Floor Statements

Mr. President, had I been present for the vote on the Dorgan amendment, I would have voted in favor of it.

We're coming up on the sixth anniversary of 9/11, and the bloodthirsty terrorist who plotted this slaughter of nearly 3,000 Americans is still a free man. Back then, could any of us ever have imagined such a failure on the part of this administration? Could any of us have believed that--more than half a decade later--Osama bin Laden would still be enjoying safe haven? Two wars and three elections later--and Osama remains unscathed.

What would our reaction have been nearly 6 years ago, had President Bush gone on national television and predicted this? What would we have said if he'd told us that the capture of the man who'd unleashed such horror simply wasn't a top priority of his administration? Would any American have believed him?

The amendment before us aims to make this a top priority. It obligates the administration to provide Congress with regular reports on the progress made, if any, towards the capture or

killing of Osama bin Laden and his closest confederates.

The White House seems to have forgotten bin Laden. The American people have not.

Madam President, I was interested in the last exchange. Let me just say that one of my heroes is the Senator from Arizona. I mean this sincerely. We use the phrase around here ``my friend.'' I consider him my friend. I believe if neither he nor I were Senators and I picked up a phone and

called him and said: I need you to show up at such-and-such a place, I can't tell you why, he would be there. I do not pretend to be his best friend in the world, but I admire him.

But I think I should point out a couple of things. No. 1, the Senator from California is not poll-driven. As I remember it, when the whole of the country was clamoring to go to war, the Senator from California stood up and voted against going to war. If I am not mistaken, it was viewed as political suicide at that time. I know the Senator from California, and I know she needs no defense, but I know her. If I know anybody who is not poll-driven, it is the Senator from California, No. 1.

No. 2, Henry Kissinger, Lee Hamilton, and Baker--all these people mentioned--they all say get out. None of them think the policy of this President makes any sense. So let's start off where they are. Henry Kissinger has endorsed the Biden plan and the Boxer plan and all the rest who have done it. They need a political solution.

I remind everybody that the Baker-Hamilton report set a date of March 2008 as a goal to get the majority of our troops out, if not all of them out. They talked about drawing down our troops. The President rejected that policy.

I don't know a serious person--there probably are--I don't know of any in the international community, I don't know of anybody in the foreign policy establishment in the United States of America, from Colin Powell, a former Secretary of State, to former Secretaries of State and Secretaries of Defense in Republican administrations, who thinks this policy makes any sense.

Madam President, I say to my colleagues, to quote Gravel--I was here in 1972 while my friend John McCain, God love him, was in a prisoner- of-war camp. I was a 29-year-old Senator. Nobody agreed with Gravel. Give me a break. Quoting Gravel as the voice of the left--he was the voice of his voice. God love him, as my mother would say, and he still is the voice of his voice. Who agrees with Gravel? Maybe somebody does. But to quote him as if it was the Democratic position on Cambodia--go count the votes, how many votes Gravel got. That is not representative of even the left. This is a man who, God love him, nominated himself for Vice President. Come on. Come on.

And who is calling for a precipitous withdrawal? If I am not mistaken, the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee is not voting for a precipitous withdrawal. This is what we call, in the law business, which I have been practicing 34 years, a red herring.

The question is, Do we continue to send our kids into the middle of a meat grinder based on a policy that is fundamentally flawed? I don't think there are a dozen Republicans on that side of the aisle who agree with the President's strategy, nor do I believe, if the President had followed the recommendation of the Senator from Delaware and then the Senator from Arizona back before there was a civil war to put enough troops in to solidify the situation on the ground, we might not be here. The rationale he offered and I offered, if I am not mistaken, was: Mr. President, you don't have a strategy. Secretary of Defense, these are not a bunch of dead-enders, they are not a bunch of thugs. They are thugs, but you have a big problem, Mr. President.

If I am not mistaken, I heard the Senator from Arizona make those speeches 4 years ago. I heard him, along with me, call for more troops back then in order to get out sooner. We predicted there would be a civil war if we didn't gain control. Surprise, surprise, surprise. We have a civil war.

Look, I understand the political dilemmas in which we find ourselves: We have a President of our own party we have a problem with. I have been there. It never kept me from speaking up. If my colleagues recall, my friend from California, who is presiding, remembers, to use the trite expression, I beat President Clinton up and about the head, as they say in the neighborhood where I come from, to use force in Bosnia, to end a genocide. The President didn't agree with me. I was told: Calm down, don't put him in that spot. I am accustomed to taking on Presidents in my own party, and I know it is hard. It is hard. But I tell you what, name me any one of the people who were quoted here who thinks the policy we are pursuing now makes any sense.

Ever since the Democrats took control of the Congress back in January, we have been working to build pressure on the administration and, quite bluntly, on our Republican colleagues to change course in Iraq because I have reached a point where I think the President is impervious to information. There is a great expression, I believe it was Oliver Wendell Holmes referring to prejudice--and the President is not prejudiced, but I make the point. He said prejudice is like the pupil of the eye: the more light you shine upon it, the more tightly it closes. This administration is like the pupil of the eye: the more hard facts you give them to prove their policy is a failure, the tighter it closes and the less inclined to change they are. More and more Republicans--more and more Republicans--have stopped backing the President and started looking for ways to work with us to bring our soldiers home in a responsible way so we don't merely trade a dictator for chaos.

Let me say something I am going to be reminded of, I am sure, again and again and again. Having been here for 34 years, I know you should not make statements I am about to make lightly, but I am reminded of it by the comments made about Cambodia. On this, we have a sell-by date. You know when you buy milk, it says sell by a certain date or it turns sour? There is a sell-by date here, folks, for us to change policy. Because if we do not change policy in a radical way in this calendar year, I believe we will be left with one of two alternatives.

We have a chance now to change policy and maybe salvage--maybe salvage--a circumstance in Iraq, whereas we gradually leave, and we will not have traded a dictator for chaos and the possibility of a regional war. That is alternative one. I think that alternative two is Saigon revisited. We will be lifting American personnel off the roofs of buildings in the green zone if we do not change policy and pretty drastically.

There is not a single person in here that knows anything about the military who can tell me they think there is any possibility of us sustaining 160,000 forces in Iraq this time next year. What my friend from Arizona did not say--and he knows a great deal about this--is that leading generals in the military say straightforward that we are breaking--let me emphasize that--breaking the U.S. military--breaking the U.S. military. Let me put it another way. We have more professionally trained academy graduates, such as my friend from Arizona, leaving the military after 5 years than we have had any time in the last 30-plus years. The cream of the crop are being broken by this failed--this failed policy in Iraq.

What is worse is not that it is a failed policy, but it is impervious to recommendations made by the most informed people in both political parties inside and outside Government. What did the President do with the Baker-Hamilton Commission? Picked it up, gave it real lip service, and flipped it on the shelf. Who was on that commission? Two former Secretaries of State, who were Republicans; the present Secretary of Defense; some of the leading conservative voices in America on military matters; along with mainstream Democratic leaders. What did they do? What did they do? They blew it off. Now they are revisiting it. Now press reports are that maybe we have to have a plan B.

Look, it matters profoundly how we end this war. It matters to our soldiers, it matters to the Iraqis, and it matters to America's future security. As I said before, I don't want my son, a captain in the Army, going to Iraq, but he will go, if called. But I also don't want my grandson going. How we leave will determine whether my grandson goes. So far this President has offered absolutely no political solution to Iraq. None.

What does he say? He says surge troops. Why? To give the Iraqis breathing room. Why? So the Iraqis will get together and form a unity government that can be trusted by all the Iraqi people to govern the nation, allowing us to leave.

Not in the lifetime of anyone on this floor, including these talented young pages, will there be a unity government in Baghdad that has the confidence of all the Iraqi people, able to

maintain security, provide opportunity, and have a stable unity government. It will not happen.

I had a proposal over a year ago--and I have been roundly criticized for it, except for the Presiding Officer and a few others--wherein I laid out--and not because I am so smart; I happen to be chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee because I have lasted longer than others-- but I laid out a comprehensive proposal. What does everybody say in this body? Everybody says, in and out of Government, that there is no military solution to Iraq, only a political solution. Name me a single person who has offered a political solution, except the Senator from California, myself, and the Senator from Kansas, Mr. Brownback. Name me anyone. What is the political solution? What is the political solution my friend is offering? What is it?

The political solution is that somehow the Iraqis will have an epiphany--and I know Muslims don't have epiphanies; that is a Christian thing--they will have an epiphany and all of a sudden they are going to get together, realizing what is at stake, and form this unity government that can deliver.

I met with al-Maliki last year. I have been to Iraq and Afghanistan eight times. I am heading over there again shortly. I sat with al- Maliki, and when I came back, the President asked my views. He was kind enough to ask what I thought. I said, I don't think al-Maliki has it in his bone marrow, in his heart or his brain to desire to reconcile with the Sunnis. Even if he did, he doesn't have the capacity.

