Joe Biden

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, back in January I used a similar amendment for the first bill I introduced this year. There is a simple reason for it: It is more clear it is needed now. We have to take this out of politics. As long as we are involved, we will argue this about Democrat-Republican. It is not about Democrat-Republican. The world has changed. It has changed utterly. The fact is we need a clear-eyed assessment of where we are in this changed world. This is a lot less about them--that is, the prisoners and the terrorists. It is much more about us and our troops. I wonder what happens the first time an American troop is captured anywhere in this or a future war and turned over to the secret police of that country, taken to a spot that no one knows, one that is clandestine. I wonder what happens then. It is all about where we stand as a nation, about our values. We are in, as everyone says in this Senate, a battle for the hearts and minds of 1.2 billion people who share a different religion and maybe a different point of view. We are hurting, not helping, our troops. We are hurting, not helping, our cause. We have to have a clear-eyed resolution of it. The clearest way to do this is through a commission. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Extending the Child Safety Pilot Program Act of 2005, along with my good friend Senator Hatch. At the outset, let me thank Senator Hatch and his staff for joining with me in this effort. I can think of no stronger advocate for children's safety than my friend from Utah, and I am so pleased to have him as an original cosponsor of this bill. When a mom drops her young son or daughter off at the local Boys & Girls Club, when a dad brings his child to little league practice, or when one of our kids is mentored by an older member of the community, we hope and pray that they are going to be safe. They usually are, and youth-serving organizations are constantly vetting new employees and volunteers to ensure there's nothing in their background to indicate that potential workers should not be around our kids. But these groups can only do so much. They send information and fingerprints on prospective workers to their State criminal identification agencies, and that effort typically results in a comprehensive search of criminal history information on file in the State where the organization is established. But if the worker spent time in another state, or if a State's records are not up to date, kids' safety can be put in jeopardy. The organization with the most complete set of national criminal history information is the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services Division, in Clarksburg, West Virginia. Years ago, I was approached by the Boys & Girls Clubs and others and asked whether there would be a way for them to directly access CJIS' records and avoid the then- cumbersome system requiring them to apply for these national background checks through their States. I looked into the issue and discovered that a patchwork of statutes and regulations govern background checks at the State level. There are over 1,200 State statutes concerning criminal record checks. In different States, different agencies are authorized to perform background checks for different types of organizations, distinct forms and information are required, and the results are returned in various formats that can be difficult to interpret. Youth-serving organizations trying to do the right thing and keep the kids in their charge safe were being forced to navigate an extremely cumbersome system. Indeed, in 1998, the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services Division performed an analysis of fingerprints submitted for civil applicant purposes. CJIS found that the average transmission time from the point of fingerprint to the State bureau was 51.0 days, and from the State bureau to the FBI was another 66.6 days, for a total of 117.6 days from fingerprinting to receipt by the FBI. The worst performing jurisdiction took 544.8 days from fingerprinting to receipt by the FBI. In a survey conducted by the National Mentoring Partnership, mentoring organizations waited an average of 6 weeks for the results of a national criminal background check to be returned. In a New York Times article published this past August, the Boys & Girls Clubs of America's vice president of club safety, Les Nichols, was quoted as saying that about a third of the criminal records that Clubs' checks turned up were from states other than the one where the applications were submitted. ``It can take as long as 18 months to retrieve those records,'' Mr. Nichols said, ``and that time lag works against us, particularly because we are in a business where we have a lot of seasonal staff and volunteers.'' Not only was the national criminal history background check process slow, but it was often too expensive to be useful to youth-serving organizations. In 2000, I introduced comprehensive legislation designed to plug these security holes. No action was taken on my National Child Protection Improvement Act that year. The following year, I re- introduced the bill as S. 1868. That bill cleared the Senate unanimously but was never acted on by the House. It would have set up an office in the Justice Department to coordinate background check requests from youth-serving organizations, and would have required the results of these checks to be forwarded from the FBI to the requesting groups quickly and affordably. Finally, in 2003's PROTECT Act, we were able to make some progress on this critical issue. Along with Senator Hatch and Chairman Sensenbrenner of the House Judiciary Committee, I authored section 108 of the PROTECT Act conference report. Section 108 of Public Law 108-21 established an 18-month pilot program for certain organizations to obtain national criminal history background checks. When he signed the PROTECT Act into law, the President noted ``this law creates important pilot programs to help nonprofit organizations which deal with children to obtain quick and complete criminal background information on volunteers. Listen, mentoring programs are essential for our country, and we must make sure they are safe for the children they serve.'' The Child Safety Pilot Program created in the PROTECT Act was extended for another 12 months by a provision in last year's Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, but the initiative is scheduled to expire at the end of January 2006. Although the Department of Justice has yet to submit a status report on the Child Safety Pilot Program, as required by law, data provided by groups using the program demonstrate its effectiveness and the need for it to be extended. At last check, over 10,000 background checks have been conducted through the pilot program. In those performed checks, 7.5 percent of all workers screened had an arrest or conviction in their record. Crimes discovered were serious: rape, child sexual abuse, murder, and domestic battery. Half of those individuals were not truthful in their job application and instead stated they did not have a criminal record. Over one-quarter, 28 percent, of applicants with a criminal record had crimes from States other than where they were applying to work. In other words, but for the existence of the Child Safety Pilot Program, employers may not have known that their applicants had a criminal record. The bill Senator Hatch and I introduce today will extend the Child Safety Pilot Program for an additional 30-month period. It will also change the original program so that more youth-serving organizations can participate, and will shorten the timeframe given to the FBI in which to return the results of the background check. We are pleased that our bill has been endorsed by the Boys & Girls Clubs of America, the National Mentoring Partnership, and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. I would like to thank those who have made this program such a success. Specifically, Ernie Allen and his team at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children have generously provided staff and equipment and have served as a clearinghouse to process background check requests. Robbie Callaway and Steve Salem of the Boys & Girls Clubs of America originally came up with this idea, and have provided tireless advocacy on its behalf. And Margo Pedroso of the National Mentoring Partnership has been invaluable in making Members of Congress and the general public aware of the need for an affordable, efficient national criminal history background check system. Without her, this program would never have been created. I urge my colleagues to support the Child Safety Pilot Program Act, and I look forward to its prompt consideration.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Extending the Child Safety Pilot Program Act of 2005, along with my good friend Senator Hatch. At the outset, let me thank Senator Hatch and his staff for joining with me in this effort. I can think of no stronger advocate for children's safety than my friend from Utah, and I am so pleased to have him as an original cosponsor of this bill. When a mom drops her young son or daughter off at the local Boys & Girls Club, when a dad brings his child to little league practice, or when one of our kids is mentored by an older member of the community, we hope and pray that they are going to be safe. They usually are, and youth-serving organizations are constantly vetting new employees and volunteers to ensure there's nothing in their background to indicate that potential workers should not be around our kids. But these groups can only do so much. They send information and fingerprints on prospective workers to their State criminal identification agencies, and that effort typically results in a comprehensive search of criminal history information on file in the State where the organization is established. But if the worker spent time in another state, or if a State's records are not up to date, kids' safety can be put in jeopardy. The organization with the most complete set of national criminal history information is the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services Division, in Clarksburg, West Virginia. Years ago, I was approached by the Boys & Girls Clubs and others and asked whether there would be a way for them to directly access CJIS' records and avoid the then- cumbersome system requiring them to apply for these national background checks through their States. I looked into the issue