Floor Statements

Mr. President, let me begin by thanking the leaders for their kind comments. It is true that I have been here a long time, I say to my friend from Kentucky. As a matter of fact, I say to my friend from Hawaii, I remember the first time I stood on the floor as a Senator of the United States. It was the desk directly to your left, Senator, the top row, second in. It was temporarily my desk. I remember standing and being told that the desk on my right was the desk of Henry Clay and on my left Daniel Webster because the senior Senators from the respective States got those desks. I say to my friend from California, it was the only time I can remember being speechless when I stood there, as a 30-year-old kid, thinking: Oh, my God.

Well, I never thought I would be standing here today. I never believed serving in this Chamber was my destiny, but it always was a big part of my dreams.

I remember vividly the first time I walked in this Chamber, I walked through those doors, but I walked through those doors as a 21-year-old tourist. I had been down visiting some of my friends at Georgetown University. I went to the University of Delaware. I had a blind date with a young lady from a school they used to call Visi Visitation-- which is now part of Georgetown. My good friend, a guy named Dave Walsh, was there. After the evening, staying at his apartment, I got up and--I shouldn't say this probably, but I will--I don't drink. Not for moral reasons, I just never had a drink. There is nothing worse than being a sober guy with a bunch of college guys who have a hangover the next morning.

So I got up and decided to get in the car--this is a true story, Senator Carper--and I drove up to the Capitol. I had always been fascinated with it. In those days, you could literally drive right up to the front steps. I was 21 years old. This was 1963. I say to my friend from Iowa, I drove up to the steps and there had been a rare Saturday session. It had just ended. So I walked up the steps, found myself in front of what we call the elevators, and I walked to the right to the Reception Room. There was no one there. The glass doors, those French doors that lead behind the Chamber, were open. There were no signs then. I just walked

in. Literally, I walked in, and I walked in down here, and I came through those doors. I walked into the Chamber and the lights were still on and I was awestruck, literally awestruck. I don't know what in God's name made me do it, but I walked up, I say to my friend from Arkansas, and I sat in the Presiding Officer's chair. I was mesmerized.

The next thing I know, I feel this hand on my shoulder and the Capitol Policeman picks me up and says: What are you doing? After a few moments he realized I was just a dumbstruck kid. He didn't arrest me or anything. That was the first time I walked onto the Senate floor. It is literally a true story.

By the way, just 9, 10 years later, I walked through those same doors as a Senator. A Capitol Hill policeman stopped me walking in and he said: Do you remember me? I said: No, sir. He said: I welcome you back to the Senate. He was retiring. He used to be a Capitol Hill policeman. He was retiring 2 weeks later. He said: Welcome to the floor, legally.

Well, it is sort of fitting to the way I started my career here. I may not be a young man anymore, but I am still awestruck. I am still awestruck by this Chamber. I think it brings my career full cycle, to know that while I was once detained for sitting in the Presiding Officer's chair, I will now occasionally be detained in the Presiding Officer's chair as Vice President of the United States of America.

The Senate has been my life, and that is not hyperbole; it literally has been my life. I have been a Senator considerably longer than I was alive before I was a Senator. I may be resigning from the Senate today, but I will always be a Senate man. Except for the title ``father,'' there is no title, including Vice President, that I am more proud to wear than that of a Senator of the United States.

When I arrived here, giants--giants--loomed over the landscape of the Senate, people with names such as Danny Inouye, Hubert Humphrey, Ed Muskie, William Fulbright, Jacob Javits, Mike Mansfield, Stuart Symington, Scoop Jackson, Sam Ervin, John McClellan, Warren Magnuson, Claiborne Pell, and a few others who are still here: Bob Byrd, and the lion of the Senate, Ted Kennedy. In those days, chairmen dominated. Literally, as Senator Inouye will remember, if a chairman said he wanted a vote, almost without exception, every other chairman voted with that chairman on a vote on the floor of the Senate in 1973. But the old ways of doing business and the old ways of thinking were, at that very moment in the Senate's history, beginning to change.

As my colleagues know, there is a longstanding tradition in the Senate--I think honored in the breach now more than the rule--but when I got here in 1973, it was mandatory that a new Senator would pay respects to the ``old bulls of the Senate.'' I never dreamed I would be an old bull of the Senate.

I remember the first appointment I made. It was to go see Senator John Stennis, chairman then of the Armed Services Committee. I now have Senator Stennis's office. I remember I walked in--and Senator Stennis had a great and large mahogany conference table that was a gift from the President of the Philippines to Vice President Barkley for the liberation of the Philippines. He used it as his desk. He had a blotter at one end of it. It seated--I don't know how many people it seats--15 people. It was a desk with a group of leather chairs around it.

I walked in--and those who remember John Stennis, he talked at you like this when he talked; he always put his hand up like this--he looked at me and he said: Young man, sit down, sit down. And he patted the leather chair next to him, so I dutifully sat down. He said: Congratulations. He said: May I ask you a question? I said: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. He said, What made you run for the Senate? Being tactful, as I always am, I answered honestly without thinking. I said: Civil rights, sir. As soon as I did, I could feel the beads of perspiration pop out on my head, and I thought: Oh, my God. He looked at me and he said--absolutely true story--he said: Good, good, good. That was the end of the conversation. Well, that was 1973.

In 1988, time had transpired; he had become my good friend. We shared a hospital room, a hospital suite at Walter Reed for a number of months. He had lost his leg to cancer. It was during that period when President Bush was coming into office. As the tradition is, as all my colleagues know, you get to choose your offices based on seniority as they come up, as offices come open. I have always thought--we all think our offices are the finest--I always thought of his office, which had been the office of a man whom he never referred to by his first name that I can remember, and the man after whom the Russell Building is named, Chairman Russell. It had been his office.

I walked down to look at his office. It was that period in December when no one was around. The elections were over. I walked in, and I think his secretary of 30 some years--I think her name was Mildred. My memory is not certain on that, but I think her name was Mildred. I walked into the anteroom to his office, and all these boxes were piled up. He was packing up 40-some years of service.

She said: Senator, welcome. Welcome. You all are going to take our office?

I said--I think her name was Mildred: I don't know, Mildred, I am going to check. I said: Is the chairman in?

She said: No, you go right in the office.

I went in the office. Without her knowing it, Senator Stennis had come in through the other door of the hallway and was sitting there in his wheelchair in the same exact spot, with one leg, staring out the window of that office that looks out onto the Supreme Court.

I said: Oh, Mr. Chairman, I apologize. I apologize for interrupting.

He said: No, Joe, come in, sit down, sit down.

I sat down in that chair, and what astounded me, I say to Senator Boxer, is he looked at me and said: Joe, do you remember the first time you came to see me? I hadn't. I told this story about Senator Stennis to my friend from Mississippi before, as he walks on the floor.

He asked me: Do you remember?

I said: No, I don't.

He said: I asked you why you ran for the Senate.

I said: Oh, I remember. I was a smart, young fellow, wasn't I.

He looked at me and said: You all are going to take my office, aren't you, Joe? He caressed that table, the table he loved so much. He caressed it like it was an animate object.

He said: You are going to take my office?

I said: Yes, sir, I am.

He said: I wanted to tell you then in 1973, and I am going to tell you all, this table here was the flagship of the Confederacy.

If you read ``Masters of the Senate'' about Johnson's term, you will see in the middle of the book a picture of the table in my office with the famous old southern segregationist Senators sitting around that table chaired by Senator Russell.

He said: This was the flagship of the Confederacy. Every Tuesday, we gathered here under Senator Russell's direction to plan the demise of the civil rights movement from 1954 to 1968. It is time this table passes from a man who was against civil rights into the hands of a man who is for civil rights.

I found it genuinely, without exaggeration, moving. We talked a few more minutes. I got up and when I got to the door, he turned to me in the wheelchair and said: One more thing, Joe. The civil rights movement did more--more--to free the White man than the Black man.

I looked at him and said: Mr. Chairman, how is that? Probably Thad will only remember as well as I do.

He went like this: It freed my soul; it freed my soul.

Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, I can tell you that by his own account, John Stennis was personally enlarged by his service in the Senate. That is the power of this institution. Men and women who come to Washington, who come in contact with folks in different parts of the country that we represent, with slightly different cultural backgrounds, different religions, different attitudes about what makes this country great, all races, all religions, and it opens a door for change. I think it opens a door for personal growth, and in that comes the political progress this Nation has made.

I learned that lesson as a very young Senator. I got here in 1973, and one of the people, along with Danny and others on this floor who kept me here, was Mike Mansfield, the majority leader. He used to once a week have us report to his office, which is where the leader's office is on the other side. He really was doing it, in retrospect, to take my pulse, to see how I was doing.

I walked in one day through those doors on the Republican side, and a man who became my friend, Jesse Helms, and his wife Dot--who is still my close friend and I keep in contact with her--I walked through those doors, and Jesse Helms, who came in 1972 with me, was standing in the back excoriating Bob Dole for the Americans with Disabilities Act.

I walked through the floor on my way to my meeting with Senator Mansfield. I walked in and sat down on the other side of his desk. Some of you remember he smoked a pipe a lot of times when he was in his office. He had the pipe in his mouth and looked at me and said: Joe, looks like something is bothering you.

I said: Mr. Leader, I can't believe what I just heard on the floor of the Senate. I can't believe that anyone could be so heartless and care so little about people with disabilities. I tell you, it makes me angry, Mr. Leader.

He said: Joe, what would you say if I told you that 4 years ago, maybe 5, Dot Helms and Jesse Helms were reading, I think the Charlotte Observer, the local newspaper, and they saw a piece in the paper about a young man in braces who was handicapped at an orphanage. He was in his early teens. All the caption said was the young man wanted nothing more for Christmas than to be part of a family.

He said: What would you say if I told you Dot Helms and Jesse Helms adopted that young man as their own child?

I said: I would feel like a fool, an absolute fool.

He said: Well, they did.

He said: Joe, every man and woman sent here is sent here because their State recognizes something decent about them. It is easy to find the part you don't like. I think your job, Joe, is to find out that part that caused him to be sent here.

He said: Joe, never question another man's motive. Question his judgment but never his motive.

I think I can say without fear of contradiction, I have never questioned any one of your motives. I learned that lesson very early at the hands of iron Mike Mansfield who had more character in his little finger than the vast majority of people we know have in their whole bodies.

That advice has guided me, and hopefully well, and I hope it guides this Congress because those who are willing to look for the good in the other guy, the other woman, I think become better people and become better and more able legislators.

This approach allowed me to develop friendships I would never have expected would have occurred. I knew I would be friends with Danny Inouye who came to campaign for me. I knew I could be friends with Ted Kennedy. And I knew I could be friends with Fulbright and Humphrey and Javits, men with whom I shared a common view and a common philosophy. But I never thought--I never thought--I would develop deep personal relationships with men whose positions played an extremely large part in my desire to come to the Senate in the first place to change what they believed in--Eastland, Stennis, Thurmond. All these men became my friends.

As Senator Hatch will remember, I used to go over after every executive session of the Senate Judiciary Committee and go into Jim Eastland's office, which was catercorner, and sit down and he allowed me to ask him a lot of dumb questions as a young kid would want to ask: Who is the most powerful man you ever met, Senator? What is the most significant thing that has ever occurred since you have been here?

On that score, he looked at me and said: Air conditioning.

I said: I beg your pardon?

He said: The most significant thing that happened since I got here was air conditioning.

I thought: Wow, that is kind of strange.

He said: You know, Joe, before we had air conditioning, all that recessed lighting all used to be great big pieces of glass like in showers. He said: Come around May, that Sun--he used to use a little bit of profanity which I will not use for appropriate reasons--that darn Sun would beat down on that dome, hit that glass, act like a magnifying glass and heat up the Chamber, and we would all go home in May and June for the year. Then we put in air conditioning, stayed year round and ruined America.

(Laughter.)

Senator Stennis was my genuine friend. But one of the most unlikely friendships was Strom Thurmond. Some of you knew my relationship with Strom. Did I ever think when I got here I would become friends with Strom Thurmond? He stood for everything--I got started because of civil rights. Yet on his 100th birthday, certainly thereafter, on his death bed I got a phone call from his wife Nancy. She said: I am standing here at the nurse's station, Joe, with the doctor. I just left Strom. He asked me to call you. He wants a favor.

I said: Of course, Nancy, whatever he wants.

She said: He would like you to do his eulogy.

Well, I never thought in my wildest dreams that this place, these walls, the honor that resides, would put me in a position where a man whose career was one of the most interesting in modern American history asked me to do his eulogy. I never worked so hard on a eulogy in my whole life. I think I was completely truthful--truthful to the best of my knowledge.

As I said, he was a man who reflected the ages. He lived in three different ages, three different parts of American history. I remind people, which some will not remember, by the time he resigned, he had the highest percentage of African Americans working in his office as any Senator. He voted for the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. He had, in my view, I believe, changed.

This is an incredible place, I say to my colleagues, an incredible place. It has left me with the conviction that personal relationship is the one thing that unlocks the true potential of this place. Every good thing I have seen happen here, every bold step taken in the 36-plus years I have been here, came not from the application of pressure by interest groups but through the maturation of personal relationships.

Pressure groups can and are strong and important advocates, but they are not often vehicles for compromise. A personal relationship is what allows you to go after someone hammer and tongs on one issue and still find common ground on the next. It is the grease that lubricates this incredible system we have. It is what allows you to see the world from another person's perspective and allows them to take the time to see it from yours.

I am sure this has not been my experience alone. In a sense, I am probably preaching to the choir of the very men and women sitting in this Chamber who have experienced similar things.

One of the most moving things I ever saw in my life was on the floor of the Senate. The year was 1977. We were about to adjourn for the year. There was a vote cast, and as we all do, we assembled in the well to vote.

One of my personal heroes, Hubert Humphrey, was literally riddled with cancer. He died very shortly thereafter. He showed up, like Dewey Bartlett of Oklahoma, he showed up every single day knowing he literally had days to live. He walked down this aisle--because I was standing back here. I have been on this back row for years, with my good friend Fritz Hollings for 34 years.

He walked down the aisle, and as he did, Barry Goldwater came through the doors and was coming down the aisle to vote. Barry Goldwater and Hubert Humphrey shared virtually nothing in common philosophically. They had a pretty tough campaign in 1964. It got pretty rough. Barry Goldwater saw Hubert and walked up and gave him a big bear hug. He kissed him and Hubert Humphrey kissed him back. And they stood there in a tight embrace for minutes, both crying. It brought the entire Senate to tears. But to me--to me--it was the mark of a storied history of this place. Hubert loved it here. He once said:

The Senate is a place filled with good will and good

intentions, and if the road to hell is paved with them, then

this is a pretty good detour.

Friendship and death are great equalizers. Death will seek all of us at some point, but we must choose to seek friendship. I believe our ability to work together with people with whom we have real and deep and abiding disagreements, especially in these consequential times, is going to determine whether we succeed in restoring America. I think it is literally that fundamental and basic.

Things have changed a great deal since I first arrived here. There were no women in the Senate. Margaret Chase Smith had just retired and it would be 6 years until the next woman was elected in her own right, and that was Nancy Kassebaum. Today, there are 16 women in the Senate, and we need many more, but that is progress.

Our proceedings in those days were not televised. They didn't have fax machines, let alone e-mail. I remember the fights we used to have in conference about whether we would actually spend money for computers. Remember those fights? Some of the older guys thought: Computers? Why are we going to waste the taxpayers' money and put computers in our offices? I am almost embarrassed to acknowledge that. That makes me a ``pretty old dude,'' as the kids would say.

I often hear Senators lament today that the 24-hour news cycle and the need to go back home every weekend--or in my case every night-- makes it harder than it used to be to get to know one another, to share a meal. Not long after I first was elected, there was an accident in my family, and I didn't want to stay. Senators Humphrey and Kennedy and Mansfield and Hollings, among others, said: Just stay 6 months. It was not unusual in those days for there to be groups of Senators who, with their spouses, would take turns once a month having dinner for the rest of the Senators. Senator Eagleton of Missouri, who recently passed away and was a good friend; Senator Gaylord Nelson and his wife, who was incredible and who has also recently passed away; Senator Hollings; and my friend--and he is my friend--Senator Ted Stevens from Alaska had one of those groups, along with a guy named Saxby from Ohio, who became Attorney General. While I never, ever stayed in Washington, particularly in those days, they insisted I come, and I would go to those dinners. I was a kid, I was single, but they included me. The truth of the matter is, they went a long way toward saving my life, changing my life.