What have we rested everything on here? We are about to have a report that was going to be filed this June 15, pointing out the Iraqis haven't met a single benchmark. Isn't that strange? What did we do? Every opportunity we had to help them along, we walked away from. I remember after they voted on their Constitution. I was there for the official vote, I stuck my finger in the ink that does not come off your finger. I went to the polling places. The Iraqis voted overwhelmingly for a constitution. Know what it says? I wish somebody would read it once in a while. It says, I believe it is article 1, we are a decentralized federal system. Then in articles 15, 16, 17, and 18, if I am not mistaken--this is from memory--it lays out how any 1 of the 18 governates, political subdivisions, basically, in Iraq can become a region, vote for their own constitution, and have their own local security. It also implies there will be an allocation of the oil resources through a constitutional amendment.

I remember immediately after that vote, coming back from my third or fourth trip, then meeting with the administration and saying: What are you going to do? And being told: Oh, it is too premature to push any of that. I said: Whoa, let me get this straight. How are you going to bring these folks together unless you help them implement the Constitution? No, no, too tough now--too tough.

This administration has not made, when given a choice, a single correct decision on Iraq. Hear me. That is a bold statement. I cannot think of a single decision when they have been faced with a choice that they have made the right choice. I cannot think of one. Way back, when the President asked me why I was calling for Rumsfeld's resignation, and the Vice President was in the room, in the Oval Office, I said: With all due respect, Mr. President, Mr. Vice President, if, Mr. Vice President, you were not a constitutional officer, I would call for your resignation too. He looked at me and said: Why? I said: Because, Mr. President, name me one piece of advice either Rumsfeld or Cheney have given you in Iraq that has turned out to be right. Name me one. One. One. It is not about retribution, Mr. President, it is about competence. If all the advice you have been given is bad, don't you think it is a good idea to look for new advice--new advisers?

Look, I believe there is a comprehensive strategy to end this war responsibly and it has three parts. First, is a roadmap to bring most of our troops out and home by early next year. Two, is a detailed plan for what we leave behind, a political solution. Three, is the commitment that so long as there is a single American--a single American soldier--in Iraq, we should do everything in our power to protect them.

Let me go through this very briefly. First, bringing our troops home. Instead of escalating the war with no end in sight, we have to start to bring our troops home now and withdraw most by next year. This was the Baker-Hamilton recommendation.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 10 more minutes.

If we don't start bringing home combat forces within the next few months, get them out of the midst of a civil war, we will have so soured the American people on the ability to do even the things that need be done that this President and the next President will be left with absolutely no option--absolutely no option--but to withdraw totally from that area and let the chips fall where they may.

You know, that is exactly what we started to propose, the Senator from California and others, Senator Levin, in the Biden-Hagel-Snowe- Levin resolution opposing the surge back in January and of the Biden- Levin provision in the Iraqi supplemental bill, the very thing the President vetoed. The common denominator in all these efforts has been to transition our troops to a more limited mission so we can start to bring them home and set the groundwork for being able to leave behind a political solution.

That is exactly what Senator Levin is doing today. He is taking the Biden-Levin amendment, now called the Levin-Reed amendment, and he is going back at it. I compliment him for it because we have to keep pushing in order to change the minds of our Republican friends by keeping pressure on them to start to vote for the troops and not the President.

Mr. President, I was not able to be here yesterday for all of the votes on motions to table amendments to S. 1639. Had I been here, I would have voted against tabling the amendments filed by Senator Dodd and Senator Menendez.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Combating Child Exploitation Act of 2007. This legislation takes a bold step forward in addressing child exploitation.

And, Mr. President, let me assure you, we need bold action. We have taken some important steps here in the Senate, including passing the Jacob Weterling Act, the Pam Lyncher Act, the Amber Alert program, and last year's Adam Walsh Act.

But, this is a problem that keeps growing and growing, and we need bold action to address this problem. If we do not act, we will probably be back here naming a new bill after another unfortunate child victim.

The bottom line is that the Internet has facilitated an exploding, multi-billion dollar market for child pornography, with 20,000 new images posted every week. This is a market that can only be supplied by the continued sexual assault and exploitation of more children and the research shows that victims are getting younger and they are being exposed to more sadistic abuse.

The FBI and the Department of Justice have testified before Congress that there are hundreds of thousands of people trafficking child pornography in this country and millions around the world.

We are not making a dent in this problem.

Don't get me wrong, there are many Federal, State and local investigators and prosecutors out there working tirelessly, but need to do much more.

We have not dedicated enough Federal agents to this problem and we have not provided enough support for States and local government.

The most troubling aspect, one that led to the drafting of this legislation is that we know where many of these people are and if we set the right priorities we can go pick them up.

Let me repeat that, we have new investigative techniques that will allow us to identify many of the people who are trafficking child pornography and we can go pick them up.

A very conservative estimate is that there are more than 400,000 people who we know who are trafficking child pornography on the Internet in the U.S. right now.

We can, with minimal effort, take these people down. But, due to lack of resources we are investigating less than 2 percent of these cases. Again, we are only investigating 2 percent of the known child pornography traffickers.

We also know that when law enforcement agents do investigate these cases, there is a local abused child in 30 percent off the cases. And, research shows that at least 55 percent of child pornography possessors have previously sexually assaulted children or attempted to do so. So, by picking up these known offenders, we are saving children.

Finally, it is important to note that every time one of these images or videos are shared, the child is victimized again and again.

So, to help ensure that law enforcement has the capacity to get the job done, I am introducing the Combating Child Exploitation Act of 2007.

First, this legislation will establish a Special Counsel in the Deputy Attorney General's Office to coordinate all activities related to preventing child exploitation. This will be one person who will be held accountable for results.

We will also congressionally require that there be at least one Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force, CAC, in each State. This program is poised to become the backbone for our investigative efforts here in the U.S. by forming a network of highly trained investigators to focus exclusively on combating child exploitation. Under this bill, we will triple the funding for the ICAC program to help with hiring, training, and investigative resources to form this Nation-wide network.

In addition, we will authorize over 250 new Federal agents to focus exclusively on this problem, including 125 new FBI agents, which will double the number of agents under the Innocent Images Program at the FBI, 95 new agents for the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, ICE, and 31 new postal inspectors.

This bill will help us form a coordinated effort to go after child predators. As stated previously, we know where many of these people are and we need to go get them.

In my view, it is inexcusable that we are not putting the resources toward tracking the ones down who we know about and doing much more to find the others who are lurking in the shadows.

This legislation will get us on the right track and I urge my colleagues to support this effort.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, with my good friend and colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, the Underground Railroad Network Reauthorization Act of 2007. The original act, signed into law in 1998, has increased public awareness of the Underground Railroad, a cornerstone in African-American heritage and history, with sites and programs in 28 States and the

District of Columbia. This is the only national program dedicated to the preservation, interpretation and dissemination of underground railroad history. I am pleased that we are joined in this effort by Senators Alexander, Carper, Cardin, Cochran, Kennedy, Kerry, Levin and Obama.

Throughout this Nation there are sites in the underground railroad network that, while still standing, have suffered structural damage. There are also many sites that no longer house a physical structure, but still are important to recognize. A good example is the Thomas Garrett House, located in Wilmington in my home State of Delaware. The Garrett House was the last station on the Underground Railroad before the slaves reached freedom in Pennsylvania. It has been estimated that Garrett, a well known Quaker, helped more than 2,000 runaway slaves escape from the Southern States. The legislation being introduced today will not only help pay to repair damaged structures, but also to educate the general public about those sites that are no longer in existence, like the Thomas Garrett House.

The underground railroad network is a special part of American history that we cannot afford to let slip away. This legislation will preserve these invaluable memorials and educational resources by raising the authorization level from $500,000 to $2.5 million. We must move now to ensure that the brave acts of these individuals are preserved for future generations to observe and honor.

A companion bill has already been introduced in the House by Representatives, H.R. 1239, by Representative Alcee L. Hastings and my friend and colleague from Delaware, Representative Mike Castle. I hope both Chambers move quickly to preserve this precious history.

It is my honor to ask my colleagues here in the Senate to join me today in supporting this bill so that this part of our Nation's past will not be forgotten.

Mr. President, 20 years ago, I helped write the law that established the current Federal cocaine sentencing scheme. Under this law, it takes 100 times more powder cocaine than crack cocaine to trigger the 5- and 10-year mandatory minimum sentences. And mere possession of five grams of crack, the weight of about two sugar cubes, gets you the same 5-year mandatory minimum penalty as trafficking 500 grams of the powder form of cocaine, which is equivalent to about a 1 pound bag of sugar.

The facts that informed our decision at the time have proved to be wrong, making the underlying cocaine sentencing structure we created unfounded and unfair. It is time to change the law to reflect this new understanding. That is why, today, I am introducing the Drug Sentencing Reform & Cocaine Kingpin Trafficking Act of 2007, which eliminates this unjustified disparity in Federal cocaine sentencing policy.

