitals in a matter of hours. Let's be real here, the anthrax attacks, as small-scale as they have been, have greatly stressed our national public health infrastructure. One out of every eight Centers for Disease Control employees at their headquarters in Atlanta is working on the current anthrax outbreak, forcing the CDC to sideline other essential core activities for the time being. Folks, what we have just been through is small potatoes compared to what we potentially will face. Plain and simple, we can't afford to be so underprepared in the future. Among Sam Nunn's recommendations for countering biological terrorism, he declared, ``We need to recognize the central role of public health and medicine in this effort and engage these professionals fully as partners on the national security team.'' There are many good things in this bill, ranging from the expansion of the National Pharmaceutical Stockpile to efforts to enhance food safety, but I am especially please that the Bioterrorism Preparedness Act provides direct grants to improve the public health infrastructure at the State and local level. Our doctors, nurses, emergency medical technicians, and other public health personnel are our eyes and ears on the ground for detecting a biological weapons attack. We can't afford not to do everything we can to make sure they have the necessary tools and resources in containing any BW attack. This bill goes a long way towards fulfilling that core commitment. So I strongly support the Bioterrorism Preparedness Act and I look forward to its early passage and entry into law before the Congress adjourns for the year. But I am deeply concerned that the bill ignores the international aspects to any effective response to potential bioterrorism. As chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, I know that we cannot address the threat of bioterrorism within the borders of the United States alone. Let me be clear, a biological weapons attack need not originate in the United States to pose a threat to our Nation. A dangerous pathogen deliberately released anywhere in the world can quickly spread to the United States in a matter of days, if not hours. The scope and frequency of international trade, travel, and migration patterns offer unlimited opportunities for pathogens to spread across national borders and even to move from one continent to another. Therefore, we need to view all infectious disease epidemics, wherever they occur, as a potential threat to all nations. It is for this reason that Senator Helms, the distinguished ranking member on the Foreign Relations Committee, and I worked together in seeking to insert provisions in this bill to enhance global disease monitoring and surveillance. With Senator Kennedy's strong backing, we wanted to ensure the full availability of information, i.e. disease characteristics, pathogen strains, transmission patterns, on infectious epidemics overseas that may provide clues indicating possible illegal biological weapons use or research. Even if an infectious disease outbreak occurs naturally, improved monitoring and surveillance can help contain the epidemic and tip off scientists and public health professionals to new diseases that may be used as biological weapons in the future. The World Health Organization, WHO, established a formal worldwide network last year, called the Global Alert and Response Network, to monitor and track infectious disease outbreaks in every region of the world. The WHO has done an impressive job so far working on a shoestring budget. But this global network is only as good as its components, individual nations. Many developing nations simply do not possess the personnel, laboratory equipment or public health infrastructure to track disease patterns and detect traditional and emerging pathogens. In fact, these nations often just seek to keep up in treating those who have already fallen ill. Doctors and nurses in many developing countries only treat a small fraction of the patients who may be ill with a specific infectious disease--in effect, they are only witnessing the tip of a potentially much larger iceberg. According to the National Intelligence Council, governments in developing countries in Africa and Asia have established rudimentary or no systems at all for disease surveillance, response or prevention. For example, in 1994, an outbreak of plague occurred in India, resulting in 56 deaths and billions of dollars of economic damage as trade and travel with India ground to a halt. The plague outbreak was so severe because Indian authorities did not catch the epidemic in its early stages. Authorities had ignored or failed to respond to routine complaints of flea infestation, a sure warning signal for plague. Owing to the lack of resources, developing nations are the weak spots in global disease monitoring and surveillance. Without shoring up these nations' capabilities to detect and contain disease outbreaks, we are leaving the entire world vulnerable to either a deliberate biological weapons attack or an especially virulent naturally occurring epidemic. Therefore, Senator Helms and I worked together in proposing language for this bill to authorize $150 million in fiscal year 02 and fiscal year 03 to strengthen the capabilities of individual nations in the developing world to detect, diagnose, and contain infectious disease epidemics. The proposed title would have helped train entry-level public health professionals from developing countries and provide grants for the acquisition of modern laboratory and communications equipment essential to any effective disease surveillance network. Upon first glance, $150 million is chump change in a bill that authorizes more than $3 billion. But I have been assured by public health experts that $150 million alone can go a long ways in making sure that developing countries acquire the basic disease surveillance and monitoring capabilities to effectively contribute to the WHO's global network. The bottom line is that these provisions would have offered an inexpensive, commonsense solution to a problem of global proportions. I was greatly disappointed, therefore, when the White House weighed in late in the negotiations and expressed its strong insistence that the language Senator Helms and I worked out should be dropped from this bill. While administration officials assured me that they liked our ideas, they asserted any bioterrorism bill passed this year should only include those provisions that carry a domestic focus and meet the test of urgency. Let me respond to those arguments. It is extremely short-sighted to draw artificial boundaries between ``domestic'' and ``international'' responses to bioterrorism. I have already pointed out that pathogens deliberately released in an attack anywhere in the world can quickly spread to the United States if we are unable to contain the epidemic at its source. The National Intelligence Council has concluded that infectious diseases are a real threat to U.S. national security. To ignore the international arena in favor of domestic solutions alone is profoundly misguided. As for urgency, I can think of few things more urgent than taking the necessary steps to respond to bioterrorism in a global context. Americans have been repeatedly warned by their government leaders to expect other terrorist attacks in the near future; we cannot limit ourselves to thinking these attacks will occur in a conventional form or location. Just this fall, the WHO has had to respond to natural outbreaks of hemorrhagic fever in Pakistan and yellow fever in the Ivory Coast. An effective global disease surveillance network cannot come into existence soon enough. I therefore intend to offer an amendment, when this bill comes to the floor later this year, to re-insert the provisions to enhance the capabilities of developing nations to track, diagnose, and contain disease outbreaks resulting from both BW attacks and naturally occurring epidemics. It is not my intention to slow down this overall bill or raise any obstacles; on the contrary, I want to see comprehensive bioterrorism legislation reach the President's desk this year. But we cannot address the full scope of the threat posed by biological weapons without including the international component of the solution. Let me close with an excerpt of testimony from the Foreign Relations Committee hearing on bioterrorism in September from Dr. D.A. Henderson, the man who spearheaded the international campaign to eradicate smallpox in the 1970s. Today, he is the director of the newly-formed Office of Emergency Preparedness in the Department of Health and Human Services, which has the mandate to help organize the Federal Government's response to future bioterrorist attacks. Dr. Henderson was very clear on the value of global disease surveillance: ``In cooperation with the WHO and other countries, we need to strengthen greatly our intelligence gathering capability. A focus on international surveillance and on scientist-to-scientist communication will be necessary if we are to have an early warning about the possible development and production of biological weapons by rogue nations or groups.'' I am hopeful that a majority of my colleagues will recognize we cannot leave the rest of the world to fend for itself in combating biological weapons and infectious diseases in general if we are to ensure America's security as well.

