Joe Biden for President! Presidential Election 2008. News

BIDEN GARNERS KEY SOUTH CAROLINA ENDORSEMENTS

Revs. Richburg and Jackson Praise Sen. Biden’s Leadership

Wilmington, DE (November 14, 2007) – Two key African American leaders in South Carolina today pledged their support for Sen. Joe Biden’s presidential campaign.  Rev. Caeser Richburg and Rev. Dr. J.J. Jackson III both praised Sen. Biden’s leadership during his thirty-plus years in the Senate and his strong record on civil rights. 

“Sen. Biden is a man of tremendous faith and conviction and his distinguished record in the Senate reflects his core beliefs of equality and justice,” said Rev. Richburg.  “His thoughtful and pragmatic leadership in the Senate and his ability to get things done and bring people together is what this country so desperately needs in a President.” 

Rev. Richburg is pastor of Williams Chapel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Orangeburg. A native of Sumter, Richburg was appointed pastor of Williams Chapel AME Church in November 2006 following an 18-year tenure leading the congregation of Allen Temple AME Church in Greenville.

Richburg is a member of Omega Psi Phi Fraternity Inc., the NAACP and the Board of Trustees of Allen University.  He has also served as president of the Greenville chapter of the Rainbow PUSH Coalition, past president of the Ministerial Alliance of Greenville and chairman of the Multicultural Advisory Board of Greenville Technical College.

“Joe Biden is a man with a deep understanding of the needs of working families in South Carolina and has the experience to bring about real change in America,” said Rev. Jackson.  “I fully support Sen. Biden and his candidacy and know that he will once again restore credibility and bring the people’s voice back to the White House.” 

Rev. Dr. Jackson is pastor of Israel Metropolitan CME Church in Greenville, South Carolina.  A native of Birmingham, Alabama, Jackson holds a number of leadership roles in the Greenville communitiy and in South Carolina more generally.  He is a Chartered Board Member of the Christian Ecumenical Fellowship, and Vice President and a member of Steering Committee of the RAINBOW Push Coalition in Greenville, SC, among other duties.

Both Revs. Richburg and Jackson were instrumental in pushing for the observance of the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. holiday as an officially recognized holiday in Greenville County. Greenville became the last of South Carolina’s 46 counties to recognize King's birthday as an official holiday in 2006.

“Having the support of Rev. Richburg and Rev. Jackson is a big deal to me and I look forward to their advice and counsel in the months leading up to the January 26th South Carolina Democratic Presidential Primary,” said Sen. Biden.

STATE REPRESENTATIVE GASKILL ENDORSES JOE BIDEN

Biden has "the breadth of experience on foreign policy and domestic issues our country so desperately needs"

Des Moines, IA (November 14, 2007) – Today, Sen. Joe Biden received the endorsement of Iowa State Representative Mary A. Gaskill of Ottumwa. Rep. Gaskill becomes the thirteenth Iowa State Legislator to endorse Senator Biden.

Rep. Gaskill has dedicated a lifetime of service to Iowa. Prior to her service in the Iowa State House, Rep. Gaskill served six years as Clerk to the County Auditor and sixteen years as County Auditor in Wapello.

“I believe that Sen. Joe Biden has the breadth of experience on foreign policy and record of bipartisan leadership on domestic issues our country so desperately needs,” said Rep. Gaskill. “From the Biden exit plan for Iraq to his landmark Violence Against Women Act, Sen. Biden has proven he can build bipartisan consensus on the most important challenges facing our country. He is sincere, authentic and I believe he is the best candidate the democrats have -- and that is why I am supporting him.”

Sen. Biden noted, “Rep. Gaskill has dedicated a life of service to the people of Wapello County. Like many Iowans, she is concerned about the course America is on and knows the next president will need the experience to restore our reputation internationally and put an end to the gridlock in Washington. I am proud that Rep. Gaskill believes I am that candidate and has pledged her support to my campaign.”
Rep. Gaskill is currently serving her second term as the Iowa State Representative for the 93^rd District, which includes Ottumwa in Wapello County. She serves on several committees in the Iowa House: the Environmental Protection Committee, the State Government Committee, the Transportation Committee, and as the Chairwoman of the Local Government Committee. She also serves on the Administration and Regulation Appropriations Subcommittee.

Rep. Gaskill joins an impressive group of Iowa state legislators who have endorsed Senator Biden including: State Sen. Joe Seng (Davenport), House Majority Leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy (Des Moines), Speaker Pro Tempore Rep. Polly Butka (Clinton), Rep. John Whitaker (Hillsboro), Rep. Doris Kelley (Waterloo), Rep. Lisa Heddens (Ames), Rep. Jim Lykam (Davenport), Rep. Mike Reasoner (Creston), Rep. Dick Taylor (Cedar Rapids), Rep. Roger Thomas (Elkader), Rep. McKinley Bailey (Webster City), and State Senator Herman C. Quirmbach (Ames). 

BIDEN KEEPS PROMISE TO VETERANS

Announces Reforms to Veterans Administration

Onawa, IA (November 11, 2007) – Today,  Sen. Joe Biden announced his plan to keep America's promise to veterans by reforming the Veterans Administration and making it more responsive to the needs of our veterans once they return home from the battlefield as well as our veterans who have already performed their service.   

Sen. Biden believes that all veterans must have access to health care and that the Department of Veterans Affairs has a fundamental responsibility to address their varying care needs in a timely manner. His five-point plan for VA reform aims to improve the handling of claims, eliminate restrictions on veterans’ access to health care, accommodate the long-term care needs of veterans, ensure adequate treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and improve the provision of care to all veterans.

Sen. Biden issued the following statement: 

“This Veterans’ Day we remember and celebrate the heroism and sacrifice of our nation’s veterans.  But we must do more than simply honor their service; we must keep our promise to provide them with quality care and services.  The VA system must be fixed.   

“We have veterans, not just from Iraq and Afghanistan, but from Vietnam and Korea, who wait nearly two years for disability checks.  It takes, on average, 177 days for a VA regional office to process a claim, and it takes more than a year and a half to go through the appeals process.  This is unacceptable.     

“Our praise for these heroes must be matched by action.  As President, I would make sure that the VA’s handling of claims was improved dramatically, eliminate restrictions on veterans’ access to health care, and accommodate the long-term care needs of veterans.  In addition, I would ensure that there was adequate treatment of traumatic brain injuries, which have affected so many of our soldiers.  My plan would create a presumption for TBI and PTSD that would allow soldiers to get treatment immediately instead of having to delay treatment because they have to prove their injury is related to their service. Finally, we need to improve the provision of care and make sure the transition from inpatient to outpatient care and from military to veteran status is seamless.

