Joe Biden

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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, I am pleased that the Senate is considering this legislation, which was reported by the Committee on Foreign Relations earlier today. The bill addresses an urgent priority in the fight against terrorism by clearing the way for U.S. assistance to Pakistan. After the attacks of September 11, we asked the world to choose sides. Pakistan has chosen to stand with the United States. We need to assist this important front-line state. The President has already done so by committing $100 million in economic assistance to Pakistan under the extraordinary authority of Section 614 of the Foreign Assistance Act. But to provide additional assistance requires Congress to amend several laws restricting such assistance. The bill before the Senate therefore provides the following authority. First, the bill waives, for Fiscal Year 2002, the restriction in law against assistance to countries where a democratic government has been overthrown by military coup. The President may waive the restriction in Fiscal Year 2003, but only if he determines that doing so would facilitate the transition to democratic rule in Pakistan and if it is important to the fight against terrorism. As we all know, there was a military coup in Pakistan in 1999. The current government has pledged to hold elections next fall. This provision keeps the focus on the U.S. policy objective that elections should be held in Pakistan. Second, the bill permits an expeditious waiver of sanctions imposed last fall against the Pakistani Ministry of Defense for violations of the Missile Technology Control Regime. Current law permits the President to waive these sanctions if it is essential to the national security. But he is required to notify Congress 45 working days before doing so. The bill allows the President to exercise the waiver without waiting those nine weeks. Third, the bill waives provisions of law which restrict assistance to nations in arrears on their payments of official debt to the United States. The United States just rescheduled some of Pakistan's debt, but that rescheduling does not take effect for several weeks, so this provision allows assistance to flow to Pakistan in the meantime. Finally, the bill provides additional flexibility in providing emergency military assistance to any country assisting us in the campaign against terrorism by reducing, but not eliminating, the notification periods for these authorities for two years. The bill makes no other changes to current law. Rather than provide broad waiver authority to override the significant structure of laws we have enacted in recent decades, as the State Department asked, we have narrowly tailored the legislation to address the specific provisions of law that were obstacles to helping Pakistan. In so doing, we are not foregoing any of the important policy objectives we have in Pakistan, particularly our non-proliferation objectives. I should emphasize that this provision has broad support. It was negotiated on a bipartisan basis within the Committee on Foreign Relations, and with the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, Senator Leahy and Senator McConnell. Because of the urgency of trying to get this legislation to the President, we have agreed to ``double-track'' the bill. We will move it free-standing today, and the Appropriations Committee will incorporate it into the foreign operations appropriations bill when that is considered in the Senate. Mr. President, as we have since September 11, we stand united in support of the President. We stand ready to assist the Administration in the campaign against terrorism. I hope my colleagues will support this legislation.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in a matter that is very hard to discuss these days, when we are dealing with the aftermath of the destruction that has been visited upon our country. I rise to speak of a matter that is at the very heart of our fight against terrorism. Today I met with the Secretary of State, along with my Senate Foreign Relations Committee colleagues, including the occupant of the Chair, for about 2 hours. I applaud the actions of President Bush and Secretary Powell and the rest of the administration throughout this terrible crisis. I applaud what he had to say at our meeting. Of all the topics Secretary Powell discussed with me and other members of the Foreign Relations Committee, none was more important in my view than this: We must make a bold, brave, and powerful decision to provide generous relief and reconstruction aid to the people of Afghanistan and neighboring countries, even as we move toward war. We must wage a war against the vicious thugs who attacked our nation, but we must not permit this war to be mischaracterized as a battle against the people of Afghanistan or the wider Muslim world. If we can't make this critical distinction, all our efforts are doomed to failure. The people of Afghanistan, who are looking for a way of ridding themselves of the Taliban regime, might direct their anger at us rather than at the brutal warlords who have caused them so much misery and pain. The people of Muslim countries from Morocco to Indonesia could turn against the United States, with disastrous consequences for many years to come--notwithstanding my belief that we will prosecute this military effort with discreet and precise efforts to minimize civilian casualties. We have already seen how those who wish us ill can portray legitimate, restrained military action as an indiscriminate attack on innocent civilians, and how such an argument can be persuasive to so many people in the Middle East. Saddam Hussein, a man who has killed far more Muslims than any American attack before, during, or since the gulf war, has depicted the United States-led actions against Iraq as an assault on Iraqi women and children, an assault on Islam. That is a guy who has killed more believers of Islam than just about anybody else-- and yet he is able to put out a boldfaced lie, the lie that our soldiers have gone out of their way to hurt innocent civilians. In fact, our soldiers have always gone out of their way to avoid collateral damage to civilians, even during the height of the gulf war. The United Nations' sanctions imposed since that time place no restrictions on the delivery of food or medicine to the people of Iraq. Quite the opposite. Yet Saddam has won the international battle. He has convinced a significant portion of the Islamic world that we are the reason the people of Iraq do not have food and medicine in sufficient supply. It is Saddam who is starving his own people, deliberately sitting on billions of oil dollars earmarked for humanitarian aid to the people of Iraq while he pursues his weapons of mass destruction and builds himself more palaces. The reason I bring this up is that throughout much of the Muslim world Saddam's propaganda remains convincing. People see these images of children and their mothers scrambling for food, the footage of destroyed buildings, and they know the United States conducts bombing raids to enforce the no-fly zone and we are leading an international coalition to maintain sanctions. So they conclude, with his distinct urging, that we are not acting in accordance with U.N. resolutions and the consent of the world community, but that we are acting in the way Saddam Hussein portrays us as acting: victimizing his people, oppressing women and children, and causing great hardship. No matter how we cut it, he has won the battle over who's at fault. If you had told me that was going to be the case after the gulf war, I would have told you that you were crazy. One of the reasons he has won is we are so accustomed in America to not beating our own chests about what we do for other people, we are so accustomed to thinking that people are going to be open minded, as we are. It is almost beyond our capacity to believe anyone could think we were responsible for those women and children and old people in Iraq starving, being malnourished, and not having adequate medical care. It is very simple in the Muslim world right now. When America bombs, America is blamed for anything else that happens. And not just blamed for what we have done, but we are blamed for what we have not done. It is not fair, but it is the fact. As the world's only superpower, we receive a lot of misdirected blame under the best of circumstances. The nuances and subtleties of geopolitics don't get translated to the language of the street. And once the bombs start to fall, any vestige of nuance is blown away with whatever they hit. We cannot allow what happened in Iraq to happen in Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden and the Taliban leader, Mullah Omar, have been trying to cast the current conflict in terms of religion and have been calling our efforts a crusade against Islam. You mention the word ``crusade'' in the Middle East and it has a very different context than when we use it here. It is not accidental that the word is used by bin Laden. It conjures up several hundred years of painful