Joe Biden

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, there are moments in the history of every legislative body when the members, and the public, are forcefully reminded that the achievements of the body as a whole have depended significantly upon the skills and the leadership of a single individual. One of those moments has arrived for the Delaware State Senate with the decision of State Senator Richard S. Cordrey not to seek reelection in 1996, after 30 years of public service. That his colleagues have long recognized his outstanding personal qualities is made clear by the fact that for 24 of those 30 years, Senator Cordrey has served as president pro tempore of the Delaware Senate--an exceptional tenure in that office that is unrivaled in Delaware's history or among his counterparts in other States. As no one knows better than those of us who serve in the U.S. Senate, such extended recognition of legislative leadership is a certain sign of a rare and enduring trust, and Senator Cordrey's legislative record demonstrates why he has been for so long accorded that trust--fully 80 percent of the bills he has introduced in the Delaware Senate have been passed by both houses of the Delaware General Assembly and signed into law by one of the five Delaware Governors who have held office since Senator Cordrey first entered the Delaware Senate. I doubt that any of us here, or any of our predecessors in this Senate could claim equivalent legislative success. A major legacy of that success is Delaware's Rainy Day Fund that sets aside 2 percent of the state's revenues in a fund that can be called upon in the event of a devastating economic recession. Delaware's thriving economy and its solid reputation on Wall Street can be largely attributed to that Cordrey-led initiative in fiscal responsibility. He demonstrated similar economic insight and leadership in shepherding through the general assembly in the 1980's Delaware's landmark Financial Center Development Act and related legislation which has expanded Delaware's thriving financial-services sector and given the State's economy a major boost. But the hallmark of Richard Cordrey's leadership of the Delaware State Senate has been his character and personality--an honest and affable man with a set of well-defined personal values and an adamant integrity who could nevertheless create bipartisan consensus out of legislative chaos. A Republican colleague, State Senator Myrna Bair, has said of Cordrey, a Democrat, ``He had a way of promoting what he believed while allowing others to vote their way with no hard feelings;'' and a Democratic colleague, State Senator Thurman Adams, has said, ``He always spoke what he thought was the truth. He took time with people, and they developed tremendous trust in him. His word was his bond.'' Mr. President, no legislature would willingly say good-by to a leader who consistently demonstrated such qualities over a quarter-century, and the Delaware State Senate will miss the steady hand of Richard Cordrey at the helm, as will the people of Delaware--but he has chosen to retire from office with the same firmness that characterized him in office and, knowing Delaware will benefit far into the future from the body of law and the style of leadership he has created, we Delawareans all wish him well as he returns to private life.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, as anyone familiar with substance abuse treatment knows, recovery from addiction is a one-day-at-a-time procedure--often recovering addicts literally struggle on a daily basis to resist the temptation to use drugs. In recognition of this daily struggle, many treatment and 12-step programs run daily group meetings for those in treatment to gain support and help from others who are also committed to staying sober. Unfortunately, as has become all too clear in all areas of drug policy, the people who traffic in drugs are unscrupulously cunning in constantly finding new ways to increase the number of people buying and becoming addicted to drugs. One of the easiest targets for drug dealers looking to increase their number of customers are the people most vulnerable to the temptations of drugs--recovering addicts. Because those in treatment are often so easily tempted and because once they purchase drugs they are likely to become regular customers as their addiction retakes hold full force, they are, perversely, the most sought-after clients for drug dealers, representing a steady and high- consumption consumer base. It is obviously a problem every time a drug dealer sells narcotics to anyone. It is an even greater problem when drug dealers try to increase their profits by targeting the most susceptible and weakest members of our society. Recognizing this, Congress created drug-free school zones which recognized that drug dealers were finding schools a good place to target potential new customers--susceptible children--where they were most likely to be and where there are a lot of them together. Drug traffickers caught selling drugs in these areas are subject to harsher penalties than for selling outside of these areas. This step to protect our children has obviously not completely solved the problem of youth drug abuse, but it has increased the chances that children can avoid being pressured by drug dealers into trying drugs. The same type of protection needs to be given to those similarly susceptible to coercion by drug dealers--recovering addicts. This type of tactic is a common occurrence, and it undermines the entire treatment community's efforts. In addition, many recovering addicts are targeted in the very places they should be most safe: their recovery meetings. It is unfortunately easy for a dealer to attend a meeting such as Narcotics Anonymous, listen to the other attendees, discover who is most vulnerable to a relapse, and approach those people after the meeting in order to expand their client base. The people targeted are obviously in the unfortunate position of the dealer having heard them in the meeting discussing how tempted they are, what they are craving, and why. It is then very easy for the drug dealer to pretend to be a fellow recovering addict concerned about the addict's struggle and willing to stay after the meeting to talk further--with the intention of getting the person alone and then offering drugs, often free of charge, in the hopes that the unsuspecting addict is drawn into the drug abusing lifestyle once again, thereby becoming a regular paying customer. In an even more simple scheme, drug dealers often track down former customers after they have entered a treatment program. The drug dealer then becomes a constant presence in the recovering person's life-- calling them, coincidentally running into them on the street, and showing up places they know the addict will be. These dealers know it is only a matter of time before the recovering addict has a weak or particularly difficult day, and the dealer wants to be sure the addict's temptation leads to a return to regular drug abuse. For these reasons, I am now introducing a bill to send a strong message to drug dealers and to severely punish those who don't heed the warning: ``stay away from recovering addicts who are trying to put their lives back together.'' My bill directs the Sentencing Commission to increase penalties for drug distributors who intentionally target recovering addicts. This will send the clear signal to drug dealers to stay away from treatment meetings, former customers who are now in treatment, and anyone else they know is committed to kicking their addiction. It also sends the right message to those drug addicts who are trying to regain their lives--that society is behind them; that we recognize their admirable struggle; that we are willing and able to help them resist the temptation to return to drug abuse; that we want them to succeed in staying drug free; and that we will punish those who knowingly try to make them fail. This is a simple yet vital piece of legislation in our fight against drugs, and I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, since the first call