Mr. BIDEN

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

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Protection Against Terrorist Hoaxes Act of 2001. I am honored to have the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, as an original co- sponsor of this legislation. This bill would amend title 18 of the United States Code to, for the first time, make it a Federal crime to knowingly make a hoax report, involving a biological, chemical, nuclear weapon, or other weapon of mass destruction. Likewise, it would make it a criminal offense to knowingly send such a hoax weapon to another. Since the unspeakable terrorist attacks of September 11, our nation has witnessed a mind-boggling number of anthrax hoax reports. This in turn has triggered an equally large number of reports of suspected biological agents. No part of the Nation has been spared, and my home State of Delaware has had several hundred reports of possible biological agents. Just this week, the FBI reported to Congress the staggering statistic involving these bioterrorism hoaxes and other reports of suspected biological agents. Prior to September 11, the FBI had responded to about 100 cases involving potential use of ``weapons of mass destruction,'' 67 of which involved alleged biological weapons. Since mid-September, however, that number has increased by 3,000 percent! As of today, the FBI reported that they have responded to 7,089 suspicious anthrax letters alone, 950 incidents involving other suspected weapons of mass destruction, and an estimated 29,331 telephonic calls from the public about suspicious packages. The good news is that most of these reports were hoaxes, or reports made by well-meaning people whose suspicions were raised. The bad news is that any hoax reports were made in the first place, triggering panic on the part of the public, and often forcing the Federal, state, and local governments to waste valuable time and resources responding to them. In one particularly egregious case, it has been reported that an employee of the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection falsely reported to security that he had found a yellowish-white powder on his desk with the misspelled label ``ANTHAX.'' The employee, a 48- year-old solid waste management analyst, knew the material was not toxic, it was determined to be coffee creamer, but persisted in the false account. 800 State employees were evacuated from the building for 2 days while law enforcement officials tested the building, at a cost of $1.5 million in lost workers' time, another $40,000 in decontamination costs, and an undisclosed amount of money spent on rescue and law enforcement. The employee is being charged in Federal court, not for the hoax report, but for lying to Federal officials after the fact. Indeed, the Justice Department reported to Congress this week that there is a gap in the existing Federal law regarding the prosecution of bioterrorism hoaxes. That is, while it is a crime to threaten to use, for example, anthrax as a weapon against another person, it is not a crime to make a hoax anthrax report. Accordingly, the Justice Department called upon Congress this week to enact legislation which specifically addresses hoaxes which involve purported biological substances, as well as chemical, nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. We should answer that call and act now to give the law enforcement the tools they need to combat these despicable crimes. I introduced a bioterrorism bill, S. 3202, in the 106th Congress which contained an anti-hoax provision. Had that bill been enacted into law, Federal prosecutors would have the means to prosecute bioterrorism hoaxes. The need for a Federal anti-hoax provision has never been more clear than in the last several weeks. The Federal interest is indisputable, as States and localities are simply not equipped with the expertise or resources to evaluate and respond to these hoaxes. A comprehensive prohibition on such false reports is necessary to preserve scarce and vital federal resources. Accordingly, as chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs, I introduce a bill today which contains both criminal provisions and civil penalties for the hoax reporting of bioterrorism incidents. My bill simply says that if you knowingly engage in conduct, such as deliberately sending baking powder through the mail to your Congressman or calling 911 to falsely report the presence of anthrax in a public building, that is likely to create the false impression concerning the presence of anthrax, or other similar things, that you have committed a Federal offense, punishable by up to 5 years in jail. Moreover, such a person may be fined the greater of either $10,000 or the amount of money expended by the government to respond to the false information. Finally, such a person may also be ordered to reimburse the government if costs were incurred in responding to the false hoax. Let me be clear, this bill will not target innocent mistakes or people who make a report concerning a suspected substance; it is aimed, rather, at deliberate hoax reports by those who know they are spreading false information. I have said many times on the floor of this body that the terrorists win if they succeed in sowing seeds of panic into our daily lives. We cannot and will not let that happen. Similarly, we will not let these hoaxers get away with words and deeds which have the same effect.