Back in 1986, when we wrote the law that established the current sentencing structure, crack was hitting our streets and communities like a storm. I remember one headline that I think summed it up. It read ``New York City Being Swamped by `Crack'; Authorities Say They Are Almost Powerless to Halt Cocaine.'' That summer was called ``the summer of crack,'' and we were inundated with horror stories about how this new form of smokeable cocaine was ravaging communities. We were told that crack was instantly addictive, prompting the expression, ``Once on crack, you never go back.'' We heard that it caused users to go on violent rampages, was more harmful to babies than powder cocaine when used by mothers during pregnancy, and would lead to the disintegration of inner-city communities.

And in Congress, there was a feeling of desperation that summer, a sense that we had to give law enforcement the power they needed to save neighborhoods being ravaged by this drug.

More than a dozen bills were introduced to increase the penalties for this form of cocaine, but because we knew so little about it, the proposals were all over the map. They ranged from the Reagan administration's proposal of a 20-to-1 sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine to a 1000-to-1 disparity proposed by Senator Lawton Chiles. I joined Senators Byrd and Dole in leading the effort to enact the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, which established the current 100-to-1 disparity.

Our intentions were good, but as further scientific and sociological study has shown, we got it wrong.

We now know that these initial assumptions about crack and powder cocaine, which are just two forms of the same drug, simply were not true. Scientific evidence shows that crack does not have unique, inherent properties that make it instantly addictive. According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, ``cocaine in any form produces the same physiological and subjective effects.'' We also have learned that the dire predictions about a generation of ``crack babies'' whose mothers used crack during pregnancy have not proven true. The negative effects of prenatal exposure to crack cocaine and powder cocaine are identical. Furthermore, data that the U.S. Sentencing Commission has collected show that crack users rarely commit acts of violence. Almost all crack-related violence is associated with trafficking, not with someone on a so-called crack-induced rampage.

Looking back over more than 20 years, it is also clear that the harsh crack penalties have had a disproportionate impact on the African American community. Eighty-two percent of those convicted of crack offenses at the Federal level are African American, fueling the notion that the Federal cocaine sentencing scheme is unfair.

There is widespread recognition that the current cocaine sentencing scheme is out of date and out of touch with reality. There are others here in the Senate, on both sides of the aisle, who feel the current cocaine sentencing policy is unfounded. Like me, Senators Sessions and Hatch have introduced legislation to reduce the disparity and I want to congratulate them for their hard work and dedication to this issue.

As a matter of fact, when President Bush was asked about the longer sentences for crack cocaine, he said that the disparity, and I am quoting the President here, ``ought to be addressed by making sure the powder cocaine and crack cocaine penalties are the same. I don't believe we ought to be discriminatory.''

A slew of commentators, Federal judges, Federal prosecutors, doctors, academics, social scientists, civil rights leaders, clergy, and others have spoken out about the unwarranted disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentences.

And just last month, the U.S. Sentencing Commission, a bipartisan panel comprised in large part of Federal judges who preside over cocaine cases, issued a report stating that the current Federal cocaine sentencing scheme ``continues to come under almost universal criticism from representatives of the Judiciary, criminal justice practitioners, academics, and community interest groups.''

This is not the first time the Sentencing Commission has urged reform. In 1995, the Commission recommended eliminating the crack/ powder sentencing disparity. Congress rejected this proposal. As scientific understanding of cocaine evolved, the Commisson urged Congress three more times to address this problem. Yet Congress did not act. We are long overdue in heeding the call for reform.

The Sentencing Cmission has provided us with a roadmap. In its most recent report, the Commission ``unanimously and strongly urge[d]'' Congress to: 1. Act swiftly to increase the threshold quantities of crack necessary to trigger the 5- and 10-year mandatory minimum sentences, so that Federal resources are focused on major drug traffickers as intended in the original 1986 legislation; and 2. repeal the mandatory minimum penalty sentence for simple possession of crack, the only controlled substance for which there is a mandatory minimum for a first time offense of simple possession. The Sentencing Commission also unanimously rejected any effort to increase the penalties for powder since there is no evidence to justify any such upward adjustment.

My bill implements all of these recommendations.

Specifically, my bill will eliminate the current 100-to-1 disparity by increasing the 5-year mandatory minimum threshold quantity for crack cocaine to 500 grams, from 5 grams, and the 10-year threshold quantity to 5,000 grams, from 50 grams, while maintaining the current statutory mandatory minimum threshold quantities for powder cocaine. It will also eliminate the current 5-year mandatory minimum penalty for simple possession of crack cocaine, the only mandatory minimum sentence for simple possession of a drug by a first time offender.

It also increases penalties for major drug traffickers and provides additional resources for the Federal agencies that investigate and prosecute drug offenses. Furthermore, because I have always believed that the best approach to fighting crime is a holistic one that incorporates enforcement, prevention, and treatment, my bill authorizes funds for prison- and jail-based drug treatment programs.

My bill both remedies the historic injustice in the current cocaine sentencing laws and focuses Federal resources on, and increases penalties for, the big fish, the major drug traffickers and kingpins who drive the drug trade. Unlike Federal powder cocaine offenders, over half of Federal crack offenders are low-level street dealers who could and should be prosecuted at the State level. States are better equipped to handle these small-time dealers and users, and under my bill, these offenders would still be punished, without expending precious Federal resources.

Drug use is a serious problem, and I have long supported strong antidrug legislation. But in addition to being tough, our drug laws should be rational and fair. My bill achieves the right balance. We have talked about the need to address this cocaine sentencing disparity for long enough. It is time to act. I hope that my colleagues will join with me to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, with my good friend and colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, the Underground Railroad Network Reauthorization Act of 2007. The original act, signed into law in 1998, has increased public awareness of the Underground Railroad, a cornerstone in African-American heritage and history, with sites and programs in 28 States and the

District of Columbia. This is the only national program dedicated to the preservation, interpretation and dissemination of underground railroad history. I am pleased that we are joined in this effort by Senators Alexander, Carper, Cardin, Cochran, Kennedy, Kerry, Levin and Obama.

Throughout this Nation there are sites in the underground railroad network that, while still standing, have suffered structural damage. There are also many sites that no longer house a physical structure, but still are important to recognize. A good example is the Thomas Garrett House, located in Wilmington in my home State of Delaware. The Garrett House was the last station on the Underground Railroad before the slaves reached freedom in Pennsylvania. It has been estimated that Garrett, a well known Quaker, helped more than 2,000 runaway slaves escape from the Southern States. The legislation being introduced today will not only help pay to repair damaged structures, but also to educate the general public about those sites that are no longer in existence, like the Thomas Garrett House.

The underground railroad network is a special part of American history that we cannot afford to let slip away. This legislation will preserve these invaluable memorials and educational resources by raising the authorization level from $500,000 to $2.5 million. We must move now to ensure that the brave acts of these individuals are preserved for future generations to observe and honor.

A companion bill has already been introduced in the House by Representatives, H.R. 1239, by Representative Alcee L. Hastings and my friend and colleague from Delaware, Representative Mike Castle. I hope both Chambers move quickly to preserve this precious history.

It is my honor to ask my colleagues here in the Senate to join me today in supporting this bill so that this part of our Nation's past will not be forgotten.

Mr. President, 20 years ago, I helped write the law that established the current Federal cocaine sentencing scheme. Under this law, it takes 100 times more powder cocaine than crack cocaine to trigger the 5- and 10-year mandatory minimum sentences. And mere possession of five grams of crack, the weight of about two sugar cubes, gets you the same 5-year mandatory minimum penalty as trafficking 500 grams of the powder form of cocaine, which is equivalent to about a 1 pound bag of sugar.

The facts that informed our decision at the time have proved to be wrong, making the underlying cocaine sentencing structure we created unfounded and unfair. It is time to change the law to reflect this new understanding. That is why, today, I am introducing the Drug Sentencing Reform & Cocaine Kingpin Trafficking Act of 2007, which eliminates this unjustified disparity in Federal cocaine sentencing policy.

Back in 1986, when we wrote the law that established the current sentencing structure, crack was hitting our streets and communities like a storm. I remember one headline that I think summed it up. It read ``New York City Being Swamped by `Crack'; Authorities Say They Are Almost Powerless to Halt Cocaine.'' That summer was called ``the summer of crack,'' and we were inundated with horror stories about how this new form of smokeable cocaine was ravaging communities. We were told that crack was instantly addictive, prompting the expression, ``Once on crack, you never go back.'' We heard that it caused users to go on violent rampages, was more harmful to babies than powder cocaine when used by mothers during pregnancy, and would lead to the disintegration of inner-city communities.

And in Congress, there was a feeling of desperation that summer, a sense that we had to give law enforcement the power they needed to save neighborhoods being ravaged by this drug.