to arms against illegal drugs in 1989, we have learned just how insidious hardcore drug addiction is, even as the ravages of substance abuse--on both the addict and his victims-- have become ever more apparent. The frustration in dealing with a seemingly intractable national problem is palpable, most noticeably in the heated rhetoric as politicians blame each other for the failure to find a cure. What gets lost underneath the noise is the recognition that we have not done everything we can to fight this problem and that, like all serious ills, we must take incremental steps one at a time, and refuse to be overwhelmed by the big picture. Throughout my tenure as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I called for a multifaceted strategy to combat drug abuse. One of the specific steps I advocated was the creation of incentives to encourage the private sector to develop medicines that treat addiction, an area where promising research has not led--as one would normally expect--to production of medicines. The bill I am introducing today, the Pharmacotherapy Development Act of 1996, will hopefully change that. It takes focused aim at one segment of the drug-abusing population-- hardcore addicts, namely users of cocaine and heroin--in part because these addicts are so difficult to treat with traditional methods, and in part because this population commits such a large percentage of drug-related crime. In December, 1989, I commissioned a Judiciary Committee report, ``Pharmacotherapy: A Strategy for the 1990's.'' In that report, I posed the question, ``If drug use is an epidemic, are we doing enough to find a medical `cure' for this disease?'' The report gave the answer ``No.'' Unfortunately, almost a decade later, the answer remains the same. Developing new medicines for the treatment of addiction should be among our highest medical research priorities as a nation. Until we take this modest step, we cannot claim to have done everything reasonable to address the problem, and we should not become so frustrated that we effectively throw up our hands and do nothing. Recent medical advances have increased the possibility of developing medications to treat drug addiction. These advances include a heightened understanding of the physiological and psychological characteristics of drug addition and a greater base of neuroscientific research. One example of this promising research is the recent development of a compound that has been proven to immunize laboratory animals against the effects of cocaine. The compound works like a vaccine by stimulating the immune system to develop an antibody that blocks cocaine from entering the brain. Researchers funded through the National Institute of Drug Abuse believe that this advance may open a whole new avenue for combating addiction. Despite this progress, we still do not have a medication to treat cocaine addiction or drugs to treat many other forms of substance abuse, because the private sector is unsure of the wisdom of making the necessary investment in the production and marketing of such medicines. Private industry has not aggressively developed pharmacotherapies for a variety of reasons, including a small customer base, difficulties distributing medication to the target population, and fear of being associated with substance abusers. We need to create financial incentives to encourage pharmaceutical companies to develop and market these treatments. And we need to develop a new partnership between private industry and the public sector in order to encourage the active marketing and distribution of new medicines so they are accessible to all addicts in need of treatment. While pharmacotherapies alone are not a magic bullet that will solve our national substance abuse problem, they have the potential to fill a gap in current treatment regimens. The disease of addiction occurs for many reasons, including a variety of personal problems which pharmacotherapy cannot address. Still, by providing a treatment regimen for drug abusers who are not helped by traditional methods, pharmacotherapy holds substantial promise for reducing the crime and health crisis that drug abuse is causing in the United States. The Pharmacotherapy Development Act would encourage and support the development of medicines to treat drug addictions in two ways. Both approaches are designed to create greater incentives and protections for private sector companies willing to undertake this difficult but important task. First, the bill would provide additional patent protections for companies that develop drugs to treat substance abuse. Under the bill, pharmacotherapies could be designated ``orphan drugs" and qualify for an exclusive 7-year patent to treat a specific addiction. These extraordinary patent rights would greatly enhance the market value of pharmacotherapies and provide a financial reward for companies that invest in the search to cure drug addiction. This provision was contained in a bill introduced by Senator Kennedy and me in 1990, but was never acted on by Congress. Second, the bill would establish a substantial monetary reward for companies that develop drugs to treat cocaine and heroin addiction but shift the responsibility for marketing and distributing such drugs to the Government. This approach would create a financial incentive for drug companies to invest in research and development but enable them to avoid any stigma associated with distributing medicine to substance abusers. The bill would require the National Academy of Sciences to develop strict guidelines for evaluating whether a drug effectively treats cocaine or heroin addiction. If a drug meets these guidelines and is approved by the Food and Drug Administration, then the Government must purchase the patent rights for the drug from the company that developed it. The purchase price for the patent rights is established by law: $100 million for a drug to treat cocaine addiction and $50 million for a drug to treat heroin addiction. Once the Government has purchased the patent rights, then it is responsible for producing the drug and distributing it to clinics, hospitals, State, and local governments, and any other entities qualified to operate drug treatment programs. This joint public/private endeavor will correct the market inefficiencies that have thus far prevented the development of drugs to treat addiction and require the Government to take on the responsibilities that industry is unwilling or unable to perform. America's drug problem is reduced each and every time a drug abuser quits his or her habit. Fewer drug addicts mean fewer crimes, fewer hospital admissions, fewer drug-addicted babies, and fewer neglected children. The benefits to our country of developing new treatment options such as pharmacotherapies are manifold. Each dollar we spend on advancing options in this area can save us ten or twenty times as much in years to come. The question isn't can we afford to pursue a pharmacotherapy strategy, but rather, can we afford not to. Congress has long neglected to adopt measures I have proposed to speed the approval of and encourage greater private sector interest in pharmacotherapy. We cannot let another Congress conclude without rectifying our past negligence on this issue. I urge my colleagues to join me in promoting an important, and potentially groundbreaking approach to addressing one of our Nation's most serious domestic challenges. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, as anyone familiar with substance abuse treatment knows, recovery from addiction is a one-day-at-a-time procedure--often recovering addicts literally struggle on a daily basis to resist the temptation to use drugs. In recognition of this daily struggle, many treatment and 12-step programs run daily group meetings for those in treatment to gain support and help from others who are also committed to staying sober. Unfortunately, as has become all too clear in all areas of drug policy, the people who traffic in drugs are unscrupulously cunning in constantly finding new ways to increase the number of people buying and becoming addicted to drugs. One of the easiest targets for drug dealers looking to increase their number of customers are the people most vulnerable to the temptations of drugs--recovering addicts. Because those in treatment are often so easily tempted and because once they purchase drugs they are likely to become regular customers as their addiction retakes hold full force, they are, perversely, the most sought-after clients for drug dealers, representing a steady and high- consumption consumer base. It is obviously a problem every time a drug dealer sells narcotics to anyone. It is an even greater problem when drug dealers try to increase their profits by targeting the most susceptible and weakest members of our society. Recognizing this, Congress created drug-free school zones which recognized that drug dealers were finding schools a good place to target potential new customers--susceptible children--where they were most likely to be and where there are a lot of them together. Drug traffickers caught selling drugs in these areas are subject to harsher penalties than for selling outside of these areas. This step to protect our children has obviously not completely solved the problem of youth drug abuse, but it has increased the chances that children can avoid being pressured by drug dealers into trying drugs. The same type of protection needs to be given to those similarly susceptible to coercion by drug dealers--recovering addicts. This type of tactic is a common occurrence, and it undermines the entire treatment community's efforts. In addition, many recovering addicts are targeted in the very places they should be most safe: their recovery meetings. It is unfortunately easy for a dealer to attend a meeting such as Narcotics Anonymous, listen to the other attendees, discover who is most vulnerable to a relapse, and approach those people after the meeting in order to expand their client base. The people targeted are obviously in the unfortunate position of the dealer having heard them in the meeting discussing how tempted they are, what they are craving, and why. It is then very easy for the drug dealer to pretend to be a fellow recovering addict concerned about the addict's struggle and willing to stay after the meeting to talk further--with the intention of getting the person alone and then offering drugs, often free of charge, in the hopes that the unsuspecting addict is drawn into the drug abusing lifestyle once again, thereby becoming a regular paying customer. In an even more simple scheme, drug dealers often track down former customers after they have entered a treatment program. The drug dealer then becomes a constant presence in the recovering person's life-- calling them, coincidentally running into them on the street, and showing up places they know the addict will be. These dealers know it is only a matter of time before the recovering addict has a weak or particularly difficult day, and the dealer wants to be sure the addict's temptation leads to a return to regular drug abuse. For these reasons, I am now introducing a bill to send a strong message to drug dealers and to severely punish those who don't heed the warning: ``stay away from recovering addicts who are trying to put their lives back together.'' My bill directs the Sentencing Commission to increase penalties for drug distributors who intentionally target recovering addicts. This will send the clear signal to drug dealers to stay away from treatment meetings, former customers who are now in treatment, and anyone else they know is committed to kicking their addiction. It also sends the right message to those drug addicts who are trying to regain their lives--that society is behind them; that we recognize their admirable struggle; that we are willing and able to help them resist the temptation to return to drug abuse; that we want them to succeed in staying drug free; and that we will punish those who knowingly try to make them fail. This is a simple yet vital piece of legislation in our fight against drugs, and I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, since the first call to arms against illegal drugs in 1989, we have learned just how insidious hardcore drug addiction is, even as the ravages of substance abuse--on both the addict and his victims-- have become ever more apparent. The frustration in dealing with a seemingly intractable national problem is palpable, most noticeably in the heated rhetoric as politicians blame each other for the failure to find a cure. What gets lost underneath the noise is the recognition that we have not done everything we can to fight this problem and that, like all serious ills, we must take incremental steps one at a time, and refuse to be overwhelmed by the big picture. Throughout my tenure as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I called for a multifaceted strategy to combat drug abuse. One of the specific steps I advocated was the creation of incentives to encourage the private sector to develop medicines that treat addiction, an area where promising research has not led--as one would normally expect--to production of medicines. The bill I am introducing today, the Pharmacotherapy Development Act of 1996, will hopefully change that. It takes focused aim at one segment of the drug-abusing population-- hardcore addicts, namely users of cocaine and heroin--in part because these addicts are so difficult to treat with traditional methods, and in part because this population commits such a large percentage of drug-related crime. In December, 1989, I commissioned a Judiciary Committee report, ``Pharmacotherapy: A Strategy for the 1990's.'' In that report, I posed the question, ``If drug use is an epidemic, are we doing enough to find a medical `cure' for this disease?'' The report gave the answer ``No.'' Unfortunately, almost a decade later, the answer remains the same. Developing new medicines for the treatment of addiction should be among our highest medical research priorities as a nation. Until we take this modest step, we cannot claim to have done everything reasonable to address the problem, and we should not become so frustrated that we effectively throw up our hands and do nothing. Recent medical advances have increased the possibility of developing medications to treat drug addiction. These advances include a heightened understanding of the physiological and psychological characteristics of drug addition and a greater base of neuroscientific research. One example of this promising research is the recent development of a compound that has been proven to immunize laboratory animals against the effects of cocaine. The compound works like a vaccine by stimulating the immune system to develop an antibody that blocks cocaine from entering the brain. Researchers funded through the National Institute of Drug Abuse believe that this advance may open a whole new avenue for combating addiction. Despite this progress, we still do not have a medication to treat cocaine addiction or drugs to treat many other forms of substance abuse, because the private sector is unsure of the wisdom of making the necessary investment in the production and marketing of such medicines. Private industry has not aggressively developed pharmacotherapies for a variety of reasons, including a small customer base, difficulties distributing medication to the target population, and fear of being associated with substance abusers. We need to create financial incentives to encourage pharmaceutical companies to develop and market these treatments. And we need to develop a new partnership between private industry and the public sector in order to encourage the active marketing and distribution of new medicines so they are accessible to all addicts in need of treatment. While pharmacotherapies alone are not a magic bullet that will solve our national substance abuse problem, they have the potential to fill a gap in current treatment regimens. The disease of addiction occurs for many reasons, including a variety of personal problems which pharmacotherapy cannot address. Still, by providing a treatment regimen for drug abusers who are not helped by traditional