You know, for the first time in 36 years, I am going to have a home in Washington--public housing--and I hope Jill and I can use it to help bring us all together. I hope it can be used to foster deepening relationships. We all are so busy in our own careers it is awfully hard to do it anymore.

I have seen Senators who have come to this institution to attack it-- because that is how they got here, they attacked it. They called it useless and venal. Attitudes such as that, which have been observed in the past, can sometimes become self-fulfilling prophesies. But if you come here with a dedication to hard work, an open mind, some good faith, and to make progress, that, too, can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

In 1837, Ralph Waldo Emerson, in his Phi Beta Kappa address to Harvard, said:

Meek young men grow up in libraries, believing it their

duty to accept the views which Cicero, which Locke, which

Bacon have given, forgetful that Cicero, Locke, and Bacon

were only young men in libraries when they wrote those books.

I am told today by the Senate Historian that there have been over 1,900 Senators who have served. I have served with more than 320 of them, and I have learned something from every one of them. As a matter of fact, I was also given a piece of discouraging information as well; that only 19 Senators in the history of the United States of America have ever served as long as I have, one of whom is in this Chamber. As I said, I have learned a lot from them, and I can tell you from experience that most of them are only seen as giants in the hindsight of history. At the time, they were legislators trying to do their best.

I look in my desk and I see the names carved in the drawer. Maybe the public doesn't know how much like kids we are. We get here, and we come over here after the Senate is closed and we sit there, somewhat embarrassed, and we actually carve our names in the drawers of the desk, in the bottom. It is a tradition. Maybe there is someone who didn't do it, but I don't know of anyone, even the most sophisticated among us. I look in the desk drawer I have and I see names of famous Delawareans, such as the longest serving family in the history of the State of Delaware--the Bayards. Six have been Senators. But I also see the names of Scoop Jackson and John F. Kennedy and others in my drawer. Look in your desk and you will see names you recognize as well, and you all know them. Forty years from now, when someone opens your desk and looks at your name, will they think of you the way I think of these men? To me, that is a test we each are going to have to meet.

With the gravity of the challenges we face today comes--as every similar moment in our history--the most significant opportunity for change, the most significant opportunity for progress. I firmly believe this, too, can be an era of legends, of giants. But this much I know: Our Nation desperately needs it to be.

During my first term in the Senate, when I spoke out in favor of campaign finance reform at a Democratic caucus--and Senator Inouye may remember this; he was then Secretary of the Senate--the President pro tempore, Jim Eastland, listened intently in what is now called the Mansfield Room. When I got finished with my impassioned speech about the need for public financing, he stood--and he hardly ever spoke at the caucus, as Senator Inouye will remember--and he always wore a glen plaid suit and always had a cigar in his mouth about as big as a rubber hose--and he leaned up at the table in the front--and he never stood completely straight--and he sought recognition and he leaned up, put himself halfway up, took the cigar out of his mouth, and he said:

Joe, they tell me ya'll are the youngest man to ever get

elected to this August body--

I wasn't. There was one younger than me popularly elected, but I didn't dare correct him. He said:

Let me tell you something, Joe: Ya'll make many more

speeches like you did here today, you're going to be the

youngest one-term Senator in the history of the United States

of America.

I walked out of that conference, as I have said to Leader Reid, and walked in here--and we didn't used to have those booths by the phone-- and Warren Magnuson, who also smoked a cigar, pulled out his cigar and said: Biden, come here. Can you imagine calling to a Senator and saying: Come here. He said: Stop this stuff. I didn't work this darned hard--a little different language used--I didn't work this darned hard the past 30 years to have some sniveling little competitor get the same amount of money as me. Stop it. Stop it.

I walked away as politely and as quickly as I could. I never dreamed--I never dreamed--that nearly four decades later I would be elected to a seventh term to the Senate of the United States. Never, ever dreamed it. Thirty-six years ago, the people of Delaware gave me, as they have given you in your States, a rare and sacred opportunity to serve them. As I said, after the accident, I was prepared in 1973 to walk away from that opportunity. But men such as Ted Kennedy and Mike Mansfield and Hubert Humphrey and Fritz Hollings and Dan Inouye convinced me to stay--to stay 6 months, Joe. Remember that? Just stay 6 months. And one of the true giants of the Senate, who thank God is still with us, Robert C. Byrd, without any fanfare, in late December, in a cold, driving rain, drove to Wilmington, DE, stood outside a memorial service at a Catholic Church for my deceased wife and daughter, soaking wet in that cold rain, and never once came to see me, just to show his respect, and then got back in the automobile and drove back to Washington, DC.

This is a remarkable place, gentlemen and ladies. And as I healed, this place became my second family, more than I suspect it is for most. I needed it, and for that I will be forever grateful--forever grateful. So to the people of Delaware, who have given me the honor of serving them, there is no way I can ever express to them how much this meant to me. To my staff, past and present, and all those on the floor,

past and present, dedicated to making this institution run, including the young pages, wide-eyed and hopefully going home and wanting to come back someday in our spots, thank you for everything you have done for me. I suspect you have done for me more than you have done for most.

To my children, Hunter and Ashley and Beau, if I was nothing else, I would be content to be the father of such wonderful people. To my grandchildren, who constantly remind me why the decisions we make in this August body are so important, and to my Jill, you once saved my life, and you are my life today, I thank all of you. I thank all my colleagues for making my Senate service possible and this next chapter in my career in life so hopeful.

I came here to fight for civil rights. In my office now sits that grand conference table that once was used to fight against civil rights, and I leave here today to begin my service to our Nation's first African-American President. The arc of the universe is long, but it does indeed bend toward justice, and the Senate of the United States has been an incredible instrument in assuring that justice.

So although you have not seen the last of me, I say for the last time, and with confidence in all of you, optimism in our future, and a heart with more gratitude than I can express, I yield the floor.

(Applause, Senators rising.)

Thank you very much. You have been one of my closest friends and confidants and you will continue to be, and I appreciate your sentiment.

I would like, if I may, Mr. President, to thank my friend from Utah for his kind comments. We have been buddies for a long time. I hope that continues in my new job.

Mr. President, I am very pleased that the Senate has the opportunity to vote on the United States-India Nuclear Cooperation Approval and Nonproliferation Enhancement Act and to finally approve the peaceful nuclear cooperation agreement between the United States and India. This bill will seize the opportunity to build on the foundation laid by President Bill Clinton and cement a new, cooperative relationship with India, the world's largest democracy.

Two years ago, Chairman Lugar and I worked with the administration to enact legislation that changed 30 years of U.S. non-proliferation policy. We agreed to let the administration negotiate and submit to Congress a peaceful nuclear cooperation agreement with India, despite the fact that India has a nuclear weapons program. That wasn't easy. It took soul-searching and compromise on the part of many Members of the Senate regarding the standards for such an agreement and for U.S. policy.

Since the President's submittal of the proposed Agreement three weeks ago, Senator Dodd and Senator Lugar have worked hard with the other Members of the Foreign Relations Committee, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives Howard Berman, the ranking Republican member of that committee, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and with the administration, to forge a bipartisan compromise on this important and complex issue. Senator Dodd and Senator Lugar especially deserve a great deal of thanks for all the efforts that have been required of them to bring this bill, and this historic agreement, to this point.

Enactment of this bill will help the U.S.-India relationship grow, while advancing India's ability to meet its energy needs in a way that fits within the cooperation framework Congress has worked so hard to establish. It will help ensure that the agreement and any exports that flow from it will be consistent with U.S. law and our national security interests, by adding to the tools that the Congress and future administrations will have to keep watch over this agreement.

I look forward to the passage of this bill, its enactment into law, and the beginning of a stronger relationship between our two great democracies.

Mr. President, the State of Delaware lost one of its most remarkable citizens on September 10, with the passing of Nathan Wexler at the age of 97.