More than a dozen bills were introduced to increase the penalties for this form of cocaine, but because we knew so little about it, the proposals were all over the map. They ranged from the Reagan administration's proposal of a 20-to-1 sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine to a 1000-to-1 disparity proposed by Senator Lawton Chiles. I joined Senators Byrd and Dole in leading the effort to enact the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, which established the current 100-to-1 disparity.

Our intentions were good, but as further scientific and sociological study has shown, we got it wrong.

We now know that these initial assumptions about crack and powder cocaine, which are just two forms of the same drug, simply were not true. Scientific evidence shows that crack does not have unique, inherent properties that make it instantly addictive. According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, ``cocaine in any form produces the same physiological and subjective effects.'' We also have learned that the dire predictions about a generation of ``crack babies'' whose mothers used crack during pregnancy have not proven true. The negative effects of prenatal exposure to crack cocaine and powder cocaine are identical. Furthermore, data that the U.S. Sentencing Commission has collected show that crack users rarely commit acts of violence. Almost all crack-related violence is associated with trafficking, not with someone on a so-called crack-induced rampage.

Looking back over more than 20 years, it is also clear that the harsh crack penalties have had a disproportionate impact on the African American community. Eighty-two percent of those convicted of crack offenses at the Federal level are African American, fueling the notion that the Federal cocaine sentencing scheme is unfair.

There is widespread recognition that the current cocaine sentencing scheme is out of date and out of touch with reality. There are others here in the Senate, on both sides of the aisle, who feel the current cocaine sentencing policy is unfounded. Like me, Senators Sessions and Hatch have introduced legislation to reduce the disparity and I want to congratulate them for their hard work and dedication to this issue.

As a matter of fact, when President Bush was asked about the longer sentences for crack cocaine, he said that the disparity, and I am quoting the President here, ``ought to be addressed by making sure the powder cocaine and crack cocaine penalties are the same. I don't believe we ought to be discriminatory.''

A slew of commentators, Federal judges, Federal prosecutors, doctors, academics, social scientists, civil rights leaders, clergy, and others have spoken out about the unwarranted disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentences.

And just last month, the U.S. Sentencing Commission, a bipartisan panel comprised in large part of Federal judges who preside over cocaine cases, issued a report stating that the current Federal cocaine sentencing scheme ``continues to come under almost universal criticism from representatives of the Judiciary, criminal justice practitioners, academics, and community interest groups.''

This is not the first time the Sentencing Commission has urged reform. In 1995, the Commission recommended eliminating the crack/ powder sentencing disparity. Congress rejected this proposal. As scientific understanding of cocaine evolved, the Commisson urged Congress three more times to address this problem. Yet Congress did not act. We are long overdue in heeding the call for reform.

The Sentencing Cmission has provided us with a roadmap. In its most recent report, the Commission ``unanimously and strongly urge[d]'' Congress to: 1. Act swiftly to increase the threshold quantities of crack necessary to trigger the 5- and 10-year mandatory minimum sentences, so that Federal resources are focused on major drug traffickers as intended in the original 1986 legislation; and 2. repeal the mandatory minimum penalty sentence for simple possession of crack, the only controlled substance for which there is a mandatory minimum for a first time offense of simple possession. The Sentencing Commission also unanimously rejected any effort to increase the penalties for powder since there is no evidence to justify any such upward adjustment.

My bill implements all of these recommendations.

Specifically, my bill will eliminate the current 100-to-1 disparity by increasing the 5-year mandatory minimum threshold quantity for crack cocaine to 500 grams, from 5 grams, and the 10-year threshold quantity to 5,000 grams, from 50 grams, while maintaining the current statutory mandatory minimum threshold quantities for powder cocaine. It will also eliminate the current 5-year mandatory minimum penalty for simple possession of crack cocaine, the only mandatory minimum sentence for simple possession of a drug by a first time offender.

It also increases penalties for major drug traffickers and provides additional resources for the Federal agencies that investigate and prosecute drug offenses. Furthermore, because I have always believed that the best approach to fighting crime is a holistic one that incorporates enforcement, prevention, and treatment, my bill authorizes funds for prison- and jail-based drug treatment programs.

My bill both remedies the historic injustice in the current cocaine sentencing laws and focuses Federal resources on, and increases penalties for, the big fish, the major drug traffickers and kingpins who drive the drug trade. Unlike Federal powder cocaine offenders, over half of Federal crack offenders are low-level street dealers who could and should be prosecuted at the State level. States are better equipped to handle these small-time dealers and users, and under my bill, these offenders would still be punished, without expending precious Federal resources.

Drug use is a serious problem, and I have long supported strong antidrug legislation. But in addition to being tough, our drug laws should be rational and fair. My bill achieves the right balance. We have talked about the need to address this cocaine sentencing disparity for long enough. It is time to act. I hope that my colleagues will join with me to support this legislation.

Madam President, on behalf of Senator Kennedy, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Madam President, history shows when the union movement is strong, the middle class is strong. When the middle class is strong, our Nation is strong.

But when the union movement is under attack, the middle class is under attack. When the middle class is under attack, our Nation is weaker economically and politically. Let there be no mistake, the union movement and our middle class are under attack. Just take a look at the numbers.

Since 1973, 26 percent of the workers in America belong to unions. The pay and benefits, the working conditions, the basic dignity they fought for spilled over to the rest of working class Americans. We are all better off for it.

I would like to show you a couple of charts. Between 1947 and 1973, if you look at rising income growth, and based on the percentile of income shown on this chart, essentially everyone from 1947 to 1973--the rising tide lifts all boats, and it lifted all boats--there was an actual real income growth of almost 118 percent for the lowest 20 percentile. The top 20 percentile grew over 80 percent. There was some genuine equity.

Then take a look at what happened as the union movement began to take blows from the Supreme Court and the NLRB. There used to be card check back in those days, by the way. If you wanted to join a union, you got a card check, a little like we are talking about now.

Look what happened between 1973 and the year 2000. Real income growth, the lowest 20 percent, grew just about 12 percent. The top 20 percent grew over 67 percent. We begin to see the building inequities as a consequence of the demise of the American union movement, as well as tax policy and the types of jobs we are creating.

Now, because I only have 5 minutes, I am going to do this quickly. Let's fast-forward to the era of President Bush, George W. Bush. Look what has happened in terms of real income growth, in terms of 2004 dollars. There has actually been a net decline in the income of the lowest 20 percent, almost 5 percent; the second lowest tier, almost 4 percent; the middle income, people making between $40,000 and $60,000 per family, their real income actually dropped over 2 percent--all the way across the board, everybody but the top 1 percent. You have to have an income roughly of $435,000 to make it into that category. Average salary income in that category is $1.4-plus million per year. That is the only outfit growing, and look at what happened.

If I could superimpose a chart on organized labor, you would see a direct decline; you would see an inverse proportion of what happened. As labor declined, the economic power of corporate America increased, and the power of the wealthiest among us skyrocketed.

It is time to change. Today, just 12 percent of American workers belong to unions, and the spending power of the paycheck is actually lower than it was in 1973. The median income is lower, but productivity is up more than 80 percent since 1973.

It used to be we had a grand bargain in this country. As labor increased productivity, as they did more, as businesses and stockholders were able to benefit from the increased productivity, they benefited. Now it is in inverse proportion. On the sweat and their backs, they have increased productivity, and they have been penalized for it.

Even in my State of Delaware, the hourly wage is down since 2000. The median family income is below its 2000 level. The number of workers represented and protected by unions has fallen from 1 in 4 in 1973 to 1 in 10 today. The basic social compact that built our economy, that built our middle class, that built our country after World War II, has been broken. That compact said if workers produce more, they would share in the gains. Today, that is not true. Unions help to cut that deal, and they kept their end of the bargain. Business and government have not kept their part of the deal.

It is harder now to organize, harder to get a union certified to represent the interests of the workers. It is harder because business is fighting back harder because this administration has launched its own unrelenting attack on the union movement. It is not just pay that has taken a hit. Basic benefits such as health care, pensions--things unions fought for and won--they are, more and more, just a thing of the past.

More and more of the American people have no health insurance--46 million as of last year--a number that just keeps growing. In my State of Delaware there are 100,000 uninsured.

Just imagine the fear, the insecurity, the helplessness that the families must feel, going from day to day--the man lying in bed and the woman lying in bed at night staring at the ceiling, having no insurance, looking over at his pregnant wife, knowing it is a premature child, and they will literally lose their house.

I yield myself 3 more minutes.

Madam President, a quarter of a century ago, 9 out of 10 American workers could count on a pension plan with a guaranteed payout. They had security in knowing they could pay their bills. Today, only about one-third of Americans are in that shape.

Union membership means more security. The facts are clear. Union jobs earn 30 percent more than nonunion jobs.

We have to stop and reverse the decline of union membership, and that means passing the Employee Free Choice Act, which I have supported from the beginning, and which used to exist.