methods, pharmacotherapy holds substantial promise for reducing the crime and health crisis that drug abuse is causing in the United States. The Pharmacotherapy Development Act would encourage and support the development of medicines to treat drug addictions in two ways. Both approaches are designed to create greater incentives and protections for private sector companies willing to undertake this difficult but important task. First, the bill would provide additional patent protections for companies that develop drugs to treat substance abuse. Under the bill, pharmacotherapies could be designated ``orphan drugs" and qualify for an exclusive 7-year patent to treat a specific addiction. These extraordinary patent rights would greatly enhance the market value of pharmacotherapies and provide a financial reward for companies that invest in the search to cure drug addiction. This provision was contained in a bill introduced by Senator Kennedy and me in 1990, but was never acted on by Congress. Second, the bill would establish a substantial monetary reward for companies that develop drugs to treat cocaine and heroin addiction but shift the responsibility for marketing and distributing such drugs to the Government. This approach would create a financial incentive for drug companies to invest in research and development but enable them to avoid any stigma associated with distributing medicine to substance abusers. The bill would require the National Academy of Sciences to develop strict guidelines for evaluating whether a drug effectively treats cocaine or heroin addiction. If a drug meets these guidelines and is approved by the Food and Drug Administration, then the Government must purchase the patent rights for the drug from the company that developed it. The purchase price for the patent rights is established by law: $100 million for a drug to treat cocaine addiction and $50 million for a drug to treat heroin addiction. Once the Government has purchased the patent rights, then it is responsible for producing the drug and distributing it to clinics, hospitals, State, and local governments, and any other entities qualified to operate drug treatment programs. This joint public/private endeavor will correct the market inefficiencies that have thus far prevented the development of drugs to treat addiction and require the Government to take on the responsibilities that industry is unwilling or unable to perform. America's drug problem is reduced each and every time a drug abuser quits his or her habit. Fewer drug addicts mean fewer crimes, fewer hospital admissions, fewer drug-addicted babies, and fewer neglected children. The benefits to our country of developing new treatment options such as pharmacotherapies are manifold. Each dollar we spend on advancing options in this area can save us ten or twenty times as much in years to come. The question isn't can we afford to pursue a pharmacotherapy strategy, but rather, can we afford not to. Congress has long neglected to adopt measures I have proposed to speed the approval of and encourage greater private sector interest in pharmacotherapy. We cannot let another Congress conclude without rectifying our past negligence on this issue. I urge my colleagues to join me in promoting an important, and potentially groundbreaking approach to addressing one of our Nation's most serious domestic challenges. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I have spoken in the Senate before about how the rising cost of a college education is putting a higher education--the American dream--out of reach for many middle-class American families. When I went to college, middle-class families could pay for the public college tuition and fees of their children for less than 5 percent of their income. It stayed that way until 1980. Since then, however, college costs have skyrocketed and middle-class incomes have stagnated. The result is that today it takes almost 9 percent of the average family's income to send one--just one--child to a public college. And, if you go to a private college or university, tuition and fees will eat up 35 percent of your income. Who can afford that? Not many middle-class families that I know. Many young people today must choose between going heavily into debt or not going to college at all. And, as the debt burden gets heavier and heavier, more and more middle-class kids will not even have that choice. They simply will not be able to go to college. And, this is happening at a time when we as a Nation can least afford it. Educating our work force is one of the best investments we as a society can make, and it is one of the best measurements of future economic well-being. According to one study, a more educated population has been responsible for nearly one-third of America's economic growth since the Great Depression. As we prepare to enter the 21st century and as the world economy is increasingly internationally competitive, we must ensure that no American is denied a higher education solely because of the cost. In fact, this has been a goal of the Federal Government for over a century. From the establishment of the land-grant university system in the late 1800's to the GI bill at the end of World War II to the creation of the Pell Grant and Guaranteed Student Loan Programs in the 1960's, the Federal Government has been committed to seeing a college education within reach of every American. It is time to renew that commitment. So, today, Mr. President, I am introducing comprehensive legislation to make college more affordable for American families, so that middle- class parents can afford to send their kids to college and middle-class kids can afford to go. My bill, titled ``Growing the Economy for Tomorrow: Assuring Higher Education is Affordable and Dependable''--Get Ahead, for short-- combines numerous proposals to give tax cuts for the cost of college, to encourage families to save for a college education, and to award college scholarships to high school students in the top of their class academically. For the sake of time, Mr. President, I will not go through all of specific proposals now. Instead, I refer my colleagues to a summary of the legislation. Mr. President, a college education is the dream of every American family. When I travel around my State of Delaware, I meet with wealthy businessmen, poor welfare mothers, and hundreds of middle-class families. And, they all want the same thing for their kids: a chance to go to college. They do not need us in Washington to tell them it is becoming harder and harder to get there. They know that. They need us to make it easier for them. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation to make sure that the American dream of a college education remains within reach of every American. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I have spoken in the Senate before about how the rising cost of a college education is putting a higher education--the American dream--out of reach for many middle-class American families. When I went to college, middle-class families could pay for the public college tuition and fees of their children for less than 5 percent of their income. It stayed that way until 1980. Since then, however, college costs have skyrocketed and middle-class incomes have stagnated. The result is that today it takes almost 9 percent of the average family's income to send one--just one--child to a public college. And, if you go to a private college or university, tuition and fees will eat up 35 percent of your income. Who can afford that? Not many middle-class families that I know. Many young people today must choose between going heavily into debt or not going to college at all. And, as the debt burden gets heavier and heavier, more and more middle-class kids will not even have that choice. They simply will not be able to go to college. And, this is happening at a time when we as a Nation can least afford it. Educating our work force is one of the best investments we as a society can make, and it is one of the best measurements of future economic well-being. According to one study, a more educated population