history. This is not a crusade. It is not a war against Muslims. And we cannot permit bin Laden and the Taliban to portray it as such. So how do we prevent it from happening this time? We have all said the right words. President Bush, Secretary Powell, and most Senators gathered in this Chamber have all spoken out forcefully. Our rhetoric has been fine, but if we want to convince the world's 1.6 billion Muslims of our sincerity, it will take much more than our rhetoric. It will take action, real action, to save the lives of real people. After my long-time involvement with and strong advocacy for Muslims in Europe, whenever I go to the Balkans I can barely take a step without being reminded of this dynamic. If my name is mentioned among Muslim leaders, I am thanked for being one of their saviors; I am thanked for being one of the people who has fought to help them--and I'm sure all those American servicemen and servicewomen over there now protecting the Muslims in the Balkans feel the same. But none of that message has gotten to the Middle East. It is ironic. So what we need to do is back up our words with our wallets. In my view, we must do this ahead of time. We say we have no beef with the Afghan people, and we do not. But one out of four Afghans--perhaps 7 million people--are surviving on little more than grass and locusts. We say our fight is only against the terrorists, along with their sponsors, and it is. But the people of Afghanistan have been subjected to constant warfare for the past two decades. They are looking for help, and they are looking at us. We did not cause the terrible drought that brought so many Afghans to the brink of starvation, and we did not cause the Soviet invasion or the civil war that followed. We were interested in Afghanistan, but only when it suited our own interests. We paid attention during the 1980s, but then came down with a case of attention deficit disorder. As soon as the last Russian troops pulled out in 1989, our commitment seemed to retreat along with them. And I was here, so I share this responsibility. The years of bloody chaos that followed were what gave rise to the Taliban. If we had not lost interest a decade ago, perhaps Afghanistan would not have turned into the swamp of terrorism and brutality that it has become. I say this not to cast stones, because I was here. We do not need to ask who ``lost'' Afghanistan. There is more than enough blame to go around. It is not a matter of political party or ideological outlook. Nobody--Republican, Democrat, liberal, conservative--stepped up to the plate when it counted because we did not take it as seriously as it turned out to be. It is time we all stepped up to the plate. In fairness to the folks who were here, like me and others, the truth of the matter is we get called on from all over the world and we find ourselves responding to whatever the crisis of the moment is. It is time to reverse more than a decade of neglect, not only for the sake of Afghanistan, but for our sake. Not only for the sake of Pakistan, which faces growing instability exacerbated by the enormous burden of sheltering millions of Afghan refugees. Not only for the sake of the Central Asian republics, all of which are threatened by chaos fomented in Kabul and Kandahar. We have to take action not merely for their sake, but for our own sake. The tragedy of September 11 served as a stark reminder that isolation is impossible. What happens in South and Central Asia has direct impact on what happens right here in the United States. If we ever were able to think of our nation as one buffered from far-away events, we can no longer maintain that illusion. So what can we do? Let me make this very bold proposal as to what I think we should and could do. The plight of the Afghans had reached a crisis point before September 11, and the prospect of military action has made matters even worse. The U.N. places the number of Afghan refugees at about 3 million, and in Iran at about one half that, with another million displaced within Afghanistan itself. These people are living--if one can call it that--in conditions of unspeakable deprivation. One camp in the Afghan city of Herat is locally called, quite appropriately, ``the slaughterhouse.'' The expectation of U.S. attacks has already prompted more desperate people to flee their homes, and a estimated 1.5 million may soon take to the road. U.N. Secretary Kofi Annan has issued an appeal for $584 million to meet the needs of the Afghan refugees and displaced people, within Afghanistan and in neighboring countries. This is the amount deemed necessary to stave off disaster for the winter, which will start in Afghanistan in just a few weeks. We must back up our rhetoric with action, with something big and bold and meaningful. We can offer to foot the entire bill for keeping the Afghan people safely fed, clothed, and sheltered this winter, and that should be the beginning. We can establish an international fund for the relief, reconstruction, and recovery of Central and Southwest Asia. We can do this through the U.N. or through a multilateral bank, but we must be in it for the long haul with the rest of the world. The initial purpose of the fund would be to address the immediate needs of the Afghans displaced by drought and war for the next 6 months. But the fund's longer-term purpose would be to help stabilize the whole region by, as the President says, draining the swamp that Afghanistan has become. We can kick the effort off in a way that would silence our critics in the rest of the world: a check for $1 billion, and a promise for more to come as long as the rest of the world joins us. This initial amount would be more than enough to meet all the refugees' short-term needs, and would be a credible downpayment for the long-term effort. Eventually the world community will have to pony up more billions, but there is no avoiding that now, not if we expect our words ever to carry any weight. If anyone thinks this amount of money is too high, let me note one stark, simple and very sad statistic. The damage inflicted by the September 11 attack in economic terms alone was a minimum of several hundred billion dollars and a maximum of over $1 trillion. The cost in human life, of course, as the Presiding Officer knows, is far beyond any calculation. The fund I propose would be a way to put some flesh on the bones, not only of the Afghan refugees, but on the international coalition that President Bush has assembled. All nations would be invited to contribute to this fund, and projects for relief and reconstruction could be carried out under the auspices of the United Nations. Countries that are leery of providing military aid against the Taliban could use this recovery fund as a means to demonstrate their commitment to the wider cause. Money from the fund would be used for projects in several countries. In the short term, it could help front-line countries handle the social problems caused by existing refugee burdens or the expected military campaign. This would further solidify the alliance and give wavering regimes, especially Pakistan, a valuable ``deliverable'' to present to its own people. The fund would also be used for relief efforts within Afghanistan itself. This could take several forms. It could help finance air drops of food and medical supplies. It could support on-the-ground distribution in territories held by the Northern Alliance and other friendly forces. And perhaps, most significantly, it could provide the Pashtun leaders of the south with a powerful incentive to abandon the Taliban and join the United States-led effort. Think of the impact. Many Pashtun chiefs, including current supporters of the Taliban, are already on the fence. If the Pashtuns, who are now going hungry, saw relief aid pouring into neighboring provinces or in from the air, with their own leaders stubbornly stuck by Mullah Omar and refused such aid well, we could suddenly find ourselves with a lot of new allies. The seemingly intractable problem of forging a political consensus in Afghanistan might become a whole lot easier to solve. A massive humanitarian relief effort will not guarantee a favorable political solution. But it clearly is within the realm of possibility. We can establish our credibility by committing ourselves to providing this aid now, before the first bomb falls. The funding that I propose will address not only the short-term goal, but the more important (and more difficult) longer term ones as well. Whatever we do in Afghanistan--whether it involves the commitment of military, political, or humanitarian assets--must be geared toward a long-term solution. We cannot repeat the mistakes of the past. If we think only in the short term, only of getting Bin Laden and the Taliban--which we must do, but that is not all we must do--we are just begging for greater trouble down the line. We have a unique opportunity here and right now--a window of opportunity that will not be open forever. Now, while the attention of the country and the world is focused on this vital issue, we can create a consensus necessary to build a lasting peace in the region. This will be a