Joe Biden

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a great Delawarean and a great American, David Dietz. David is a stellar example of an individual whose remarkable success in business has not diminished his commitment to the betterment of his community and those in need. If you traveled around Delaware asking folks about David Dietz, you would quickly learn the extent of his impact. In the business world, David has served on numerous committees, won an abundance of awards, and his restaurant, the Brandywine Brewing Company, in Greenville, has been named the Best of Delaware several times over. Yet I believe that it is when David steps out of his role as businessman and entrepreneur he truly shines. David is a man with many causes--juvenile diabetes, child abuse prevention--but it is his involvement with women's health that moves me to recognize him today. In 1993, as a response to Delaware's high breast cancer mortality rate, my wife Jill was driven to form the Biden Breast Health Initiative. BBHI is a nonprofit organization devoted to educating young women on breast health and the importance of early detection in fighting breast cancer. Two years ago, BBHI introduced the Educate For Life scholarship program, which offers three grants to Delaware high school seniors--one student from each of Delaware's counties--who will pursue educational opportunities in the fields of health care or education. This year, as well as the year of its inception, the Educate for Life benefit has been sponsored by David's restaurant, and it has been a resounding success. David not only generously donates his time and expertise to the planning and implementation of the event, but also a portion of the evening's proceeds. We could not do it without him and his staff. For his deeply felt responsibility to the community, for his dedication to being a man of action and not just words, and for his ability to reach out to others in need, I am pleased to acknowledge David Dietz.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I was not able to participate in today's debate and vote on the extension of the national debt limit. I was attending the funeral of a great civil rights leader in Delaware, Jane E. Mitchell. Had I been here to vote, Mr. President, I would have cast a symbolic vote against an extension of the debt limit. Today's fiscal mess, the transformation of historic surpluses into record deficits, is not an accident. It is the inevitable outcome of policies that consistently ignored evidence and experience. When we launched out on a course of tax cutting, with expanding domestic and international obligations and responsibilities, many of us in Congress argued that we could not afford to do everything, that we needed a fiscal policy that matched our revenues with our expenditures. Some tax cuts, especially for the middle class, were needed, tax cuts that could have revived job growth and aided economic recovery. Instead, we have a policy that calls for permanent tax cuts that overwhelmingly favor those who are already well off. When twice the administration asked us to appropriate funds for our military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, I stood here on the Senate floor and said that we should pay for those obligations with smaller tax cuts for our wealthiest taxpayers, and not just pass the bill on to all our children. We are here today because that advice was ignored, those hard choices were ducked, and the bill for our decisions will be sent to our children and grandchildren, in the form of the additional debt we will authorize today. It did not have to be this way, Mr. President. In the next Congress, the threat of massive deficits, which have made us increasingly dependent of foreign lenders to stay afloat, will still be with us. My symbolic vote against raising the debt limit would have been a protest of the policies that have brought us to this point, and a demand that we change course.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I wish to honor the life of a truly great woman, Jane E. Mitchell. She passed away on Saturday, November 13, after 83 years of standing up for the rights of others. Her impact on the State of Delaware is profound, and her spirit everlasting. Many in Delaware know Jane Mitchell as the wife of Littleton ``Lit'' Mitchell, Delaware's first African-American lawyer and a remarkable force in the civil rights movement. With all of his astounding accomplishments, though, Lit never made a decision without talking it over with Jane. She may not have had his public profile, but she certainly knew the intricacies of the issues and just how much was at stake. Far beyond her role as the wife of an influential man, Jane Mitchell was an extraordinary person in her own right. Her life is a story of achievement--each one greater than the last. In her nursing career, Jane began making history by being the first African-American at Delaware State Hospital to treat both black and white patients. Her career led her to become the first African-American nursing director in the State, and she was eventually the president of the State Board of Nursing and vice-president of the Delaware Nurses Association before her retirement. After retiring, Jane Mitchell devoted her life to volunteering. Her causes were numerous, and she was passionately committed to each. She continued her work in medicine and civil rights, and became a powerful voice in the fight to improve the treatment of the mentally ill. In 1998, a building was erected in her name at the Delaware Psychiatric Center. Jane E. Mitchell has been described as a pioneer, a trailblazer and a heroine. She devoted her life to promoting the welfare of others. Whether it was in her role as nurse, advocate, volunteer or wife and mother, Jane never wavered in her enthusiasm for doing good and making a difference. I am saddened by her passing, yet she continues to inspire me. Jane Mitchell's legacy is great, and I am honored to recognize her today.