has been responsible for nearly one-third of America's economic growth since the Great Depression. As we prepare to enter the 21st century and as the world economy is increasingly internationally competitive, we must ensure that no American is denied a higher education solely because of the cost. In fact, this has been a goal of the Federal Government for over a century. From the establishment of the land-grant university system in the late 1800's to the GI bill at the end of World War II to the creation of the Pell Grant and Guaranteed Student Loan Programs in the 1960's, the Federal Government has been committed to seeing a college education within reach of every American. It is time to renew that commitment. So, today, Mr. President, I am introducing comprehensive legislation to make college more affordable for American families, so that middle- class parents can afford to send their kids to college and middle-class kids can afford to go. My bill, titled ``Growing the Economy for Tomorrow: Assuring Higher Education is Affordable and Dependable''--Get Ahead, for short-- combines numerous proposals to give tax cuts for the cost of college, to encourage families to save for a college education, and to award college scholarships to high school students in the top of their class academically. For the sake of time, Mr. President, I will not go through all of specific proposals now. Instead, I refer my colleagues to a summary of the legislation. Mr. President, a college education is the dream of every American family. When I travel around my State of Delaware, I meet with wealthy businessmen, poor welfare mothers, and hundreds of middle-class families. And, they all want the same thing for their kids: a chance to go to college. They do not need us in Washington to tell them it is becoming harder and harder to get there. They know that. They need us to make it easier for them. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation to make sure that the American dream of a college education remains within reach of every American. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, since 1987, when I first proposed an overhaul of the welfare system, I have argued that welfare recipients should be required to work. None long years later, I am pleased that it is finally about to happen. It has been a long road. I was pilloried by many of my friends back then for even suggesting the idea of requiring work. Today, I think everyone here believes that work should be the premise of our welfare system. It was unthinkable a few short years ago, that we would limit the time that people could collect welfare benefits. Today, I think that is a proposition on which nearly everyone here agrees. And, on the other side of the aisle, it was just a few short months ago, that many were unwilling to invest sufficient amounts in child care so that the children of welfare mothers would be taken care of when their mothers went to work. We have come a long way toward reaching agreement on how best to reform our failed welfare system. And, much of that meeting of the minds is reflected in this bill. So, I will vote for it, although I believe it could have been better. I would feel much more comfortable if we were here today debating and voting on the Bipartisan Welfare Reform Act that Senator Specter and I introduced in the Senate and that Representatives Castle and Tanner introduced in the House. It was more realistic in putting people to work; it was more compassionate to the children who did not ask to be born in poverty; and it was a model of bipartisanship from the very beginning. Unfortunately, the Biden-Specter, or Castle-Tanner, bill is not a choice facing us today. Today, we have but one choice: this bill with its flaws or the current flawed system. And, in weighing the alternatives, the flawed--I should say failed--status quo is simply no longer an alternative. The culture of welfare must be replaced with the culture of work. The culture of dependence must be replaced with the culture of self- sufficiency and personal responsibility. And, the culture of permanence must no longer be a way of life. I will vote for this bill, Mr. President, because it is a step toward changing the culture. This bill will require welfare recipients to work in exchange for their benefits, and it will limit the amount of time that families can receive welfare. The bill will increase our investment in child care so that welfare mothers can go to work, and it will go after the deadbeat dads who refuse to support their own children. Finally, it will crack down on fraud in the Food Stamp Program. These are important and crucial changes that need to be made in our failed welfare system. They have been my priorities in reforming welfare, and this bill meets those goals. But, we should not fool ourselves. There will be people, many of them children, who will fall through the cracks because of this bill. I do not know how many. I have heard numbers thrown around on how many more poor children there will be under this bill. To tell the truth, no one knows for sure. But, there will be some. And, for that, we should not brag or boast or pound our collective chests or, as one Member of the other body did yesterday, claim that this will be great for America. However, that's not a reason for failing to move forward. It is a reason for watching closely what happens as we move forward. As this new welfare system is implemented, we must monitor it with a microscopic eye. And, I hope the authors of this legislation will be as willing to make corrections if corrections are needed as many of us have been willing to vote for a good, but not perfect, bill. And, this is not a perfect bill. In fact, I do not even believe this is the best bill we could have written. But, it is a good bill. And, it is time to move forward.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I have placed, I think, three or four spots for amendments.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a comment?

Mr. BIDEN. Five spots. I want to report that due to the great work of the full committee, Senator Hatch and I have elements of a bipartisan agreement on terrorism, and as a consequence of that I am not going to offer any of the amendments on this legislation.

Mr. BIDEN. I understand they have placed five or six slots based on that. I do not think there will be any amendments on terrorism on this legislation.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. I want to stress that Amtrak is not important to just one part of the country or to just a few customers. I understand the distinguished majority leader has been assured by his constituents of the importance of Amtrak to the State of Mississippi. If Amtrak were an airline, it would be the largest air carrier in the country. Amtrak is the single largest individual passenger carrier on the east coast, and to replace Amtrak's service in the East, as well as around the country, would require more lanes of interstate highway and more air pollution, more airport construction, additional safety concerns and increased congestion for all parts of the Nation. So let us not kid ourselves that Amtrak is not important to all parts of our country. But I agree, it is of particular importance to my State and the east coast. I thank the chairman and ranking member, and I yield back the 12 second I may have left.

Mr. BIDEN. I ask for 1 minute.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I see my friend from Arizona is still on the floor. In terms of subsidies, I point out again, because the argument was made, there is a little thing called the central Arizona water project. That is 3.5 billion bucks that my mom is helping to pay for. She will never drink a drop of the water, but Arizona needs it. It is $3.5 billion needed, badly needed--$3.5 billion. But our country needs Amtrak as well, on the west coast and on the east coast. I yield whatever time I have left. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair. Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, will the manager yield me 2 minutes?

Mr. BIDEN. May I have 1 more minute?