“In short, our commitment to those who have admirably served our country must be without question.  Just as we must protect them and give them everything they need on the battlefield, we owe our brave soldiers the same support upon their return home.  This is our sacred obligation.”   

Keeping the Promise:  Making the VA Work For Veterans

“Whether serving in peacetime or during conflict, our nation’s veterans trained and worked long hours, often times spent long periods away from their families, and served loyally to defend our country. Our nation’s democracy and freedom exist because of the achievements and sacrifices of our veterans. We owe them an immeasurable amount of gratitude and we have a solemn obligation to provide them with the support and care they have earned.”  -- Senator Joe Biden 

Too often veterans are not treated with the respect they have earned and deserve.  Claims are not processed quickly enough – or are approached with skepticism.  Joe Biden believes that the role of the Veterans Administration is advocate for veterans and ensure that they are getting the care they are owed. He will keep the promise we make to those who served this country and make the VA work for veterans by: 

1. Improving Handling of Claims

2. Eliminating Restrictions on Veterans’ Access to Health Care

3. Accommodating the Long-Term Care Needs of Veterans

4. Ensuring Adequate Treatment of TBI and PTSD

5. Improving the Provision of Care for All Veterans 

 

1. Improve Handling of Claims

The backlog of pending claims and delays in the appeals process in the VA is simply unacceptable.   Veterans wait an average of 177 days – almost six months – for benefits.  The waiting period for appeals is over a year and a half – 650 days. To make the VA work better for veterans, Senator Biden would:

Speed up the claims process:

• Establish a 100 day deadline for all claims to be resolved.  If the claim is not resolved within 100 days, the veteran’s claim is awarded at the level requested and the burden switches onto the VA to establish an accurate level.

• Increase funding and staff of the VA to expedite the claims process.

• Establish a lawyer corps to represent veterans free-of-charge during the adjudications process. Based on the JAG model, these lawyers would receive loan forgiveness and be paid a monthly stipend while agreeing to guide veterans and their families through the adjudication process.

• Mandate Transition Assistance Program briefings for all soldiers transitioning from active duty to veterans status so that they are familiar with benefits they are eligible for and they know how to apply for them.

• Provide VA raters access to readily available qualified health care experts who can provide advice and expertise during the claims process.

Streamline the Discharge and Disability Rating System

• Update the VA Rating Schedule over a period of five years, starting with mental health ratings.

• Create specific ratings criteria for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder based on the Diagnostic and Statistical manual for Mental Disorders (DSM).

• Building on the recommendations of the President’s Commission on Care for America’s Returning Wounded Warriors, provide periodic reviews of veterans’ disability status to ensure proper compensation.

• Revise the Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) by bringing it all under one command, creating injury specific PDES procedures, making it accessible entirely online.

Increase transparency:

• Require the VA to publish the number of claims that are rejected each year in each region. This could help bring transparency to the claims process and explain variations in disability ratings in different areas of the country.

• Establish a board to review disability determinations of service members separated between September 11, 2001, and December 31, 2009, with a disability rating of 20% or less.

Cut down red tape:

• Allow veterans with service-connected disabilities that are rated and certified by the VA to be eligible for SSDI benefits without having to be re-evaluated by the Social Security Administration (SSA) if they meet the other requirements for SSDI benefits. Currently, SSA evaluates all applicants (veterans and non-veterans) to determine their eligibility for SSDI benefits.

• Allow survivors to step in and pursue undecided claims or those under appeal that were pending at the time of a veteran’s death. This would prevent claims from having to start over again and delaying benefits for the surviving family members.

Guarantee Funding:

• Funding for veterans’ care should be guaranteed. Instead of the budget for the VA being a discretionary item that can be cut, Senator Biden would make it mandatory.

• Link benefits with cost-of-living increases.

2. Eliminate Restrictions on Veterans’ Access to Health Care

According to a study conducted by Harvard Medical School, the number of uninsured veterans jumped to 1.8 million in 2004. Most uninsured veterans, like other uninsured Americans are in working families. Many earn too little to afford health insurance, but too much to qualify for free care under Medicaid or VA means testing. 

In 2003, President Bush decided to exclude some veterans from accessing health services at VA facilities because of their income. It is estimated that many veterans who are excluded may have incomes as low $30,000 to $35,000 annually on average.  Senator Biden believes that veterans – all veterans – are owed care and should not be restricted from accessing benefits.  It is part of the contract the country makes with those who serve.   

Senator Biden would reduce the number of uninsured veterans by: 

• Ending the administrative freeze in access to care and means testing policies of the Bush administration. Allow currently ineligible Priority Group 8 veterans to access VA health services.

• Enrolling any eligible veteran and ensuring proper funding for VA health facilities and providers.

• Increasing outreach efforts to veterans so that they are aware of VA health services they may qualify for.

3. Accommodate the Long-Term Care Needs of Veterans

More than 2 million veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will enter the VA system in the next 3 years – many with Traumatic Brain Injury and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.  Advances in military medicine have greatly improved the ratio of soldiers surviving their wounds, but this also means that thousands will have multiple care needs and require health services from the VA for the remainder of their lives.  The VA must have a plan in place to ensure they receive adequate care and support services.   Senator Biden would: 

• Require the Department of Veterans Affairs to report on long-term care needs for the next 50 years.

• Require the Department of Veterans Affairs to conduct a study of disabled veterans to obtain information about the ancillary benefits that these veterans and their families need most.

• Allow specially adapted housing grants to be issued multiple times to accommodate changes in life circumstances and provide greater automotive adaptation benefits to more veterans.

• Strengthen the Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment program so more veterans can take advantage of this program to help them adjust to their new challenges and assist them with employment opportunities.

• Extend eligibility for the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs (CHAMPVA) to parent or non-spouse caregivers of severely disabled veterans and create a “caregiver” allowance.

4. Ensure Adequate Treatment of TBI and PTSD

Soldiers returning from Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom are suffering traumatic brain injuries (TBI) at much higher rates than past wars and many also suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).  A recent study showed that between FY2003 and FY2007, about 60,000 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans have been diagnosed with mental health issues. 

According to military mental health experts, if current trends continue, over 30 percent of soldiers in high combat situations in Iraq and Afghanistan and almost 50 percent of National Guard members will develop a mental health problem like Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

There is a crisis in the mental health treatment system that compounds these problems.  There just aren’t enough mental health practitioners to treat these soldiers – not to mention the stigma that is attached to seeking treatment which prevents people from seeking treatment in the first place.