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today the Senate considered a protocol to the current tax convention between the United States and the Kingdom of the Netherlands. There is substantial trade and cross- border investment between our two countries; the tax convention provides an important basis for facilitating this economic relationship. The original convention was concluded in the early 1990s, and there have been several developments in U.S. tax treaty policy in the intervening years that the protocol seeks to address. It contains several significant provisions, including a revised provision designed to ensure that the treaty cannot be used for inappropriate purposes--a so-called antitreaty-shopping provision. I commend Chairman Lugar for his diligence in bringing the protocol before the Senate. During the Foreign Relations Committee's review of the protocol, I raised a concern about a provision in the current treaty that is not addressed by the protocol. Article 24(1) of the current treaty permits the United States to tax former citizens for a period of 10 years after they lose their citizenship, if the loss of their citizenship has as one of its principal purposes the avoidance of income tax. With one exception, this provision in the treaty is consistent with U.S. law-- specifically, section 877 of the Internal Revenue Code--as it existed at the time the treaty was concluded. The exception is this: the treaty does not allow the United States to tax former citizens who become nationals of the Netherlands. Such an exclusion for nationals of the treaty partner is unique in our tax treaty practice; it is not found in any other treaty, nor is it contained in our model treaty. The protocol before the Senate does not close this gap. Consistent with statutory amendments made by Congress in 1996, it does extend the taxation authority of the United States to former long-term residents who leave the United States to avoid taxation. But the exclusion for nationals of the Netherlands remains. Maintaining this exclusion for nationals of the Netherlands is unwarranted, and raises two concerns. First, I wanted to be sure that retaining the exclusion would not serve as a precedent in future tax treaty negotiations. The Treasury Department has noted that such an exclusion for nationals of the treaty partner has not been included in over two dozen tax treaties negotiated since the treaty with the Netherlands entered into force. More important, the Treasury has committed in writing that it does not intend the provision in the Netherlands treaty to serve as a precedent in the future. Second, I was concerned that maintaining the exclusion might subvert the purpose of section 877 of the Internal Revenue Code. Based on the information we have received from the Treasury, and after consultation with the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, it seems unlikely that the provision in the treaty will, in practice, undermine the operation of section 877. The reasons for this are set forth in detail in the materials that I will seek to include in the Record. Finally, it is worth noting that Congress amended section 877 in section 804 of The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, also known as the FSC/ETI bill, which was enacted last month. The primary purpose of the provision remains: to continue to tax people who expatriate in order to avoid tax. But the test under the revised section 877 is a more objective test--one based on income levels--than had been applied under the prior law. A question therefore arises about the relationship between the revised language in section 877 and the provision in the U.S.-Netherlands treaty, which uses a more subjective test of whether a ``principal purpose'' of the expatriating act is to avoid taxation. In a letter that I will insert in the Record, the Treasury has set forth information about its intentions for applying the treaty provision in light of the revisions to section 877. The committee on Foreign Relations held a hearing on the protocol on September 24, 2004. The committee did not vote on the protocol, however, and therefore there is no committee report. So that may colleagues and the public will have a better understanding of the issues I have described, I will ask consent to include two sets of documents in the Record. The first is a series of questions for the record that I submitted after the hearing, and the responses from the Treasury witness at the hearing, Barbara Angus, who serves as the international tax counsel at the Department. It should be noted that these questions and answers for the record were written before enactment of the revisions to section 877 of the Internal Revenue Code in the FSC/ETI bill. The second set of documents is an exchange of letters between myself and Ms. Angus on November 15, 2004, which elaborates on the issues that I have discussed, including the Department's intentions for interpreting the revisions to section 877. Accordingly, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the materials I have described.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to commend the Senate for its actions yesterday in passing the Justice for All Act of 2004, bipartisan, bicameral legislation I sponsored along with Senator Hatch and others. And I commend the other body for swiftly acting in passing the same legislation last evening. I hope the bill will now be signed into law without delay. This is one of the most important pieces of legislation I have ever introduced and one of the most important things the Senate will consider during the 108th Congress. As I have said many times, DNA has become the guilty man's worst enemy and the innocent man's best friend. It is a two-edged sword which we must use to both put criminals behind bars and exonerate anyone who has been wrongfully convicted. I started looking at the issue of improved prosecution of sexual assault crimes almost two decades ago when I began drafting the Violence Against Women Act. This legislation is