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I think it is a mistake, but in fact the Congress has agreed--any subsidy would end by the year 2001. The only reasonable way for that to occur, Mr. President, is if in fact we are able to get that half-cent trust fund set up. But whether we get that or not, in the year 2001 this is gone. I think Amtrak made a mistake agreeing to that, to be completely honest with my friend. But that is the answer to the question. The drop-dead date is the year 2001. In my view, they will not make it--to be completely candid with my friend--they will not make it unless they get that half-cent trust fund.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment by the Senator from Arizona. Cutting funding for Amtrak back to the inadequate level set by the House would be a big mistake and very bad public policy, in my view. It would be a formula for failure for the only intercity passenger rail service we have in America. The amendment would frustrate Amtrak's ongoing attempts to become self- sufficient. Instead of saving any money, it would waste funds already provided for passenger rail by virtually guaranteeing the demise of Amtrak. It is a formula for failure, Mr. President, because it prevents Amtrak from completing the comprehensive reforms it needs to eventually become self-sufficient in its day-to-day operations. I know my friends have heard me over the last 20 years make this same point. But no passenger rail service in the world--and passenger rail plays an important role all over the world--no passenger rail service in the world is, in fact, operated without public support for its capital needs. Whether it is in Europe or Japan, the most advanced industrialized economies in the world, not one passenger rail system in the world operates without support for its capital needs. It is these capital investments, the improvements to the Northeast corridor to carry high-speed trains and funds to purchase new locomotives and passenger cars for the western part of the United States as well as the Northeast corridor, that the McCain amendment hits the hardest. Without upgrades to the bridges, without straightening out the curves, without completion of the electrification of the rail connections between Washington and Boston, Amtrak would be unable to attract the additional passengers it needs to earn more operating income. Mr. President, we have put Amtrak on a very strict diet. We have cut service. We have cut subsidies. We have gotten a commitment that they will be self-sufficient by the year 2001. Amtrak on the east coast works on an electrification system, overhead electrical wires, and we have spent millions of dollars to upgrade the system from New York to Boston to allow high-speed Metroliner runs from Boston all the way to Washington. We have had to upgrade the bridges. We are well beyond New Haven and working our way up. This amendment would stop that project cold, absolutely cold. The Senate is on record in support of providing a half cent from the Federal gasoline tax to provide for Amtrak's capital budget. This is a step that I believe has to be taken as soon as possible. But until then, Amtrak will continue to require adequate funding through the appropriations process. I have been working here along with my colleague, Senator Roth, and others for years and years to get a dedicated source of funding for Amtrak. We are on the verge of doing that. Once that is done, one-half cent would provide $600 million a year in capital costs. That dedicated capital fund would be able to underwrite the capital cost of the entire Amtrak system coast to coast. But, in the meantime, absent that funding source, to eliminate the Northeast corridor improvements and decimate the remainder of their capital budget nationwide would literally be the end of the railroad. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. We say we want this outfit to be self- sufficient, and the very things needed to make it self-sufficient are the things we are going to deny it before we get to that point. My friend from Arizona said, I am told, that the average Amtrak passenger makes $40,000 a year and does not need a subsidy, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. I would like to put this thing in focus. My Western colleagues come to us in the East, and they say, ``An integral part of our economy is water.'' They point out to us, time and again, that we need to vote to subsidize their farmers, to subsidize their cities, to subsidize their drinking water. And we do. We spend tens of billions of dollars a year--tens of billions of dollars a year. I will never forget the first time, as a young man, I flew from the east coast to the west coast. I will never forget flying over the foothills of the Rocky Mountains and then on the other side, seeing all these concentric circles on the ground. I wondered what they were, these concentric circles. I had been in an airplane before, but I had never flown coast to coast. All of a sudden, I realized that is my mother's tax dollars, on Social Security. That is my tax dollars. It is my dad's tax dollars, on Social Security. Subsidizing what? Subsidizing western farm areas, subsidizing Senator McCain's in-laws and himself and others' drinking water. That is OK with me. We are one nation. The purpose of one nation is for each part of the country to work together. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts. All the parts of the Nation need different things. I do not hear Senator McCain or other Western Senators coming here and saying: You know, let us do away with subsidizing those farmers. Let us do away with subsidizing the water John Doe drinks in Phoenix, AZ. And I am not here doing that. But rail passenger service is critical to my section of the country and to the west coast. It is critical. If we eliminate Amtrak, how many more lanes of interstate highway are we going to be able to put in? What is it going to do to the environment? What is it going to do to the air? All Amtrak wants is a shot, a chance, a shot to make themselves self-sufficient. I will not be on the floor trying to restore Amtrak money for operating costs if we get the half-cent gas tax, a measly half cent. But the fact of the matter is, the House Transportation Committee and Congressman Wolf cut this significantly, the same amount that my friend and colleague from Arizona wants to cut it. Senator Hatfield and Senator Lautenberg and their colleagues in the Appropriations Committee have repaired the damage done by the House bill. And, as the chairman of the House Transportation Committee, Congressman Wolf, admitted, the House levels were wholly inadequate and were intended to force the adoption of the half-cent proposal. I am not sure what I think of that strategy, but I certainly agree that Amtrak funding levels in the House bill, the levels called for in Senator McCain's amendment, would be totally inadequate. The McCain amendment is a proposal to kill Amtrak; let there be no mistake about that. As a small State in the Northeast corridor, Delaware would be hard hit by the loss of a major part of its transportation system. As a major center for the repair and maintenance of railroads for more than a century, Delaware also faces the loss of important jobs under the severe cuts in the Northeast corridor and the capital budget of Amtrak. But as Senator Lautenberg forcefully argued, Amtrak plays a key role in the whole country's transportation system. As Senator Hatfield, the distinguished departing chair of the Appropriations Committee, well knows, the west coast is a major beneficiary of passenger rail as well. I acknowledge that, because of all the cuts we made in Amtrak over the past, not every State or region benefits equally from Amtrak. I acknowledge that. But I do not benefit from the water subsidies either. Delaware farmers do not benefit like the farmers from Arizona. My mother does not benefit, like the Senator's family does. I understand that. That is America. Senator McCain comes from a desert. I come from a place where there is a lot of water. I come from a place where we are overgrown with highways, where we have trouble breathing the air. Passenger rail is needed to relieve traffic congestion and air pollution. It is needed badly. I will leave Senator McCain's water alone if he leaves my railroad alone. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 1 more minute.