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Captive Exotic Animal Protection Act. This legislation was first introduced in the 104th Congress by former Senator Frank Lautenberg and I am pleased to be here today continuing his legacy. The Captive Exotic Animal Protection Act would make it illegal to knowingly transfer, transport, or possess in interstate commerce of foreign commerce, a confined exotic mammal for the purposes of allowing the killing or injuring of that animal for entertainment or for the collection of a trophy. The bill protects exotic mammals that have been held in captivity for the shorter of a. the greater part of the animal's life, or b. a period of one year, whether or not the defendant knew the length of the captivity. This bill is intended to prevent the cruel and unsporting practice of what we have come to know as ``canned hunts.'' Words cannot describe a ``canned'' hunt. The images that I have seen, footage taken surreptitiously at these ranches, provides evidence that the treatment of these animals is troubling. Today, at more than 1,000 commercial canned hunt operations across the country, trophy hunters pay a fee to shoot captive exotic animals, from African lions to giraffes, blackbuck antelope, assorted African goats and sheep, a Corsican ram, or a boar, in fenced-in enclosures. The hunting of these animals typically occurs in a fenced enclosure and is often in a ``guaranteed kill'' arrangement meaning that a hunter by virtue of the fact that he has paid his fee is assured of a kill. Now hunting is a sport and if you ask any of the hunters in my home State of Delaware or elsewhere about this they will tell you that there is an ethic of hunting that involves consideration of fair chase, affording the animal the opportunity to evade or elude the hunter. Canned hunts, in fenced-in enclosures, weigh the odds so heavily in favor of the hunters that it essentially eliminates the fair chase component. In addition, these animals on hunting ranches are often fed by hand, in a sense domesticated, and have little or no fear of humans. They don't run when they see a human being in front of them. This practice is unfair and unsportsmanlike. But it is not just about the fact that this practice is inhumane, there are also other concerns. Clustered in a captive setting at unusually high densities, confined exotic animals often attract disease more readily than more widely dispersed native species who roam freely. These exotics then interact with native species through fences, jeopardizing the health of deer, elk, and other native species. Animal disease places hunting programs and wildlife watching programs, that generate millions of dollars in economic activity, at risk. While a number of States have taken action to prohibit the practice of canned hunts, California, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming have passed such statutes, that is only a small segment of the country. Unfortunately, the regulation of the transport and treatment of exotic animals on shooting preserves falls outside the traditional domains of State agriculture departments and State fish and games agencies. The Captive Exotic Animal Protection Act is specifically designed to address this problem, which directly involves an issue of interstate commerce. This is sensible legislation that is backed by responsible hunters, animal protection advocates, wildlife scientists, environmentalists and zoological professionals. The Boone and Crockett Club and the Izaak Walton League of America, nationally recognized hunting clubs, have policy positions affirmatively opposing canned hunts. In addition, this legislation is supported by the Humane Society of the United States, the Doris Day Animal League, the Fund for Animals, and the Animal Protection Institute. I want to say to my colleagues who may have questions about this legislation that the Captive Exotic Animal Protection Act is limited in its scope and purpose and will not limit the licensed hunting of any native mammals or any native or exotic birds. The bill is directed at true ``canned'' hunts and covers only exotic mammals, or those not historically indigenous to the United States. Birds, native or non- native, and indigenous mammals, such as white tail deer and bears, are not covered by the bill. This legislation is a federal remedy and proposed specifically to deal with the purely commercial interstate movement of exotic animals destined to be killed at canned hunting ranches. I hope you will join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Captive Exotic Animal Protection Act. This legislation was first introduced in the 104th Congress by former Senator Frank Lautenberg and I am pleased to be here today continuing his legacy. The Captive Exotic Animal Protection Act would make it illegal to knowingly transfer, transport, or possess in interstate commerce of foreign commerce, a confined exotic mammal for the purposes of allowing the killing or injuring of that animal for entertainment or for the collection of a trophy. The bill protects exotic mammals that have been held in captivity for the shorter of a. the greater part of the animal's life, or b. a period of one year, whether or not the defendant knew the length of the captivity. This bill is intended to prevent the cruel and unsporting practice of what we have come to know as ``canned hunts.'' Words cannot describe a ``canned'' hunt. The images that I have seen, footage taken surreptitiously at these ranches, provides evidence that the treatment of these animals is troubling. Today, at more than 1,000 commercial canned hunt operations across the country, trophy hunters pay a fee to shoot captive exotic animals, from African lions to giraffes, blackbuck antelope, assorted African goats and sheep, a Corsican ram, or a boar, in fenced-in enclosures. The hunting of these animals typically occurs in a fenced enclosure and is often in a ``guaranteed kill'' arrangement meaning that a hunter by virtue of the fact that he has paid his fee is assured of a kill. Now hunting is a sport and if you ask any of the hunters in my home State of Delaware or elsewhere about this they will tell you that there is an ethic of hunting that involves consideration of fair chase, affording the animal the opportunity to evade or elude the hunter. Canned hunts, in fenced-in enclosures, weigh the odds so heavily in favor of the hunters that it essentially eliminates the fair chase component. In addition, these animals on hunting ranches are often fed by hand, in a sense domesticated, and have little or no fear of humans. They don't run when they see a human being in front of them. This practice is unfair and unsportsmanlike. But it is not just about the fact that this practice is inhumane, there are also other concerns. Clustered in a captive setting at unusually high densities, confined exotic animals often attract disease more readily than more widely dispersed native species who roam freely. These exotics then interact with native species through fences, jeopardizing the health of deer, elk, and other native species. Animal disease places hunting programs and wildlife watching programs, that generate millions of dollars in economic activity, at risk. While a number of States have taken action to prohibit the practice of canned hunts, California, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming have passed such statutes, that is only a small segment of the country. Unfortunately, the regulation of the transport and treatment of exotic animals on shooting preserves falls outside the traditional domains of State agriculture departments and State fish and games agencies. The Captive Exotic Animal Protection Act is specifically designed to address this problem, which directly involves an issue of interstate commerce. This is sensible legislation that is backed by responsible hunters, animal protection advocates, wildlife scientists, environmentalists and zoological professionals. The Boone and Crockett Club and the Izaak Walton League of America, nationally recognized hunting clubs, have policy positions affirmatively opposing canned hunts. In addition, this legislation is supported by the Humane Society of the United States, the Doris Day Animal League, the Fund for Animals, and the Animal Protection Institute. I want to say to my colleagues who may have questions about this legislation that the Captive Exotic Animal Protection Act is limited in its scope and purpose and will not limit the licensed hunting of any native mammals or any native or exotic birds. The bill is directed at true ``canned'' hunts and covers only exotic mammals, or those not historically indigenous to the United