and discovered that a patchwork of statutes and regulations govern background checks at the State level. There are over 1,200 State statutes concerning criminal record checks. In different States, different agencies are authorized to perform background checks for different types of organizations, distinct forms and information are required, and the results are returned in various formats that can be difficult to interpret. Youth-serving organizations trying to do the right thing and keep the kids in their charge safe were being forced to navigate an extremely cumbersome system. Indeed, in 1998, the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services Division performed an analysis of fingerprints submitted for civil applicant purposes. CJIS found that the average transmission time from the point of fingerprint to the State bureau was 51.0 days, and from the State bureau to the FBI was another 66.6 days, for a total of 117.6 days from fingerprinting to receipt by the FBI. The worst performing jurisdiction took 544.8 days from fingerprinting to receipt by the FBI. In a survey conducted by the National Mentoring Partnership, mentoring organizations waited an average of 6 weeks for the results of a national criminal background check to be returned. In a New York Times article published this past August, the Boys & Girls Clubs of America's vice president of club safety, Les Nichols, was quoted as saying that about a third of the criminal records that Clubs' checks turned up were from states other than the one where the applications were submitted. ``It can take as long as 18 months to retrieve those records,'' Mr. Nichols said, ``and that time lag works against us, particularly because we are in a business where we have a lot of seasonal staff and volunteers.'' Not only was the national criminal history background check process slow, but it was often too expensive to be useful to youth-serving organizations. In 2000, I introduced comprehensive legislation designed to plug these security holes. No action was taken on my National Child Protection Improvement Act that year. The following year, I re- introduced the bill as S. 1868. That bill cleared the Senate unanimously but was never acted on by the House. It would have set up an office in the Justice Department to coordinate background check requests from youth-serving organizations, and would have required the results of these checks to be forwarded from the FBI to the requesting groups quickly and affordably. Finally, in 2003's PROTECT Act, we were able to make some progress on this critical issue. Along with Senator Hatch and Chairman Sensenbrenner of the House Judiciary Committee, I authored section 108 of the PROTECT Act conference report. Section 108 of Public Law 108-21 established an 18-month pilot program for certain organizations to obtain national criminal history background checks. When he signed the PROTECT Act into law, the President noted ``this law creates important pilot programs to help nonprofit organizations which deal with children to obtain quick and complete criminal background information on volunteers. Listen, mentoring programs are essential for our country, and we must make sure they are safe for the children they serve.'' The Child Safety Pilot Program created in the PROTECT Act was extended for another 12 months by a provision in last year's Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, but the initiative is scheduled to expire at the end of January 2006. Although the Department of Justice has yet to submit a status report on the Child Safety Pilot Program, as required by law, data provided by groups using the program demonstrate its effectiveness and the need for it to be extended. At last check, over 10,000 background checks have been conducted through the pilot program. In those performed checks, 7.5 percent of all workers screened had an arrest or conviction in their record. Crimes discovered were serious: rape, child sexual abuse, murder, and domestic battery. Half of those individuals were not truthful in their job application and instead stated they did not have a criminal record. Over one-quarter, 28 percent, of applicants with a criminal record had crimes from States other than where they were applying to work. In other words, but for the existence of the Child Safety Pilot Program, employers may not have known that their applicants had a criminal record. The bill Senator Hatch and I introduce today will extend the Child Safety Pilot Program for an additional 30-month period. It will also change the original program so that more youth-serving organizations can participate, and will shorten the timeframe given to the FBI in which to return the results of the background check. We are pleased that our bill has been endorsed by the Boys & Girls Clubs of America, the National Mentoring Partnership, and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. I would like to thank those who have made this program such a success. Specifically, Ernie Allen and his team at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children have generously provided staff and equipment and have served as a clearinghouse to process background check requests. Robbie Callaway and Steve Salem of the Boys & Girls Clubs of America originally came up with this idea, and have provided tireless advocacy on its behalf. And Margo Pedroso of the National Mentoring Partnership has been invaluable in making Members of Congress and the general public aware of the need for an affordable, efficient national criminal history background check system. Without her, this program would never have been created. I urge my colleagues to support the Child Safety Pilot Program Act, and I look forward to its prompt consideration.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate passed S. Res. 282, which recognizes October as Domestic Violence Awareness Month and establishes a sense of the Senate that the Congress should raise awareness of domestic violence in the United States and its impact on our Nation's families. I am thankful to the 32 co-sponsors of this resolution and to my colleagues for its unanimous passage. We have made substantial progress in combating domestic violence since 1994 when we passed the Violence Against Women Act. Since the Act's passage, domestic violence has dropped by almost 50 percent. Incidents of rape are down by 60 percent. The number of women killed by an abusive husband or boyfriend is down by 22 percent and more than half of all rape victims are stepping forward to report the crime. Despite this record of success, we still have so much more to do. According to the Department of Justice, more than three women are murdered by their husbands or boyfriends every day. More than 2.5 million women are victims of violence each year and nearly one in three women experiences at least one physical assault by a partner during adulthood. Reports also indicate that up to ten million children experience domestic violence in their homes each year, and nearly 8,800,000 children in the United States witness domestic violence each year. This is unacceptable. The impact this has on our Nation's families and on the fabric of our society as a whole is clear. What is lesser known is the impact that domestic violence has on our Nation's pocketbook. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently found that violence against women costs our country in excess of $5.8 billion each year; $4.1 billion of this is spent on direct medical and mental health care services. Since 1994, we have invested $15.50 per woman to implement the Violence Against Women Act, but it is estimated that this investment has saved $159 per woman, with a net overall savings of $14.8 billion. I bring this up to remind my colleagues that even in this time of budget deficits, investing in programs to halt domestic violence is not only the right thing to do, but it ultimately saves money. It is fitting that this year's National Domestic Violence Awareness Month is the month that the Senate passed the Violence Against Women Act of 2005. This bill will reauthorize critical components of the original act, and it will establish further protections for battered immigrants and victims of human trafficking in order to additionally combat domestic violence and sexual assault. The legislation takes the critical next steps to helping victims become safe, secure, and self- sufficient. I would like to point out that this bill had 57 co-sponsors and passed unanimously. This is in stark contrast to the original Act, which took many, many years to get passed. We have changed the paradigm on this issue and we have come a long way. But, we need to do more. The Violence Against Women Act of 2005 will help do this, and I look forward to the House-Senate conference on this bill and getting the bill passed into law. In addition to the work that we are doing in the Senate, National Domestic Violence Awareness Month gives us a chance to acknowledge the hard work of so many individuals and groups that have tackled this issue head-on. These advocates talk the talk and they walk the walk. They help ensure a better life for so many battered women and children, and they remind Congress what is at stake and what remains to be done. We all owe a debt of gratitude to the advocates, lawyers, service providers, judges, police, nurses, shelter directors, and the many others who have dedicated their lives to this cause. Again, I thank my colleagues for acting on this important resolution, and I look forward to working with them in the coming months and years to address the problem of domestic violence in our Nation.