I first met Nate many years ago during one of my early campaigns, when he showed up in my campaign headquarters offering to volunteer. From that day forward, though he had retired from his dry cleaning business and was at an age when most folks are ready to slow down, Nate was one of our most active volunteers.

A talented artist, Nate began a second career as a professional sign painter. Indeed, one of the staples of our campaign's offices was a large sign that he painted many years ago. I have had several campaigns, and several

campaign headquarters, but Nate's sign remains, a reminder of his commitment as well as his friendship.

But for all of Nate's artistic talent, his most enduring characteristic was his love of people, and his ability to inspire loyalty and affection from everyone he came in contact with.

Many of the volunteers on my campaigns have been young people, full of idealism and eager to learn. They have often been young enough to be Nate's grandchildren or even great-grandchildren. But Nate always relished their idealism. He tried to see people and events through their eyes and learn from that point of view, and he gently shared his experience and wisdom. It was remarkable to see the affection and respect he engendered in those idealistic kids.

My family and I were privileged to spend time with Nate in settings away from the political arena, and those occasions were simply a delight. They were times rich with humor and wit, as well as wisdom. Our conversations were filled with insight, not just into the past and present, but looking far into the future at the challenges our Nation and world will face. Nate knew that he would never face those challenges, but that his great grandchildren and great-great- grandchildren would.

Nate Wexler leaves behind a large family and friends of all ages and from all walks of life. He will be missed tremendously, but he lives on in all of us who were fortunate enough to know and to learn from him.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Crime Victims with Disabilities Act of 2008.

Adults with disabilities experience violence or abuse at least twice as often as people without disabilities, and adults with developmental disabilities are at risk of being physically or sexually assaulted at rates four to ten times greater than other adults. In fact, an estimated 5 million crimes are committed annually against persons with developmental disabilities and an estimated 70 percent of these crimes are not reported.

Adding insult to injury, individuals with disabilities suffer additional ``victimization'' within the justice system, due to lack of physical, programmatic, and communications accommodations needed for equal access.

The Crime Victims with Disabilities Act takes a commonsense approach to fixing this problem by providing funds to increase the investigation, prosecution, and prevention of crimes against persons with disabilities and by facilitating collaboration among criminal justice agencies and other agencies and organizations that provide services to people with disabilities to improve services to those who are victimized.

Collaboration among criminal justice agencies and agencies and organizations that provide services to individuals with disabilities is necessary to ensure that crimes are reported and investigated properly, prosecutors are properly trained, appropriate accommodations are provided to disabled victims, and communication between criminal justice agencies and organizations that provide services to individuals with disabilities is effective.

The bill funds a modest grant program that would allow States, units of local government, and Indian Tribes to develop programs to facilitate collaboration among criminal justice agencies and agencies and organizations that provide services to individuals with disabilities for these purposes. The bill authorizes $50,000 for each planning grant and $300,000 for each implementation grant for a total authorization for the grant program of $10 million for the first year.

The bill also authorizes $4 million over 4 years to fund research to assist the Attorney General in collecting valid, reliable national data relating to crimes against individuals with developmental and related disabilities for the National Crime Victims Survey conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics of the Department of Justice as required by the Crime Victims with Disabilities Awareness Act. Currently, the Bureau of Justice Statistics does not specifically collect this data, leaving many crimes against persons with disabilities unreported in the survey and making it difficult to address this problem adequately.

The Association of University Centers on Disabilities, the National Center for Victims of Crime, the National Council on Independent Living, the National Disability Rights Network, the National Child Abuse Coalition, Easter Seals, the Arc of the United States, and United Cerebral Palsy have endorsed the bill. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill which will protect some of the most vulnerable members of our society--individuals with disabilities who are victims of crime.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Crime Victims with Disabilities Act of 2008.

Adults with disabilities experience violence or abuse at least twice as often as people without disabilities, and adults with developmental disabilities are at risk of being physically or sexually assaulted at rates four to ten times greater than other adults. In fact, an estimated 5 million crimes are committed annually against persons with developmental disabilities and an estimated 70 percent of these crimes are not reported.

Adding insult to injury, individuals with disabilities suffer additional ``victimization'' within the justice system, due to lack of physical, programmatic, and communications accommodations needed for equal access.

The Crime Victims with Disabilities Act takes a commonsense approach to fixing this problem by providing funds to increase the investigation, prosecution, and prevention of crimes against persons with disabilities and by facilitating collaboration among criminal justice agencies and other agencies and organizations that provide services to people with disabilities to improve services to those who are victimized.

Collaboration among criminal justice agencies and agencies and organizations that provide services to individuals with disabilities is necessary to ensure that crimes are reported and investigated properly, prosecutors are properly trained, appropriate accommodations are provided to disabled victims, and communication between criminal justice agencies and organizations that provide services to individuals with disabilities is effective.

The bill funds a modest grant program that would allow States, units of local government, and Indian Tribes to develop programs to facilitate collaboration among criminal justice agencies and agencies and organizations that provide services to individuals with disabilities for these purposes. The bill authorizes $50,000 for each planning grant and $300,000 for each implementation grant for a total authorization for the grant program of $10 million for the first year.

The bill also authorizes $4 million over 4 years to fund research to assist the Attorney General in collecting valid, reliable national data relating to crimes against individuals with developmental and related disabilities for the National Crime Victims Survey conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics of the Department of Justice as required by the Crime Victims with Disabilities Awareness Act. Currently, the Bureau of Justice Statistics does not specifically collect this data, leaving many crimes against persons with disabilities unreported in the survey and making it difficult to address this problem adequately.

The Association of University Centers on Disabilities, the National Center for Victims of Crime, the National Council on Independent Living, the National Disability Rights Network, the National Child Abuse Coalition, Easter Seals, the Arc of the United States, and United Cerebral Palsy have endorsed the bill. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill which will protect some of the most vulnerable members of our society--individuals with disabilities who are victims of crime.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I celebrate the 92nd birthday of a man I have known and admired for a long time, a man who has dedicated his life to making our world a better place for us and for our children. Russell W. Peterson was one of Delaware's most remarkable governors and has been a truly committed public servant for over 60 years.

Within the early hours of being sworn in as governor of Delaware in 1969, he delivered on a campaign promise to ease tensions in our racially charged city of Wilmington. He removed the presence of the National Guard who had patrolled the city streets for almost a year, and, along with the Delaware State Police, he enforced curfews following the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

One of the most memorable accomplishments of the governor's career was the leadership role he played to protect our environment through the passage of Delaware's Coastal Zone Act of 1971. This was a groundbreaking law, the first of its kind in our Nation. Governor Peterson became known as a dedicated environmentalist for protecting the 115 miles of Delaware's coastline from heavy industry. As an activist for our environment, he was determined to help people on a local, State, and national level understand that living our lives is not at odds with preserving our environment. He also contributed to the landmark National Environmental Policy Act as chairman of the President's Council on Environmental Quality.

The governor's most recent project has already begun to rejuvenate the city of Wilmington's riverfront. He is cochairman of the governor's task force on the future of the Christiana and Brandywine Rivers and also serves on the board of the Riverfront Development Corporation. Through these efforts, the city's riverfront is becoming a brilliant asset to our State as it attracts visitors and new residents to the area. This beautiful new face to our riverfront also has an urban wildlife refuge center that has been named after Governor Peterson, for his decades of remarkable work.

These are only a few of Governor Peterson's many, many accomplishments. Through his service, he has truly improved the lives of Delawareans and has invigorated the city of Wilmington. He is currently the Delaware Audubon Society's honorary chairman of the board and has received 15 honorary doctorates and numerous other awards.

Governor Peterson is being honored for his contributions at a luncheon next Tuesday, in Wilmington. I can't think of a more deserving individual. I wish him all the best as we celebrate his 92nd birthday.

Mr. President, today I am submitting a resolution designating October 17, 2008, as ``National Mammography Day.'' This is the 16th straight year I have introduced such legislation, and I am proud to say that 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 introduce this resolution, I review the latest information from the American Cancer Society about breast cancer. For 2008, it is estimated that nearly 182,460 women will be diagnosed with invasive breast cancer and 40,480 women will die of this disease.