States. Birds, native or non- native, and indigenous mammals, such as white tail deer and bears, are not covered by the bill. This legislation is a federal remedy and proposed specifically to deal with the purely commercial interstate movement of exotic animals destined to be killed at canned hunting ranches. I hope you will join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the Protection Against Terrorist Hoaxes Act of 2001. I am honored to have the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, as an original co- sponsor of this legislation. This bill would amend title 18 of the United States Code to, for the first time, make it a Federal crime to knowingly make a hoax report, involving a biological, chemical, nuclear weapon, or other weapon of mass destruction. Likewise, it would make it a criminal offense to knowingly send such a hoax weapon to another. Since the unspeakable terrorist attacks of September 11, our nation has witnessed a mind-boggling number of anthrax hoax reports. This in turn has triggered an equally large number of reports of suspected biological agents. No part of the Nation has been spared, and my home State of Delaware has had several hundred reports of possible biological agents. Just this week, the FBI reported to Congress the staggering statistic involving these bioterrorism hoaxes and other reports of suspected biological agents. Prior to September 11, the FBI had responded to about 100 cases involving potential use of ``weapons of mass destruction,'' 67 of which involved alleged biological weapons. Since mid-September, however, that number has increased by 3,000 percent! As of today, the FBI reported that they have responded to 7,089 suspicious anthrax letters alone, 950 incidents involving other suspected weapons of mass destruction, and an estimated 29,331 telephonic calls from the public about suspicious packages. The good news is that most of these reports were hoaxes, or reports made by well-meaning people whose suspicions were raised. The bad news is that any hoax reports were made in the first place, triggering panic on the part of the public, and often forcing the Federal, state, and local governments to waste valuable time and resources responding to them. In one particularly egregious case, it has been reported that an employee of the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection falsely reported to security that he had found a yellowish-white powder on his desk with the misspelled label ``ANTHAX.'' The employee, a 48- year-old solid waste management analyst, knew the material was not toxic, it was determined to be coffee creamer, but persisted in the false account. 800 State employees were evacuated from the building for 2 days while law enforcement officials tested the building, at a cost of $1.5 million in lost workers' time, another $40,000 in decontamination costs, and an undisclosed amount of money spent on rescue and law enforcement. The employee is being charged in Federal court, not for the hoax report, but for lying to Federal officials after the fact. Indeed, the Justice Department reported to Congress this week that there is a gap in the existing Federal law regarding the prosecution of bioterrorism hoaxes. That is, while it is a crime to threaten to use, for example, anthrax as a weapon against another person, it is not a crime to make a hoax anthrax report. Accordingly, the Justice Department called upon Congress this week to enact legislation which specifically addresses hoaxes which involve purported biological substances, as well as chemical, nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. We should answer that call and act now to give the law enforcement the tools they need to combat these despicable crimes. I introduced a bioterrorism bill, S. 3202, in the 106th Congress which contained an anti-hoax provision. Had that bill been enacted into law, Federal prosecutors would have the means to prosecute bioterrorism hoaxes. The need for a Federal anti-hoax provision has never been more clear than in the last several weeks. The Federal interest is indisputable, as States and localities are simply not equipped with the expertise or resources to evaluate and respond to these hoaxes. A comprehensive prohibition on such false reports is necessary to preserve scarce and vital federal resources. Accordingly, as chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs, I introduce a bill today which contains both criminal provisions and civil penalties for the hoax reporting of bioterrorism incidents. My bill simply says that if you knowingly engage in conduct, such as deliberately sending baking powder through the mail to your Congressman or calling 911 to falsely report the presence of anthrax in a public building, that is likely to create the false impression concerning the presence of anthrax, or other similar things, that you have committed a Federal offense, punishable by up to 5 years in jail. Moreover, such a person may be fined the greater of either $10,000 or the amount of money expended by the government to respond to the false information. Finally, such a person may also be ordered to reimburse the government if costs were incurred in responding to the false hoax. Let me be clear, this bill will not target innocent mistakes or people who make a report concerning a suspected substance; it is aimed, rather, at deliberate hoax reports by those who know they are spreading false information. I have said many times on the floor of this body that the terrorists win if they succeed in sowing seeds of panic into our daily lives. We cannot and will not let that happen. Similarly, we will not let these hoaxers get away with words and deeds which have the same effect.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, 6 years ago I stood on this floor and called upon the Senate to join the fight against terrorism in the wake of the horrific bombing in Oklahoma City. Back then some argued terrorism was something that usually happened far away, in distant lands, over distant conflicts. Well, that's all changed. Terrorism has come to America. We have to be a little proactive now. Back then, I proposed a series of precise anti-terrorism tools to help law enforcement catch terrorists before they commit their deadly act, not ever imagining the events of September 11. In particular, I said that it simply did not make sense that many of our law enforcement tools were not available for terrorism cases. For example, the FBI could get a wiretap to investigate the mafia, but they could not get one to investigate terrorists. To put it bluntly, that was crazy! What's good for the mob should be good for terrorists. Anyway, some of my proposals were enacted into law in 1996, a number were not. There were those who decided that the threat to Americans was apparently not serious enough to give the President all the changes in law be requested. Today, 5 years later, I again call on my colleagues to provide law enforcement with a number of the tools which they declined to pass back then. The anti-terrorism bill we consider today is measured and prudent. It has been strengthened considerably since the Administration originally proposed it in mid-September. It takes a number of important steps in waging an effective war on terrorism. It allows law enforcement to keep up with the modern technology these terrorists are using. The bill contains several provisions which are identical or nearly identical to those I previously proposed. For example: it allows the FBI to get wiretaps to investigate terrorists, just like they do for the Mafia or for drug kingpins; it allows the FBI to get a roving wiretap to investigate terrorists--so they can follow a particular suspect, regardless of how many different forms of communication that person uses; and it allows terrorists to be charged with Federal ``racketeering offenses,'' serious criminal charges available against organizations which engage in criminal conduct as a group, for their crimes. I am pleased that the final version of the bill we are considering today contains three provisions that I fought for. First, section 613 incorporates a bill that Senator Hatch and I introduced earlier this year, S. 899. Named in honor of Delaware State trooper Francis Collender, who was tragically killed while on a traffic stop in Odessa, DE this past February, S. 899 and section 613 of this bill will raise the one-time death benefit paid to the families of slain or permanently disabled law enforcement officers. For too long, this benefit has stood at $100,000. It was indexed for inflation and currently stands at $151,000, but even this is far too low for the families of these heroes to make ends meet. The