multinational, multiyear, multibillion-dollar commitment. And if we take a leading role, I am confident that other nations will follow. Today is not the time to speak about political reconstruction of Afghanistan. The situation is extremely fluid, and delicate negotiations are in progress. This Chamber is not the appropriate place for such a sensitive discussion. Today is also not the time to discuss all the details of the long- term economic reconstruction package for the region. Once the immediate refugee crisis is dealt with, there will be plenty of opportunity to deal with the nitty-gritty of how best to help the people in the region rebuild their lives. I will not presume to lay out a long-term agenda today. But some of the foremost items on such an agenda might include the following: Creation of secular schools, both in Pakistan and Afghanistan, to break the stranglehold of radical religious seminaries that have polluted a whole generation of Afghan boys. The Taliban movement is an outgrowth of this network of extremist seminaries, a network which has been funded by militant forces around the world and has fed off the lack of secular educational opportunities. We can also be involved in the restoration of women's rights. The Taliban created a regime more hostile to the rights of women than any state in the whole world. Women under Taliban rule have been deprived of even the most basic of human rights. A critical element of the new school system, I should emphasize, will be providing equal education for girls and boys alike. If Afghan girls and women do not have a chance to go to school, they will never be able to have the rights they are so cruelly denied now by the Taliban. De-mining operations: Afghanistan is the world's most heavily mined country. Clearing these mines will take time, money, and expertise. Until these fields are cleared, farmers--whether currently trapped in refugee camps or trapped by drought--cannot start farming their land. Creation of full-scale hospitals and village medical clinics in Afghanistan and throughout the region. As in the case of schools, the absence of such services has created a void filled by radical groups. People sometimes ask why extremist organizations have been so successful in recruiting support in the Muslim world. Let me tell you, they don't do it all by hate. Many militant groups provide valuable social services in order to gain goodwill, and then twist that goodwill to vicious ends. Another thing we can provide is a crop substitution program for narcotics. This week, the Taliban reversed its short-lived ban on growing opium. As part of a long-term solution, we have to help the Afghan farmers find a new way to support their families. We cannot let Afghanistan resume its place as the world's No. 1 source of heroin. Building basic infrastructure: Just as Saddam manipulated images of war in Iraq, the Taliban could have success doing the same. We have to counter this effort by drilling wells, building roads, providing technical expertise, and a whole range of development projects. We are portrayed as bringing destruction to the region. We must fight that perception: we must prove to the world that we are not a nation of destruction, but of reconstruction. This afternoon, the members of the Foreign Relations Committee and I had a very productive meeting with the Secretary of State. Everything I have said here today is an attempt to support Secretary Powell and President Bush in their efforts to send the world a simple message: Our fight is against terrorism--not against Islam. We oppose the Taliban not the Afghan people. We stand ready as a great nation, as a generous nation, as a nation that has led the world in the past, a nation whose word is its bond, and we stand ready to match our words with our actions. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. I ask unanimous consent to proceed up to 22 minutes.

Mr. BIDEN. Are we in morning business?

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I compliment the chairman and ranking member of the Commerce Committee for work on airline safety. I know my friend from South Carolina feels strongly about port safety and rail safety as well. However, I say to my colleague, who happens to be presiding today and was a former board member of Amtrak, I am, as the saying goes, tired of getting stiffed around here. I have been a Senator for 28\1/2\ years. I have tried over that 28\1/2\ years to put Amtrak in a position where it can run safely, securely, and efficiently. I have gotten promise after promise after promise of support and cooperation, and always procedurally I end up being in a position where Amtrak gets left out. Let's talk about security for a moment. The Senator from Delaware and I don't have a major airport; we have a large airport but no major commercial airport in our State. We fly commercially in and out of Philadelphia or Baltimore, sometimes. We know how important air safety is. We know how important to our economy it is. I note, by the way, with all the difficulty, understandably, of the airlines--there is apprehension on behalf of the American people to get on an airplane, with the necessary cancellations of flights because they don't have enough people flying--there has been standing room only on Amtrak trains, we are putting more and more trains in the northeast corridor, and there is standing room only on most of them. I ask my friends, parenthetically, what would have happened to our economic system if, in fact, we had had no rail passenger service since September 11? You think you have a problem now? You ``ain't'' seen nothing yet. I, along with my colleague from Delaware, and others, went to Amtrak and asked: Have you reviewed your safety needs? They said: Yes, we have. I said: Put together a package for us that lays out in some detail the concerns you have relative to safety, security, and terrorism. I note parenthetically, I served on the Intelligence Committee for 10 years. I have been chairman of the Judiciary Committee for the better part of a decade. I have been on a terrorism committee or subcommittee since I arrived in the Senate in the 1970s. I will say something presumptuous: No one here knows more about terrorism than I do. I don't know it all, but I have worked my entire career trying to understand the dilemma. I now chair the Foreign Relations Committee. I made a speech literally the day before this happened at the National Press Club, saying our greatest priority was dealing with terrorism, and laid out in detail what might happen. I am not the only one. I will make an outrageous statement: My bona fides in knowing as much about what terrorists are doing, are likely to do, and being informed are equal to anyone's on this floor, or who has ever served in the Senate, or who is now serving. I may not know more, but I don't know anybody who knows more than I do. I am saying what will happen next is not going to be another airliner into a building. It will be an Amtrak train. It will be in the Baltimore Tunnel which was built before the Civil War. Do you realize--my colleague knows this--if you have a Metroliner and an ``Am fleet'' in that tunnel at one time, you have more people in there than in five packed 747s? Guess what. There is no ventilation in there. None. There is no lighting. There are no fire hoses. I can go on and on and on. In New York City, the Amtrak Penn Station, do you know how many people go through those tunnels, which also have no ventilation, that are underground, and have little or no security? Three hundred and fifty thousand people a day--three hundred and fifty thousand people a day. As one of my colleagues said in an earlier meeting I had downstairs with those concerned about Amtrak, not the least of whom is my colleague presiding--he said what we are doing on airport security and airline security is acting after the horse is out of the barn. We are. And we have to. And we should. And I will. But God forbid the horse gets out of another barn. We have a chance now--now, not after there is some catastrophe on our passenger rail system--to do something. I remind my colleagues, the First Street tunnel in D.C. runs under the Supreme Court of the United States and runs under the Rayburn Building. It was built in 1910. There is only one way out: Walk out. No ventilation. Not sufficient lighting, signals, security. I said in that Press Club speech the day before the airline crashed into the trade towers and brought them down, it is much more likely someone will walk into a subway with a vial of sarin gas than someone sending an ICBM our way. I will repeat that: It is much more likely. Do you think these guys are stupid? Obviously, they are not stupid. They figured out if they added enough jet fuel to two of the most magnificent buildings man ever created, they could create enough heat to melt the beams and crush the building. Do you think these same folks have not sat down and figured out our vulnerabilities? Everybody is worried about our water system, a legitimate thing to worry about. We can monitor the water system before it gets to your tap. What do you monitor in tunnels, 6 of them, that