To address the growing demand for TBI and PTSD services and other needs of our Armed Forces and veterans, Joe Biden would: 

• Strengthen case management for veterans with PTSD, including better coordination with vocational and other ancillary services, and provide reevaluations every 2-3 years.

• Expand mental health services in the VA, especially the number of providers that have experience with treating PTSD or TBI.

• Establish a protocol for pre-deployment assessment and documentation of cognitive function of members that can be used for comparison after deployment to assist in the diagnosis of TBI and PTSD.

• Require the Secretary of Defense to establish two centers of excellence - one for TBI and one for PTSD – to develop the best treatment and screening practices.

• Authorize the use of non-VA facilities for the implementation of rehabilitation and community reintegration plans for veterans with TBI, allowing veterans to get the care they need, wherever they live.

• Establish a pilot program for assisted living services for veterans with TBI.

5. Improve The Provision of Care for All Veterans

We owe our troops and veterans the highest quality care.  The care our soldiers receive in the battlefield and in military hospitals is state-of-the-art and has saved countless lives. But we need to improve the transition from inpatient to outpatient care and the transition from military to veteran status. We can improve the communication methods between provider and patient as well as between the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs. To ensure that our veterans receive the proper provision of care Joe Biden would: 

• Direct the DOD/VA Interagency Program Office to develop and implement a joint electronic health record keeping system.

• Increase the number of caseworkers and prevent the ratio of case managers to patients from exceeding 1 to 20.  

• Require that case managers be property trained in assisting their patients in navigating the VA system and provide them with the authority to advocate on behalf of their patients and their families.

• Authorize medically retired service members to receive the active duty health care benefit for 3 years.

• Require the creation of a single manual for outpatient care services, including information on the Physical Disability Evaluation System, family support, personnel processing and finance requirement, which is available online.

BIDEN DELIVERS MAJOR ADDRESS ON PAKISTAN

Manchester, NH (November 8, 2007) – This morning at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at St. Anselm College in Manchester, Sen. Joe Biden delivered a major foreign policy address calling for a “new approach to Pakistan.”   Below are excerpts from the speech.  Attached to this release is a copy of Sen. Biden’s entire address as prepared for delivery. 

“Pakistan has strong democratic traditions and a large, moderate majority.  But that moderate majority must have a voice in the system and an outlet with elections.  If not, moderates may find that they have no choice but to make common cause with extremists, just as the Shah’s opponents did in Iran three decades ago.   

“But unlike Iran, Pakistan already has nuclear weapons. 

”It is hard to imagine a greater nightmare for America than the world’s second-largest Muslim nation becoming a failed state in fundamentalist hands, with an arsenal of nuclear weapons and a population larger than those of Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and North Korea combined. 

“To prevent that nightmare from becoming a reality, I believe we need to do three things: 

“First, deal pro-actively with the current crisis. Second, and for the longer term, move from a Musharraf policy to a Pakistan policy that gives the moderate majority a chance to succeed. And third, help create conditions in the region that maximize the chances of success, and minimize the prospects for failure.”

…

“It is time for a new approach.   

“We’ve got to move from a transactional relationship -- the exchange of aid for services -- to the normal, functional relationship we enjoy with all of our other military allies and friendly nations.   

“We’ve got to move from a policy concentrated on one man – President Musharraf – to a policy centered on an entire people… the people of Pakistan. 

“Like any major policy shift, to gain long-term benefits we’ll have to shoulder short term costs.  But given the stakes, those costs are worth it.”

---

Senator Joe Biden

“A New Approach to Pakistan”

Center for U.S. Global Engagement

New Hampshire Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm’s College,

Manchester, New Hampshire

November 8, 2007

AS PREPARED FOR DELIVERY

I’ve been saying for some time that Pakistan is the most complex country we deal with – and that a crisis was just waiting to happen.  On Saturday night, it did. 

President Musharraf staged a coup against his own government.  He suspended the constitution, imposed de-facto martial law, postponed elections indefinitely, and arrested hundreds of lawyers, journalists, and human rights activists.  He took these steps the day after Secretary Rice and the commander of all American forces in the region appealed to Musharraf not to take them.

America has a huge stake in the outcome of this crisis – and in the path Pakistan follows in the months and years to come.  Pakistan has strong democratic traditions and a large, moderate majority.  But that moderate majority must have a voice in the system and an outlet with elections.  If not, moderates may find that they have no choice but to make common cause with extremists, just as the Shah’s opponents did in Iran three decades ago. 

But unlike Iran, Pakistan already has nuclear weapons. 

It is hard to imagine a greater nightmare for America than the world’s second-largest Muslim nation becoming a failed state in fundamentalist hands, with an arsenal of nuclear weapons and a population larger than those of Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and North Korea combined.

To prevent that nightmare from becoming a reality, I believe we need to do three things:

First, deal pro-actively with the current crisis.

Second, and for the longer term, move from a Musharraf policy to a Pakistan policy that gives the moderate majority a chance to succeed.

And third, help create conditions in the region that maximize the chances of success, and minimize the prospects for failure.

Resolving the Crisis

To help defuse the current political crisis, we must be far more pro-active, not reactive and make it clear to Pakistan that actions have consequences.  President Bush’s first reaction was to call on President Musharraf to reverse course.  Given the stakes, I thought it was important to actually call him – which is exactly what I did.  I also spoke to opposition leader Benazir Bhutto.  President Musharraf and I had a very direct and detailed discussion.  I told him how critical it is that elections go forward as planned in January, that he follow through on his commitment to take off his uniform, and that he restore the rule of law to Pakistan. 

It was clear to me that President Musharraf understands the consequences for his country and for relations with the United States if he does not return Pakistan to the path of democracy. Now, President Bush finally got around to calling Musharraf yesterday.  As a few of you may know, I’m running for President and I can tell you this:  if I’m elected, I won’t wait five days to pick up the phone or delegate matters of this magnitude to my secretary of state or to my ambassador.  There is too much at stake to leave this kind of conversation to others.

If President Musharraf does not restore his nation to the democratic path, U.S. military aid will be in great jeopardy.  I would look hard at big-ticket weapons systems intended primarily to maintain the balance of power with India, not to combat the Taliban or Al Qaeda: hardware like F-16 jets and P-3 maritime surveillance aircraft.  President Musharraf doesn’t want this aid suspension – and neither does the military establishment whose support he needs.  Nor can they afford for this crisis to undermine confidence in Pakistan’s economy, which has already taken a hard hit. So I believe there is incentive for cooler heads in Pakistan to prevail.  But if they don’t and if President Bush does not act, Congress almost certainly will.  