The first several times I introduced this resolution, I commented on how gloomy the statistics surrounding breast cancer were. While we still must address the unfortunate trend of a higher mortality rate in African American women when compared to that of White women and women from other minority groups, there are some numbers that give us hope in our struggle to defeat this disease. As I mentioned last year, the trend over time is that the number of deaths from breast cancer is fairly stable and falling from year to year. According to the American Cancer Society, the death rate from breast cancer in women has decreased since 1990: between 1975-1990, the death rate increased by 0.4 percent; between 1990-2004, the death rate decreased by 2.2 percent annually.

This decline in the breast cancer mortality rate has been attributed to improvements in breast cancer treatment, as well as early detection from mammograms and other screening methods. New digital techniques make the process of mammography more rapid and precise than before. In addition, early detection of breast cancer

continues to result in extremely favorable outcomes: 98 percent of women with localized breast cancer and 84 percent of those with regional disease will survive 5 years or longer. 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 developments with regards to this disease. Thanks to the advances in research, screening, and treatment, a diagnosis of breast cancer is not a death sentence, all of us encounter long-term survivors of this disease almost daily, whether we realize it or not.

Recently, there has been discussion among scientists regarding the best and most appropriate screening tool for breast cancer, traditional mammography or more advanced technology like magnetic resonance imaging, MRI. In addition, newspapers have been filled with discussions over whether the scientific evidence actually supports the conclusion that periodic screening mammography saves lives. For those of us who are neither physicians nor scientists in this highly technical area, we look to the experts. The American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute, and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force all continue to recommend periodic screening mammography. However, it is also of note, that in 2007, an expert panel convened by the American Cancer Society released new recommendations for the use of MRIs for women at increased risk. The Society recommended annual screening, including an MRI in addition to mammography for high risk women, lifetime risk of greater than 20 percent, of developing the disease. Women with moderately increased risk of developing the disease, lifetime risk of 15 to 20 percent, should discuss with their physician the option of an MRI in addition to their annual mammogram. Women that do not fall into the high or moderate risk categories have no need to supplement their mammogram with an MRI.

I know that some women don't get annual mammograms due to fear or forgetfulness. It is only human nature for some to avoid mammograms because they are afraid of what the tests will reveal. To those who are fearful, I would say that if you get periodic routine mammograms, and the latest one indicates a possible cancer, even before any symptoms or before detection of a lump through a self-exam, you have great reason to be optimistic. Such early detected breast cancers are highly treatable.

Then there is forgetfulness. I understand how difficult it is to remember to schedule an annual appointment. This is where National Mammography Day comes in. 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 day. Once you pick a date, call your health care provider and make the appointment. If you have access to the internet, go to the American Cancer Society's website and sign up for the mammogram reminder service they'll send you an e-mail to remind you about the date you picked. Do it for yourself and your loved ones who want you to be part of their lives for as long as possible.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in the ongoing fight against breast cancer by supporting this resolution to designate October 17, 2008, as ``National Mammography Day.''

Mr. President, I rise in support of a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that the week including Veterans Day--November 9-15, 2008--be designated as ``National Veterans Awareness Week.'' This marks the ninth year I have introduced such as resolution, which has been adopted unanimously by the Senate on all previous occasions, and has been recognized by the President as an important objective. With our military men and women continuing to be on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is no doubt appropriate that we recognize and honor the service and sacrifice of those who are currently serving to protect our freedom, as well as those who have served in the past.

The idea behind National Veterans Awareness Week actually came from a Delaware student, Samuel I. Cashdollar. In 2000, as a 13-year-old seventh grader at Lewes Middle School, Samuel won the Delaware VFW's Youth Essay Contest with a powerful presentation titled ``How Should We honor America's Veterans?'' Samuel's essay pointed out that we have Nurses' Week, Secretaries' Week, and Teachers' Week to rightly emphasize the importance of these occupations, but no comparable week to encourage, and honor, service in the military. That is why, every year since 2000, I have introduced a resolution designating National Veterans Awareness Week to focus on educating our youth on the contributions, heroism, and service of our veterans.

The reality is, during both World Wars and the Korean and Vietnam conflicts, families were more likely to have a relative serving in the military. That is not the case today; tremendous advances in military technology, an all-volunteer force, and increases in productivity have greatly reduced the number of families with relatives who are active servicemembers or recent veteran. Coupled with the fact that the number of veterans who served in major conflicts like World War II is declining, it is more important than ever that we take the time to make sure students comprehend and appreciate the service and sacrifice of our veterans. National Veterans Awareness Week provides us with an opportunity to do just that. Additionally, with soldiers returning from the front lines with service-connected injuries, National Veterans Awareness Week reminds us how important it is that we keep our promise to veterans by providing them with the proper support and services they need once they return home. This promise is the most sacred obligation we have, and it is imperative that our children are also aware of the debt we owe our veterans.

In closing, let me add that, although many of us will not have the opportunity to serve our country in uniform, we must not forget our responsibility as citizens to fulfill the obligations we owe, both tangible and intangible, to those who have served and sacrificed on our behalf. By passing along this shared responsibility and recognition to future generations, our children, grandchildren, and great- grandchildren will continue to appreciate and honor what our veterans have accomplished in order to appropriately confront the many challenges they are sure to encounter.

National Character Counts Week

Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is considering H.R. 5834, a bill to reauthorize the North Korea Human Rights Act. The act underscores U.S. concern about the poor human rights conditions inside North Korea and the difficulties faced by thousands of North Koreans who have fled the country and become refugees. I support this bill because I believe our Government's approach to North Korean human rights and refugee issues must be seamlessly integrated into a coherent strategy that promotes regional peace and stability, advances core U.S. national security interests by verifiably eliminating North Korea's pursuit of nuclear weapons, and step by step encourages North Korea to adhere to international norms in the areas of human rights, security, and trade.

It is essential that the United States reach out and begin a dialogue with North Korea on issues related to basic human rights. Four years ago, I was proud to work with my colleague, Senator Brownback of Kansas, on an amendment to the North Korean Human Rights Act that created within the Department of State a Special Envoy for Human Rights in North Korea. In reauthorizing the act, the Congress expresses its intent that the envoy should be a full-time employee, and Congress elevates the post to the rank of ambassador, subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. The incumbent special envoy has pursued his duties part-time while residing outside of Washington, making coordination with the Department more difficult and limiting the overall effectiveness of his diplomatic efforts. By expressing the sense of the Congress that the new ambassador should be a full-time position, the Congress does not preclude the possibility that the President may find it desirable to nominate as ambassador an individual who already has other duties closely related to those to be pursued by the Ambassador for North Korean Human Rights Issues. Indeed, such dual assignments are not uncommon within the State Department.

The bill acknowledges that the new Ambassador for North Korean Human Rights Issues should be able to participate in policy planning and implementation with respect to refugee issues, particularly given the fact that returning refugees are among those most likely to be persecuted by North Korean authorities. But it is my expectation that the State Department's Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) will continue to play the leading role on North Korean refugee issues, engaging with China and other nations to ensure humane treatment in accordance with international norms. PRM has the staffing, expertise, congressional authorization, and experience needed to spearhead U.S. efforts in this area, and they should continue to do so.

The new Ambassador for North Korean Human Rights Issues will have to approach the job with quiet determination and considerable patience. Discussing human rights issues with North Korean authorities will not be easy, and the new ambassador will need to have both excellent diplomatic skills and a deep understanding of East Asia and the particular circumstances on the Korean Peninsula. Change will not come easily, and is more likely to flow from dialogue and engagement than from bombast and condemnation.

There are many issues on the table, ranging from family reunification visits for the thousands of Korean-Americans with relatives in the north, to ending the persecution of people of faith inside North Korea. Other humanitarian issues may also enter the mix, including food security and public health. It is my hope that the new ambassador will work with our treaty ally, South Korea, and with other countries neighboring North Korea to craft an approach to human rights issues that can, step by step, see an improvement in the lives of average North Koreans and compassionate care for those who have fled the country. In this effort, the ambassador may find it useful to draw appropriate lessons from the Helsinki process in Europe, but ultimately the approach will have to be one that is specifically tailored to the North Korean situation.