have 350,000 people a day going through them, in little cars, with no way to get out, underground? My heart bleeds for my friends who tell me to be concerned about their airports. I am concerned about them. When are people going to be concerned? We have 500 people, as my colleagues knows, on an Am-fleet train. I think that is about two 757s. I don't know that for a fact. That is one train. A lot of our colleagues rode up to New York City on Amtrak, because they couldn't fly, to observe the devastation. I hope they observed, while sitting in the tunnel, that in one case, over 141 years old, there was more than one train in that tunnel. Two of these tunnels run under the Baltimore harbor. So last night our staffs got together. By the way, all those concerned about Amtrak safety are equally concerned about airline safety, and, I might add, port safety. Do you know how many cargo containers come into the port of Philadelphia or even the little port of Wilmington? Probably the only man who knows that is my colleague presiding, the former Governor. My Lord. So we sat down last night. We thought we had a reasonable discussion, all those parties interested. We got a commitment. OK, we will bring up port safety and Amtrak safety measures and we will guarantee, to use the Senate jargon, a vehicle. In other words, we will vote for it on something we know is not going to get killed, like they kill everything else that has to do with Amtrak. So I said OK, I will not introduce this amendment on the airline bill. I will not do it. By the way, I want to make it clear I got full support from the chairman of the committee. He supports our effort. So I came in this morning, about to go out, take my committee down to meet with the Secretary of State for a 2-hour lunch to go over these terrorist issues--not about Amtrak but about Afghanistan and the surrounding area--and as I am leaving I find out through my staff member who handles this issue: Guess what. We really have no deal. So I call the leadership. The leadership says: Joe, we can't guarantee you can get this up. Now I gather up the Members of the Senate who have a great concern about the safety issues relating to Amtrak and some say: Joe, will you dare hold up the airline bill? Would you dare do that? My response is: Would they dare not to take on our amendment? Would they dare not take on our amendment, after being told--which I will be telling my colleagues about for the next several hours, although I am not going to speak that long now, I say to my friend from Missouri, so he can speak--would they dare take the chance of not helping us? Will they dare? Will my colleagues dare to take the chance that they are going to let another horse out of the barn this time? Will they dare? This is serious business. This is business as serious as I have ever been engaged in as a U.S. Senator. If I act as if I am angry, it is because I am. Not only angry, I am really disappointed. I would have thought in this moment when we are embracing each other in the sense that we are helping each of our regions deal with their serious problems--I was so, so, so overjoyed; having been here for the bailout of New York City in the 1970s, I was so gratified to see my friends from the South and the Midwest and the Northwest come to New York's aid instantaneously. I said, my God, this is really a change. It is really a change in attitude because America has been struck. We come to the floor with an amendment that does two things: One, provides for more police, more lighting, more fencing, more cameras, et cetera, and provides for us to take equipment out of storage and refurbish it so we can handle all those passengers who are not flying, and what is the response? Either ``No'' or ``Another day, Senator.'' I have had it up to here with another day. As I said, and I will have a lot more to say about this in the next couple of days, there are six tunnels in New York, 350,000 people per day locked inside a steel case called a car, going through those tunnels. Those tunnels have insufficient lighting. They were built decades ago. They do not have the proper signaling for emergencies. They do not have the proper ventilation. They do not have the proper safety in terms of guards. You are talking about air marshals on an airplane with as few as 50 people on it. I am for that. And you are telling me you are not going to give me the equivalent of an air marshal at either end of a tunnel that has 350,000 people a day go through it? Where is your shame? The Baltimore tunnel was built in 1870, just after--I said ``before'' and I misspoke--just after the Civil War. By the way, you would not be able to build these tunnels today. I want to make sure that is clear to everybody. Under EPA construction standards, you could not build these tunnels. They would not allow it to be done just for normal safety reasons. I have been crying about this for the last 15 years, about just normal safety problems--not terrorists, just a fire in the tunnel as you had in Baltimore. All of you who live, love, and work in Washington, there is a tunnel that Amtrak trains, MARC trains and other trains come through in DC. It is called the First Street tunnel in DC. It was built in 1910. All you need is one Amfleet train in there and one Metroliner in there--and there are more than two at a time--and you have over 800 people locked in a steel canister in a tunnel that was built in 1910, that sits directly underneath the Supreme Court of the United States of America and the Rayburn Building. I am not suggesting I know his position, but I suspect his reaction if I told my friend from Missouri, St. Louis: Guess what. I am not going to spend Delaware money making sure there are guards or added security at the St. Louis Airport. I am not going to do it. You are on your own, Sucker. I am not going to do that. I am not going to beef up security. We can get on an Amtrak train with a bomb. No one checks. There are no detectors to go through to get on a train. There are no security measures. We do not even have enough Amtrak police for the cars. If I said to my friends in St. Louis and Philadelphia and Seattle and Atlanta and Miami--we use the same standard for the airlines. Under ordinary circumstances, you might be able to say to me: Joe, it is too expensive. You just have to take your chances. We have the Attorney General saying to people that there is more to come. How many of my colleagues out here have said: ``It is not only if but when the next biological or chemical attack takes place''? If you are going to have a biological or chemical attack, in case you haven't figured it out, the more confined the space, the more devastating the damage. Like I said, I will come back to speak to this. What we are asking for is lighting, fencing, access controls for tunnels, bridges and other facilities, satellite communications on trains, remote engine turnoff, and hiring of police and security officers. That adds up to $515 million, and it doesn't even do it all. Tunnel safety, rehabilitating existing tunnels in Baltimore and Washington and completing the entire life safety system of New York tunnels, that is $998 million. The total security all by itself is $1.513 billion. That does not deal with the capacity on bridges and tracks to account for the 20 percent increase in ridership because the airlines aren't moving, or the equipment capacity to be able to carry these people safely--just the safety of the cars themselves. I tell you what. We all stood up here and we bailed out the airlines and their executives the other day to the tune of--I forget the number--$15 billion, and we did it in a heartbeat or, as they say, in a New York minute. And we cannot even now come along and deal in this bill with the workers of the airlines. But that is another fight. Here we are with this simple, straightforward request. This isn't a 1-year undertaking. This is a permanent investment. Unless all of you are so sure that there is no more terrorist activity underway, unless all of you are so sure that in case it is--by the way, we carry in the Northeast more passengers than every single plane that lands on the east coast in a day. Have you got that? This is not fair. This is not smart. It is not right to block our ability to have a guarantee that the Nation and the Congress speak on this issue. As I said, it is a little like preaching to the choir. I know my colleague from Delaware, as the old saying goes, has forgotten more about the details of Amtrak, having been a board member, than even I know, having used it for 28 years. But I sincerely hope there is a change of heart. I don't want to slow up the passing of the airplane safety bill. I just want the people of my State to know that the people of my region are going to be treated as fairly as everybody else. Give them a basic shot at security--just a basic shot at security. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, today I am submitting a resolution designating October 19, 2001, as ``National Mammography Day.'' I am pleased that 62 of my colleagues have endorsed this proposal by agreeing to be original cosponsors. I might note that I have submitted a similar resolution each year since 1993, and on each occasion the Senate has shown its support for the fight against breast cancer by approving the resolution. Each year, as I prepare to submit this resolution, I review the latest information from the American Cancer Society about breast cancer. For the year 2001, it is estimated that over 192,000 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer and slightly fewer than 41,000 women will die of this disease. In past years, I have often commented on how gloomy these statistics were. But as I review how these numbers are changing over time, I have come to the realization that it is really more appropriate to be upbeat about this situation. The number of deaths from breast cancer is falling from year to year. Early detection of breast cancer continues to result in extremely favorable outcomes: 97 percent of women with localized breast cancer will survive 5 years or longer. New digital techniques make the process of mammography much more rapid and precise than before. Government programs will provide free mammograms to those who can't afford them, as well as Medicaid eligibility for treatment if breast cancer is diagnosed. Information about treatment of breast cancer with surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy has exploded, reflecting enormous research advances in this disease. So I am feeling quite positive about our battle against breast cancer. A diagnosis of breast cancer is not a death sentence, and I encounter long-term survivors of breast cancer nearly daily. And the key to this success is early diagnosis and treatment, with routine periodic mammography being the linchpin of the entire process. Routine mammography can locate a breast cancer as much as 2 years before it would be detectable by self-examination. A study released just this year showed that periodic screening mammography reduces breast cancer mortality by a whopping 63 percent. The statistics tell the story: the number of breast cancer deaths is declining despite an increase in the number of breast cancer cases diagnosed. More women are getting mammograms, more breast cancer is being diagnosed, and more of these breast cancers are discovered at an early and highly curable stage. So my message to women is: have a periodic mammogram. Earl diagnosis saves lives. But I know many women don't have annual mammograms, usually because of either fear or forgetfulness. Some women avoid mammograms because they are afraid of what they will find. To these women, I would say that if you have periodic routine mammograms, and the latest one comes out positive, even before you have any symptoms or have found a lump on self-examination, you have reason to be optimistic, not pessimistic. Such early-detected breast cancers are highly treatable. Let me consider an analogous situation. We know that high blood pressure is a killer, and we are all advised to get our blood pressure checked from time to time. Are we afraid to do this? No. Why not? Because we know that even if high blood pressure is detected on a screening examination, it can be readily and successfully treated. We also know that high blood pressure is not going to go away by itself, so if we have it, we should find out about it, get it treated, and move ahead with our lives. The argument for having periodic routine mammograms to detect breast cancer is similar. Most of the time, the examination is reassuringly negative. But if it is positive, and your previous routine mammograms were negative, it meant that this cancer has been detected early on, when it has a high chance of being cured. And then there is forgetfulness. I certainly understand how difficult it is to remember to do something that only comes around once each year. I would suggest that this is where ``National Mammography Day'' comes in. This year, National Mammography Day falls on Friday, October 19, right in the middle of National Breast Cancer Awareness Month. On that day, let's make sure that each woman we know picks a specific date on which to get a mammogram each year, a date that she won't forget: a child's birthday, an anniversary, perhaps even the day her taxes are due. On National Mammography Day, let's ask our loved ones: pick one of these dates, fix it in your mind along with a picture of your child, your wedding, or another symbol of that date, and promise yourself to get a mammogram on that date every year. Do it for yourself and for the others that love you and want you to be a part of their lives for as long as possible. I urge my colleagues to join me in the ongoing fight against breast cancer by cosponsoring and voting for this resolution to designate October 19, 2001, as National Mammography Day.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, we in Delaware, the first State to ratify the Constitution, take great pride in our history, and a special part of that history is represented by the City of New Castle, which is celebrating its 350th anniversary this year. New Castle was founded by the Dutch in 1651 as Fort Casimir. Because of its strategic location on what is now the Delaware River, the settlement was sought and held by a series of colonial powers, the Dutch, the Swedes and, finally, the British. When William Penn was given authority over the so-called ``lower three counties,'' which became the State of Delaware, he traveled to New Castle to take possession. When the counties were granted an independent legislature, New Castle became the colonial capital, and briefly, the first State capital, of Delaware. Despite a devastating fire in 1824, which destroyed many of the structures on the historic, river-front street called The Strand, and all the changes and pressures of the intervening years, New Castle's colonial history is still a defining and very visible part of the town's life and character. Several of its remaining colonial era buildings have been converted into museums, including the Dutch House, which dates to the 17th Century, and the Old Court House, which was built in 1732 and was the meeting place for the colonial and State assemblies from that year until 1777. George Read was one of three signers of the Declaration of Independence who lived in New Castle; although his house was destroyed by the Great Fire, the current Read House, which was built by his son in 1801, is one of the most striking attractions of the town. But New Castle itself is not a museum. It is a residential town, it is a vibrant community. New Castle is home to two churches that date back to the earliest part of the 18th Century, and they have active congregations today. Families live in the homes that were built so long ago, families who add their own mark to those of previous owners, with a sensitivity and obligation to preserve the unique character of the town, New Castle is, not surprisingly, a National Landmark Historic Area. With its history as a colonial seat for the legislature and the courts, New Castle has a tradition of political activity and public leadership, and many of its citizens have played prominent roles throughout the history of Delaware and our nation. In addition, as a personal point, although I know it is a perspective shared by many Delawareans, New Castle is one of my favorite places in our State. It is more than historic and scenic; it is, simply, beautiful, a place where the past and present meet with remarkable harmony and spirit. It is inspiring. I share the pride of Delaware with the Senate, and with the Nation, today, in marking the 350th anniversary of the founding of New Castle, and I am proud to extend congratulations and best wishes to the mayor, city council, trustees and all the citizens and friends of the town, which is a valued and unique treasure to us all.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I apologize to my colleagues and to my constituents for being absent from the Senate this morning, and especially for missing the vote on the Military Construction Appropriations bill. I was attending one of the, tragically, many funeral services being conducted across the country. If my colleagues will permit me a point of personal privilege, this funeral service had a special and profound impact on me, for the victim was a brilliant young man who was the oldest son, and best friend, of one of my very good friends, Davis Sezna. The young man who was killed on the 104th floor of the World Trade Center's Tower II, where he had arrived on September 11th for just his sixth day of work there, was Davis Grier Sezna, Jr., known to his family and to all who loved him as ``Deeg.'' His parents, Gail and Davis Sezna, are community leaders in Delaware; they are people I admire and respect; and, again, they are my good friends. Deeg is also survived by a younger brother, Willy, who is a senior in high school, and by his grandmother, Mrs. W.W. Sezna, his grandparents, Mr. and Mrs. H.G. Ingersoll, and numerous aunts, uncles and cousins and seemingly countless friends. As inconceivable as it is, Deeg, who was 22 years old, was predeceased by his youngest brother, Teddy, who died in a boating accident last year at the age of 15. So the Sezna