Building a New Relationship

Beyond the current crisis lurks a far deeper problem.  The relationship between the U.S. and Pakistan is largely transactional — and this transaction isn’t working for either party.  From America’s perspective, we’ve spent billions of dollars on a bet that Pakistan’s government would take the fight to the Taliban and Al Qaeda while putting the country back on the path to democracy.  It has done neither.   

From Pakistan’s perspective, America is an unreliable ally that will abandon Pakistan the moment it’s convenient to do so, and whose support has done little more than bolster unrepresentative rulers.

It is time for a new approach. 

We’ve got to move from a transactional relationship -- the exchange of aid for services -- to the normal, functional relationship we enjoy with all of our other military allies and friendly nations.  We’ve got to move from a policy concentrated on one man – President Musharraf – to a policy centered on an entire people… the people of Pakistan.  Like any major policy shift, to gain long-term benefits we’ll have to shoulder short term costs.  But given the stakes, those costs are worth it.

Here are the four elements of this new strategy.

First, triple non-security aid, to $1.5 billion annually.  For at least a decade.  This aid would be unconditioned: it’s our pledge to the Pakistani people.  Instead of funding military hardware, it would build schools, clinics, and roads.

Second, condition security aid on performance. We should base our security aid on clear results.   We’re now spending well over $1 billion annually, and it’s not clear we’re getting our money’s worth.  I’d spend more if we get better returns—and less if we don’t.

Third, help Pakistan enjoy a “democracy dividend.”  The first year of democratic rule should bring an additional $1 billion -- above the $1.5 billion non-security aid baseline.  And I would tie future non-security aid -- again, above the guaranteed baseline -- to Pakistan’s progress in developing democratic institutions and meeting good-governance norms. 

Fourth, engage the Pakistani people, not just their rulers.  This will involve everything from improved public diplomacy and educational exchanges to high impact projects that actually change people’s lives. 

This plan would fundamentally and positively shift the dynamic between the U.S. and Pakistan.  Here’s how:

A drastic increase in non-security aid, guaranteed for a long period, would help persuade Pakistan’s people that America is an all-weather friend… and Pakistan’s leaders that America is a reliable ally.  Pakistanis suspect our support is purely tactical.  They point to the aid cut-off that followed the fall of the Soviet Union… to our refusal to deliver or refund purchased jets in the 1990s… and to our blossoming relationship with rival India.  Many Pakistanis believe that the moment Osama bin Laden is gone, U.S. interest will go with him. 

When U.S. aid makes a real difference in people’s lives, the results are powerful.  In October 2005, after a devastating earthquake, American military helicopters delivering relief did far more to improve relations than any amount of arms sales or debt rescheduling.  And the Mobile Army Surgery Hospital we left behind is a daily reminder that America cares.

To have a real impact on a nation of 165 million, we’ll have to raise our spending dramatically.  A baseline of $1.5 billion annually, for a decade, is a reasonable place to start. That might sound like a lot – but it’s about what we spend every week in Iraq.  Conditioning security aid— now about three-quarters of our package— would help push the Pakistani military to finally crush Al Qaeda and the Taliban. 

Aid to the Pakistani people should be unconditioned — that is, not subject to the ups and downs of a particular government in Islamabad or Washington.  But aid to the Pakistani military and intelligence service should be closely conditioned — that is, carefully calibrated to results.  Like it or not, the Pakistani security services will remain vital players – and our best shot at finding Bin Laden and shutting down the Taliban.  Their performance has been decidedly mixed: we’ve caught more terrorists in Pakistan than in any other country— but $10 billion later, Pakistan remains the central base of Al Qaeda operations.  We must strike a much better bargain.

A “democracy dividend” – additional assistance in the first year after democratic rule is restored -- would empower Pakistan’s moderate mainstream.  The Bush Administration’s Musharraf First policy was understandable -- at first.  Musharraf had broad support, and in the wake of 9/11 he seemed committed to the fight against Al Qaeda.  Six years later, the General is diverting his military, his police, and his intelligence assets from the fight against the terrorists to a crackdown on his political opponents.

The Pakistani people have moved on.  Hundreds of thousands have taken to the streets to protest Musharraf’s unconstitutional rule— and hundreds have been killed or gravely injured in the process.  The Democracy Dividend would help restore the moral currency this administration has squandered with empty rhetoric about democracy.  And it would enable the secular, democratic, civilian political leaders to prove that they—more than the generals or the radical Islamists—can bring real improvement to the lives of their constituents.

Last, we’ve got to engage the Pakistani people directly, and address issues important to them, not just to us. On Afghanistan, Iraq, the Palestinians, Kashmir, Pakistanis want a respectful hearing.  We owe them that at least that much.

Ask an ordinary Pakistani to list his top concerns about America and you may get answers unrelated to international grand strategy: our visa policy and textile quotas. 

Or she might raise Abu Ghraib and Gitmo or water-boarding and other forms of torture the Bush Administration still refuses to renounce.  Pakistanis don’t see these as mere “issues.”  They see these things as a moral stain on the soul of our nation.  In my judgment, so should we.

Creating the Conditions for Success

This new Pakistan policy cannot succeed in isolation.  Conditions in the region and in the broader Muslim world – conditions that the United States can affect – will make a huge difference, for good or for bad.  We’ve got to connect the dots – to be, as I suggested at the outset, smart as well as strong.  First, there’s what we should do. 

To increase the prospects that Pakistan will take the lead in the fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda, we should rededicate ourselves to a forgotten war:  Afghanistan.  When we shifted resources away from Afghanistan to Iraq, Musharraf concluded the Taliban would rebound, so he cut a deal with them. 

Redoubling our efforts in Afghanistan – not just with more troops but with the right kind… and with a reconstruction effort that matches President Bush’s Marshall Plan rhetoric… would embolden Pakistan’s government to take a harder line on the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

Second, there’s what we should not do. Consider all this talk of war with Iran.  It is totally counter-productive to achieving our ends in Iran… but also in Pakistan.  In Iran, it allows President Ahmadinejad to distract the Iranian people from the failures of his leadership… and adds a huge security premium to the price of oil, with the proceeds going from our consumers to Iran’s government.  And in Pakistan and also Afghanistan, anything the fuels the sense of an American crusade against Islam puts moderates on the defensive and empowers extremists.  It is hard to think of a more self-defeating policy.

History’s Verdict

History may describe today’s Pakistan as a repeat of 1979 Iran or 2001 Afghanistan.  Or history may write a very different story: that of Pakistan as a stable, democratic, secular Muslim state.  Which future unfolds will be strongly influenced—if not determined— by the actions of the United States.