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, Senator Specter, Senator Brownback, and I introduce today the Second Chance Act of 2005, which takes direct aim at reducing recidivism rates for our nation's ex-offenders and improving the transition for these offenders from prison back into the community. All too often we think about today, but not tomorrow. We look to short- term solutions for long-term problems. We need to have a change in thinking and approach. It's time we face the dire situation of prisoners reentering our communities with insufficient monitoring, little nor no job skills, inadequate drug treatment, insufficient housing, lack of positive influences, a pap city of basic physical and mental health services, and deficient basic life skills. The bill we introduce today is about providing a second chance for these ex-offenders, and the children and families that depend on them. It's about strengthening communities and ensuring safe neighborhoods. Since my 1994 Crime Bill passed, we've had great success in cutting down on crime rates in this country. Under the Community Oriented Policing Services, COPS, program, we've funded over 100,000 officers all across the country. And our crime rate has plummeted. But there's a record number of people currently serving time in our country--over 2 million in our federal and state prisons; with millions more in local jails. And 95 percent of all prisoners we lock up today will eventually get out. That equals nearly 650,000 being released from federal or state prisons to communities each year. If we are going to continue the downward trend of crime rates, we simply have to make strong, concerted, and common-sense efforts now to help ex-prisoners successfully reenter and reintegrate to their communities. And right now, we're not doing a good enough job. A staggering two- thirds of released State prisoners are expected to be rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years of release. Two out of every three. You're talking about hundreds of thousands of reoffending, ex-offenders each year and hundreds of thousands of serious crimes being committed by people who have already served time in jail. And, unfortunately, it's too difficult to see why such a huge portion of our released prisoners recommit serious crimes. Up to 60 percent of former inmates are not employed; 15-27 percent of prisoners expect to go to homeless shelters upon release; and 57 percent of federal and 70 percent of state inmates used drugs regularly before prison, with some estim1tes of involvement with drugs or alcohol around the time of the offense as high as 84 percent. These huge numbers or released prisoners each year and the out-of- control recidivism rates are a recipe for diaster--leading to untold damage, hardship, and death for victims; ruined futures and lost potential for re-offenders; and a huge drain on society at large. One particularly vulnerable group is the children of these offenders. We simply cannot be resigned to allowing generation after generation entering and reentering our prisons. This pernicious cycle must come to an end. My 1994 Crime Bill recognized these extraordinarily high rates of recidivism as a real problem. My bill, for example, created innovative drug treatment programs for State and Federal inmates to help them kick their habit. But this is only one piece of the puzzle. I introduced a bill in 2000 that would have built on my 1994 Crime Bill--the ``Offender Reentry and Community Safety Act of 2000'' (S. 2908). This bill would have created demonstration reentry programs for Federal, State, and local prisoners. These programs were designed to assist high-risk, high-need offenders who served their prison sentences, but who posed the greatest risk of reoffending upon release because they lacked the education, job skills, stable family or living arrangements, and the health services they needed to successfully reintegrate into society. While we have made some progress on offender reentry efforts since 1994, much more needs to be done. In the current session of Congress, I am pleased that colleagues of mine--from both sides of Capitol Hill and from both sides of the aisle--are also focusing their attention and this vital issue. Senators Specter and Brownback have been dedicated and tireless leaders on crime and public safety issues throughout their careers, and I am proud to join efforts with them today. Other Senators have also taken a leadership role on these issues, including Senators Leahy, Kennedy, Brownback, Hatch, Specter, Grassley, Feinstein, DeWine, Santorum, Landrieu, Bingaman, Coburn, Durbin, and Obama. The Second Chance Act of 2005 provides a competitive grant program to promote innovative programs to this out a variety of methods aimed at reducing recidivism rates. Efforts would be focus on post-release housing, education and job training, substance abuse and mental health services, and mentoring programs, just to name a few. Because the scope of the problem is so large--with 650,000 prisoners being released from state and federal prisons each year--our bill provides $100 million per year in competitive grant funding . This isn't being wasteful with our scarce federal resources, it's just an acknowledgement of the scope of the problem we're faced with. A relatively modest investment in offender reentry efforts compares very well with the alternative, building more and more prisons for these ex-offenders to return to if they are unable to successfully reenter their communities and instead are rearrested and reconvicted of more cries. We must remember that the average cost of incarcerating each prisoner exceeds 20,000 per year, with expenditures on corrections alone having increased from $9 billion in 1982 to $60 billion in 2002. We simply can't be penny-wise but pound-foolish. The Second Chance Act of 2005 also requires that federal departments with a role in offender reentry efforts coordinate and work together; to make sure there aren't duplicative efforts or funding gaps; and to coordinate reentry research. Our bill would raise the profile of this issue within the executive branch and secure the sustained and coordinated federal attention offender reentry efforts deserve. We also need to examine existing Federal and State reentry barriers-- laws, regulations, rules, and practices that make it more difficult for former inmates to successfully reintegrate back into their communities; laws that confine ex-offenders to society's margins, making it even more likely that they will recommit serious crimes and return to prison. Turning over a new leaf and going from a life of crime to becoming a productive member of society is tough enough. We shouldn't have Federal and State laws on the books that make this even more challenging. That's not say that we don't want to restrict former drug addicts from working in pharmacies, for example, or to bar sex offenders from working it day care centers. But many communities across the country currently exclude ex-prisoners from virtually every occupation requiring a state license, like chiropractic care, engineering, and real estate. Lifting these senselessly punitive bans would make it easier for ex-offenders to stay out of prison. Our bill provides for a roust analysis of these federal and state barriers with recommendations on what next steps we need to take. And these reviews are mandated to take place out in the open under public scrutiny. The Second Chance Act also spurs state-of-the-art research and study on offender reentry issues. We need to know who is most likely to recommit crimes when they are released, to better target our limited resources where they can do the most good. We need to study why some ex-offenders who seem to have the entire deck stacked against them are able to become successful and productive members of our society. We need to know what, works and how we can replicate what works for others. Our bill also provides a whole slew of common-sense proposals in the areas of job training, employment, education, post-release housing, substance abuse, and prisoner mentoring--efforts and changes in law that we can do now. Our Second Chance Act is a next, natural step in our campaign against crime. Making a dent in recidivism rate is an enormous undertaking; one that requires action now and continued focus in the future. I commit to vigorously pushing this legislation as well as keeping an eye on what steps we need to take in the future. We need to realize that the problems facing ex-offenders are enormous and will need sustained focus. The safety of our neighbors, our children, and our communities depends on it. I am proud today to join with Senator Specter and Senator Brownback in introducing the Second Chance Act and ask our colleagues to join with us in this vital effort.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, Senator Specter, Senator Brownback, and I introduce today the Second Chance Act of 2005, which takes direct aim at reducing recidivism rates for our nation's ex-offenders and improving the transition for these offenders from prison back into the community. All too often we think about today, but not tomorrow. We look to short- term solutions for long-term problems. We need to have a change in thinking and approach. It's time we face the dire situation of prisoners reentering our communities with insufficient monitoring, little nor no job skills, inadequate drug treatment, insufficient housing, lack of positive influences, a pap city of basic physical and mental health services, and deficient basic life skills. The bill we introduce today is about providing a second chance for these ex-offenders, and the children and families that depend on them. It's about strengthening communities and ensuring safe neighborhoods. Since my 1994 Crime Bill passed, we've had great success in cutting down on crime rates in this country. Under the Community Oriented Policing Services, COPS, program, we've funded over 100,000 officers all across the country. And our crime rate has plummeted. But there's a record number of people currently serving time in our country--over 2 million in our federal and state prisons; with millions more in local jails. And 95 percent of all prisoners we lock up today will eventually get out. That equals nearly 650,000 being released from federal or state prisons to communities each year. If we are going to continue the downward trend of crime rates, we simply have to make strong, concerted, and common-sense efforts now to help ex-prisoners successfully reenter and reintegrate to their communities. And right now, we're not doing a good enough job. A staggering two- thirds of released State prisoners are expected to be rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years of release. Two out of every three. You're talking about hundreds of thousands of reoffending, ex-offenders each year and hundreds of thousands of serious crimes being committed by people who have already served time in jail. And, unfortunately, it's too difficult to see why such a huge portion of our released prisoners recommit serious crimes. Up to 60 percent of former inmates are not employed; 15-27 percent of prisoners expect to go to homeless shelters upon release; and 57 percent of federal and 70 percent of state inmates used drugs regularly before prison, with some estim1tes of involvement with drugs or alcohol around the time of the offense as high