family has been struck twice by the sudden, tragic death of a healthy, vibrant and much loved son, brother and grandson. Like so many of our fellow citizens, they were so full of life, and then they were gone. As inconceivable as the tragedy is, even more remarkable to me is the way in which the Sezna family has responded to loss that would cripple many people's faith and spirit. When Deeg was still listed as ``missing,'' they held onto hope as long as they could, joining the legions of loved ones in New York, searching hospitals and talking with the rescue workers and local officials, determined to do everything they humanly could, and asking for God's help, for themselves and for others. As Davis said then, ``It would be very selfish at a time like this for anyone to just pray for themselves. We need to pray for all of us. We're not in this alone.'' When it became undeniable that everything had been done, and that there was no more hope of bringing Deeg home alive, his family continued to reach out to others. This grieving father, who had been in the boat accident in which his youngest son was lost and who had been on the streets of New York searching for his oldest son, this man, who had more reason to feel despair and rage and fear and to just give up than almost anyone, he called me and said, ``I will go and stand with you anywhere, any time, any place to tell people, `Don't be afraid.' '' With those words, Davis Sezna became more than my friend, he became one of my heroes. When you feel like your world is ending, and I don't know what can do that more than the death of a child, there is immeasurable courage behind the power to believe in the future. In one of the great inspirations I have ever known, the Sezna family still believes; as Davis told Sports Illustrated, when they interviewed him for a profile on Deeg as one of the athletes killed in the terrorist attacks, all the Seznas have been great golfers, ``I live for tomorrow. I'm inspired by tomorrow. There will always be tomorrow.'' In our efforts to respond to the events of September 11th, I can think of no higher goal for us as a nation, than to endeavor to justify the Sezna family's courageous faith in tomorrow. And I ask unanimous consent that the complete text of the Sports Illustrated profile be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I was unable to be here for an earlier vote today. I was at the funeral of a brave young American, Aerographer's Mate Second Class Matthew Michael Flocco, whose life was one of those so tragically ended at the Pentagon on September 11. I believed it was important to be there with the family, to make sure they knew that America shares in their grief and stands ready to assist them in any way we can.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, the fiscal year 2002 National Defense Authorization Act that was reported out of the Committee on Armed Services was a good bill. In particular, it included important provisions regarding missile defense. It required prior Congressional approval of any activities during the next fiscal year that are barred by the ABM Treaty. This provision assured Congress its proper role in any decision to walk away from a cornerstone of strategic stability which has served the United States well for the past 30 years. It strengthened transparency and Congressional oversight over the Administration's missile defense programs. If the Congress is to authorize billions of dollars for national missile defense, we deserve a clear blueprint for how the administration will spend that money. And it reallocated $1.3 billion from missile defense to other pressing defense priorities. As a result of the managers' amendment adopted last week, the first two provisions were dropped. The third one was altered to permit the President to spend the $1.3 billion on missile defense or on counter- terrorism. As every other Member, I understand the need to forge a unity of purpose in fighting the difficult war which lies ahead. That is why I did not prevent action on the managers' amendment last week. Let the record show, however, that I strongly disagree with the decision to delete those very sensible provisions. The prior approval provision did nothing to prohibit the President from withdrawing the United States from an international treaty. Nor did it prohibit the Department of Defense from undertaking any activity in violation of the ABM Treaty. Rather, it simply enabled the Congress to exercise its rightful power of the purse to approve or disapprove the use of funds for any DoD activity barred by a major U.S. treaty. I believe that the President has the constitutional authority to withdraw from a treaty in the face of congressional silence. I also believe, however, that Congress must exercise its appropriate responsibility. That is why it was also a mistake, in my view, to delete the missile defense transparency provisions in this bill. Finally, in my view, there is no question how marginal dollars must be spent. The tragic and unconscionable attacks of September 11, 2001, have thrust upon us a war that we absolutely must win, not only for our own sake, but for all civilized nations. The wisdom of any element of defense spending must be evaluated in that light. As President Bush has made clear, this war will be complex. The battle to dry up terrorist funding will be as crucial as any military offensive. Both battles may hinge on the support we receive from other countries. President Bush has done a wonderful job of turning world reaction into positive and specific support for an effective campaign against international terrorism and those who aid and abet it. That is precisely what is needed. Today, that international support is broad and strong, at least in words. It extends from NATO to Russia, Pakistan, and even North Korea. We must maintain and strengthen that international coalition, however, in the months, and years, to come. Russia may very well play a crucial role in any military action against Osama bin Laden or those who aid him in Afghanistan. By virtue of both geography and its involvement in the region, Russia can do much to aid or hinder our operations. Already, some of its military leaders are cautioning against military action that we may find essential to the defeat of terrorism. What will happen, if the President chooses this time to walk away from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in the face of Russian objections? Russia's official stance is that anti-terrorism is a separate issue, and that cooperation will continue. But I fear that both military and public opinion in Russia could shift substantially against cooperation with the United States. Neither can we take our European allies for granted. Their governments overwhelmingly oppose any unilateral abandonment of the ABM Treaty. Even Prime Minister Tony Blair, the leader of our staunchest ally, warned that Great Britain's support was not a ``blank check.'' Alliance cohesion requires our willingness, too, to cooperate with other nations in pursuit of a common aim. Our leadership role in the battle against terrorism is clear today, but will be maintained in this conflict only by convincing others of both our wisdom and our care to take their concerns into account. That is why precipitate actions to deploy a missile defense, such as our unilateral withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, could undermine our vital war efforts. A defense against ICBM's will have little impact on international terrorism. Terrorists are not likely to develop or acquire such weapons and the complex launch facilities that they require. Rather, terrorists are likely to seek to attack the United States through infiltration, smuggling in a nuclear weapon in a ship into a city's harbor or carrying lethal pathogens in a backpack. A national missile defense would do nothing to defend against these more likely threats. Indeed, too much investment in it now could drain needed resources from the war effort, not just in money, but also in technical manpower and production capability. Let me give some examples of how $1.3 billion could be used to further the war on terrorism: The greatest threat of a nuclear weapons attack on the United States is from a weapon smuggled into the United States. Terrorists cannot build such a weapon, but they could hope to buy one. According to the bipartisan Baker-Cutler task force report issued earlier this year, Russia has tens of thousands of nuclear weapons, sensitive nuclear materials and components. Some are secure, but others are not. Some nuclear facilities don't even have barbed wire fences to keep out potential terrorists. The task force called for spending $30 billion over the next 8 to 10 years, to address what it called ``the most urgent unmet national security threat to the United States today.'' Biological terrorism is a real threat to both our military personnel and our civilian population. It is a challenge we can sensibly face, but only if we invest in the necessary preparation today. For instance, the Department of Defense should produce or acquire the necessary vaccines and antibiotics to protect our