I believe that Pakistan can be a bridge between the West and the global Islamic community.  Most Pakistanis want a lasting friendship with America.  They respect and admire our society.  But they are mystified over what they see as our failure to live up to our ideals. 

The current crisis in Pakistan is also an opportunity to start anew… to build a relationship between Pakistan and the United States upon which both our peoples can depend – and be proud.

STATE SENATOR QUIRMBACH ENDORSES JOE BIDEN

JOE BIDEN IS “OUR BEST HOPE TO RESTORE AMERICA’S CREDIBILITY IN THE WORLD"

Des Moines, IA (November 6, 2007) – Last night at a house party in Ames, IA, Sen. Joe Biden received the endorsement of Iowa State Senator Herman C. Quirmbach. Senator Quirmbach becomes the twelfth Iowa State Legislator to endorse Senator Biden.

State Sen. Quirmbach is an Associate Professor of Economics at Iowa State University.

“We need to get out of Iraq, but after all the damage that Bush has done to that country, we owe it to them to leave them with some reasonable hope of stability,” said State Sen. Quirmbach.  “Joe Biden has the clearest vision of how to do both.  He’s our best hope to restore America’s credibility in the world, credibility we’re going to need if we’re going to lead on nuclear proliferation, terrorism, global warming, energy, and a host of other issues.”

Sen. Biden noted, "As someone with extensive knowledge of fiscal policy, Sen. Quirmbach knows well that America only does well when the middle class thrives economically.  Like many Americans, he is concerned for our economic security and knows the next president will have to make fiscally responsible decisions to put America back on track. Sen. Quirmbach knows what economic perils await if our if we continue to let the war in Iraq drain our Treasury, and I am proud that he has pledged to support my efforts to change course."

State Sen. Quirmbach chairs the Local Government Committee, and serves on the Education, Human Resources, Judiciary and Ways & Means committees. In addition to his legislative work, Senator Quirmbach serves on the College Student Aid Committee and the Commission on Tobacco Use, Prevention & Control. Sen. Quirmbach served on Ames City Council from 1995 through 2003 and as Ames' Mayor Pro Tem in 2002. He is an active member of the Ames Kiwanis Club, Ames Patriotic Council, Ames League of Women Voters, Ames Chamber of Commerce, Story County Democratic Party, Iowa Civil Liberties Union, and Story County Tobacco Task Force. He has also been a member of the Story County REAP Committee, the Ames Utility Retirement Board, and the Ames Veterans Memorial Committee.

State Sen. Quirmbach is currently serving his second term in the Iowa Senate. His district includes Ames, Gilbert, Luther, Madrid, Napier, and part of Sheldahl.

State Sen. Quirmbach joins an impressive group of Iowa state legislators who have endorsed Senator Biden including: State Sen. Joe Seng (Davenport), House Majority Leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy (Des Moines), Speaker Pro Tempore Rep. Polly Butka (Clinton County), Rep. John Whitaker (Hillsboro), Rep. Doris Kelley (Waterloo), Rep. Lisa Heddens (Ames), Rep. Jim Lykam (Davenport), Rep. Mike Reasoner (Creston), Rep. Dick Taylor (Cedar Rapids), Rep. Roger Thomas (Clayton County), and Rep. McKinley Bailey (Hamilton County).

BIDEN RESPONDS TO GIULIANI COMMENTS

Wilmington, DE (November 2, 2007) – Sen. Joe Biden today responded to Rudy Giuliani’s baseless claim that Sen. Biden had no foreign policy experience:

“Today’s comments come from a guy—Rudy Giuliani—who said Dick Cheney, the architect of Bush’s failed policy in Iraq, was a great choice for vice president and who recommended the now discredited Bernie Kerik to be Secretary of Homeland Security. Once again, Rudy has demonstrated his complete lack of knowledge of U.S. foreign policy.”

HAPPY HALLOWEEN, RUDY

Wilmington, DE (October 31, 2007) – The Biden for President Campaign today responded to Rudy Giuliani’s latest attacks. 

“Rudy Giuliani seems to be increasingly worried that Joe Biden is questioning his lack of leadership and his use of 9/11 for his own political purposes,” said Biden for President Campaign Manager Luis Navarro.  “This criticism is grounded in reality: there are numerous examples of Mr. Giuliani using 9/11 as a substitute for real experience and real answers to important topics.  In the spirit of Halloween, Rudy, if the dress fits, wear it.”

Giuliani on … Accomplishing our Goals in Iraq. Giuliani said, “Maybe it’s because I was Mayor of America’s largest city and I was Mayor of America’s largest city during periods of crisis. You know about September 11th. … So, to me, when I look at Iraq what I look to is, how well and how effectively are we keeping the civilian order functioning in the right way. Because ultimately that’s going to be enormously important to whether we accomplish our goal in Iraq.”  [Giuliani’s Remarks To The NATO Supreme Allied Command, 10/11/07]

Giuliani on … Gun Control and the Second Amendment. In defending his previous support for lawsuits against gun manufacturers during remarks before the National Rifle Association, Giuliani said, “I also think that there have been subsequent intervening events, September 11th, which cast somewhat of a different light on the Second Amendment and Second Amendment rights.” [Giuliani Remarks to NRA "Celebration of American Values” Conference, 9/21/07]

Giuliani on … Federal Funding for HIV/AIDS.  When asked about federal funding for HIV treatment, Giuliani responded, “My general experience has been that the federal government works best when it helps and assists and encourages and sets guidelines… on a state-by-state, locality-by-locality basis. It’s no different from the way I look at homeland security. Maybe having been mayor of the city, I know that your first defense against terrorist attack is that local police station, or that local firehouse.” [Iowa Independent, 7/20/07]

BIDEN CALLS ON COLLEAGUES TO SUPPORT HIS LEGISLATION BANNING WATERBOARDING AND OTHER FORMS OF TORTURE

Washington, DC – Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (D-DE) called on his colleagues today to support his legislation, the National Security with Justice Act (S. 1876), which among other things prohibits all United States personnel from engaging in waterboarding or any other form of torture.  The full text of the letter is below and it was sent to all 99 other Senators this morning: 

Dear Colleague,

I write today to seek your support for legislation that prohibits United States personnel from engaging in water-boarding or any other form of torture.  On July 25, 2007, I introduced S. 1876, the National Security with Justice Act, which among other things prohibits all United States personnel from using on a detainee any interrogation technique not expressly authorized by the Army Field Manual. 