as 84 percent. These huge numbers or released prisoners each year and the out-of- control recidivism rates are a recipe for diaster--leading to untold damage, hardship, and death for victims; ruined futures and lost potential for re-offenders; and a huge drain on society at large. One particularly vulnerable group is the children of these offenders. We simply cannot be resigned to allowing generation after generation entering and reentering our prisons. This pernicious cycle must come to an end. My 1994 Crime Bill recognized these extraordinarily high rates of recidivism as a real problem. My bill, for example, created innovative drug treatment programs for State and Federal inmates to help them kick their habit. But this is only one piece of the puzzle. I introduced a bill in 2000 that would have built on my 1994 Crime Bill--the ``Offender Reentry and Community Safety Act of 2000'' (S. 2908). This bill would have created demonstration reentry programs for Federal, State, and local prisoners. These programs were designed to assist high-risk, high-need offenders who served their prison sentences, but who posed the greatest risk of reoffending upon release because they lacked the education, job skills, stable family or living arrangements, and the health services they needed to successfully reintegrate into society. While we have made some progress on offender reentry efforts since 1994, much more needs to be done. In the current session of Congress, I am pleased that colleagues of mine--from both sides of Capitol Hill and from both sides of the aisle--are also focusing their attention and this vital issue. Senators Specter and Brownback have been dedicated and tireless leaders on crime and public safety issues throughout their careers, and I am proud to join efforts with them today. Other Senators have also taken a leadership role on these issues, including Senators Leahy, Kennedy, Brownback, Hatch, Specter, Grassley, Feinstein, DeWine, Santorum, Landrieu, Bingaman, Coburn, Durbin, and Obama. The Second Chance Act of 2005 provides a competitive grant program to promote innovative programs to this out a variety of methods aimed at reducing recidivism rates. Efforts would be focus on post-release housing, education and job training, substance abuse and mental health services, and mentoring programs, just to name a few. Because the scope of the problem is so large--with 650,000 prisoners being released from state and federal prisons each year--our bill provides $100 million per year in competitive grant funding . This isn't being wasteful with our scarce federal resources, it's just an acknowledgement of the scope of the problem we're faced with. A relatively modest investment in offender reentry efforts compares very well with the alternative, building more and more prisons for these ex-offenders to return to if they are unable to successfully reenter their communities and instead are rearrested and reconvicted of more cries. We must remember that the average cost of incarcerating each prisoner exceeds 20,000 per year, with expenditures on corrections alone having increased from $9 billion in 1982 to $60 billion in 2002. We simply can't be penny-wise but pound-foolish. The Second Chance Act of 2005 also requires that federal departments with a role in offender reentry efforts coordinate and work together; to make sure there aren't duplicative efforts or funding gaps; and to coordinate reentry research. Our bill would raise the profile of this issue within the executive branch and secure the sustained and coordinated federal attention offender reentry efforts deserve. We also need to examine existing Federal and State reentry barriers-- laws, regulations, rules, and practices that make it more difficult for former inmates to successfully reintegrate back into their communities; laws that confine ex-offenders to society's margins, making it even more likely that they will recommit serious crimes and return to prison. Turning over a new leaf and going from a life of crime to becoming a productive member of society is tough enough. We shouldn't have Federal and State laws on the books that make this even more challenging. That's not say that we don't want to restrict former drug addicts from working in pharmacies, for example, or to bar sex offenders from working it day care centers. But many communities across the country currently exclude ex-prisoners from virtually every occupation requiring a state license, like chiropractic care, engineering, and real estate. Lifting these senselessly punitive bans would make it easier for ex-offenders to stay out of prison. Our bill provides for a roust analysis of these federal and state barriers with recommendations on what next steps we need to take. And these reviews are mandated to take place out in the open under public scrutiny. The Second Chance Act also spurs state-of-the-art research and study on offender reentry issues. We need to know who is most likely to recommit crimes when they are released, to better target our limited resources where they can do the most good. We need to study why some ex-offenders who seem to have the entire deck stacked against them are able to become successful and productive members of our society. We need to know what, works and how we can replicate what works for others. Our bill also provides a whole slew of common-sense proposals in the areas of job training, employment, education, post-release housing, substance abuse, and prisoner mentoring--efforts and changes in law that we can do now. Our Second Chance Act is a next, natural step in our campaign against crime. Making a dent in recidivism rate is an enormous undertaking; one that requires action now and continued focus in the future. I commit to vigorously pushing this legislation as well as keeping an eye on what steps we need to take in the future. We need to realize that the problems facing ex-offenders are enormous and will need sustained focus. The safety of our neighbors, our children, and our communities depends on it. I am proud today to join with Senator Specter and Senator Brownback in introducing the Second Chance Act and ask our colleagues to join with us in this vital effort.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the people of Kashmir are no strangers to hardship. Their beautiful, tragic land has been the arena of full-scale warfare between India and Pakistan, a long-running insurgency marked by exceptional brutality and penetration by terrorist groups in league with al-Qaida. On October 8, the people of Kashmir suffered the most devastating blow yet: A massive earthquake killed about as many Kashmiris in just a few minutes as all the bullets and bombs of massed armies were able to kill there over the previous half-century. And unless we act now, the casualty count will climb even higher. At latest count, the quake's death toll is somewhere between 55,000 and 80,000. An estimated 3 million people are now homeless. As the survivors spend day after miserable day with little food or water, little medical care, little protection from the bitterly cold winter temperatures that have already hampered relief efforts, the number of the dead will certainly rise. Residents of the Indian-administered portion of Kashmir were hit hard: 1,400 have died, a number greater than the death toll of Katrina. But the worst devastation has been felt in the area administered by Pakistan, which has borne the brunt of the disaster. For Pakistan, the earthquake was at least 40 Katrinas, all rolled into one. The capitol of Pakistani Kashmir has been largely destroyed. Relief efforts will cost billions of dollars, and repairs to the very most basic infrastructure will cost billions more. American helicopter pilots and other military personnel have performed heroically in the rescue operation. The first 72 hours after a disaster of this magnitude are vital, since this is the window in which trapped survivors have a realistic chance of being brought out alive. As of last week, October 17, 442 U.S. personnel and 11 helicopters were involved in the effort, and the U.S. military had evacuated 2,500 survivors. I am proud of our service men and women, and I wholeheartedly support President Bush's decision to deploy our military assets to this mission of mercy. I would like to see far more of our choppers devoted to this vital effort: With only 30 percent of the affected villages reachable by road, the single greatest need is for every utility helicopter that can be rushed to the scene; we've got Chinooks, Blackhawks, and other suitable craft right across the border in Afghanistan, and I hope the administration will immediately shift more of these assets to the short-term mission of saving lives. I also support the President's pledge of financial aid for the reconstruction effort--indeed, I rise today to urge President Bush to send more aid. This is no time for half-measures. If there is one thing we all should have learned from Katrina and the Southeast Asian tsunami, it is that an effective, rapid, well-funded response is necessary to prevent a terrible tragedy from spiraling into an uncontrolled disaster. As of today, October 24, the total amount of earthquake aid committed by the administration has been about $27 million. President Bush has pledged ``up to'' $50 million, and Secretary Rice has hinted that the total figure might be higher than this, but so far--2 weeks after the tragedy--these are still vague abstractions. The costs for tsunami relief proved far higher than the initial estimates--or the initial U.S. pledge. It is a safe bet that the needs for this tragedy will also prove much greater than initial estimates. It is far too early to cap our contribution. The U.N. has sought $312 million to meet immediate needs but has found the world community willing to pledge barely a quarter of this amount--and the White House's response has been to promise less than 4 percent of this modest sum, per USAID fact-sheet of 10/21: $10.8 million to U.N. flash appeal. Mr. President, we need to do much more, to do it much faster--and we need the administration to start telling us some answers: How much money will we actually spend? And where will it come from? Does the administration plan to shift funds from existing accounts for Pakistan, in which case the President's pledge would look like a bait- and-switch? Would the funds come from existing disaster accounts, in which case every dollar sent to Kashmir would potentially be a dollar taken from Darfur, Guatemala, or Niger? With so many