As Congress passes this legislation, we must not lose sight of the fact that members of the Bush administration are toiling to convince North Korea to resume the disablement of its nuclear facilities and to agree to a verification mechanism for its nuclear declaration. These efforts are of vital importance. It is regrettable that progress has been derailed over a dispute about sanctions relief and the verification protocol. North Korea should understand that if Pyongyang honors its commitments, we stand ready to honor ours. On the basis of action-for-action, I hope the United States and North Korea, along with other members of the Six Party Talks, will work to accomplish the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and the full integration of North Korea into the community of nations. In exchange for the complete and verifiable elimination of its nuclear weapons programs, North Korea stands to receive energy assistance, sanctions relief, and security assurances from the United States and other members of the Six Party Talks. I look forward to the day when North Korea is truly at peace with its neighbors and enjoys normal relations with the United States. It is a future that is within North Korea's grasp if it abandons its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Mr. President, since September 11, 2001, our Nation has taken significant steps to improve our national security. However, to improve our ability to prevent and respond to a future terrorist attack we need to fundamentally change the working relationship between our Federal, State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies. The Homeland Security and Law

Enforcement Improvements Act of 2008 will do this by making State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies full partners with Federal agencies in homeland security policymaking and by ensuring that these agencies have the resources they need to prevent and respond to terrorist attacks or other major incidents.

As chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs, I regularly talk to police chiefs and sheriffs throughout this country. These men and women are on the front lines of protecting our communities from a host of dangers in these difficult times. They know where our vulnerabilities are and what it will take to keep our families and neighborhoods safe, but, to put it simply, we haven't been listening. Policymakers haven't been listening to the people on the ground, leaving a critical gap in homeland security prevention, preparation, and incident response capabilities.

The Homeland Security and Law Enforcement Improvements Act of 2008 makes a number of important improvements to this situation that I believe will strengthen our ability to prevent and, if necessary, effectively respond to a major terrorist incident.

First, the act will ensure that state and local law enforcement agencies are full partners in both crime fighting and homeland security by giving the Assistant Secretary for State and Local Law Enforcement the appropriate budget and program management authority.

Second, the act will ensure that state and local law enforcement agencies have the resources needed to prevent and respond to terrorist acts by fully funding the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program, LETP, as a separate initiative. The LETPP is the only funding resource in the Department of Homeland Security dedicated solely to meeting the unique needs of law enforcement as they try to protect our communities from terrorism.

Third, the act ensures that first responders in local law enforcement have the resources they need to effectively react to a terrorist incident by establishing the Commercial Equipment Direct Assistance Program, CEDAP, as an authorized program. The CEDAP provides funding that allows law enforcement first responders to identify and select specialized equipment and technology that can help them protect the communities they serve.

Fourth, the act will ensure that we have a swift and coordinated response in the event of a major incident by establishing Law Enforcement Deployment Teams that can react immediately to major incidents throughout the country.

Fifth, the act will create an Information Sharing Resource Center to facilitate information sharing between Federal, State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies, intelligence officials, and Federal agencies so that every stakeholder has the information necessary to protect our country from terrorist attacks.

Finally, the Act strengthens our ability to prevent and disrupt plans for attacks against America hatched overseas by establishing a Foreign Liaison Officers Against Terrorism, FLOAT, program. FLOAT will allow American state and local law enforcement officers to serve outside the U.S. as liaison officers--working closely with their foreign law enforcement counterparts to share information and gain a better understanding of how terrorists work abroad.

Each of these initiatives: the LETPP, CEDAP, the Law Enforcement Deployment Teams, the Information Sharing Resource Center, and FLOAT will be under the direction and control of the Assistant Secretary, who will report directly to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

I am honored to introduce this legislation with the support of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Police Organizations, the National Sheriffs Association and other law enforcement groups throughout this country who toil daily to keep us safe from crime and terrorism.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, since September 11, 2001, our Nation has taken significant steps to improve our national security. However, to improve our ability to prevent and respond to a future terrorist attack we need to fundamentally change the working relationship between our Federal, State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies. The Homeland Security and Law

Enforcement Improvements Act of 2008 will do this by making State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies full partners with Federal agencies in homeland security policymaking and by ensuring that these agencies have the resources they need to prevent and respond to terrorist attacks or other major incidents.

As chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs, I regularly talk to police chiefs and sheriffs throughout this country. These men and women are on the front lines of protecting our communities from a host of dangers in these difficult times. They know where our vulnerabilities are and what it will take to keep our families and neighborhoods safe, but, to put it simply, we haven't been listening. Policymakers haven't been listening to the people on the ground, leaving a critical gap in homeland security prevention, preparation, and incident response capabilities.

The Homeland Security and Law Enforcement Improvements Act of 2008 makes a number of important improvements to this situation that I believe will strengthen our ability to prevent and, if necessary, effectively respond to a major terrorist incident.

First, the act will ensure that state and local law enforcement agencies are full partners in both crime fighting and homeland security by giving the Assistant Secretary for State and Local Law Enforcement the appropriate budget and program management authority.

Second, the act will ensure that state and local law enforcement agencies have the resources needed to prevent and respond to terrorist acts by fully funding the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program, LETP, as a separate initiative. The LETPP is the only funding resource in the Department of Homeland Security dedicated solely to meeting the unique needs of law enforcement as they try to protect our communities from terrorism.

Third, the act ensures that first responders in local law enforcement have the resources they need to effectively react to a terrorist incident by establishing the Commercial Equipment Direct Assistance Program, CEDAP, as an authorized program. The CEDAP provides funding that allows law enforcement first responders to identify and select specialized equipment and technology that can help them protect the communities they serve.

Fourth, the act will ensure that we have a swift and coordinated response in the event of a major incident by establishing Law Enforcement Deployment Teams that can react immediately to major incidents throughout the country.

Fifth, the act will create an Information Sharing Resource Center to facilitate information sharing between Federal, State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies, intelligence officials, and Federal agencies so that every stakeholder has the information necessary to protect our country from terrorist attacks.

Finally, the Act strengthens our ability to prevent and disrupt plans for attacks against America hatched overseas by establishing a Foreign Liaison Officers Against Terrorism, FLOAT, program. FLOAT will allow American state and local law enforcement officers to serve outside the U.S. as liaison officers--working closely with their foreign law enforcement counterparts to share information and gain a better understanding of how terrorists work abroad.

Each of these initiatives: the LETPP, CEDAP, the Law Enforcement Deployment Teams, the Information Sharing Resource Center, and FLOAT will be under the direction and control of the Assistant Secretary, who will report directly to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

I am honored to introduce this legislation with the support of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Police Organizations, the National Sheriffs Association and other law enforcement groups throughout this country who toil daily to keep us safe from crime and terrorism.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Today I join a bipartisan group of Senators in introducing the Iraq Security Agreement Act of 2008. This bill, consistent with the Constitution of the United States, prohibits the Bush administration from entering into a binding security agreement with Iraq without the approval of Congress. It would also prohibit the obligation of any funds to implement such an agreement.

I regret that I am compelled to introduce this legislation. If the President had embarked on these negotiations in a more responsible manner--by being clear about the objective, by ensuring that the agreements would not tie the hands of the next administration, by actively consulting with Congress as a partner in the process--this bill would be unnecessary. But the Administration has done none of these things, and so my colleagues and I want to ensure that Congress, and thus the American people, is brought into the process.

Let me take a step back and summarize how we got to this point. From October 2003 until the present day, the American military presence in Iraq has been authorized under international law through a series of UN Security Council Resolutions. Last November, President Bush and Prime Minister Maliki signed a ``Declaration of Principles,'' which set out a framework for our countries to negotiate, by yesterday--July 31, 2008-- agreements governing cooperation in the political, economic and security spheres. The Declaration indicated that the two countries would not seek to renew the United Nations mandate for American troops in Iraq past December 31, 2008. Among other things, the Declaration contemplates ``providing security assurances and commitments to the Republic of Iraq to deter foreign aggression against Iraq'' and supporting Iraq ``in its efforts to combat all terrorist groups,'' including Al-Qaeda, Saddamists, and ``all other outlaw groups regardless of affiliation.'' In other words, all the folks fighting in Iraq and killing each other.