As the Washington Post noted this morning, it is sad that a nation with a longstanding, proud tradition of condemning torture finds itself embroiled in a debate regarding whether torture is legal.  Both domestic law and international treaties clearly ban torture.  Unfortunately, the current Administration's cramped, disingenuous arguments necessitate such a debate.  Since 2002, the Department of Justice has consistently endorsed harsh and inhumane interrogation techniques that amount to torture.  In July, the President issued an Executive Order that was notably silent on several such techniques, including water-boarding.  And just last week, the President's nominee to be the next Attorney General, Judge Michael B. Mukasey, declined to answer clearly a question regarding whether water-boarding is torture and is therefore unconstitutional. 

The United States cannot continue to equivocate and dissemble on this matter.  When we countenance torture and other cruel and inhumane treatment of detainees, we diminish our ability to argue that the same techniques should not be used against our own troops.  We need to send a clear message that torture, inhumane, and degrading treatment of detainees is unacceptable and is not permitted by U.S. law.  Period.  Therefore, Section 106 of my bill prohibits all officers and agents of the United States from using techniques of interrogation not authorized by and listed in the United States Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation.  I urge you to support S. 1876 and join me in banning all United States personnel from engaging in torture. 

Sincerely,

Joseph R. Biden, Jr. 

BIDEN CAMPAIGN RESPONDS TO GIULIANI'S ATTACK ON SENATOR BIDEN

Statement from Biden for President Campaign Communications Director Larry Rasky on the Giuliani Campaign’s Attack on Senator Biden:

“We are well aware that former Mayor Giuliani will attempt to drag this race into the mud where the Republicans like to wage their campaigns.  It’s pretty obvious that they can’t defend themselves on the real charge that Mr. Giuliani walked away from the cops and firefighters who were waiting for the 9/11 Commission to be enacted and the Biden crime bill to be restored.”

BIDEN: AMERICA LOOKING FOR THE NEXT COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF

Wilmington, DE (October 30, 2007) - Tonight in Philadelphia, candidates for the Democratic nomination for President will appear at the DNC/NBC News debate.  Sen. Joe Biden issued the following statement:

"Tonight the American people will be looking for their next Commander-in-Chief.  He or she will have to end the war in Iraq responsibly, because this President has no plan to end it.  And, the next President will have to turn immediately to other hotspots, including Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan to protect America’s interests.

"We all agree that the Iraq war must end. But while leaving is necessary, it is not enough.  We also need a plan for what we leave behind so that we do not trade a dictator for chaos.  The Biden-Brownback plan for a political settlement in Iraq received 75 votes in the Senate, including 26 Republicans. In the meantime, we have more than a hundred thousand American troops risking their lives every day.  We owe them our support as well as our gratitude, and that includes making sure that so long as they are there, they have the equipment to keep them safe, including mine-resistant vehicles.  Some of my colleagues did not vote for that funding.  That was a mistake.  Some of those who will stand on the stage with me tonight also said that there might be troops in Iraq until 2013, the end of their first term as President.  I ask them, 'how can you vote not to fund our troops when you acknowledge that they will still be in harms way years from today?'  The safety of our troops is more important than election year strategy.

"The next President will also need to understand that many of the challenges we face are connected – you can’t deal with one without having an impact on the others.  For example, the next President will have to meet the challenge posed by Iran with smarts as well as strength and without further poisoning our relations with the rest of the Muslim world and, in particular, destabilizing Pakistan and Afghanistan.  I voted against the Senate's amendment to designate Iran's entire Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization because I don't trust this administration not to twist this legislation into a justification for war - just like it did with Iraq.  Democrats need to unite around an approach that is both tough and smart, not back legislation that plays right into President Ahmadinejad’s hands by escalating tensions with Iran.  That only serves to keep oil prices high – with the proceeds going right into the government’s pockets – distracting Iranians from the terrible failures of Ahmadinejad’s leadership and solidifying them against us, while doing nothing to prevent Iran from getting the bomb.

"For the next few months, the American people will be looking for a leader who can face these challenges head on from their first day in office."

A New Course on Pakistan

Published: 11/12/2007

By Joseph R. Biden Jr.

Baltimore Sun

History may describe today's Pakistan as a repeat of 1979 Iran or 2001 Afghanistan. Or history may write a very different story: that of Pakistan as a stable, democratic, secular Muslim state. Which future unfolds will be strongly influenced by the actions of the United States.

Pakistan is the most complex country we deal with. It was a crisis waiting to happen. America has a huge stake in the outcome of this crisis - and in the path Pakistan follows.

Pakistan has strong democratic traditions and a large, moderate majority. But that moderate majority must have a voice in the system and an outlet with elections. If not, moderates may make common cause with extremists, just as the Shah's opponents did in Iran three decades ago. But unlike Iran, Pakistan already has nuclear weapons. It is hard to imagine a greater nightmare for America than the world's second-largest Muslim nation becoming a failed state in fundamentalist hands.

To prevent that nightmare from becoming a reality, I believe we need to do three things:

First, we must take an active role in the current crisis and make it clear to Pakistan that actions have consequences. After Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf suspended the constitution and imposed de facto martial law, President Bush's first reaction was to call on him to reverse course. Given the stakes, I thought it was important to actually call him, and I did so. President Musharraf and I had a very direct and detailed discussion. I told him it is critical that elections go forward as planned early next year, that he follow through on his commitment to take off his uniform, and that he restore the rule of law to Pakistan. I also spoke to opposition leader Benazir Bhutto.

It was clear to me that Mr. Musharraf understands the consequences if he does not return Pakistan to the path of democracy. For starters, U.S. military aid will be in great jeopardy.

Second, we must move from a Musharraf policy to a Pakistan policy that gives the moderate majority a chance to succeed. The current U.S.-Pakistan relationship is largely transactional - and this transaction isn't working for either party.

America has spent billions on a bet that Pakistan's government would crush the Taliban and al-Qaida while putting the country back on the path to democracy. It has done neither. For its part, Pakistan sees America as an unreliable ally that will abandon Pakistan at the first moment of convenience.

It is time for a new approach. We should triple nonsecurity aid, to $1.5 billion annually, for at least a decade, without conditions. That sounds like a lot, but it is what we spend in Iraq every week. Instead of funding military hardware, it would build schools, clinics and roads. I would provide an additional $1 billion in nonmilitary assistance - a democracy dividend - in the first year after democratic rule is restored. Nothing is more important than helping Pakistan's democratic leaders demonstrate that they can do better than the generals and the fundamentalists in delivering real change for the country.