In Delaware right now the Laborers International Union of North America says the majority of the workers at the Walker International Transportation Company near my home in New Castle, DE, want to join them. They want to join because they need the benefits such as decent health care, pay, and working conditions for which unions have fought. Since May, the union has filed four complaints with the NLRB, complaints that the company is interfering with their organizing efforts.

Under current law, this process could be drawn out indefinitely. They should be able to resolve this with a clear, simple count of cards, certified by the National Labor Relations Board.

The Employee Free Choice Act will make the will of the majority of workers clearer. It will punish employers who break the law, and it will guarantee that new unions will get their first contract, not just another runaround.

It is time to bring the strength of the union movement back within the reach of the American people. It is time to rebuild the middle class by giving organized labor the strength to fight for decent pay and benefits.

My colleagues, it is time for a new social compact, a new social compact because of white-collar workers who never thought they needed a union, and who all of a sudden are finding out their companies are not so generous with them when they walk in and shut down a division and shut them out. I say to my colleagues, I believe American white-collar workers who never thought about the union movement are prepared to think about it now.

I don't want to just reverse the slide of organized labor in America, I want to energize a new compact between white-collar workers and blue- collar workers to give back power to the middle class so this graph you see here from the year 2008 through 2020 looks more like this graph that existed from

1947 to 1973. It is the only way to keep the middle class in the game. They are getting crushed now. They are getting crushed.

I yield the floor, and I thank my colleague for the time.

Mr. President, many have called the 20th Century ``the American century.'' The 21st Century will be one, too, provided that we understand and act on a new reality: that global interactions make each country, even the U.S., more dependent upon others. Nowhere is this more striking than in our battle against emerging infectious diseases and bioterrorism. Whether we like it or not, the very security of our Nation depends upon the capability of nations in remote regions to contain epidemics before they spread.

Today, I am introducing the Global Pathogen Surveillance Act of 2007. I am very pleased to have as original cosponsors Senator Hagel, who is an esteemed colleague on the Foreign Relations Committee, and Senator Kennedy, who chairs the HELP Committee. Each of these gentlemen also cosponsored earlier versions of this bill. Also cosponsoring this bill is one of my fine new colleagues on the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Casey.

Our action today is timely, as there is still time to prevent bioterrorist attacks on the U.S. It is urgent, because the disease surveillance capabilities in foreign countries that this act will promote are vitally needed to protect our country against not only bioterrorism, but also natural diseases such as avian influenza, which threatens to become the greatest pandemic since at least 1918. And it is long overdue, as this bill was first passed by the Senate in 2001 and was again passed in 2005. All of us hope that the third time will be the charm.

The purpose of this bill is to bolster the ability of developing countries to detect, identify and report disease outbreaks, with particular attention to outbreaks that could be the result of terrorist activity. My concern, as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is that today, the many deficiencies in the capability of

developing nations to track and contain disease epidemics are the equivalent of cracks in a levee. Right now, when the epidemiological ``big one'' hits, whether it is a natural outbreak or a terrorist attack, the world simply won't be able to respond in time.

The odds of a major bioterrorism event are very low, but they are hardly zero. In 2001, the American news media, the U.S. Postal Service and this United States Senate learned first-hand what it is like to receive deadly pathogens in the mail. To this day, we do not know whether the murderous anthrax letters were just a criminal act or actually a bioterrorist attack. But we surely know that neither our military power nor our economic wealth or geographical distance affords us immunity from the risk that a deranged person or group will visit biological destruction upon us.

The odds of a major outbreak of a new, but natural, disease are much higher, and the possible consequences, while variable, are truly frightening. At the high end, an avian flu pandemic similar to the Spanish flu of 1918 could kill many millions of people and threaten social cohesion everywhere, including in the U.S. Viruses and other pathogens respect no borders. Increased contact between humans and animals, coupled with vastly increased travel of goods and people, has made it possible for a new and distant outbreak to become a sudden threat to every continent.

The SARS epidemic was a good example of this. Now the world watches nervously as avian flu spreads westward from Asia, occasionally striking poultry flocks in Europe and Africa. We wonder when it will reach the Western Hemisphere and whether, or when, it will mutate into a disease that is readily transmitted between humans, who lack any immunity to it.

Last month, a man with extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis, or XDRTB, flew across one ocean, twice, and drove across several national borders, reminding us how readily a disease can be spread in the modern world. We dodged a bullet this time; XDRTB is especially difficult to treat, but does not spread as readily as influenza or some other diseases. Authorities knew who the disease vector was, moreover, and they knew what he had. The risk with avian flu or a bioterrorism attack is heightened by the likelihood that the disease will spread before anybody even knows it's here.

As if that were not enough, recent advances in biotechnology that open the door to new cures for diseases could also lead to the development of new diseases, or new strains of old ones, with much greater virulence than in the past or with the ability to resist our current vaccines or medicines. Such man-made diseases have already been developed by accident, and there is a clear risk of their being developed on purpose.

The U.S., and this Senate, have acted to address the twin threats of bioterrorism and new pathogens. We enacted the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002, introduced by Senators Frist and Kennedy, to buttress the ability of U.S. public health institutions to deal with a bioterrorism emergency. In 2004 we enacted the Project BioShield Act to spur the development of new vaccines and medicines.

The Centers for Disease Control has a program to put electronic surveillance systems in 8 American cities as the cornerstone of an eventual national network. Delaware is developing the first State-wide, electronic reporting system for infectious diseases, which will serve as a prototype for other States. And the Department of Health and Human Services funded a 3-year, $5.4 million program, early warning infectious disease surveillance, to assist the Government of Mexico to improve its disease surveillance capabilities near the U.S. border. Other funds were provided to U.S. States on the Mexican border.

But these efforts, as vital as they are, address the threats of disease and bioterrorism only when they are inside our house or on our doorstep. We must lift our eyes and look farther, to the places around the world where diseases and terrorism so often breed. We must battle bioterrorism not just at home, but also in those countries where lax governance and the lack of public health resources could permit both strange groups and stranger diseases to get a foothold and to get out of hand. We must not treat the threat of a massive biological pandemic the way we treated the threat of a category 5 hurricane striking New Orleans. If we do not prepare to combat realistic, once-in-a-century threats, then we will be left again to pick up the pieces after enduring massive physical and social harm.

There are precedents in current programs, moreover, for promoting disease surveillance as a means to lessen the risk of bioterrorism. For example, our programs to find useful careers for former Soviet biological weapons scientists, under the leadership of the State Department's Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction, currently fund the disease surveillance activities of anti-plague institutes in six states of the former Soviet Union, which had a major pathogen surveillance program ever since tsarist days. The Department of Defense also has programs with former Soviet scientists, as well as overseas laboratories that work with doctors in developing countries.

We need to build on those programs. We must create a world-wide disease surveillance capability that matches that of the old anti- plague institutes. We must help the rest of the world gain the capability to detect, contain, and report on disease outbreaks in a timely manner, and especially to spot outbreaks that may be the result of biological terrorism.

Part of the answer to the threat of new natural diseases is to stockpile vaccines and medicines, and the means to deliver them quickly. But rapid detection and identification of an outbreak is equally necessary, wherever it occurs. Only disease surveillance can give us the lead time to manufacture vaccines and enable the world community to help control a disease outbreak where it initially occurs.

In 2005, two sets of researchers reported in the journals Nature and Science that, based on computer simulations, if an outbreak of human- to-human-transmitted avian flu occurred in a rural part of Southeast Asia, it might be possible to stem that dangerous epidemic by using anti-viral drugs to treat the tens of thousands of people who might have been exposed in the initial outbreak. One key requirement, however, was that the outbreak would have to be discovered, identified and reported very quickly; in one study, the assumption was that countermeasures were instituted when only 30 people had observable symptoms. That is a tall order for any country's disease surveillance system, let alone a poorly equipped one.

The National Intelligence Council, NIC, reported in January 2000 that developing nations in Africa and Asia have only rudimentary systems, at best, for disease surveillance. They lack sufficient trained personnel and laboratory equipment, and especially the modern communications equipment that is needed for speedy analysis and reporting of disease outbreaks. The NIC estimated that it would take at least a decade to create an effective world-wide disease surveillance system.

According to an August 2001 report by the General Accounting Office, World Health Organization officials said that more than 60 percent of laboratory equipment in developing countries was either outdated or nonfunctioning, and that the vast majority of national personnel were not familiar with quality assurance principles for handling and analyzing biological samples. Deficiencies in training and equipment meant that many public health units in Africa and Asia were simply unable to perform accurate and timely disease surveillance.

The poor sanitary conditions, poverty, close contact between people and animals, and weak medical infrastructure make developing countries ideal breeding grounds for epidemics.

So it is vital to give these countries the capability to track epidemics and to feed that information into international surveillance networks. Disease surveillance is a systematic approach that requires trained public health personnel, proper diagnostic equipment to identify viruses and pathogens, and prompt transmission of data from the doctor or clinic level all the way to national governments and the World Health Organization, Who.