pressing needs here in the United States, some may ask why send any aid overseas. Let's take care of our own people, some may say, leave other nations to take care of themselves. But this is a false choice. We can take care of our own people and fulfill our moral duty to our fellow human beings elsewhere in the world. When we were struck by the tragedy of Katrina, 90 nations offered us assistance--including a pledge of $1 million from Pakistan. Aiding the victims of the Kashmiri earthquake is the right thing to do, and it is also in our vital national interest. As we have seen in the aftermath of the Asian tsunami this year, disaster relief is one of the most effective--and cost-effective--tools in our diplomatic or political arsenal. Other nations recognize the twinned moral and political need for generous humanitarian response. Some 30 countries have sent relief aid to Pakistan, countries including Russia, China, Japan, South Korea, France, Spain, Holland, Germany, Switzerland, Iran, Jordan, Syria and Afghanistan. Several, including Britain and Turkey, sent specialized search-and-rescue teams to pull survivors out of the rubble. Others have already established mobile field hospitals that are saving hundreds--maybe thousands--of lives on a daily basis. Even Pakistan's longtime rival India sent planeloads of tents, medicine, and other supplies. The U.S. has been generous, but so too have other countries. If the administration does indeed follow through on President Bush's $50 million promise, that would be half the amount pledged by Kuwait, half the amount pledged by the United Arab Emirates. Last weekend, Saudi Arabia announced an aid package of $133 million. We are not the only country involved in this relief effort and our contribution should reflect our Nation's true generosity of spirit. It is not just nations that are joining the effort: private individuals and groups have opened their hearts and wallets. Here in this country, NGOs like Mercy Corps, CARE, the International Rescue Committee, Save the Children and the Red Cross have collected many thousands of dollars. In one development that builds upon an encouraging warming of ties between Pakistan and Israel, President Musharraf has specifically welcomed the contributions of American Jewish charities. But there are other organizations whose support is more troubling: extremist groups have been in the forefront of disaster relief. There is a desperate need for more assistance--and that void is being filled by groups hostile to American interests. Jamaat ul-Dawa, an affiliate of the terrorist group Lashkar-e Taiba, has been operating a major field hospital complete with x-ray facilities and an operating theater--a facility so capable that it has been treating casualties of the Pakistani military itself. More than a week after the earthquake, the U.S. had still not set up a mobile field hospital, despite the proximity of resources in Afghanistan and the Middle East; I hope that by now such a facility is in operation. We have the finest military medical personnel in the world, and they are eager to save as many lives as they can. Why has the administration been unable to accomplish a vital humanitarian task that is currently being carried out by a terrorist affiliate? And Jamaat ul-Dawa isn't the only extremist group filling this need. The AI-Khidmat Foundation, the charity branch of hardline Islamist party Jamaat-e Islami, has organized relief convoys, medical facilities and camps sheltering survivors. The Al-Rasheed trust, a group whose U.S. assets have been frozen on the suspicion that it channeled funds to al-Qaida is highly visible in a variety of relief efforts. There's nothing new about extremist groups performing social services. Hezbollah, Hamas, the Tamil Tigers, and a variety of other groups on the Foreign Terrorist Organization list have long bolstered their base of support by providing social welfare programs--especially where the government has been either unable or unwilling to meet its citizens' most basic needs. The extremists know that such programs build goodwill among the populace. They have learned a lesson already known to every U.S. military officer: You can't win a war with bombs alone, you have to win hearts and minds. Our military professionals know this, but it sometimes seems as if the civilian leadership in the White House has forgotten the lesson. We had an opportunity to demonstrate our friendship to the Pakistani people, to the Kashmiris on both sides of the line of control, to Muslims throughout the globe, and instead we have failed to match our commitment with our superpower status. Every day we let the extremists fill the void is another opportunity wasted. The Asian tsunami provides a shining example of the need for rapid action, and what we can accomplish when we do things right. The initial response from the White House was disappointing: for the first week after the tragedy, the administration lagged behind other nations, including small countries with far inferior resources than we possess. But once the administration decided to match America's contribution with our superpower status, we leapt to the forefront of the relief effort. When the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier group and other naval assets arrived on the scene, they immediately established us the leader of the global response. The sailors, marines and other service members did an absolutely superb job: They performed an act of public diplomacy more powerful than any dollars-and-sense reckoning could calculate. They showed that the U.S. military is not merely a fearsome adversary but also a powerful friend. This effort had an immediate impact: In Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation, popular attitudes towards the United States profoundly improved, almost overnight. Before George Bush took office, 75 percent of Indonesians had a favorable impression of the United States; by 2003, that number had fallen to 15 percent. But in the aftermath of the tsunami, Indonesians saw Americans as friends rather than foes. In a survey sponsored by the nonpartisan group Terror Free Tomorrow, 65 percent of respondents had a more favorable view of the United States after the arrival of the USS Abraham Lincoln. This public attitude is directly reflected in Indonesian views of the war on terror. In the same poll, support for Osama bin Laden dropped from 58 percent prior to the tsunami to 23 percent afterward. For the first time in any major poll, a plurality, 40 percent, supported the U.S.-led fight against terrorism. And this isn't merely a matter of poll numbers: Indonesian-based extremist groups tried to use their relief operations in the tsunami- ravaged province of Aceh as a tool for recruitment, and due in large part to the strong U.S. response these groups utterly failed to make headway. When they tried to preach anti-American sentiments, the people of Aceh shut them down cold: The survivors of the tsunami knew better because they had seen American sailors and marines saving lives. The lesson is clear: Our humanitarian duty and our national security interests here are in complete accord. When we use our military and financial strength to save lives, we help drain the swamp of terrorism. We accomplished a tremendous feat in the tsunami recovery effort. For the price of just a few days' operating expenses in Iraq, we bought an incalculable amount of goodwill among the 210 million Muslims in Indonesia, and improved our standing among many other Muslims worldwide. Today, we have the chance to replicate our success. We can do in Pakistan what we did in Indonesia: prove that America is not engaged in a crusade against Islam. We can demonstrate--with deeds, not empty words--that we are allies rather than adversaries. We can show that we, and not the extremists or the terrorists, are the best friends that the people of Muslim nations could want to have. We can do this, but we can't do it on the cheap. We can't do it with just a dozen helicopters and $27 million and a promise that eventually we may contribute half as much as Kuwait. Mr. President, I urge this Chamber to do more. And I urge the administration to immediately match our contribution with the vital need at hand: With Pakistan reeling from the worst natural disaster in its history, we can't afford to let our response be too little and too late. Today, Mr. President, our moral duty and our national security interest are one.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I recognize and pay tribute to the United Nations on the occasion of its sixtieth anniversary. During this week in 1945, fifty countries came together to found the United Nations, a body created to advance two momentous goals: a world free from war, and one in which the basic rights of citizens are respected in all countries. Over the last 6 decades, with the help of the UN, we have at least avoided the scourge of another world war. And we have seen the advancement of democracy and human rights around the world, as well as the provision of shelter, basic education, and critical healthcare to millions that would otherwise have gone without. Today, while the broad goals of the UN remain the same, global threats and challenges are drastically different. Internal conflict, terrorism, the spread of weapons of mass destruction, religious hatreds, natural disasters, and disease pose great hardships and risks to all people, regardless of country of origin, and require, more than ever, coordinated international responses. By harnessing the resources and collective expertise of its 191 member states, the United Nations has the ability to address these concerns in ways that no single nation can on its own. We in the United States owe the UN our profound gratitude for the assistance that has been provided to victims of Hurricane Katrina on our gulf coast. Within days of the disaster, the United Nations launched a campaign to coordinate relief assistance with federal efforts. UN agencies have distributed life-saving supplies, are supporting the surveillance work of the Centers for Disease Control, and are assisting in evacuee registration and tracking of missing children. Day in and day out, we see evidence of the critical work that the United Nations undertakes around the world. The organization continues to lead humanitarian relief efforts in the wake of last year's tsunami disaster in Southeast Asia and has launched an emergency response to the devastating earthquake in Pakistan. Through UNAIDS, the organization