bill we consider today raises this benefit to $250,000, continues to index it for inflation, and makes it applicable to the family of any law enforcement or fire personnel who lost their life on or after January 1, 2001. It's the least we can do for the Collender family, the least we can do for the hundreds of families who tragically lost a loved one on September 11, and I'm grateful my colleagues have agreed we need to include my bill in this larger anti-terrorism bill today. Second, section 817 is based on legislation I introduced in the 106th Congress, S. 3202. It may shock my colleagues that under current law, anyone, including convicted felons, fugitives, and aliens from terrorist-sponsoring states, can possess anthrax or other biological agents. And under current law, the FBI has no tool at its disposal to charge someone with possession of anthrax. Possession of anthrax, or any other dangerous biological agent, is legal, unless the FBI can make a case that the suspect intended to use the agent as a weapon. This far too high a hurdle for our investigators to overcome in many cases, and indeed the FBI has informed me it has hindered several of their past bioweapons investigations. Section 817 closes this loophole. It prohibits certain classes of individuals, felons, illegal aliens, fugitives and others, from ever possessing these dangerous biological agents. And for everyone else, my provision says you need to be able to show you possessed this stuff with a peaceful or bona fide research reason. If not, you're going to be charged with a felony and you face up to ten years in Federal prison. Finally, section 1005 of this bill incorporates my First Responders Assistance Act. I have spoken with too many local police officers, chiefs, firemen and women, and others who feel left out of our fight against terrorism. I commend FBI Director Mueller for recently pledging to do a better job sharing information with our State and local law enforcement people, but clearly more needs to be done. Who responds first to a terrorist incident? On September 11 it was the New York City and Arlington County, VA police and fire departments. That's always going to be the case, local law enforcement is our first line of defense against terrorists, and we need to give them the tools they need to get that job done well. My provision will, for the first time, give State and local enforcement and fire personnel the opportunity to apply directly to the Justice Department to receive terrorism prevention assistance. Specifically, departments will now be able to get help purchasing gas masks, hazardous material suits, intelligence-gathering equipment, twenty-first century communications devices and other tools to help them respond to terrorist threats. This section also creates a new anti-terrorism training grant program that will fund seminars and other training sessions to help local police departments better analyze intelligence information they come across, help local fire departments acquire the knowledge they need to respond to critical incidents, and assist those agencies who may be called upon to stabilize a community after a terrorist incident. It is my intent that these funds go to professional law enforcement organizations who are in some instances already delivering this type of training. The Department of Justice's Office for Domestic Preparedness does some of this, but their program is a block grant sent to the Governor. I want to involve local police and fire departments directly in the fight against terrorism, and this section is an important step towards meeting that goal. The funds authorized, $100 million over the next four years, may not be enough to get the job done, but it's a good start. I thank the Police Executives Research Forum for working with me to craft this proposal, and I look forward to seeing significant dollars allocated to it in future spending bills. So this bill contains many provisions critical to law enforcement. Some may say it doesn't go far enough. I have to say, I was disappointed that the Administration dropped some proposals from an early draft of its bill, measures which I called for five years ago. Those measures are not in the bill we consider today, but I continue to believe that they're common-sense tools we ought to be giving to our men and women of law enforcement. We should be extending 48-hour emergency wiretaps and pen-registers, caller-ID-type devices that track incoming and outgoing phone calls from suspects, to terrorism crimes. This would allow police, in an emergency situation, to immediately obtain a surveillance order against a terrorist, provided the police go to a judge within 48 hours and show that they had the right to get the wiretap and that emergency circumstances prevented them from going to the judge in the first place. Now, this emergency tool is available only for organized crime cases and the bill we consider today does not expand this power to terrorist investigations. We should be extending the Supreme Court's ``good faith'' exception to wiretaps. This well-accepted doctrine prevents criminals in other types of offenses from going free when the police make an honest mistake in seizing evidence or statements from a suspect. We should apply this good faith exception to terrorist crimes as well, to prevent terrorists from getting away when the police make an honest mistake in obtaining a wiretap. I'm pleased Chairman Leahy and the Administration were able to reach consensus on the two areas which gave me some pause in the Administration's original proposal: those provisions dealing with mandatory detention of illegal aliens and with greater information sharing between the intelligence and law enforcement communities. The agreement reached has satisfied me that these provisions will not upset the balance between strong law enforcement and protection of our valued civil liberties. This bill is not perfect. No one here claims it embodies all the answers to the question of how best to fight terrorism. But I am confident that by updating our surveillance laws, by taking terrorism as seriously as we do organized crime, and by recognizing the important role state and local law enforcement has to play in this campaign, that we are taking a step in the right direction by passing this bill today. Antiterrorism

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Very briefly in response, I thank the Senator. I know the public listening to this would say they expect two guys who are friends and in the same party to say the same thing, but the truth is we are all going to be tested over the next several months. The President of the United States, who we all think is doing a very fine job, is going to have to make some very tough decisions. I, for one, and I know my two leaders and the Senator from Oregon as well are not into Monday morning quarterbacking. Some of the decisions we are going to make are going to turn out to be brilliant. Some we are going to make are not going to be so good. I would say this: This President, in my view, so far has made the right choices. He has done the right thing. He is pursuing the right way. This notion of how long we bomb versus how long before we put forces on the ground is an incredibly difficult decision. You can be assured every single mistake we accidentally make--and by the way, to our credit the Defense Department acknowledged today, like no other Defense Department would, I think, that, yes, there was an errant bomb, and it did take out some innocent people. What other great nation would acknowledge that? That is going to happen. It is horrible that it will, but the President has a series of very tough choices. I want him to know that not only I, but we all wish him well, and as long as he is trying, as he is, to keep this coalition together, to keep it moving, I am willing to yield to his judgment in the prosecution of this war. So I thank my friend for his kind comments, and I hope this puts it to rest. I am sure the gentleman on the House side who made the comments was probably told by staff, and I think it was kind of like a drive-by shooting because I have never had a cross word with this particular House Member, but I understand things got pretty hot in the House today. I think I was the first Democrat who came across his radar, and I think this would be called a political drive-by shooting-- accidental, I hope--and it will get straightened out. I am not criticizing or making light of what was said. I want the Record to be straight because it is important the world knows and the Nation knows we are behind the President and we are not at this point second-guessing his judgment, particularly about bombing.