Mr. BIDEN. I would be happy to take 30 seconds to answer the question.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, my friend from Arizona makes at least two valid points--and many more--but two valid points. One is that if Amtrak is out of business, I will be here. I will have to be in Washington; and it means I will not be running out of here after the last vote to get the train home, which means I will get to speak more. That may be inducement enough for my colleagues to vote to continue to subsidize Amtrak, so I am not here late at night debating. But another truism that the Senator stated is that this has been a subsidy. It is an ongoing subsidy. But when he puts it in the context of being on the dole, you have to put it in the context of all other transportation systems. We subsidize airline tickets more. The average income of people flying in airlines, I suspect, is as high or higher than anyone getting on an Amtrak train. We subsidize those airline tickets a number of ways. They are tax deductible for business expenses. We build the airports. We build the towers and pay the air traffic controllers, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. We also subsidize the highways beyond what we collect in the highway trust fund moneys. So, Mr. President, all modes of transportation in the United States are subsidized. It seems to me rational public policy would dictate us to look at what makes sense. Different regions have different requirements. I see my friend from North Dakota is here. Amtrak is useful to him, but he does not need Amtrak as much as he needs highways. In Delaware we do not need any more highways. We cannot afford any more highways in my State or the State of Rhode Island or the State of New Jersey or the State of New York and so on and so forth. So every region of the country has different needs. It is true. They are all subsidized. And the question here is, it seems to me, the appropriate question is, What is an appropriate amount of subsidy? And it seems to me when Amtrak, having its budget cut by a third over the last couple years, having trimmed down significantly, this is not an appropriate cut. I thank the Chair for the time.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise this evening to discuss a decision handed down by the First Circuit Court of Appeals, and I will be introducing a bill to correct what I think was a serious mistake the court made. Mr. President, let me briefly discuss the court's decision. A few months ago, the First Circuit Court of Appeals made, in my view, a serious mistake--a very big mistake. It said that the term ``serious bodily injury,'' a phrase used in one of our Federal statutes, does not include the crime of rape. Mr. President, let me tell you about this case. One night near midnight, a woman went to her car after work. While she was getting something out of the back seat of her car, a man came up behind her with a knife and forced her into the back seat of her own car. He drove her to a remote beach, ordered her to take off her clothes, made here squat down on her hands and knees, and he raped her. He raped her. After the rape, he drove off in her car, leaving her alone on the side of the road naked. This man was convicted under the Federal carjacking statute. That statute provides for an enhanced sentence of up to 25 years if the convicted person inflicts serious--the term of art--serious bodily injury. If he inflicts serious bodily injury in the course of the carjacking, the statute provides for an enhanced sentence, a longer sentence, of up to 25 years. When this case got to the sentencing phase, after the defendant had been convicted of raping the woman in the manner that I just pointed out, the prosecutor asked the court to enhance the sentence, because under the statute if serious bodily injury occurred, then an additional 25 years was warranted. And the prosecutor reasoned, as I do, that rape constituted serious bodily injury. The trial judge agreed with the prosecutor and gave the defendant the statutory 25-year maximum, finding that rape constituted serious bodily injury. But when the case went up to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, that court said no. It said, if you can believe it, that rape is not serious bodily injury. Mr. President, I have spent the bulk of my professional career as a U.S. Senator and prior to that as a lawyer making the case that we do not take seriously enough in this country the crime of rape, and until we do we are not going to be the society we say we wish to be and we are not going to impact upon the injury inflicted on women in this society. But the Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that rape does not constitute serious bodily injury under our statute. To support its ruling--and I am now quoting the opinion of the First Circuit Court of Appeals--the court said: ``There is no evidence of any cuts or bruises in her vaginal area.'' I apologize for being so graphic, but that is literally a quote from the court ruling. That, in my view, is absolutely outrageous. Senator Hatch and I and Congressman Conyers in the House are going to be offering a bill to set matters straight. Under the U.S. Criminal Code, serious bodily injury has several definitions. It includes a substantial risk of death, protracted and obvious disfigurement, protracted loss or impairment of a bodily part or mental faculty, and it also includes extreme physical pain. It takes no great leap of logic to see that a rape involves extreme physical pain. And I would go so far as to say that only a panel of male judges could fail to make that leap and even think, let alone rule, that rape does not involve extreme pain. Rape is one of the most brutal and serious crimes any woman can experience. It is a violation of the first order, but it has all too often been treated like a second-class crime. According to a report I issued a few years ago, a robber is 30 percent more likely to be convicted than a rapist. A rape prosecution is more than twice as likely as murder prosecutions to be dismissed. A convicted rapist--and I want to get this straight--is 50 percent more likely to receive probation than a convicted robber. And you tell me that we take this crime we say is one of the most heinous crimes that can be committed by one human being on another seriously? Look at those statistics. We treat robbery--robbery--more seriously than we do rape. No crime carries a perfect record of arrest, prosecution and incarceration, but the record for rape is especially wanting. The first circuit decision helped explain why, in my opinion. Too often our criminal justice system, as the phrase goes, just doesn't get it when it comes to crimes against women. I acknowledge men can and have been raped as well, and a similar infliction of pain occurs, but the fact is well over 95 percent of the rapes are rapes of women. If the first circuit decision stands, it would mean that a criminal would spend more time behind bars for breaking a man's arm than for raping a woman. If a carjacking occurred, and I was the man whose car was carjacked, and in the process of the carjacking my arm was severely broken, for that fellow who was convicted of raping the woman, had he broken my arm, there is no doubt the prosecution's request for an enhanced penalty of 25 years would have been upheld. Think of that. We have a statute on the books that says you can enhance a penalty to 25 years for carjacking and inflicting serious bodily harm. Had it been a man with a broken arm, that guy would have been in jail for 25 years. But this was a woman who was raped. The court said, no, it does not meet the statutory requirement of serious bodily injury. For 5 long years, Mr. President, I worked to pass a piece of legislation that I have cared about more than any other thing I have done in my entire Senate career and the thing of which I am most proud. That is the Violence Against Women Act. My staff and I wrote that from scratch. It took a long time to convince our colleagues and administrations, Democrat and Republican, that it was necessary. For 5 long years we worked to pass that law. The act does a great many practical things. It funds more police and prosecutors specifically trained and devoted to combating rape and family violence. It trains police, prosecutors and judges in the ways of rape and family violence so that they can better understand, as, in my view, the first circuit did not understand, the nature of the problem and how to respond to the problem. The violence against women legislation provides shelter for more than 60,000 battered women and their children. It provides extra lighting and emergency phones in subways, bus stops and parks because of the nature in which the work force has changed. The woman sitting behind me who helped author that legislation is here at 9:30 at night. In my mother's generation, there were not many women who left work at 9:30 or 10:30 at night. Today, there are millions and millions, like men, who do, and we recognize the need to protect them better than they have been by providing the most effective--the most effective--crime prevention tool there is: lighting. It provides for more rape crisis centers. It sets up a national hotline that battered women can call around the clock to get advice and counseling. I am working