We should maintain our military assistance but condition it on clear results in the fight against the Taliban and al-Qaida. And we should engage the Pakistani people, not just their rulers, on issues that matter to them, from textile quotas to visas to the Bush administration's policies on torture. If we do all these things, we will fundamentally and positively shift the dynamic between the U.S. and Pakistan.

Third, this new policy cannot succeed in isolation. We must help create conditions in the region that maximize the chances of success and minimize the prospects for failure. When we shifted resources away from Afghanistan to Iraq, Mr. Musharraf concluded that the Taliban would rebound, so he cut a deal with them. Redoubling our efforts in Afghanistan would embolden Pakistan's government to take a harder line on the Taliban and al-Qaida.

We should also stop the overheated rhetoric about war with Iran, which allows Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a distraction from his failures and adds a huge security premium to the price of oil. In Pakistan and Afghanistan, anything that fuels the sense of an American crusade against Islam puts moderates on the defensive and empowers extremists. It is hard to think of a more self-defeating policy.

Pakistan can be a bridge between the West and the global Islamic community. Most Pakistanis want a lasting friendship with America. They respect and admire our society. But they are mystified over what they see as our failure to live up to our ideals. The current crisis is an opportunity to start anew, to build a relationship between Pakistan and the United States upon which both our peoples can depend and be proud.

Biden Bill Seeks to Bolster Police Power

Published: 10/25/2007

By SEN. JOE BIDEN and COL. RICK GREGORY

The Delaware News Journal

Last month, the FBI told America that violent crime increased for the second consecutive year -- the first time that happened since 1994. Murders in particular showed an alarming trend, rising an additional 1.8 percent after an increase of 3.4 percent -- the biggest spike in 15 years -- in 2005.

Perhaps the most discouraging fact is that none of us -- lawmakers, law enforcement, or those we serve -- should be surprised. President Bush took steps toward dismantling the federal, state, and local partnership that helped reduce crime in the 1990s as soon as he entered office. And in the wake of 9/11 the administration shifted federal resources away from violent crime towards counterterrorism.

While this was necessary in the short term, there was no plan to replace these resources and, as a consequence, communities are suffering.

Delaware is no exception. Because of the tireless work of our law enforcement community, we have fared better than many states, but crime remains a significant challenge. One of the most troubling paradigms we face today is violent crimes committed by our youth. It seems as the severity of the crimes increase, the ages of the offenders decrease.

We see it every night on the evening news. From the Edgemoor double murder last week to the awful experiences of Delaware State University this fall, the evidence shows that our communities are growing more dangerous and this is happening in our backyards and public schools.

In the early 1990s, crime was at an all-time high. Congress responded by passing the 1994 Crime Bill. This legislation recognized for the first time that crime was a shared responsibility, and we were able to drive down crime rates for eight straight years. The murder rate dropped 34 percent and violent crime dropped 26 percent.

The linchpin was the creation of the Community Oriented Policing Services Program (COPS), which has funded over 118,000 community policing officers in jurisdictions throughout the nation. The Government Accountability Office and a study by the Brookings Institution found that COPS was one of the nation's most cost-effective programs for combating crime.

During the time period from 1994-2000, the New Castle County Police Department was able to add and retain 43 new police officer positions from the Crime Bill and COPS funding. The staffing level was able to grow by at least 15 percent as a result of the federal assistance.

Rather than support programs such as COPS, the Bush administration has virtually eliminated it. President Bush has proposed cuts each year he has been in office. Funding for state and local law enforcement programs run out of the Department of Justice is down 75.6 percent since fiscal year 2002.

This afternoon, we will take steps to change that. Joined by police chiefs from all over Delaware, we will announce the 2007 Biden Crime Bill, which puts our communities back on the right track by supporting the first line of defense and helping to break the cycle of violence through recidivism and prevention strategies.

The legislation restores the COPS hiring program and authorizes funding to hire 50,000 new community policing officers over the next six years.

It also will reauthorize an additional 1,000 agents -- the same amount this administration took off the streets -- to focus on local crime. In addition, the Biden Crimes Bill will tackle new problems by establishing programs to ensure that the 600,000 prisoners released from prison every year don't become repeat offenders.

We also offer concrete plans to protect our children from Internet predators, create an army of attorneys to assist domestic abuse victims, and address the abuse of prescription and over-the-counter medications.

We cannot afford to spend billions on wars abroad while ignoring terrorist threats and violent crime at home. It's the local beat cop who is one of our most effective tools against terrorism and violent crime. It was, for example, a quick-thinking officer in London who disconnected a car bomb before bomb squad officers arrived.

The rule is a simple one: more cops means less crime. It worked in the 1990s and it will work again -- as soon as we provide the necessary support to our local agencies.

Ending the War the Right Way

Published: 10/21/2007

By Sen. Joe Biden

New Hampshire Union Leader

DESPITE THE deep partisan divide in Washington, two weeks ago Democrats and Republicans came together behind my plan for Iraq and put the national interest first.

The resolution I proposed, with Republican Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas and Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, says the United States should work with the international community and Iraq's leaders to support a political settlement in Iraq based on federalism. It won the support of 75 senators, including 26 Republicans.

For the first time in this incredibly divisive national debate we've been having about Iraq, a strong bipartisan majority of senators voted against the President's strategy. For the first time, there is real hope that we can leave Iraq without leaving chaos behind that threatens America's interests for a generation.

My plan is based on this reality: There is no military solution in Iraq, only a political solution.

That begs the question: What political solution?

The Bush administration is pursuing a fatally flawed political strategy in Iraq. It believes that if we just buy it enough time with a surge of U.S. forces, a democratic central government will emerge in Baghdad that secures the support of all Iraqis.

Nine months into the surge, that has not happened and there is no evidence it will happen.

There is no trust within the government in Baghdad, no trust of the government by the people, no capacity on the part of the government to deliver basic security or services, and no prospect the government will develop that trust and capacity anytime soon.

Simply put, absent an occupation we cannot sustain or a dictator we cannot support, Iraq cannot be governed from the center at this point in its history. Its warring factions are just not prepared to entrust their futures to one another.

Our solution is to help bring to life what is already in Iraq's constitution: a decentralized, federal system that gives its people local control over the fabric of their daily lives, including the police, jobs, education and government services.

A limited central government would be responsible for protecting Iraq's borders and distributing its oil revenues.

We should refocus America's efforts on making federalism work for all Iraqis.

I would initiate a diplomatic surge to do just that, bringing in the United Nations, major countries and Iraq's neighbors to help implement and oversee the political settlement I'm proposing.

No one can want peace and stability for Iraq more than the Iraqi people. It is up to them, but we can help them get there by bringing power and responsibility down to the local level and taking the fear out of Iraq's future.