The Global Pathogen Surveillance Act will offer such help to those countries that agree to give the United

States or the World Health Organization prompt access to disease outbreaks, so that we can help determine their origin. Recipients of this training will also be able to learn to spot diseases that might be used in a bioterrorist attack.

In drafting this bill, we worked closely with the Department of Defense and others, which have all supported the underlying goals of the bill. We also accepted several suggestions for improving the bill from the State Department and, in 2005, from the HELP Committee, all of which contributed to making this a better bill.

This bill targets U.S. assistance to developing nations in the following areas: Training of public health personnel in epidemiology; aquisition of laboratory and diagnostic equipment; Acquisition of communications technology to quickly transmit data on disease patterns and pathogen diagnoses to national public health authorities and to international institutions like the WHO; expansion of overseas CDC and Department of Defense laboratories engaged in infectious disease research and disease surveillance, which expansion could take the form of additional laboratories, enlargement of existing facilities, increases in the number of personnel, and/or expanding the scope of their activities; and expanded assistance to WHO and regional disease surveillance efforts, including expansion of U.S.-administered foreign epidemiology training programs.

Two years ago the Secretary of State, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, expressed her strong backing for this legislation:

We believe that the Global Pathogen Surveillance Act will

indeed help strengthen developing countries' abilities to

identify and track pathogens that could be indicators of

dangerous disease outbreaks--either naturally-occurring or

deliberately-released. Improved disease surveillance and

communication among nations are critical defenses against

both bioterrorism and natural outbreaks. We look forward to

working with you in support of the Global Pathogen

Surveillance Act.

Secretary Rice went on to make clear that she shares the sense of urgency that Senators Hagel, Kennedy, Casey and I feel on this subject:

One of the true ``nightmare'' scenarios--of a bioterrorist

attack or a naturally-occurring disease--involves a

contagious biological agent moving swiftly through a crowded

urban area of a densely populated developing nation. Thus, we

believe that it is critical to increase efforts to strengthen

the public health and scientific infrastructure necessary to

identify and quickly respond to infectious disease

outbreaks--and that the Global Pathogen Surveillance Act will

provide valuable support in these efforts.

The WHO also shares our concern. During the SARS epidemic, Dr. Michael Heymann, who was the highest-ranking American in the WHO, stated: ``it is clear that the best defense against the spread of emerging infections such as SARS is strong national public health, national disease detection and response capacities that can identify new diseases and contain them before they spread internationally.'' He went on to highlight the important role that disease surveillance plays in combating both natural and terrorist outbreaks:

Global partnerships to combat global microbial threats make

good sense as a defense strategy that brings immediate

benefits in terms of strengthened pubic health and

surveillance systems. The resulting infectious disease

intelligence brings dual benefits in terms of protecting

populations against both naturally occurring and potentially

deliberately caused outbreaks. As SARS has so vividly

demonstrated, the need is urgent and of critical importance

to the health of economies as well as populations.

Support to developing countries such as proposed in the

Global Pathogen Surveillance Act . . . will help strengthen

capacity of public health professionals and epidemiologists,

laboratory and other disease detection systems, and outbreak

response mechanisms for naturally occurring infectious

diseases such as SARS. This in turn will strengthen WHO and

the world's safety net for outbreak detection and response,

of which the United States is a major partner. And finally,

strengthening this global safety net to detect and contain

naturally occurring infectious diseases will strengthen the

world's capacity to detect and respond to infectious diseases

that may be deliberately caused.

The purpose of the Global Pathogen Surveillance Act is precisely to build these partnerships. And today, with the global war on terrorism an ever-present concern and with the threat of avian flu on the horizon, we have no time to waste. I urge my Senate colleagues to once again pass this bill and, with new leadership in the other body and with the support of Secretary Rice, I look forward to its speedy enactment.

Mr. President, many have called the 20th Century ``the American century.'' The 21st Century will be one, too, provided that we understand and act on a new reality: that global interactions make each country, even the U.S., more dependent upon others. Nowhere is this more striking than in our battle against emerging infectious diseases and bioterrorism. Whether we like it or not, the very security of our Nation depends upon the capability of nations in remote regions to contain epidemics before they spread.

Today, I am introducing the Global Pathogen Surveillance Act of 2007. I am very pleased to have as original cosponsors Senator Hagel, who is an esteemed colleague on the Foreign Relations Committee, and Senator Kennedy, who chairs the HELP Committee. Each of these gentlemen also cosponsored earlier versions of this bill. Also cosponsoring this bill is one of my fine new colleagues on the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Casey.

Our action today is timely, as there is still time to prevent bioterrorist attacks on the U.S. It is urgent, because the disease surveillance capabilities in foreign countries that this act will promote are vitally needed to protect our country against not only bioterrorism, but also natural diseases such as avian influenza, which threatens to become the greatest pandemic since at least 1918. And it is long overdue, as this bill was first passed by the Senate in 2001 and was again passed in 2005. All of us hope that the third time will be the charm.

The purpose of this bill is to bolster the ability of developing countries to detect, identify and report disease outbreaks, with particular attention to outbreaks that could be the result of terrorist activity. My concern, as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is that today, the many deficiencies in the capability of

developing nations to track and contain disease epidemics are the equivalent of cracks in a levee. Right now, when the epidemiological ``big one'' hits, whether it is a natural outbreak or a terrorist attack, the world simply won't be able to respond in time.

The odds of a major bioterrorism event are very low, but they are hardly zero. In 2001, the American news media, the U.S. Postal Service and this United States Senate learned first-hand what it is like to receive deadly pathogens in the mail. To this day, we do not know whether the murderous anthrax letters were just a criminal act or actually a bioterrorist attack. But we surely know that neither our military power nor our economic wealth or geographical distance affords us immunity from the risk that a deranged person or group will visit biological destruction upon us.

The odds of a major outbreak of a new, but natural, disease are much higher, and the possible consequences, while variable, are truly frightening. At the high end, an avian flu pandemic similar to the Spanish flu of 1918 could kill many millions of people and threaten social cohesion everywhere, including in the U.S. Viruses and other pathogens respect no borders. Increased contact between humans and animals, coupled with vastly increased travel of goods and people, has made it possible for a new and distant outbreak to become a sudden threat to every continent.

The SARS epidemic was a good example of this. Now the world watches nervously as avian flu spreads westward from Asia, occasionally striking poultry flocks in Europe and Africa. We wonder when it will reach the Western Hemisphere and whether, or when, it will mutate into a disease that is readily transmitted between humans, who lack any immunity to it.

Last month, a man with extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis, or XDRTB, flew across one ocean, twice, and drove across several national borders, reminding us how readily a disease can be spread in the modern world. We dodged a bullet this time; XDRTB is especially difficult to treat, but does not spread as readily as influenza or some other diseases. Authorities knew who the disease vector was, moreover, and they knew what he had. The risk with avian flu or a bioterrorism attack is heightened by the likelihood that the disease will spread before anybody even knows it's here.

As if that were not enough, recent advances in biotechnology that open the door to new cures for diseases could also lead to the development of new diseases, or new strains of old ones, with much greater virulence than in the past or with the ability to resist our current vaccines or medicines. Such man-made diseases have already been developed by accident, and there is a clear risk of their being developed on purpose.

The U.S., and this Senate, have acted to address the twin threats of bioterrorism and new pathogens. We enacted the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002, introduced by Senators Frist and Kennedy, to buttress the ability of U.S. public health institutions to deal with a bioterrorism emergency. In 2004 we enacted the Project BioShield Act to spur the development of new vaccines and medicines.

The Centers for Disease Control has a program to put electronic surveillance systems in 8 American cities as the cornerstone of an eventual national network. Delaware is developing the first State-wide, electronic reporting system for infectious diseases, which will serve as a prototype for other States. And the Department of Health and Human Services funded a 3-year, $5.4 million program, early warning infectious disease surveillance, to assist the Government of Mexico to improve its disease surveillance capabilities near the U.S. border. Other funds were provided to U.S. States on the Mexican border.

But these efforts, as vital as they are, address the threats of disease and bioterrorism only when they are inside our house or on our doorstep. We must lift our eyes and look farther, to the places around the world where diseases and terrorism so often breed. We must battle bioterrorism not just at home, but also in those countries where lax governance and the lack of public health resources could permit both strange groups and stranger diseases to get a foothold and to get out of hand. We must not treat the threat of a massive biological pandemic the way we treated the threat of a category 5 hurricane striking New Orleans. If we do not prepare to combat realistic, once-in-a-century threats, then we will be left again to pick up the pieces after enduring massive physical and social harm.

There are precedents in current programs, moreover, for promoting disease surveillance as a means to lessen the risk of bioterrorism. For example, our programs to find useful careers for former Soviet biological weapons scientists, under the leadership of the State Department's Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction, currently fund the disease surveillance activities of anti-plague institutes in six states of the former Soviet Union, which had a major pathogen surveillance program ever since tsarist days. The Department of Defense also has programs with former Soviet scientists, as well as overseas laboratories that work with doctors in developing countries.