on the ability for them when they call to also be able to get a lawyer who will handle their case pro bono--for free--and help guide them through the system. They were getting rape education efforts going with our young people so we can break the cycle of violence that begets violence. I might note parenthetically, one of the reasons I wrote this legislation initially, the Violence Against Women Act, is that I came across an incredible study, a poll done in the State of Rhode Island, of, I think, seventh, eighth and ninth graders. I am not certain, to be honest. I think seventh, eighth and ninth graders. It asks, in the poll conducted, the survey, ``If a man spends $10 on a woman, is he entitled to force sex on her if she refuses?'' An astounding 30-some percent of the young men answering the question said, ``Yes.'' But do you know what astounded me more? Mr. President, 25 percent of the young girls said ``yes'' as well. We have a cultural problem here that crosses lines of race, religion, ethnicity, and income. We just do not take seriously enough the battering of our women--our women, is the way our friends like to say it--of women in this country. This is especially true when it comes to victims who know their assailants. For too long we have been quick to call these private misfortunes rather than public disgraces. The Violence Against Women Act also meant to do something else beyond the concrete measures that I mentioned. It also sent a clarion call across the land that crimes against women will no longer be treated as second-class crimes. For too long the victims of these crimes have been seen, not as innocent targets of brutality, but as participants who somehow bear some shame or even some responsibility for the violence inflicted upon them. As I said, this is especially true when it comes to victims who know their assailants. For too long we have been quick to call theirs a private misfortune rather than a public disgrace. We viewed the crime as less than criminal, the abuser less than culpable, and the victim as less than worthy of justice. In my own State of Delaware, until recently, if a man raped a woman he did not know, he was eligible, if he brutally did it, to be convicted of first-degree rape. But do you know what? We had a provision in our law, and many States had similar provisions, that said if the woman knew the man, if the woman was the social companion of the man, then he could only be tried for second-degree rape, the inference being that somehow she must have invited something because she knew him, she went out with him. It seems to me we have to remain ever vigilant in our efforts to make our streets and our neighborhoods and our homes safer for all people, but in this case particularly for women. We need to make sure right now that no judge ever misreads the carjacking statute again and undermines the overwhelming purpose of my legislation in the first place, which was to change the psyche of this Nation about how we are to deal with the brutal act of rape. It is not a sex crime, it is an act of violence, a violent act. Now, one of the most respected courts in the Nation has come down and said it does not constitute serious bodily injury. So, Mr. President, we need to make sure right now that no judge ever misreads the carjacking statute again. We need to tell them what we intend, what we always intended, that the words ``serious bodily injury'' mean rape, no ifs, ands, or buts. The legislation, a bill to be introduced by myself and Senator Hatch and others, does just that. It says, and I will read from one section: Section 2119(2) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting ``, including any conduct that, if the conduct occurred in the special maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the United States, would violate section 2241 or 2242 of this title'' after ``(as defined in section 1365 of this title)''. Translated into everyday English it means, serious bodily injury means rape. No judge will be able to, no matter how--I should not editorialize. No judge in the future, once we pass this legislation, will be able ever again to say that serious bodily injury does not include rape. I thank Senator Hatch, and I would like to particularly thank Demetra Lambros, who is sitting behind me, a woman lawyer on my staff who worked with Representative Conyers' staff to write this legislation, for the effort she has made and for calling this to my attention. I also thank Senator Hatch, who has always been supportive and very involved in this, and his staff, and Congressman Conyers, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee. I am confident if every Member--this is presumptuous for me to say, Mr. President--but as every Member of the Senate becomes aware of what this does, I cannot imagine there is anyone here or anyone in the House who will not support it. I thank the Chair. I realize the hour is late. I thank the Chair for indulging me. Tomorrow, hopefully, we will be in a position to bring this legislation up and pass it. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise to offer a bill that I believe represents an important step forward in the fight against child abuse and crime. This legislation will make healthy families programs eligible for funding under the local crime prevention block grant, in the 1994 crime law. Essentially, this bill would add the healthy families program to the list of prevention programs eligible for funding under the block grant. The link between child abuse and later involvement in violence and crime is becoming ever more clear. According to a 1992 Justice Department report, 68 percent of youths arrested had a prior history of abuse and neglect, and abused girls were 77 percent more likely than nonabused girls to be arrested as juveniles. The healthy families initiative has proven to be very successful in combating this cycle of violence. The program was pioneered in Hawaii in the 1980's. According to the Hawaii Department of Health, 2,254 at- risk families received healthy families services over a 5-year period. Out of that total, abuse was reported in only 16 families. This success shows that the program was able to prevent abuse in 99.3 percent of at- risk families in Hawaii. The success of this program is based on the voluntary, comprehensive, and culturally appropriate home visitor systems. These systems provide parenting education that focuses on parenting skills, child development, child health, and support services for new parents, in order to prevent or decrease the risk of child abuse. As a result of this success, the program has now spread to other communities throughout the United States. The money which would be provided under the block grant, would help other communities create these greatly needed healthy families programs. Spending money on child-abuse prevention is a sound investment. Not only will it create future savings in the judiciary system and other social services, but even more importantly it's an investment in the lives of our children. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation I am introducing today appear in the Record. The being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise to offer a bill that I believe represents an important step forward in the fight against child abuse and crime. This legislation will make healthy families programs eligible for funding under the local crime prevention block grant, in the 1994 crime law. Essentially, this bill would add the healthy families program to the list of prevention programs eligible for funding under the block grant. The link between child abuse and later involvement in violence and crime is becoming ever more clear. According to a 1992 Justice Department report, 68 percent of youths arrested had a prior history of abuse and neglect, and abused girls were 77 percent more likely than nonabused girls to be arrested as juveniles. The healthy families initiative has proven to be very successful in combating this cycle of violence. The program was pioneered in Hawaii in the 1980's. According to the Hawaii Department of Health, 2,254 at- risk families received healthy families services over a 5-year period. Out of that total, abuse was reported in only 16 families. This success shows that the program was able to prevent abuse in 99.3 percent of at- risk families in Hawaii. The success of this program is based on the voluntary, comprehensive, and culturally appropriate home visitor systems. These systems provide parenting education that focuses on parenting skills, child development, child health, and support services for new parents, in order to prevent or decrease the risk of child abuse. As a result of this success, the program has now spread to other communities throughout the United States. The money which would be provided under the block grant, would help other communities create these greatly needed healthy families programs. Spending money on child-abuse prevention is a sound investment. Not only will it create future savings in the judiciary system and other social services, but even more importantly it's an investment in the lives of our children. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation I am introducing today appear in the Record. The being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield me 30 seconds?