coordinates a comprehensive global response to the fight against HIV/AIDS, working to halt and reverse the epidemic by 2015. The UN women's fund, UNIFEM, supports women's empowerment and gender equality, in particular through supporting local initiatives to end violence against women. The UN Development Program is supporting democratic governance projects in Iraq, Afghanistan, Sierra Leone, Haiti and over 150 countries worldwide. Inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency have uncovered violations by Iran and North Korea, and the agency's safeguards have assured the world that other countries are not diverting nuclear material from their peaceful nuclear power programs. Finally, the UN Refugee Agency, UNHCR, extends protection and life saving assistance to some 19 million refugees and other vulnerable persons. In May 2005, I had the opportunity to visit the Oure Cassoni refugee camp along the Chad-Sudan border, and was incredibly impressed with UNHCR's work in providing direly needed food, shelter, and education services for nearly 25,000 refugees. The agency's aid staff is working tirelessly to serve this large population, and I witnessed extraordinary dedication and professionalism. For 60 years, the United Nations has been on the front lines leading humanitarian stabilization efforts under conditions and in situations that are the worst of the worst. Now the organization is focused on another critical task: reforming itself. Many, including Secretary General Annan, have recognized that the UN must change the way it does business if it is to maintain the support of its members and effectively address the challenges that the global community will face in the future. This reordering and restructuring is needed, significant, and moving forward. To highlight a few items, as a result of the support demonstrated at the UN Summit last month, member states are working to create a Human Rights Council to replace the defunct Human Rights Commission, in order to more effectively advance the rights and freedoms that continue to be denied to far too many. The establishment of a Peace Building Commission will make the UN, and the world, better equipped to prevent post-conflict countries from relapsing into violence, reducing the conditions that breed terrorism. And the dozens of personnel, management and budget reforms that have been proposed and endorsed by member states will make the organization more efficient in the important work it does. Now, as the United Nations moves into the next chapter of its history, it is imperative that this momentum for change continues. Implementing these reforms is the responsibility of the member states. The United States can playa critical leadership role in securing their support, and their action. The future effectiveness of the United Nations lies in the balance, and I have every expectation that the member states can and will deliver. I encourage the Members of this chamber to fully support the efforts that are underway at the United Nations. Article One of the United Nations Charter states that the purposes of the organization are to maintain international peace and security; address international social, economic and cultural problems; and to promote fundamental human rights and freedoms. Today, although tremendous progress has been made, we still need the UN to advance these goals. Therefore, I congratulate and thank the United Nations, its current personnel and staff, as well as those who have served in the past, for all that it has done to advance peace, security and freedom around the world, and for all that it must do in the years ahead to realize the vision of its founders.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, are we in morning business?

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, may I proceed for 7 or 8 minutes as in morning business between now and the time Senator Hatch comes at 2:30?

Mr. BIDEN. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today, in his speech to the National Endowment for Democracy, President Bush gave a vivid and, I believe, compelling description of the threat to America and to freedom from radical Islamic fundamentalism. He made, in my view, a powerful case for what is at stake for every American. Simply put, the radical fundamentalists seek to kill our citizens in great numbers, to disrupt our economy, and to reshape the international order. They would take the world backwards, replacing freedom with fear and hope with hatred. If they were to acquire a nuclear weapon, the threat they would pose to America would be literally existential. The President said it well. The President is right that we cannot and will not retreat. We will defend ourselves and defeat the enemies of freedom and progress. But in order to know where we are going to go from here, we have to understand, in my view, how we got to this point in the fight. Unfortunately, the many fundamental mistakes this administration has made over the past 4 years have dug us into a hole that is making it harder for us to get out. First, the administration took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan and diverted our attention and resources to Iraq prematurely. As a result, while we made progress in Afghanistan, violence in Afghanistan is now worse than it has been since the war, and the Taliban, al-Qaida, and the warlords are, once again, on the move in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, we have captured some al-Qaida leaders, but many others have risen to take their place, and the terrorist threat has literally metastasized to many other countries. Around the world, terrorist attacks are on the rise, not decline. Second, this administration turned unilateral military preemption from the option it has always been into a one-size-fits-all doctrine in the war on terror. We forgot that the power of our example is as important as the example of our power, that our ideas and our ideals are among our greatest assets. We forgot to draw on the totality of America's strength in order to be able to deal with the hearts and minds of 1.2 billion Muslims around the world. Third, once we decided to focus on Iraq, we went to war too soon. We went without the rest of the world, and we went under false premises. This administration told us we would be greeted with open arms, that we had enough troops to stabilize the country, that Iraqi oil would pay for the reconstruction. They were wrong on each of these counts and many more. The result is a terrible irony. Iraq now risks becoming what it was not before the war: a haven for the very radical Islamic fundamentalists who would do us such harm. But today the President of the United States seemed to recognize some of this self-inflicted damage. That is a good thing, and I applaud him for it. He said: ``the terrorists have now set their sights on Iraq''-- finally acknowledging that they did not before the war. He said that in the broader fight against the radical fundamentalists and in Iraq itself, we can't succeed alone, that we need partners-- finally acknowledging what many of us on both sides of the aisle have been saying for years. He implied that while our military might is essential, it is not sufficient--finally acknowledging that we can and must call on the totality of America's strength, including our economic and political might and the power of our example. He said that the fight for freedom is long term and that democracy can't be imposed by force--finally acknowledging that we can't simply topple tyrants and leave, that we have to work day in and day out to support moderates and modernizers and build the institutions of democracy. And he said that much more sacrifice will be required--finally acknowledging the difficulty of the challenge and the burden every American must bear. So the President said some very important things today. But there are also a lot of things he did not say that leaves me, and I suspect many others, feeling frustrated. He told us broadly what we have to do, but he said virtually nothing about how he plans to go about doing it and what the American people can expect. Consider what he said, and what he did not say, on Iraq. Yes, we have to train Iraqi forces, as he said. But we still do not know how many of those forces must be capable of operating on their own or with minimal U.S. support before we can begin to reduce our military presence in Iraq. And we do not have any idea when those numbers might be reached. Yes, we have to support the creation of a strong Iraqi political system that enjoys legitimacy with all the major groups, as the President said. But we still do not know what the plan is to overcome deep Sunni hostility to the constitution and to reconcile the growing sectarian differences that threaten to divide Iraq, not unite it. Yes, we have to engage the international community to stabilize Iraq, as the President has said. But we still do not know what concrete actions the administration is taking to do just that. We still do not know why it will not organize a contact group of leading nations to show a united international front. We still do not know the plans for getting Iraq's neighbors to act responsibly, as we did in the Balkans and in Afghanistan. Yes, we have to continue to help the Iraqis rebuild, as the President said. But we still do not know what the administration is going to do to actually deliver more electricity, to clean up the sewage, to get the oil flowing. My colleagues remember, right after we went in, Mr. Bremer laid out a game plan. He said: By August we will have X number of megawatts and pump Y numbers of barrels of oil; and by December we will have--and there were goals. If you notice, we have not heard a thing, not a single thing about any of that. We have no idea what the administration's timetables or goals are, other than generically to help them rebuild. What do we need to do to turn the tide on delivering basic services? And when can we expect them to succeed? Because in each of these areas, Iraqis today, as I speak, are worse off than they were before the war. The President today was eloquent, and he was determined. But eloquence and determination, although necessary, are not sufficient. The American people need--and our troops deserve--a clear plan for the way forward in Iraq, which has now become the central front in the war against radical Islamic fundamentalism. As I have said many times before, the American people need this administration to speak openly and forthrightly about its plan for success in Iraq, for no foreign policy can be sustained--as we are noticing by the numbers--without the informed consent of the American people. They must be informed. The American people also need--and our troops deserve--not the assertion that we finally have a comprehensive strategy in the fight against the fundamentalists but a detailed explanation of what that strategy is and the steps the administration is taking to build it. It is precisely because all of us recognize what is at stake for our generation and those who follow that we will continue to speak out and insist that our Government act not only with determination but with effectiveness, not only with conviction but with wisdom. Finally, though I continue to have differences with the President about how he has gone about prosecuting the war on terror--and I have spoken out as forcefully as I know how--let our enemies make no mistake--make no mistake at all--Americans are united in the struggle for freedom. We stand together in our determination with the President to fight the forces of tyranny and terrorism. In this right, America will prevail. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN. No, I am fine. I thank the Senator. Amendment No. 1896, as Further Modified