As we help Iraqis work toward a political settlement, there are two other steps we must take to end the war responsibly.

First, we should start to bring our combat troops home now, while transitioning the mission of those that remain to much more limited and achievable tasks like fighting al-Qaida in Iraq and protecting themselves and our civilians.

With Sens. Carl Levin of Michigan and Jack Reed of Rhode Island, since January I have repeatedly proposed legislation to do just that. We've won a majority of senators, but not yet the 60 we need to overcome a filibuster or the 67 necessary to overcome the President's veto.

Second, so long as we have a single solider in Iraq, we must do everything we can to protect him.

While some claim we can get all our troops out of Iraq in a matter of months, the truth is that even if the order came down to leave tomorrow, it would take at least a year and probably longer to get everyone out. It's a huge logistical and security challenge. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of Americans remain at risk.

Last Spring, every other Democratic candidate for our party's nomination either voted against or said they opposed the emergency spending bill for Iraq. I voted for it because it funds the mine-resistant vehicles I've been fighting for that protect our troops from roadside bombs -- the biggest killer of Americans in Iraq. I will never vote against money to protect our troops.

The war in Iraq is President Bush's war -- but it is America's future. Together, we have to end it the right way.

Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware is running for the Democratic nomination for President.

Domestic Violence Lawyers Needed

Published: 10/17/2007

By Joseph R. Biden, Jr.

Iowa City Press-Citizen 

October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month, a time to shine a light on the dark scourge of abuse that affects one out of four Americans each year. In Iowa alone in 2006, there were 77,256 calls to the state's domestic violence and sexual assault hotline and more than 23,000 victims of abuse helped by shelters and other service providers. Since 1995, 167 Iowans have been killed in domestic violence situations.

Once a domestic violence victim steps out from the shadow of an abusive relationship, what does she need? Lawyers. Domestic violence victims are in dire need for legal help for everything from obtaining protection orders to arranging child custody to instigating divorce proceedings.

A national survey by the National Network to End Domestic Violence found that in just one 24-hour cycle, more than 5,000 pleas for services, be it emergency shelter, transitional housing or legal aid, were unmet because of a lack of resources. This shortage means that thousands of victims of domestic violence go without legal representation in this country every day. And in fact, reports indicate that fewer than 1 out of every 5 low-income domestic violence victims ever sees a lawyer.

It is vital that a victim have an advocate helping her when she steps out of the abuse for the first time. The very second a battered woman calls the Hotline, reaches out to the police or walks into a courtroom, we need to connect this courageous person with legal assistance. Victims walk out on a limb when they seek help, often risking their personal safety. These first calls for help are critical moments when a victim must feel supported; if she doesn't, she may retreat back into the abuse.

The single, most important legislative accomplishment in my 32-year-old career in the Senate is passing the Violence Against Women Act. After years of work, countless hours of hearings, pages of expert testimony and Senate floor debate, my Act passed in 1994. The law was renewed in 2000 and most recently expanded in 2005 when I worked to include new measures to treat children who witness violence, to increase housing opportunities and to create dedicated resources for rape crisis centers.

Recognizing that campus gates don't keep out abuse, stalking and sexual assault, the Violence Against Women Act also created a special $15 million program for colleges and universities to create campus-wide victim services and security programs. The Act has transformed the way police, prosecutors, judges and advocates tackle domestic violence in their communities, and infused more than $4 billion dollars to state systems to fight violence against women. In 2007 alone, Iowa received $1.3 million for domestic violence programs with police, prosecutors, judges and advocates. But we are not done.

In May, I introduced the National Domestic Violence Volunteer Attorney Network Act, legislation that, for the first time, creates a streamlined national system to recruit and train volunteer lawyers and match them with domestic violence victims. Using the power of the Internet, this nationwide network of attorneys will be coordinated by American Bar Association; statewide legal coordinators would manage legal services in their individual states, and the National Domestic Violence Hotline and Internet-based services would provide legal referrals to victims. The historic partnership forged in my bill will mean that enthusiastic potential advocates quickly and seamlessly will get linked to training and new clients. And at the same time, desperate victims will be referred to a statewide coordinator and quickly connected to a lawyer. I want to end the frustrating, and often fruitless, task of calling different agencies, offices, or groups, either to volunteer or find a lawyer.

I believe there is a wealth of untapped resources in this country -- lawyers who want to volunteer. My National Domestic Violence Volunteer Act would harness the skills, enthusiasm and dedication of these lawyers and infuse 100,000 new volunteer lawyers into the justice system to represent domestic violence victims. I believe this initiative builds on the best of American ideals -- volunteerism, technology know-how, collaboration between the private and public sectors and our unwavering commitment to justice and service.

Federalism, Not Partition

Published: 10/03/2007

By Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Leslie H. Gelb

The Washington Post

The Bush administration and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki greeted last week's Senate vote on Iraq policy -- based on a plan we proposed in 2006 -- with misrepresentations and untruths. Seventy-five senators, including 26 Republicans, voted to promote a political settlement based on decentralized power-sharing. It was a life raft for an Iraq policy that is adrift.

Instead, Maliki and the administration -- through our embassy in Baghdad -- distorted the Biden-Brownback amendment beyond recognition, charging that we seek to "partition or divide Iraq by intimidation, force or other means."

We want to set the record straight. If the United States can't put this federalism idea on track, we will have no chance for a political settlement in Iraq and, without that, no chance for leaving Iraq without leaving chaos behind.

First, our plan is not partition, though even some supporters and the media mistakenly call it that. It would hold Iraq together by bringing to life the federal system enshrined in its constitution. A federal Iraq is a united Iraq but one in which power devolves to regional governments, with a limited central government responsible for common concerns such as protecting borders and distributing oil revenue.

Iraqis have no familiarity with federalism, which, absent an occupier or a dictator, has historically been the only path to keeping disunited countries whole. We can point to our federal system and how it began with most power in the hands of the states. We can point to similar solutions in the United Arab Emirates, Spain and Bosnia. Most Iraqis want to keep their country whole. But if Iraqi leaders keep hearing from U.S. leaders that federalism amounts to or will lead to partition, that's what they will believe.

The Bush administration's quixotic alternative has been to promote a strong central government in Baghdad. That central government doesn't function; it is corrupt and widely regarded as irrelevant. It has not produced political reconciliation -- and there is no evidence it will.

Second, we are not trying to impose our plan. If the Iraqis don't want it, they won't and shouldn't take it, as the Senate amendment makes clear. But Iraqis and the White House might consider the facts. Iraq's constitution already provides for a