the next step, a way to connect the dots between the extraordinary strides in DNA technology and my commitment to ending violence against women. We must ensure that justice delayed is not justice denied. For 3 years now, I have called on Congress to enact this important legislation. In 2002, I introduced with Senator Specter, S. 2513, the DNA Sexual Assault Justice Act of 2002. That Senate unanimously passed that bill during the 107th Congress, but the House failed to act. That bill grew out of a series of hearing I chaired in the Judiciary Committee which focused on the crisis involving untested rape kits sitting in police evidence bins around the country, each one containing the key to solving a sexual assault crime and putting a rapist behind bars. My hearings included testimony estimating that there were 300,000 to 500,000 untested rape kits nationwide. In some of the most moving testimony I have heard in my 32 years in this body, we listened to Debbie Smith describe the horror of being the victim of sexual assault, followed by an additional 6 years of terror while awaiting the apprehension of her rapist. As I will discuss in a moment, the key to Debbie's road to recovery lay in an untested rape kit connected to her assault. Finally, that rape kit was tested, her assailant was identified and convicted, and she began to find closure. In followup to the Senate's passage of S. 2513, I introduced at the start of the 108th Congress with Senator Specter S. 152, the DNA Sexual Assault Justice Act of 2003. That legislation built upon S. 2513 from the prior Congress and was again joined by over 20 bipartisan cosponsors. The DNA Sexual Assault Justice Act of 2003 provided the hundreds of millions of Federal dollars desperately needed by state and local crime labs around the country to clear out the backlog of hundreds of thousands of untested DNA evidence kits from sexual assaults and other violent crimes. An important provision of S. 152 allowed the Justice Department to bring ``John Doe/DNA'' indictments against an unknown or unnamed perpetrator of sexual assault in any case where a DNA sample from the suspect was recovered from a crime scene. This innovative procedure would allow prosecutors to investigate and indict sex crimes, even where the victim could not identify her assailant, thus preventing the statute of limitations from expiring before the perpetrator could be identified and charged. My ``John Doe/DNA'' indictment provision became law in 2003 as part of the Protect Act/Amber Alert Act, S. 151/H.R. 1104. Last year, Senator Hatch and I introduced S. 1700, the Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act of 2003, which contained most of the key elements of S. 152. We were joined by Senators Specter, Leahy, DeWine and Feinstein and dozens of other cosponsors in this legislation. For the last year, disagreements over a specific title of S. 1700, the Innocence Protection Act, held up consideration of the bill. Members from both sides of the aisle were supportive of my DNA Sexual Assault Justice Act, which was included in other titles of the bill. I am pleased that we finally reached a compromise on the very important title addressing post-conviction DNA testing, which cleared the way to consider the entire bill. We have also added into the legislation important victims' right provisions, resulting in the newly named Justice for All Act of 2004. The bill we passed yesterday, a combination of the Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology and the victims' rights legislation, harnesses the power of DNA to give prompt justice to victims of sexual assault crimes and to free the wrongly convicted. This bill takes every component of DNA technology and makes it accessible and more useful to Federal, State and local law enforcement, to prosecutors and defense attorneys, to medical personnel and to victims of crime. Promoting and supporting DNA technology as a crime-fighting tool is not a new endeavor for me. A provision of my 1994 Crime Bill created the Combined DNA Index System, CODIS, which is an electronic database of DNA profiles, much like the FBI's fingerprint database. CODIS includes two kinds of DNA information--convicted offender DNA samples and DNA from crime scenes. CODIS uses the two indexes to generate investigative leads in crimes where biological evidence is recovered from the scene. In essence, CODIS facilitates the DNA match. And once that match is made, a crime is solved because of the incredible accuracy and durability of DNA evidence. Mr. President, 99.9 percent--that is how accurate DNA evidence is. Mr. President, 1 in 30 billion--those are the odds someone else committed a crime if a suspect's DNA matches evidence at the crime scene. Twenty or 30 years--that is how long DNA evidence from a crime scene lasts. Just ten years ago DNA analysis of evidence could have cost thousands of dollars and taken months; now testing one sample costs $40 and can take days. Ten years ago forensic scientists needed blood the size of a bottle cap, now DNA testing can be done on a sample the size of a pinhead. The changes in DNA technology are remarkable, and mark a sea change in how we can fight crime, particularly sexual assault crimes. The FBI reports that since 1998 the national DNA database has helped put away violent criminals in over 9,000 investigations in 50 states. How? By matching the DNA crime evidence to the DNA profiles of offenders. Individual success stories of DNA ``cold hits'' in sexual assault cases make these numbers all too real. During just the last several months, DNA evidence pinpointed a suspect in 3 rapes in Miami, Florida, caused a man to be charged in a 20-year-old Missouri rape case, proved critical in convicting a New York man accused of committing 9 rapes over a decade, helped charge a man in a 28-year-old San Francisco rape and homicide case, and resulted in the charges against a Virginia man in a 23-year-old rape case. All across this country, rapists and murderers are getting caught for crimes