The Declaration may result in two pacts. One would be a ``Strategic Framework Agreement'' that will ``set the broad parameters of the overall bilateral relationship in every field,'' according to the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker. This might be better titled ``What the United States will do for Iraq,'' because it consists mostly of a series of promises that flow in one direction--promises by the United States to a sectarian government that has thus far failed to reach the political compromises necessary to build a stable country.

The second agreement is a ``Status of Forces Agreement'' or SOFA, governing the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq, including their entry into the country and the immunities to be granted to them under Iraqi law. The administration claims that this agreement is mostly ``routine'' because we have SOFAs with over 90 countries around the globe. But conditions our soldiers face in Iraq are far from ``routine,'' despite recent improvements in security. Moreover, this SOFA would be much broader than the typical SOFA, from what we know. It would provide us with access to bases from which our military would operate, provisions that are usually in a separate facilities or ``basing'' agreement. This SOFA would also deal with contractor immunity, would permit U.S. forces to engage in combat operations in Iraq, and would provide authority for detaining insurgents. This is not a typical SOFA.

One of these agreements will reportedly contain a ``security arrangement''--a pledge by the United States to consult on next steps if Iraq is threatened. The Administration suggests that such an agreement is unremarkable, and that it does not bind the United States. But at a time when we have over 100,000 troops on the ground, an expansive program to train and equip Iraqi forces, and multiple U.S. military facilities, the pledge is, in reality, little different from a binding security commitment. Certainly, the government of Iraq and its people will perceive that we are signing up to defend Iraq against external threats.

Yesterday's deadline has apparently not been met. The New York Times reports, however, that the Bush administration and Iraqi government are close to an agreement. But Congress still remains largely in the dark.

We have not seen draft language. We do not definitively know which portions of the agreement will be binding, and which will not be. We are not in a position to evaluate whether the agreement will create obligations--either legal or political--that will constrain the next administration, whether Democratic or Republican. The President cannot make such a sweeping commitment on his own authority. Congress must grant approval. The legislation we introduce today requires that Congress be made part of the process.

I have often stated that no foreign policy can be sustained without the informed consent of the American people. More than 5 years ago, President Bush went to war in Iraq without gaining that consent--by overstating the intelligence and understating the difficulty, cost and duration of the mission.

In the final months of his term, President Bush is once again acting without the informed consent of the American people, putting us on a course to commit the Nation to a new phase of a long war in Iraq, and thereby bind his successors to his vision of U.S. policy in Iraq. By these agreements, the President will make it harder for his successor to change course.

Let me be clear. I support the concept of a Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq. But not at the cost of limiting our operational latitude or making security commitments--legal or political--that are not approved by Congress.

Administration officials have indicated that the Iraqi government is resisting the inclusion of key provisions that U.S. forces need in order to operate in Iraq. Given the difficulty of securing Iraq's consent to the broad authorities that the United States now has by virtue of the U.N. Security Council Resolutions, I believe the best option for the United States at this juncture is to seek an extension of the current United Nations Security Counsel resolution for Iraq.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Today I join a bipartisan group of Senators in introducing the Iraq Security Agreement Act of 2008. This bill, consistent with the Constitution of the United States, prohibits the Bush administration from entering into a binding security agreement with Iraq without the approval of Congress. It would also prohibit the obligation of any funds to implement such an agreement.

I regret that I am compelled to introduce this legislation. If the President had embarked on these negotiations in a more responsible manner--by being clear about the objective, by ensuring that the agreements would not tie the hands of the next administration, by actively consulting with Congress as a partner in the process--this bill would be unnecessary. But the Administration has done none of these things, and so my colleagues and I want to ensure that Congress, and thus the American people, is brought into the process.

Let me take a step back and summarize how we got to this point. From October 2003 until the present day, the American military presence in Iraq has been authorized under international law through a series of UN Security Council Resolutions. Last November, President Bush and Prime Minister Maliki signed a ``Declaration of Principles,'' which set out a framework for our countries to negotiate, by yesterday--July 31, 2008-- agreements governing cooperation in the political, economic and security spheres. The Declaration indicated that the two countries would not seek to renew the United Nations mandate for American troops in Iraq past December 31, 2008. Among other things, the Declaration contemplates ``providing security assurances and commitments to the Republic of Iraq to deter foreign aggression against Iraq'' and supporting Iraq ``in its efforts to combat all terrorist groups,'' including Al-Qaeda, Saddamists, and ``all other outlaw groups regardless of affiliation.'' In other words, all the folks fighting in Iraq and killing each other.

The Declaration may result in two pacts. One would be a ``Strategic Framework Agreement'' that will ``set the broad parameters of the overall bilateral relationship in every field,'' according to the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker. This might be better titled ``What the United States will do for Iraq,'' because it consists mostly of a series of promises that flow in one direction--promises by the United States to a sectarian government that has thus far failed to reach the political compromises necessary to build a stable country.

The second agreement is a ``Status of Forces Agreement'' or SOFA, governing the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq, including their entry into the country and the immunities to be granted to them under Iraqi law. The administration claims that this agreement is mostly ``routine'' because we have SOFAs with over 90 countries around the globe. But conditions our soldiers face in Iraq are far from ``routine,'' despite recent improvements in security. Moreover, this SOFA would be much broader than the typical SOFA, from what we know. It would provide us with access to bases from which our military would operate, provisions that are usually in a separate facilities or ``basing'' agreement. This SOFA would also deal with contractor immunity, would permit U.S. forces to engage in combat operations in Iraq, and would provide authority for detaining insurgents. This is not a typical SOFA.

One of these agreements will reportedly contain a ``security arrangement''--a pledge by the United States to consult on next steps if Iraq is threatened. The Administration suggests that such an agreement is unremarkable, and that it does not bind the United States. But at a time when we have over 100,000 troops on the ground, an expansive program to train and equip Iraqi forces, and multiple U.S. military facilities, the pledge is, in reality, little different from a binding security commitment. Certainly, the government of Iraq and its people will perceive that we are signing up to defend Iraq against external threats.

Yesterday's deadline has apparently not been met. The New York Times reports, however, that the Bush administration and Iraqi government are close to an agreement. But Congress still remains largely in the dark.

We have not seen draft language. We do not definitively know which portions of the agreement will be binding, and which will not be. We are not in a position to evaluate whether the agreement will create obligations--either legal or political--that will constrain the next administration, whether Democratic or Republican. The President cannot make such a sweeping commitment on his own authority. Congress must grant approval. The legislation we introduce today requires that Congress be made part of the process.

I have often stated that no foreign policy can be sustained without the informed consent of the American people. More than 5 years ago, President Bush went to war in Iraq without gaining that consent--by overstating the intelligence and understating the difficulty, cost and duration of the mission.

In the final months of his term, President Bush is once again acting without the informed consent of the American people, putting us on a course to commit the Nation to a new phase of a long war in Iraq, and thereby bind his successors to his vision of U.S. policy in Iraq. By these agreements, the President will make it harder for his successor to change course.

Let me be clear. I support the concept of a Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq. But not at the cost of limiting our operational latitude or making security commitments--legal or political--that are not approved by Congress.

Administration officials have indicated that the Iraqi government is resisting the inclusion of key provisions that U.S. forces need in order to operate in Iraq. Given the difficulty of securing Iraq's consent to the broad authorities that the United States now has by virtue of the U.N. Security Council Resolutions, I believe the best option for the United States at this juncture is to seek an extension of the current United Nations Security Counsel resolution for Iraq.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today, with the passage of the Libyan Claims Resolution Act, the United States moves closer to a comprehensive resolution of all outstanding claims by U.S. nationals against Libya for its support for terrorism over several decades. These claims include, most notably, the Pan Am 103 bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland, which killed 270 innocent human beings in December 1988 and the bombing of the LaBelle discotheque in Berlin in April 1986 in which two American military personnel were killed and scores more injured. There are many other pending claims involving attacks against Americans that are attributable to Libya. These, too, will be resolved by this legislation. Although less well known in the public's memory, they were no less devastating to their victims and no less an affront to humanity.