We need to build on those programs. We must create a world-wide disease surveillance capability that matches that of the old anti- plague institutes. We must help the rest of the world gain the capability to detect, contain, and report on disease outbreaks in a timely manner, and especially to spot outbreaks that may be the result of biological terrorism.

Part of the answer to the threat of new natural diseases is to stockpile vaccines and medicines, and the means to deliver them quickly. But rapid detection and identification of an outbreak is equally necessary, wherever it occurs. Only disease surveillance can give us the lead time to manufacture vaccines and enable the world community to help control a disease outbreak where it initially occurs.

In 2005, two sets of researchers reported in the journals Nature and Science that, based on computer simulations, if an outbreak of human- to-human-transmitted avian flu occurred in a rural part of Southeast Asia, it might be possible to stem that dangerous epidemic by using anti-viral drugs to treat the tens of thousands of people who might have been exposed in the initial outbreak. One key requirement, however, was that the outbreak would have to be discovered, identified and reported very quickly; in one study, the assumption was that countermeasures were instituted when only 30 people had observable symptoms. That is a tall order for any country's disease surveillance system, let alone a poorly equipped one.

The National Intelligence Council, NIC, reported in January 2000 that developing nations in Africa and Asia have only rudimentary systems, at best, for disease surveillance. They lack sufficient trained personnel and laboratory equipment, and especially the modern communications equipment that is needed for speedy analysis and reporting of disease outbreaks. The NIC estimated that it would take at least a decade to create an effective world-wide disease surveillance system.

According to an August 2001 report by the General Accounting Office, World Health Organization officials said that more than 60 percent of laboratory equipment in developing countries was either outdated or nonfunctioning, and that the vast majority of national personnel were not familiar with quality assurance principles for handling and analyzing biological samples. Deficiencies in training and equipment meant that many public health units in Africa and Asia were simply unable to perform accurate and timely disease surveillance.

The poor sanitary conditions, poverty, close contact between people and animals, and weak medical infrastructure make developing countries ideal breeding grounds for epidemics.

So it is vital to give these countries the capability to track epidemics and to feed that information into international surveillance networks. Disease surveillance is a systematic approach that requires trained public health personnel, proper diagnostic equipment to identify viruses and pathogens, and prompt transmission of data from the doctor or clinic level all the way to national governments and the World Health Organization, Who.

The Global Pathogen Surveillance Act will offer such help to those countries that agree to give the United

States or the World Health Organization prompt access to disease outbreaks, so that we can help determine their origin. Recipients of this training will also be able to learn to spot diseases that might be used in a bioterrorist attack.

In drafting this bill, we worked closely with the Department of Defense and others, which have all supported the underlying goals of the bill. We also accepted several suggestions for improving the bill from the State Department and, in 2005, from the HELP Committee, all of which contributed to making this a better bill.

This bill targets U.S. assistance to developing nations in the following areas: Training of public health personnel in epidemiology; aquisition of laboratory and diagnostic equipment; Acquisition of communications technology to quickly transmit data on disease patterns and pathogen diagnoses to national public health authorities and to international institutions like the WHO; expansion of overseas CDC and Department of Defense laboratories engaged in infectious disease research and disease surveillance, which expansion could take the form of additional laboratories, enlargement of existing facilities, increases in the number of personnel, and/or expanding the scope of their activities; and expanded assistance to WHO and regional disease surveillance efforts, including expansion of U.S.-administered foreign epidemiology training programs.

Two years ago the Secretary of State, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, expressed her strong backing for this legislation:

We believe that the Global Pathogen Surveillance Act will

indeed help strengthen developing countries' abilities to

identify and track pathogens that could be indicators of

dangerous disease outbreaks--either naturally-occurring or

deliberately-released. Improved disease surveillance and

communication among nations are critical defenses against

both bioterrorism and natural outbreaks. We look forward to

working with you in support of the Global Pathogen

Surveillance Act.

Secretary Rice went on to make clear that she shares the sense of urgency that Senators Hagel, Kennedy, Casey and I feel on this subject:

One of the true ``nightmare'' scenarios--of a bioterrorist

attack or a naturally-occurring disease--involves a

contagious biological agent moving swiftly through a crowded

urban area of a densely populated developing nation. Thus, we

believe that it is critical to increase efforts to strengthen

the public health and scientific infrastructure necessary to

identify and quickly respond to infectious disease

outbreaks--and that the Global Pathogen Surveillance Act will

provide valuable support in these efforts.

The WHO also shares our concern. During the SARS epidemic, Dr. Michael Heymann, who was the highest-ranking American in the WHO, stated: ``it is clear that the best defense against the spread of emerging infections such as SARS is strong national public health, national disease detection and response capacities that can identify new diseases and contain them before they spread internationally.'' He went on to highlight the important role that disease surveillance plays in combating both natural and terrorist outbreaks:

Global partnerships to combat global microbial threats make

good sense as a defense strategy that brings immediate

benefits in terms of strengthened pubic health and

surveillance systems. The resulting infectious disease

intelligence brings dual benefits in terms of protecting

populations against both naturally occurring and potentially

deliberately caused outbreaks. As SARS has so vividly

demonstrated, the need is urgent and of critical importance

to the health of economies as well as populations.

Support to developing countries such as proposed in the

Global Pathogen Surveillance Act . . . will help strengthen

capacity of public health professionals and epidemiologists,

laboratory and other disease detection systems, and outbreak

response mechanisms for naturally occurring infectious

diseases such as SARS. This in turn will strengthen WHO and

the world's safety net for outbreak detection and response,

of which the United States is a major partner. And finally,

strengthening this global safety net to detect and contain

naturally occurring infectious diseases will strengthen the

world's capacity to detect and respond to infectious diseases

that may be deliberately caused.

The purpose of the Global Pathogen Surveillance Act is precisely to build these partnerships. And today, with the global war on terrorism an ever-present concern and with the threat of avian flu on the horizon, we have no time to waste. I urge my Senate colleagues to once again pass this bill and, with new leadership in the other body and with the support of Secretary Rice, I look forward to its speedy enactment.

Mr. President, two of the greatest challenges we face today are how to address the needs of postconflict countries, and countries that are suffering from large-scale natural disasters. These are critical issues, and ones that we cannot afford to get wrong, for the sake of the people living in those nations, and for the sake of our own security.

On the post-conflict front, a recent commission organized by the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Association of the U.S. Army found, to no one's surprise, that ``failed states matter--for national security as well as for humanitarian reasons. If left to their own devices, such states can become sanctuaries for terrorist networks, organized crime and drug traffickers, as well as posing grave humanitarian challenges and threats to regional stability.''

Currently, the most obvious case in point is the reconstruction of Iraq. In addition to Iraq, unfortunately, we can talk about many other states that are either unstable, or are tenuously recovering from past conflicts including Afghanistan, East Timor, Kosovo, Haiti, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Earthquakes, floods, drought and landslides often have the most dire impacts in developing countries that are the least equipped to respond. The countries ravaged by the 2004 tsunami are recovering, but there is still a long way to go: Indonesia lost over 150,000 people, with half a million left homeless. In India, almost 20,000 people lost their lives and 2.79 million people were affected, losing homes, land, and livestock. The tsunami set back development in the Maldives by 20 years, devastating the country's economic backbone and tourism industry.

We need comprehensive, and creative, strategies to help countries rebound from conflicts or natural disasters. One such strategy is to allow, and indeed encourage, immigrants to the United States to use their skills, talents, and knowledge to help rebuild their native lands. The diaspora is an extraordinary collective resource. These individuals know the communities. They know the culture. They know the language, more than any contractors, and more than any humanitarian workers from the outside, no matter how well-trained they may be or how much expertise they may have.

So today, I am introducing legislation, as I did in the last Congress, that would create a ``return of talent'' visa program.

The idea is simple: to allow legal immigrants in the United States to return home to help with reconstruction efforts, without jeopardizing their immigration status. Legal permanent residents will be able to return temporarily to their countries after a conflict or a significant natural disaster to help rebuild, without their time out of the United States affecting their ability to meet the requirements for U.S. citizenship.

Under current law, a legal permanent resident who wants to apply for U.S. citizenship is required to be physically present in the United States for at least half of the 5 years immediately preceding the date of filing the naturalization application.

This residency requirement could be particularly difficult to meet for those who have family and friends in their countries of origin who are in desperate need of help, and whose skills are especially in demand to help their countries of origin rebuild, for example, teachers, engineers, translators, and health care workers. We should not stand in their way of returning, bringing their talent and expertise home, and helping them help others at a time of greatest need.

This legislation would encourage skilled and committed individuals to return to their countries of origin to revive the business, industry, agriculture, education, health and other sectors that have been weakened or destroyed after years of conflict or devastating disasters.