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, last night, the Senate passed by unanimous consent the Biden-Hatch--Specter Violence Against Women Act of 2005, S. 1197. It is a testament to the underlying goals of this legislation that this legislation was unanimously passed and garnered 57 cosponsors from both sides of the aisle. I would like to thank Chairman Specter for his unyielding efforts to get this bill passed, and I would like to thank Senator Hatch for his longstanding support for this effort. The act expired on September 30. The House has passed its legislation, so it is imperative that we get the Violence Against Women Act of 2005 to conference and to the President's desk immediately. The Violence Against Women Act of 2005 makes many critical improvements to the original act that we passed over 10 years ago. Many in this Chamber are well aware that I consider the Violence. Against Women Act the single most significant legislation that I have crafted during my 32-year tenure in the Senate. Indeed, the enactment of the Violence Against Women Act in 1994 was the beginning of a historic commitment to women and children victimized by domestic violence and sexual assault. Our Nation has been rewarded for this commitment. Since the act's passage in 1994, domestic violence has dropped by almost 50 percent, incidents of rape are down by 60 percent, and the number of wowen killed by an abusive husband or boyfriend is down by 22 percent. Today, more than half of all rape victims are stepping forward to report the crime. And since we passed the act in 1994 over a million women have found justice in our courtrooms and obtained domestic violence protective orders. ``This is a dramatic change from 10 years ago. Back then, violence in the household was treated as a ``family matter'' rather than a criminal justice issue. Because we took action, the criminal justice system is much better equipped to handle domestic violence, and it is treated for what it is, criminal. The goal of the legislation passed is to usher the Violence Against Women Act into the 21st century. With this legislation we attempt to look beyond the immediate crisis and takes steps to not only punish offenders, but to also do more to help victims get their lives back on track, and prevent domestic violence and sexual assault from occurring in the first place. This bill is truly a cooperative effort. As Senator Hatch, Senator Specter and I drafted this bill, we listened closely to suggestions from both sides of the aisle, and we listened carefully to the input from those with wide ranging opinions on how to combat this problem. In particular, we listened to those who are on the front lines fighting to end violence, such as police officers, emergency room nurses, victim advocates, shelter directors, and prosecutors. Based upon these discussions, we made targeted improvements to existing grant programs and we tightened up the criminal laws. The groups that assisted with drafting this bill included the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the National Network to End Domestic Violence, the Family Violence Prevention Fund, Legal Momentum, the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, the National Center for Victims for Crime, the American Bar Association, the National District Attorneys Association, the National Council on Family and Juvenile Court Judges, the National Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Sheriffs' Association and many others. I would personally like to thank them for the work that they do each and every day to make our Nation a better, safer place for its citizens. No doubt, the bill that we have passed today is ambitious. We have made tremendous strides in treating domestic violence and sexual assaults as public crimes over the past 10 years. We have helped ensure that offenders were held accountable, and we created coordinated community responses to help victims. The Violence Against Women Act of 2005 will help us look beyond the immediate crisis and provide long- term solutions for victims, and we will redouble our prevention efforts. This is why we included important efforts to ease the housing crisis for victims fleeing their homes, included efforts to engage boys and men to prevent domestic violence from occurring in the first place, enlisted the healthcare community in identifying and treating victims, and to help stop the cycle of abuse suffered by immigrant women and provided tough new regulations for international marriage brokers to ensure that they provide foreign brides with information related to the background of their potential husband and their rights if they are abused. Despite all of the strong points of this legislation, it could be made better. In particular, I had hoped that provisions from Senator Murray's Security and Financial Empowerment Act, SAFE, would have remained in the bill. This amendment would provide some fundamental economic protections for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. Just as the Family Medical Leave Act protects individuals caring for a sick loved one, the SAFE Act would allow domestic violence victims to take time off from work to appear in court cases and other judicial proceedings without jeopardizing their employment at a time they need it the most. The SAFE Act is important legislation, and I believe that there is bi-partisan support for it. Unfortunately, we were not able to reach a consensus on this amendment and, as a result, it is not part of this final bill. It is my hope that the Senate will revisit this issue soon, and I look forward to working with Senator Murray in this effort. One of the primary concerns expressed about the bill is that it simply costs too much. This is certainly understandable given our Nation's financial situation right now, but I have always said that the safety of the American people is the single most important responsibility for Federal, State, and local governments. And, while money doesn't solve every problem, there are very few, if any, efforts related to preventing violence and fighting crime that can be solved without money. As such, it is simply a fact that this effort will continue to cost money. I would argue that the results over the past 10 years show that this has been money well spent, and I hope that the Congress will continue to fund these efforts. In fact, there is evidence that we have received a net return on this investment. A 2002 university study found that money spent to reduce domestic violence saved nearly ten times the potential costs through the years of 1995 and 2000. During that time, the Federal Government spent $1.6 billion for the act's programs and, as a result, we avoided spending an estimated $14.8 billion on medical, legal and other victimization costs that arise from domestic violence. On an individual level, the bill costs roughly $15.50 per woman in the United States and saves an estimated $159 per woman. This evidence suggests that our success in ending family violence cannot be signal to reduce funding, rather, it is a call to continue to do more. We simply can't afford to lose the gains that we have made. We have found a winning combination, and we need to stick with it. The Senate's action today demonstrates that eradicating violence against women is truly a shared goals, one that is held by Democrats and Republicans, one that is upheld by men and women, and one that is desired by both Government and by the private sector. I would like to thank my colleagues of the Senate for their support of this important legislation. In particular, I want to thank Senator Hatch, a long- standing champion on this issue. Since 1990, Senator Hatch and I have worked together to end family violence in this country, so it is no great surprise that once again he worked side-by-side with us to craft today's bill. I am also deeply indebted to Senator Kennedy for his unwavering commitment to battered immigrant women and his work on the bill's immigration provisions. I also thank Senator Leahy who has long- supported the Violence Against Women Act and, in particular, has worked on the rural programs and transitional housing provisions. Finally, I want to thank my very good friend from Pennsylvania for his commitment and leadership on this bill. It is a pleasure to work with Senator Specter, and I want to thank him for expeditiously moving this legislation through the Judiciary Committee and through today's action by the Senate. I look forward to working in the future with all of my colleagues to ensure that we continue to strive to the important goals of the Violence Against Women Act of 2005. This effort will require a bi-partisan commitment. Again, I am thankful to Senators Reid and Frist for their work on seeing that bill is passed and to all of my colleagues who unanimously supported the Violence Against Women Act of 2005.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, in accordance with rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my intention to move to suspend paragraph 4 of rule XVI for the purpose of proposing to the bill, H.R. 2863, the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, the following amendment: Amendment no. 1999. (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of Amendments.'')