For several months now, the Bush administration has been negotiating with the Government of Libya on a comprehensive settlement to compensate American victims of Libyan terror. The State Department has reported to us in recent days that an agreement has been reached but has not yet been signed. I commend the fine effort of Assistant Secretary of State David Welch and Deputy Legal Adviser Jonathan Schwartz, who led the U.S. delegation in these very difficult negotiations. Signature on the agreement awaits action by Congress, and that is what we are doing today.

The agreement will provide full compensation to pay settlements already reached in the Pan Am 103 and LaBelle cases and enough funds to ensure that every American claimant in these cases involving Libyan terrorism will receive financial compensation comparable to the Pan Am 103 and LaBelle settlements. No U.S. taxpayer money will be used to pay these claims. The regime in Libya is notoriously unpredictable, so there is a chance that the deal could fall apart. But there is reason to believe that the Libyan leader, Colonel Qadhafi, has decided it is in his interest to settle all of these cases, rather than let them languish in court for years or decades, at the expense of progress in the Libyan-American relationship. Should the government of Libya change its position and fail to provide the complete funding, the victims will retain their full rights to proceed with their legal challenges.

But before Libya is willing to sign the agreement, it wants legal assurances that upon providing the full funding it will be immune from further legal repercussions stemming from these cases. This legislation, if signed into law by the President, provides such assurances, allowing the deal to go forward. It authorizes the Secretary of State to work with the Libyans to set up the funding mechanism. It assures the Libyans that if and only if full compensation has been paid to all American victims of Libyan terrorism, they will be immune from further claims of this nature. And it assures the American claimants that their lawsuits will not be extinguished unless the funding promised by the agreement is provided.

If this bill is approved by the House, Congress will have joined with the President to solve an issue of national and international importance, while protecting the interests of its nationals who have valid claims against Libya. Under the Constitution, there is no question the executive and the legislative branches have the authority to work together in this manner to settle claims so as to help the hundreds of American claimants who will benefit from this initiative. This cooperative effort--and the prompt bipartisan support for it--is also a good example of how the two branches should work together to advance our national interests.

I wish to be clear about what my support for this legislation means and does not mean. It is clearly in the interest of the United States to develop better relations with Libya. Libya is an important country as a gateway between Europe and Africa, which shares a border with the Darfur region of Sudan, and is a member of OPEC. Colonel Qadhafi appears to have made a break with his past support for terrorism and efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. That is good news for Libya, for the United States, and for the world.

It also is a powerful demonstration that diplomatic engagement, backed up with sanctions and incentives, can change the behavior of countries whose policies threaten our interests. There is a lesson in here for more productive approaches we could have taken earlier with other problematic countries. It is important for countries like Iran, North Korea, and Syria that pursue malevolent policies to see that there is a roadmap back into the international community if they modify their behavior. In short, the model of normalization with Libya, if applied to other cases, can prove that our goal is conduct change, not regime change and can actually produce that change.

For these reasons, I support the nascent Libyan-American agreement to comprehensively settle all outstanding American claims against Libyan terrorism. Libya's renunciation of its weapons of mass destruction programs and its previous support for terrorism is something all of us should welcome. I support the carefully calibrated movement toward the full normalization of bilateral relations.

But it should be underscored that this legislation does not exonerate or excuse Libya for its despicable and cowardly support for terrorism. I hope that the agreement can provide a modicum of justice and closure for the victims of Libyan terrorism and their families. But it is small consolation indeed and will not bring back the lives that have been lost, nor undo the suffering endured by survivors.

Neither does today's legislation indicate a shift in my views of the fundamental nature of the Qadhafi regime. Yes, Americans are interested in Libya's external behavior. But we are also concerned about the human rights conditions within Libya. Though his support for terrorists has ended, Qadhafi's Libya remains a police state that brooks no political opposition. Four decades after coming to power in a military coup, Qadhafi continues to rule by personal fiat. He may have had a change of mind about Libya's policies, but I doubt that it has been matched by a change of heart.

It is critical that the Bush administration pursue a broader engagement with the Libyan people and civil society. This relationship must be about more than securing contracts for American oil companies. We have learned the hard way that our vital interests can be threatened by relationships that ignore the huge deficiencies in governance and basic freedoms in many Middle Eastern countries and are based exclusively on commercial and security interests. So I am disappointed that this comprehensive claims settlement agreement is not accompanied by a comprehensive plan to engage Libyan society. I urge the Bush administration to put as much energy into developing such a plan as it did in the negotiations for a claims settlement.

For more than 4 years, I have called for the release of Fathi Eljahmi, a courageous Libyan democracy advocate

with serious health problems whose only crime was to speak truth to power. Though the change in direction in Libyan foreign policy in the last few years is as commendable as it is remarkable, Mr. Eljahmi's continuing captivity is a reminder that basic fundamental freedoms such as rule of law and the freedom of speech do not exist inside Libya. As I have made it clear to Colonel Qadhafi, the future of the Libyan- American relationship, at least as far as this Senator is concerned, will be affected by the Libyan Government's treatment of Mr. Eljahmi. I urge the Libyan Government to release him unconditionally and immediately, and to end the harassment of his family.

Engagement does not mean that we surrender our values. Engagement means we are in a stronger position to advance our values and to secure real change. I urge the Bush administration to use this opportunity to assert America's interests in a broader relationship that will put Libya on a more sustainable, and more democratic, path.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Drug Trafficking Interdiction Assistance Act of 2008. The operation of unregistered, un-flagged, semi- and fully-submersible vessels to traffic narcotics and other contraband through international waters poses a serious threat to the safety of our communities and the security of our Nation.

Self-propelled semi-submersible water-craft, or SPSSs, can operate with a significant portion of their hull below the surface of the water, making detection very difficult. Recently we've seen an increase in the production and use of SPSSs originating in Colombia and embarking north in the Pacific Ocean with up to 12 tons of cocaine packed on board. SPSSs are typically less than 100 feet long, carry 4-5 crew, travel at speeds of up to 8 knots, and have a maximum range of 3,500 miles.

These submarines are often equipped with valves that allow the operators to quickly flood and sink the SPSS in the event of interception by law enforcement, sending the vessel and any drugs or other contraband on board to an unrecoverable depth. As the last part of the scuttling process, the operators eject from the SPSS, and law enforcement has no choice but to rescue them from the ocean in accordance with our obligations under international law. They avoid prosecution because no drugs are recovered. For the operators of these SPSSs, they are able to avoid prosecution--for now.

This bill turns the tables on the traffickers. It builds off of the good work by my colleagues Senators Lautenberg, Smith, Cantwell, and Snowe, who have a bill that criminalizes the operation of an unregistered, stateless semi-submersible or submersible vessel. The legislation that I have drafted would clarify that the defendant's intent in operating the SPSS was to evade detection, add a robust affirmative defense to protect legitimate researchers and explorers who may happen to use a semi-submersible vessel, include a tough criminal penalty provision to prosecute SPSS operators, and direct the United States Sentencing Commission to account for mitigating and aggravating factors in the Sentencing Guidelines.

As Chair of the Caucus International Narcotics Control and Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs, I have worked to not only curb drug demand and increase treatment options, but also to drug traffickers and disrupt supply. This bill is an important step in curbing this emerging threat and shutting down this new mode of trafficking.

Between 2001 and 2007, there were 23 identified SPSS drug smuggling events. At the time, these vessels were largely seen by drug traffickers as risky and impractical. But after increasingly successful interdiction of go-fast boats and other means, drug traffickers began seeing SPSSs as a viable option. Between October 1, 2007 and February 1, 2008, alone, there were a reported 27 SPSS events that successfully delivered an estimated 111 tons of cocaine. At between $500,000 and $2 million per SPSS, they cost only a fraction of the profits these traffickers reap.

These vessels have the capacity to deliver more than just illegal drugs--an SPSSs could easily accommodate other contraband, like terrorist operatives and weapons of mass destruction in its cargo- holds. Their operation poses a significant danger to the United States and this legislation criminalizes their use while allowing for the continuation of legitimate research and exploring activities.

I want to recognize my friend Senator Lautenberg for his leadership on this issue. I look forward to working with him to enact a tough and fair law that disrupts drug trafficking and other illegal smuggling activities. I also thank Senators Grassley and Feinstein for their support, and I urge our colleagues to join us in supporting this important legislation.