armed forces against a range of pathogens. It should assist civilian agencies in procuring and stockpiling similar medicines for emergency use. According to Dr. Fred Ikle, who testified at a Foreign Relations Committee hearing earlier this month, $300 to $500 million will be needed just to ramp up our vaccine stockpile. This is a common-sense response to an otherwise frightening threat. The Department of Defense should also test and procure inexpensive bio-hazard masks that could save lives both in the event of a terrorist attack and through everyday use in military hospitals. By conducting the necessary testing and creating an initial market for such masks, the Defense Department will pave the way for use of these masks in our civilian health care system. A more immediate step to help our armed forces would be to improve the security of our domestic military bases and installations. Many of them lack the basic anti-terrorism protections that our overseas bases have. Another war-related need is to speed up the Large Aircraft Infra-Red Counter-Measures program that gives our military transport aircraft increased protection against surface-to-air missiles. We gave Afghan groups hundreds of Stinger missiles in the 1980's, and scores of them could be in the Taliban's inventory today. We owe it to our fighting men and women to give them maximum protection as they move into combat or potentially hostile staging areas. Winning the war on terrorism, a war that we face here and now, is infinitely more important than pouring concrete in Alaska or an extra $1.3 billion into combating the least likely of threats. We can take the time to perfect our technology and to reach understandings with Russia and China that will minimize the side- effects of missile defense. But we have precious little time to do what is essential: to win the war against terrorism, to dry up the supply of Russian materials or technology, or to prepare our military, our intelligence community, our health care system, and our first responders to deal with a chemical or biological weapons attack by the terrorists of tomorrow. In the fury of the moment, Congress will let the President have the final say on the use of these funds. So be it. It will be up to the President to take the sensible course. In the midst of a war, let us not be diverted by the least likely threat. Let us turn our attention, our energies, and our resources to winning the war that is upon us, and to building our defenses against terrorism of all sorts.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, my mom has an expression: Out of every tragedy, something good will come if you look hard enough. I know the Presiding Officer, if he will forgive this point of personal reference, has had his share of personal tragedy. Everyone in this Chamber has. Some of us have gotten those phone calls that the people in New York are getting from cell phones and/or from a police officer and/or from a morgue. We know there is not a darn thing we can do now for those people except--it is strange the way human nature works, and I know the Presiding Officer knows this--except it is amazing how those people in that circumstance draw strength from the knowledge that other people understand their pain, that other people empathize with them, that other people care about what they are going through. It amazes me that you can draw strength from that. I think what we are doing and the Nation is doing is the right thing. Most important, what we did today should be noted is not likely to occur in any other country in the world, and that is, that we just a few moments ago operated under the rule of law. In all our anger, all our frustration, all our feelings, very bluntly, of hatred that exists now for those who perpetrated the act against us, we did not pell-mell just say: Go do anything, anytime, anyplace, Mr. President; you have to just go. We operated as our Founders, who were not naive people, intended us to operate. We operated under the rule of law. We went to our civil bible, the Constitution, and we said: What does it call for here? What it calls for is the U.S. Congress to meet its constitutional responsibility, to say: Mr. President, we authorize you, in the name of the American people, to take action, and we define the action in generic terms which you can take. We gave the President today, as we should have and as is our responsibility, all the authority he needs to prosecute war against the individuals or countries responsible, without yielding our constitutional right to retain the judgment in the future as to whether or not force against others could, should, or would be used. That is remarkable. I suspect not many people know, other than my distinguished colleague, the Senator from Texas, a former professor, one of the brightest guys with whom I ever worked, unfortunately leaving the Senate at the end of his term; what the leading scholar in the Senate, Senator Byrd, knows and what the experienced Senator from Alaska knows. My friend from Oklahoma is the only one in this place who can fully understand, I suspect, along with his Oklahoma colleague, what our friends from New Jersey, New York, Virginia, the District, and Maryland are going through. He understands it. He has internalized it. He knows it. I believe it is fairly remarkable that, in spite of the reasons for the attack on us and our way of life, we adhered to the rule of law; that even in this calamity, we acted with dispatch but under the law, under the Constitution. The resolution provides the President clear authority ``to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons that he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.'' In short, the President is authorized to go after those responsible for the barbaric acts of September 11, 2001 to ensure that those same actors do not engage in additional acts of international terrorism against the United States. The authority permits the President wide latitude to use force against the broad range of actors who were responsible for the September 11 attacks. If any nation harbored the terrorists while they were in training, that nation may be subject to American military power. If a nation or organization financed the operation, they may be subject to American military power. It does not limit the amount of time that the President may prosecute this action against the parties guilty for the September 11 attacks. We must all understand that the use of force will not be easy or quick. In extending this broad authority to cover those ``planning, authorizing, committing, or aiding the attacks'' it should go without saying, however, that the resolution is directed only at using force abroad to combat acts of international terrorism. The authority granted is focused on those responsible for the attacks of September 11. The President's lawyers originally proposed that the resolved clause also include language authorizing military force to ``deter and pre-empt any future acts of terrorism against the United States.'' Of course, the President has the Constitutional authority to deter terrorism through a broad range of means, including diplomatic measures, economic sanctions, seizing of financial assets, or deployment of forces. The President must also ensure that Executive Branch agencies devote the necessary resources and apply the full measure of the federal criminal laws to deter, prevent and punish terrorism. Further, the President has the authority under the Constitution to use force to pre-empt an imminent attack, including a terrorist attack, against the United States. Rather than purporting to extend these authorities in the resolved clause, the final whereas clause reflects these recognized powers of the President. I suggest what others have said, and that is, the President of the United States has our prayers, he has our good wishes, and he has our commitment under the Constitution now to support him in what action he takes as defined by the authority he has. That is a big deal. It is a big deal. It is worth noting. Lastly, I compliment the President on his patience, on his resolve, and his understanding of the need of certitude because the worst thing we can do, as he is uniting the world, is to act precipitously to meet our instinct for response immediately. I compliment him. I compliment his Secretary of State for the way he is handling this situation. I conclude by saying that I do not see what happened on the 11th as the beginning of the end of our way of life. I see it as the beginning of the end of terrorism as it has been able to be spawned over the last three decades. The world has come face to face with the reality that nation states, no matter what their ideological disposition, are all in jeopardy. We are united in understanding that we cannot allow these networks to be spawned. I thank my colleagues for allowing me to speak at this moment. Again, I compliment them all, Democrat and Republican, in the way we have stood united. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, September 12, 2001, at 11:00 a.m. SH-216, for a hearing regarding ``How Secure is Our Critical Infrastructure?''