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I rise today to clarify a matter that has been somewhat taken out of context. I know my good friend, the majority leader, was asked this morning about comments the Senator from Delaware allegedly made speaking to the New York Council on Foreign Relations, which surprised me the question was asked. I was informed that a high-ranking Republican on the House side put out a statement--and I am sure he did not understand the context-- suggesting I implied Americans were high-tech bullies who were bombing Afghanis, and we should be fighting on the ground and not bombing. I want to assure my friend from South Dakota, in his response to the question, he was correct. I did not say anything like that. I will read from the transcript from the New York Council on Foreign Relations speech. I was asked by a gentleman, whose name I will not put in the--well, his name is Ron Paul, whom I do not know, who says: I concur with everybody else in commending you on your comments, and he goes on. Then he says: With regard to the bombing, every day it goes on the harder it may be for us to do something next, referring to rebuilding Afghanistan. He said: What do you see as the situation if we do not defeat the Taliban in the next 4 weeks and winter sets in in Afghanistan? The context of the question was, Is it not a hard decision for the President to have to choose between bombing, knowing it will be unfairly used for propaganda purposes by radical Muslims in that area of the world, and bombing to make the environment more hospitable for American forces to be able to be successful on the ground? I said it was a hard decision. The question was repeated, and my answer was: I am not a military man--I will read this in part. The part that I think flies in the face of and plays into every stereotypical criticism of us---- Referring to the radical Muslims, that part of the world that is radical---- is we're this high-tech bully that thinks from the air we can do whatever we want to do, and it builds the case for those who want to make the case against us that all we're doing is indiscriminately bombing innocents, which is not the truth. So I want the majority leader to know, and I am sure when the gentleman on the House side sees the comments, he will be able to put it in the proper perspective because the irony is anyone who has been in the Senate knows I was the first, most consistent, and the last calling for the United States to bomb in Bosnia, bomb in Kosovo, use the full force of our air power. I have been around long enough to know unless someone stands up and clarifies something, it can get out of hand very quickly. I thank my colleague for his response this morning to the press and for his faith in his chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. I assure him, in this case at least, it was well placed. I ask unanimous consent that my entire speech--which I would not ordinarily do because it is my own speech--to the Council on Foreign Relations be printed in the Record, along with the question and answers that follow.

Mr. BIDEN. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN. I knew it would not be required on the Senator's part.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, on November 14, 1901, after more than a decade of effort by a group of concerned citizens, the Volunteer Fire Company of Milton, Delaware was organized. The Town Council elected Charles H. Davidson as the first Fire Chief, and 26 men signed up as volunteer firefighters. R.B. Hopkins was named President. In remembering the founding of the company, its current president, Lynn Rogers, rightly noted that, although the formal Ladies Auxiliary was not organized until years later, the women of Milton provided vital support to the town's fire service from the very start. By a vote of 76 to 33, the citizens of Milton voted to purchase a fire truck, and the Town bought a Howe chemical and water engine, with the then hefty price tag of $1,250. In 1902, there was another purchase, a Fire King hose cart that can still be found at the Milton fire station today. It wasn't long before the resources of the Milton Fire Company and its members were tested to their fullest; a disastrous fire struck the town in August of 1909. In just four hours, with the firefighters and the citizens working together against it, the fire raged through the lower part of Milton, destroying 18 buildings in the business district. It was the kind of devastation that challenges the spirit and character of a community, just as we have been challenged as a nation this fall. And in the tradition of the American spirit and the American character, Milton came back, with its Fire Company helping to lead the way. The Milton Fire Department has been a leader in the Delaware Volunteer Firemen's Association from the first meeting in 1921; the current President of the DVFA, Dale Callaway, is from Milton. The Department's leadership has been marked by incredible dedication, with officers who regularly serve for 25 years or more. Just one of many possible examples of this dedication, was when Linwood ``Jim'' Rogers asked to be replaced after 41 years as Treasurer, Denny Hughes took over, and he continues to hold the office 23 years later. Over the years, the Milton Fire Department has grown with the town, with a new building dedicated in 1950, an additional property purchase in the 1960s and a renovation and addition in the early 1980s. An ambulance service has grown, from the first ambulance purchase in 1948, to the dedication of members of the Ladies Auxiliary in the 1970s, who took ambulance attendant courses to ensure quality service. Lynn Rogers made another comment at the 100th anniversary celebration that I would like to cite. He said, ``The fire service of Delaware is a family. We no longer grow as one department; the fire service grows together; we depend on each other more every day, with the specialized emergencies that we all face.'' Even beyond the family of our small State, to the broader community of our Nation, we have learned that lesson together in recent weeks-- the depths of our bond to one another, how we depend on each other, and the debt and support we owe to those we rely upon in an emergency. The great tradition of the fire service is alive and well in Milton, DE, and as we approach November 14th, the 100th anniversary of the Milton Fire Department, I am proud to share the pride of Delaware, and to convey the congratulations of the United States Senate, to Chief Jack Hudson, President Lynn Rogers and all the members and friends of the Milton Fire Department and Ladies Auxiliary.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, while the majority leader is in the Chamber, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to proceed as in morning business for 5 minutes and have his attention for the first 60 seconds of my remarks.