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, because the Violence Against Women Act authorization expires today, it is necessary that we pass legislation to reauthorize this bill immediately. As a result, the Senate does not have an opportunity to debate and vote on all the amendments that Senators may wish to offer to this bill. One such amendment that the Senator from Oklahoma, Dr. Coburn, had intended to offer would address the issue of HIV and sexual assault and seek greater testing for HIV disease among sexual assault defendants. I would ask the Senator from Oklahoma, who is a practicing physician, to comment on the merits of this proposal and why it is so important.

Mr. BIDEN. Yes, that is correct.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to support and cosponsor Senator Harkin's amendment aimed at enhancing our capability to combat an avian flu pandemic. This amendment provides absolutely crucial funding for key items that will clearly be needed to fight off this menace: a substantial stockpile of the only antiviral medication effective against H5N1 flu; expansion of the ability of our State and local public health departments, which are the first line of defense against flu, to meet the threat; increased global surveillance for dangerous pathogens to pick up the first signs of a spreading epidemic, a priority issue that Senator Frist and I have worked on for several years; improving our country's infrastructure for vaccine manufacture, which is sorely deficient; and money for communication and outreach, so we can have everybody prepared and on the same page. We are all concerned about preparation for bioterrorist attacks. Smallpox, anthrax, plague, and other pathogens may be coming down the road at some point. But the public health experts tell us that H5N1 avian flu has already started down the road. It is not in the U.S. yet, and the scientists don't know when it might get here, but it is heading in our direction. The avian flu virus is spreading throughout Asia, carried by migratory waterfowl with a worldwide reach. The virus is continuously changing and adapting, heading toward the human-to-human transmission capability that could trigger a pandemic. And we do know from the first 100 human cases, which have been limited so far to Southeast Asia, that this stuff is really lethal, with a case-fatality rate approaching 50 percent. By contrast, the deadly 1918 Spanish flu that killed millions of people had a case- fatality rate of only 2 percent. We're talking about a threat to this Nation as big as any we have faced. Fortunately, we have a good idea of the measures we need to take to mitigate the impact of avian flu. But these measures cost money and have a significant lag time before they can be put in place. Many of these measures require resources only available in foreign countries. We don't know how much time we have got, and we have got to get moving on this right now. We really can't wait weeks and months for the ``right'' appropriation bill, for some ``advisory committee'' to finish its work, or for the completion of a ``comprehensive'' antiterror plan. The responsible, prudent move is to act now, to start putting in place the countermeasures that we know will work if implemented in time. The old philosopher who said that ``an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure'' may not have known anything about RNA viruses, but that advice would seem quite applicable to our current situation.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Farmers Market Promotion Program

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, over the course of this entire month we are celebrating National Drug and Alcohol Addiction Recovery Month, a time when we focus on the benefits of substance abuse treatment and highlight the hope of recovery for those in the grasp of drug and alcohol addiction. And today, September 20, we are focusing on the men and women who help guide people to recovery as we recognize National Addiction Counselor's Day. These professionals are unsung heroes who deserve our recognition, respect, and gratitude. It is an unfortunate reality that substance abuse and addiction are pervasive in our country. Last year, over 19 million Americans used illicit drugs, 55 million had engaged in binge drinking, and over 16 million were considered heavy drinkers. These are staggering statistics. We have all known someone a family member, friend, or coworker who has or has had a drug or alcohol problem. Many of us have even spent time trying to convince a loved one to seek treatment, confident that a good treatment center and a qualified health professional would be able to restore hope to our loved one and help them into recovery. Left untreated, addiction is a devastating disease which has far- reaching consequences. It exacerbates social ills including crime, disease, child abuse and neglect, domestic violence, and a wide range of family problems. It costs society billions each year in health care costs, lost productivity, and property damage. It also costs lives and causes immeasurable amounts of grief and pain. But there is hope: drug and alcohol abuse are treatable problems. Addiction is a chronic relapsing disease and, as with other chronic relapsing diseases such as diabetes, hypertension and asthma, there may not be a cure but there are a number of treatments to control the disease. That means that addicts are not sentenced to living their lives out of control; they can seek treatment with an addiction counselor or other health professional and take charge of their futures. The people who treat this destructive disease are a dedicated, knowledgeable group of professionals who have committed themselves to a noble cause. They are a critical part of our Nation's health care system. Today there are countless sober individuals living happy, productive lives only because, in a moment-of-truth, a counselor was there and made the difference. Not only do these counselors assist in recovery but in prevention and intervention as well. Through training and experience, addiction professionals can help turn a life around and often even save it. And for the friends and family of a person struggling with addiction, counselors are an answer to a prayer, guiding their loved one to a life in recovery. I ask all of my colleagues to join me today in recognizing the priceless contributions of addiction counselors, and giving them our gratitude. Their work to restore hope to shattered lives and broken families is invaluable. I applaud their work and hope that on National Addiction Counselor's Day they know how much they are respected and appreciated.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, let me begin by asking unanimous consent that Senator Landrieu be added as a cosponsor of this amendment.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, pursuant to section 402 of House Concurrent Resolution 95, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006, I move to waive section 402 of that concurrent resolution for purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, we are decimating the COPS program. Chairman Sensenbrenner, in the House, is no fan of the program. He asked for a study to be done by GAO. It concluded: Use of the COPS grants resulted in less crime, use of COPS grants resulted in more community policing, use of COPS grants resulted in more officers on the streets. This is a time when we need more officers on the streets, not fewer officers on the streets. The idea we are going to deal with natural disasters as well as terrorist attacks by using special forces soldiers and not cops on the street seems to me to be a little silly. We need more cops on the streets. There are 8,000 applications pending. The bill would allow for 25 of those applications to be filled. This is a mistake. One of my colleagues--it may be the chairman of the committee; I am not sure--said we have to prove we can end a program. Why do we end a program that is working, and working so well, in the interests of the country? My time is probably up. I thank my friend from New Hampshire for the courtesy of allowing me to take a few minutes to speak to my amendment. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.