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. I understand the Senator from Mississippi has a statement he wishes to make first.

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I say to my colleague from North Carolina, we have on our side 10 minutes now, but one of our colleagues has to go to California and one up to New Jersey because of so many folks involved in the Trade Tower. If they can split their 10 minutes, will it be all right to have them go in succession? I spoke with the Senator from Mississippi about this.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I yield myself up to 10 minutes to speak.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I cannot think of any other legislative body in the world where we would hear the speech we just heard by the junior Senator from Virginia, where his heart is aching, many in his constituency have died. Part of the building in his State is still burning. In the ultimate American way, he called at the end of his speech for not abrogating the basic cherished liberties that this Nation has. I doubt whether one would hear that in any other assembly in the world after such an attack, and I compliment him for it. My heart and my sympathy go out to our colleagues from New York and Virginia in particular, but all those who have had their fellow citizens and their constituents victimized by this act. This is a time to mourn but not to despair, a time for resolve but not remorse, a time for sober investigation and not recrimination, and a time to unite, not to debate. Some have said yesterday and today that all has changed, all has changed for America. I know what they mean by that, and I respect their view, but I pray that is not true. I pray that is not true. I pray my junior colleague from Virginia is correct when he says the one thing we cannot allow to change is the values upon which this country is built, for if that were to occur, then they would be able to declare victory, genuine victory. I predict one thing has changed, though. I respectfully suggest the way of life of present and future terrorists has changed forever. The future of organized terrorist cells is about to welcome the 21st Century in a way they never anticipated, for in this dastardly act they may have done what no other group of people could possibly have done, and that is to unite the civilized world, unite our allies in Europe who share our values, unite our Russian friends, our Chinese friends, unite the world, because that image of that plane smashing into the second tower has reverberated around the world and every leader in every country can picture the same thing happening in their nation. I recently visited China with three of my colleagues. They have buildings in China as tall or taller than the World Trade Center. I can picture the President of China sitting there envisioning the same thing happening. So I do not think all of a sudden there has been a conversion of democratic zeal on the part of those who are not often thought of as our allies to resolve with us to fight worldwide terrorism, but it is a reflection of the reality that the world has changed in a way that we all are vulnerable. A further reality is that no one could have undertaken this very well planned, and regrettably well executed, terrorist act without an extensive network, without a place in which to plan it that was within earshot and eyesight of some country, without some people who, by their inaction at a minimum and their complicity, allowed this to occur. There will be very few places to hide, I predict, from this moment on, for these are not the acts of a single man or a single woman. They are and they were and they will, if they try again, have to be well planned, well funded, and widely supported by dozens upon dozens of individuals and individual leaders. In speaking to the President, the Secretary of State, and other leaders in the administration, they are impressed by what they believe to be the heartfelt, sincere, and resolute offers of support to deal with terrorism that not only come from expected quarters such as England, France, Germany, Italy, and our European allies but from unexpected quarters. The word should go out to those who pretend they wish to be our friends that they are going to have to make some very difficult choices. Pakistan in particular is going to have to make a very difficult choice, very soon, for we are counting. We are counting and we are looking. Words will not be sufficient. Actions will be demanded. All of us say we will never let this happen again. Well, the act of a single individual strapping explosives to their body is probably something no one can ever guarantee will not happen, but dealing with well organized, well-funded, well-coordinated, massive actions is something that can be done only in a multilateral way, only internationally. No matter what we do, if we fail to lead the world in a multilateral unity of absolute resolve, I say to you, sadly, that this could happen again. But I am convinced it will not. Today, as it has for 212 years, the U.S. Congress has convened. Two miles down Pennsylvania Avenue, President Bush sits in the Oval Office leading the executive branch and the country in a wide-ranging investigation to find those who committed these barbarous acts. Around this city and around New York, dedicated public servants are back at their desks in Federal office buildings doing the people's business. New York--the city that never sleeps--has worked around the clock in search of survivors, and they will find some. Around the Nation, citizens of every age, every race, and every religion grieve for their fellow citizens. But they stand united. They stand united in support of our Nation, which has endured over two centuries against all enemies, foreign and domestic. They stand united in readiness to answer the call for their fellow neighbors. As Senator Clinton and Senator Schumer pointed out, they lined the blocks in New York City to give blood. I would be dumbfounded if you did not see black faces, Asian faces, Hispanic, every race, and every religion standing in that line. They stand united in support of the President of the United States, as do all of us here in the Senate. Much will be said today and in the days ahead about the appropriate responses to these heinous acts. But for now let me just say this. This is not a struggle over ideology. This is not a struggle over religion. This is a struggle between civilization and barbarity. Let there be no doubt that the United States and civilized nations of the world will unite and win this struggle. Our enemies will not, and can not, defeat us. This country will go on, deeply wounded by the loss of so many but strengthened by our resolve and our commitment to sustain this great democracy. I see in this cataclysmic tragedy the beginning of the end of organized and legitimized terrorist activities.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I yield to Senator Dorgan, who is next on our list.

Mr. BIDEN. I yield to the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy.

Mr. BIDEN. I thank the Senator from Mississippi. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes, or slightly more if he needs it, to the Senator from New Jersey. I thank him for accommodating the Senator from California as well.

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, we have a long list. I ask unanimous consent that the next person on the list be Senator Kerry to speak for 5 minutes and that we extend the recess for an additional 5 minutes.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, there has been a request, with which I agree, that we recess for up to 3 minutes. We were to hear from the distinguished Prime Minister of Australia, one of our strongest allies, a man who himself is in deep sympathy and mourning for this Nation, in a joint meeting. He is in the Chamber.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess for 3 minutes so that the Prime Minister of Australia may be greeted.