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, on November 10th, 1901, several leading citizens of Seaford, DE met in the Town Council room to discuss the organization of a fire company. They understood what we are so very mindful of today, that local firefighters are a key part of our first and best defense against disaster. By the end of November 1901, there were more than 50 members of the new Seaford Volunteer Fire Department, and W.H. Miller had been elected to serve as its first president. The first chief, T.H. Scott, was elected in early December, and soon after led the company on its first fire response on December 18th, 1901, at a building that was both a store and a home on Seaford's High Street. The Seaford firefighters used hand-drawn hose reels and ladder trailers until 1921, when the first fire engine was purchased. It is worth taking note that Government money helped buy that first engine, a reminder that a public investment in the fire service is necessary and appropriate. This partnership is all the more important 80 years later, when we ask our firefighters to respond to such a range of threats and dangers. Today, the Seaford Volunteer Fire Company fleet includes four Pierce fire engines, an aerial truck, two ambulances, a rescue truck, a brush truck, a utility truck and a van, as well as ``Old Number 4,'' a 1948 Seagraves used for fire prevention programs. Four paid ambulance attendants now serve the community, with more than 50 volunteer firefighters still ready to answer the call when their neighbors need them, and 50 more volunteers working in support of the Department. As we honor the heroes of September 11th, including so many members of New York's Bravest, we stand in prayerful wonder and immeasurable gratitude for what firefighters sacrifice and risk on our behalf. They are, truly, the best of neighbors and the best of citizens. The Seaford Volunteer Fire Department has been a part of that great tradition for 100 years, and on behalf of the people of my state, and on behalf of the United States Senate, I am proud to extend congratulations to Chief Steve Mayer, President Rich Toulson and all the men and women who have kept the Department and the community strong into a second century of service. Again, we are very proud, and we are deeply grateful.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, this week, for the 73rd year, our nation will commemorate National Business Women's Week. Since it was first observed in 1928, the event has been sponsored by Business and Professional Women, (BPW)/USA as a national tribute to all working women. It has helped increase awareness of the continuing challenges that working women face, and has highlighted their many successes that have strengthened our nation. With well over 60 million women in the American labor force, including more than 70 percent of women with children, and an increasing percentage of women who help care for an elderly relative, the issues that challenge working women must be priorities for all of us, from balancing responsibilities within our own families to our debates on national and, indeed, multinational policy. And, as has been the case for all of the 73 years that we've had National Business Women's Week, we start from a position where there is good news and bad news; we've come a long way, and we have a long way to go. In 1999, there were nine million women-owned firms, representing 38 percent of all American businesses, a 103 percent increase in just over 10 years; and the rate of growth for women-owned businesses in America is nearly three times faster than the overall rate. Women-owned businesses are also as financially secure and credit-worthy as other firms, and, in fact, are more likely to stay in business. Yet, even with that powerful place in our economy, women entrepreneurs still have lower levels of available credit than their male counterparts. And as for employees, women still face a wage gap; for every dollar earned by men in 1998, women earned an average of 73 cents. The gap is even wider for women of color, and it gets worse as the workers get older, presumably progressing in their careers. In the highest echelons of the business world, the Fortune 500, the good news is that the number of women corporate officers has increased by 37 percent over the past five years; the bad news is that the total number of women officers is still alarmingly low. The number of women in the highest officer positions, like CEO, president and high-ranking vice presidencies, has increased by 113 percent since 1995, but that still translates into just 114 women in those jobs, or about five percent of top office holders. We've seen similar progress, with corresponding long ways to go, in women working in government and higher education. In my State last year, we elected our first woman Governor--a Governor, I might add, who is also a small business owner. While we rightly celebrate her victory, she was just the 11th of 12 American women ever to have been elected to that office outright. Here in the Senate, we have seen progress--with a record 13 women currently serving as U.S. Senators--but we still cannot call it success. And in academia, too, although some numbers are getting better, some problems persist, including what the American Association of University Professors described as substantial disparities in salary, rank and tenure. And so, as we approach National Business Women's Week, we have some work to do. Achieving equity on the job is a process, and it proceeds not on an isolated track but with almost constant overlap with policies that affect home and family life, from providing adequate health care to combating domestic violence, from meeting the needs of our young children to responding to the needs of our aging parents. As a national interest, work and family exist in partnership. We celebrate the progress and contributions of working women in America, recognizing that our prosperity--as well as the full expression of our values and national character--depend upon women having the opportunity to participate fully in our economic life. We are not there, but we are inspired by the women who continue to lead the way, and during National Business Women's Week, we are reminded to honor their uniquely valuable contributions to the strength of our economy and our society, and to the promise of our future.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, 5 years ago I stood here and called upon the Senate to join the fight against terrorism. Back then terrorism seemed like something that happened far away, in distant lands over distant conflicts. Well, that has all changed. Terrorism has come to America. We have to be a little proactive now. Back then, I proposed a series of precise antiterrorism tools to help law enforcement catch terrorists before they commit their deadly acts, not ever imagining the events of September 11. In particular, I said that it simply did not make sense that many of our law enforcement tools were not available for terrorism cases. For example, the FBI could get a wiretap to investigate the mafia, but they could not get one to investigate terrorists. To put it bluntly, that was crazy! What's good for the Mob should be good for terrorists! Anyway, some of my proposals were enacted into law, a number were not. There were those who decided that the threat to Americans was apparently not serious enough to give the President all the changes in the law he requested. Today, five years later, I again call on my colleagues to provide law enforcement with a number of the tools which they declined to do back then. The anti-terrorism bill we passed judgment on Thursday, S. 1510, is measured and prudent. It takes a number of important steps in waging an effective war on terrorism. It allows law enforcement to keep up with the modern technology these terrorists are using. The bill contains several