The program would apply to immigrants from countries where U.S. Armed Forces have engaged in armed conflict or peacekeeping, or countries where the United Nations Security Council has authorized peacekeeping operations in the past 10 years. Immigrants from countries which received funding from the U.S. Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance also would be eligible to participate in the program.

Estimates of the number of individuals who could participate in this program are relatively low. For example, the United States admitted 4,749 Afghani and 4,077 Iraqi immigrants in 2005 who are now legal permanent residents eligible to pursue U.S. citizenship. Immigrants from Indonesia numbered 3,924 and Bangladesh, 11,487 in the same year. Yet while the program would have a small impact on the U.S. naturalization process, the contributions of even a few hundred individuals could have a tremendous positive effect on reconstruction work.

At this moment the Senate is seized with finding a resolution to the massive and critical question of immigration reform. A return of talent program would fit well with whatever decisions we reach because, simply put, everybody wins: The United States is able to support badly needed rebuilding efforts without increasing foreign aid; immigrants are able to use their skills and resources to help communities without disrupting their path to U.S. citizenship; and communities abroad that are recovering from conflict and disaster receive much-needed assistance.

A return of talent program is an important piece of our overall strategy to stabilize and rebuild countries torn by conflict and devastated by natural disaster. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. President, two of the greatest challenges we face today are how to address the needs of postconflict countries, and countries that are suffering from large-scale natural disasters. These are critical issues, and ones that we cannot afford to get wrong, for the sake of the people living in those nations, and for the sake of our own security.

On the post-conflict front, a recent commission organized by the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Association of the U.S. Army found, to no one's surprise, that ``failed states matter--for national security as well as for humanitarian reasons. If left to their own devices, such states can become sanctuaries for terrorist networks, organized crime and drug traffickers, as well as posing grave humanitarian challenges and threats to regional stability.''

Currently, the most obvious case in point is the reconstruction of Iraq. In addition to Iraq, unfortunately, we can talk about many other states that are either unstable, or are tenuously recovering from past conflicts including Afghanistan, East Timor, Kosovo, Haiti, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Earthquakes, floods, drought and landslides often have the most dire impacts in developing countries that are the least equipped to respond. The countries ravaged by the 2004 tsunami are recovering, but there is still a long way to go: Indonesia lost over 150,000 people, with half a million left homeless. In India, almost 20,000 people lost their lives and 2.79 million people were affected, losing homes, land, and livestock. The tsunami set back development in the Maldives by 20 years, devastating the country's economic backbone and tourism industry.

We need comprehensive, and creative, strategies to help countries rebound from conflicts or natural disasters. One such strategy is to allow, and indeed encourage, immigrants to the United States to use their skills, talents, and knowledge to help rebuild their native lands. The diaspora is an extraordinary collective resource. These individuals know the communities. They know the culture. They know the language, more than any contractors, and more than any humanitarian workers from the outside, no matter how well-trained they may be or how much expertise they may have.

So today, I am introducing legislation, as I did in the last Congress, that would create a ``return of talent'' visa program.

The idea is simple: to allow legal immigrants in the United States to return home to help with reconstruction efforts, without jeopardizing their immigration status. Legal permanent residents will be able to return temporarily to their countries after a conflict or a significant natural disaster to help rebuild, without their time out of the United States affecting their ability to meet the requirements for U.S. citizenship.

Under current law, a legal permanent resident who wants to apply for U.S. citizenship is required to be physically present in the United States for at least half of the 5 years immediately preceding the date of filing the naturalization application.

This residency requirement could be particularly difficult to meet for those who have family and friends in their countries of origin who are in desperate need of help, and whose skills are especially in demand to help their countries of origin rebuild, for example, teachers, engineers, translators, and health care workers. We should not stand in their way of returning, bringing their talent and expertise home, and helping them help others at a time of greatest need.

This legislation would encourage skilled and committed individuals to return to their countries of origin to revive the business, industry, agriculture, education, health and other sectors that have been weakened or destroyed after years of conflict or devastating disasters.

The program would apply to immigrants from countries where U.S. Armed Forces have engaged in armed conflict or peacekeeping, or countries where the United Nations Security Council has authorized peacekeeping operations in the past 10 years. Immigrants from countries which received funding from the U.S. Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance also would be eligible to participate in the program.

Estimates of the number of individuals who could participate in this program are relatively low. For example, the United States admitted 4,749 Afghani and 4,077 Iraqi immigrants in 2005 who are now legal permanent residents eligible to pursue U.S. citizenship. Immigrants from Indonesia numbered 3,924 and Bangladesh, 11,487 in the same year. Yet while the program would have a small impact on the U.S. naturalization process, the contributions of even a few hundred individuals could have a tremendous positive effect on reconstruction work.

At this moment the Senate is seized with finding a resolution to the massive and critical question of immigration reform. A return of talent program would fit well with whatever decisions we reach because, simply put, everybody wins: The United States is able to support badly needed rebuilding efforts without increasing foreign aid; immigrants are able to use their skills and resources to help communities without disrupting their path to U.S. citizenship; and communities abroad that are recovering from conflict and disaster receive much-needed assistance.

A return of talent program is an important piece of our overall strategy to stabilize and rebuild countries torn by conflict and devastated by natural disaster. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. President, tomorrow in Charleston will be a citywide day of mourning for the nine firefighters who died, rushing into the blazing furniture store to try to save a life. I rise to pay my respects to those fallen heroes and to their families.

The other day, when I heard the fire chief, Rusty Thomas, say he lost nine of his best friends, I know what he meant. So does every Senator in this Chamber because firefighters are the best things our communities have.

They risk their lives every day we lay a heavy, heavy responsibility on them. But think of how many countless lives are saved because of their dedication, because they will find the people trapped inside a burning building.

I remember when our former colleague from Charleston, Senator Hollings, had the terrible fire that burned his home, it was those same South Carolina firefighters who came to help one of our own.

Whether they are in Charleston or the volunteers in Claymont, DE, where I come from, when they are done putting out a blaze, you can find them organizing the little league teams or grating the baseball diamonds or taking care of the boy and girl scouts. They are the grit that makes this country great.

What happened in South Carolina reminds all of us just how important firefighters are to our communities, how brave these people are, and how dangerous their work is.

We saw it during Hurricane Katrina, when 1,000 firefighters who themselves lost their homes and their cars, whose whole lives were turned upside down, spent day after day rescuing people from rooftops.

We saw it on September 11, when that grizzled fireman came out of the debris of human flesh and cement and steel to become the face around the world of America's determination.

Three hundred forty-three firemen were lost on that terrible day. And the tragedy in Charleston is the single greatest loss of firefighters in the nation since then.

Just as the spirit of those firefighters on September 11 helped lift America off our knees, I hope that the grief Charleston feels this week will be lifted by the legacy of their fallen heroes.

Mr. President, at a time when we are witnessing the devastating consequences of ethnic and sectarian division in places such as Iraq and Darfur, I believe it is vital to recognize the efforts of those who work to promote peace and reconciliation. In that spirit, I wish to commend the 53 Nobel laureates who signed an appeal by the Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity in support of ``tolerance, contact and cooperation between Turks and Armenians.''

In their appeal, the laureates call on both Turks and Armenians to take the steps necessary to open the Turkish-Armenian border, generate confidence through civil society cooperation, improve official contacts, and allow basic freedoms. As part of this commitment, the laureates call on Turkey to end all forms of discrimination against ethnic and religious minorities and abolish Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code. This provision has been used to take legal action against those who speak out about the Armenian genocide, including Nobel laureate Orhan Pamuk and recently murdered Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink. There is no question that article 301 contributed to the toxic political environment that led up to Mr. Dink's assassination in January.

The laureates also note that ``Turks and Armenians have a huge gap in perceptions over the Armenian Genocide.'' To address this chasm of understanding, they call for further study and dissemination of a report prepared by the International Center for Transitional Justice. That impartial analysis of the massacres perpetrated against Armenians in the early 20th century concluded that the killings ``can be said to include all the elements of the crime of genocide . . .'' This finding was corroborated by the International Association of Genocide Scholars, which issued its own statement in 1997 to reaffirm ``that the mass murder of Armenians in Turkey in 1915 is a case of genocide which conforms to the statutes of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.'' The existence of these independent evaluations of the Armenian genocide and relevant international law should provide an opportunity for both countries to accept the verdict of history and move forward.

Mr. President, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has unanimously passed S. Res. 65, a resolution echoing many of the sentiments expressed by the laureates and honoring the life of Hrant Dink, a leading proponent of Turkish-Armenian reconciliation up until the time of his brutal murder. It is my hope that the full Senate will adopt this important measure without further delay.

I congratulate the Wiesel Foundation for its work to produce this important statement and request consent that it be printed in the Record. I hope that the words of these Nobel laureates will encourage the people of both nations to recognize and ultimately transcend the legacy of the Armenian genocide. Once this occurs, I have every confidence that the people of Armenia and Turkey will be able to rebuild the ties between their countries and forge a new, enduring peace.