provisions which are identical or near-identical to those I previously proposed. For example: it allows the FBI to get wiretaps to investigate terrorists, just like they do for the Mafia or drug kingpins; it allows the FBI to get a ``roving wiretap'' to investigate terrorists--so they can follow a particular suspect, regardless of how many different forms of communication that person uses; it allows terrorists to be charged with federal ``racketeering offenses''--serious criminal charges available against organizations which engage in criminal conduct as a group--for their crimes; it includes a provision similar to legislation I introduced last Congress, S. 3202, to prohibit terrorists, and others, from possessing biological materials when that person does not have any lawful reason for having them. Right now, it's only illegal if you intend to use such materials as a weapon, the FBI tells me that that is simply too difficult a burden for them to prove in many cases, and that the new offense we create in this bill will be helpful in prosecuting terrorists who possess dangerous biological agents; it incorporates the language of S. 899, legislation Senator Hatch and I introduced earlier this year to raise the payment to families of public safety officers killed or permanently disabled in the line of duty from $100,000 to $250,000. Let's be clear. This bill is a step in the right direction. Some will say that it doesn't go far enough. I have to say, I was disappointed that the Administration dropped some proposals from an early draft of its bill, measures which I called for five years ago. Those antiterrorism measures are NOT in the bill, but I continue to believe that they're common-sense tools which law enforcement should have. We should be extending 48 hour ``emergency'' wiretaps and ``pen registers,'' ``caller-ID''-type devices to track incoming and outgoing phone calls from suspects, to terrorism crimes. This would allow police, in an emergency situation, to obtain immediately surveillance means against a terrorist, provided the police go to a judge within 48 hours and prove that they had the right to get the wiretap and that the emergency circumstances prevented them from going to the judge in the first place. Right now, these emergency means are available only for organized crime cases. We should be extending the Supreme Court's ``good faith'' exception to wiretaps. This well-accepted doctrine prevents criminals in other types of offenses from going free when the police make an honest mistake in seizing evidence or statements from a suspect. We should apply this ``good faith'' exception to terrorist crimes as well, to prevent terrorists from getting away when the police make an honest mistake in obtaining a wiretap. I'm also pleased that Chairman Leahy and the administration were able to reach consensus on the two areas which gave me some pause in the administration's original proposal: those provisions dealing with mandatory detention of illegal aliens and with greater information sharing between the intelligence and law enforcement communities. Overall, the agreement Chairman Leahy reached has satisfied me that these new law enforcement powers will not upset the balance between effective law enforcement and the civil liberties we all value. This bill is not perfect. No one here claims it has all the answers. This fight may be lengthy. But I am confident that by treating terrorism as seriously as we do the Mob, that we are taking a step in the right direction.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I was about to introduce, along with the Presiding Officer in the chair, the Senator from New York, as well as about 12 other colleagues, an amendment to this legislation for security needs for Amtrak. They are at a minimum of $1.8 billion. Just the six tunnels that go into New York City carry 350,000 people per day. They are antiquated, built around 1910, and need significant upgrading to protect the safety and security of the people traveling on those rails. I could go down the list. I will not, in the interest of time. The managers of the bill have made an agreement with me and with the Presiding Officer and many others to do the following: We will withhold that amendment on this aviation safety bill. The chair and the ranking member of the Commerce Committee are going to attempt to mark up an Amtrak security bill and possibly a port security bill in their committee as early as next Tuesday. God willing and the creek not rising, as my grandfather would say, there is a possibility they will be able to report that to the floor sometime next week. I have spoken to the leadership on our side and have not had a chance to speak with the leadership on the Republican side. It is our hope to bring that bill up and vote on that piece of legislation. In addition to that, I have had an opportunity to speak with the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and others who have indicated there would be an attempt as we deal with the appropriated money for this legislation we are about to pass, as well as other security needs, that Amtrak would be considered in that process. I particularly thank my friend from Arizona who is all for safety but not so much all for Amtrak. He has been very helpful here and has indicated if we are not able to get--I ask him to correct me if I am wrong--if for some reason we are prevented from getting the authorizing legislation up before the appropriators do their job, he will not object to the appropriators going forward, notwithstanding his long-held view, as I have as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, of not wanting the appropriators to do the work of the authorization committee. I ask my friend, is that basically correct?

Mr. BIDEN. I think it is more appropriate to refer to this as rail safety. To give an example, the 350,000 people who go through the tunnels are not all on Amtrak trains. They are on the Long Island Railroad, they are on the New Jersey transit, using the Baltimore tunnel, for example, the Maryland transit, et cetera. It is rail safety. It is not just Amtrak. But Amtrak is responsible for the rail safety provisions of that. That is the reason I refer to it as Amtrak. I thank Members on behalf of my 11 other colleagues. I see my colleague from Delaware, a former board member of Amtrak. I am delighted to yield to him for a few moments if he would like to make comments on why we are not moving forward.

Mr. BIDEN. I will just take another second. I note the Senator from South Carolina said the distinguished Senator from Arizona doesn't have a port. I am reminded when I first got here as a young Senator, I went to Senator Eastland, who I served under on the Judiciary Committee. Sitting in his office one day, as I often did, with Senator Thurmond, asking him anything a young kid, a 30-year-old Senator would ask, I asked: Who is the most powerful man you ever served with? He said: Senator Kerr. I said: Senator Kerr, Senator Kerr of Oklahoma? He said: Yeah--in his southern drawl which I will not attempt to imitate on the floor as I often do off the floor. He said: Who in the heck else could bring up the Gulf of Mexico in the middle of his State if he wasn't powerful? I think, as the Senator's power continues to increase, he may bring the Pacific Ocean to Arizona, but I am not sure how he will do it.

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