which are often years or even decades old. Crime solved, streets safer. Undoubtedly, DNA matching by comparing evidence gathered at the crime scene with offender samples entered on the national DNA database has proven to be the deciding factor in solving stranger sexual assault cases--it has revolutionized the criminal justice system, and brought closure and justice for victims. A laboratory expert testified that Virginia has a 48 percent hit rate because the State collects samples from all convicted felons and aggressively analyzes crime scene evidence with no backlog. This means that almost 1 out of every 2 violent crimes could be solved by the national DNA database. In light of the past successes and the future potential of DNA evidence, the reported number of untested rape kits and other crime scene evidence waiting in police warehouses are simply shocking--the Justice Department recently estimated the number to be as many as 500,000. One woman in particular has reminded State and Federal lawmakers that we cannot ignore even one rape kit sitting on a shelf gathering dust. That woman is Debbie Smith. In 1989, Mrs. Smith was taken from her home and brutally raped. There were no known suspects, and Mrs. Smith lived in fear of her attacker's return. Six years later, the Virginia crime laboratory discovered a DNA match between the rape scene evidence and a state prisoner's DNA sample. That ``cold hit'' gave Mrs. Smith her first moment of real security and closure, and since then she has traveled the country to advocate on behalf of assault victims and champion the use of DNA to fight sexual assault. The bill approved yesterday provides over $755 million over 5 years to eliminate the backlog in rape kits and other crime scene evidence, eliminate the backlog of convicted offender samples awaiting DNA testing, and improve state laboratory capacity to conduct DNA testing. I am pleased that the backlog elimination grant program in this legislation is entitled, ``The Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grants.'' It is a fitting tribute. The Justice for All Act of 2004 is a natural extension to the Violence Against Women Act, which required the Attorney General to evaluate and recommend standards for training and practice for licensed health care professionals performing sexual assault forensic exams. So I knew that any DNA bill aimed at ending sexual assault must include resources for sexual forensic examiners. This bill provides $500 million in training grants to help ensure that nurses, police and paramedics know how to best collect and preserve DNA evidence in sexual assault cases, and to help local law enforcement agencies put the DNA profiles of convicted felons into state and national databases. The bill also expands the CODIS database by mandating the inclusion of DNA samples from all convicted federal felons, and by permitting states to include the DNA samples from suspects arrested for and charged with a crime. At the same time, our bill retains important provisions to expunge DNA samples from the database for those whose convictions are overturned or against whom criminal charges are dropped. The bill also contains tough new penalties for the improper use or disclosure of DNA samples. Today's bill also makes two small, but important, amendments to the Violence Against Women Act. First, it amends the law to include legal assistance for victims of dating violence, and it amends the eligibility criteria for discretionary programs so that tribal domestic violence and sexual assault coalitions can directly receive grants funds, including those funds unreleased from past fiscal years. I am also gratified that this legislation includes the Innocence Protection Act, which I cosponsored last Congress with Senator Leahy. This section will immeasurably improve the administration of justice in our legal system, particularly where justice is most important, and where we can least afford to make mistakes--imposition of the death penalty. Those who support the death penalty also have a duty to ensure that it is fairly administered. The advent of DNA testing has provided us with a wealth of opportunities to make certain that we are prosecuting the right people. This legislation makes post-conviction testing to federal inmates who assert that they did not commit the crime for which they have been imprisoned. It also incentivizes States to take similar measures to ensure that individuals have a proper opportunity to prove their innocence. It also mandates proper preservation of DNA evidence so that the DNA can be tested if appropriate. As for competent counsel in death penalty cases, nobody can look me in the eye and tell me that our system for representation in capital cases works as it should. This bill will take a big step toward fixing that by providing money for grants to States to improve their systems of representation, on both the prosecution and defense side, in capital cases. In closing, I would be remiss if I did not pause to thank some of the many people who have helped bring about the introduction of this bill. In particular, I wish to thank Senator Hatch, the chairman the Judiciary Committee, for devoting so much time and effort to work with me in developing this legislation, along with his chief counsel Bruce Artim and his counsels Brett Tolman and Mike Volkov. I also commend Senator Leahy, the distinguished ranking member of the committee, and his chief counsel Bruce Cohen and senior counsel Julie Katzman, who have worked tirelessly on this bill, and is the principal sponsor of the Innocence Protection Act. I also thank our other principal Senate sponsors, including Senator Specter and his chief counsel David Brog; Senator DeWine, and his counsel Rob Steinbuch; and Senator Feinstein and her chief counsel David Hantman. I also commend our colleagues in the other body who led the fight in the House of Representatives to enact this important legislation. Their efforts were instrumental in achieving the final bill both bodies passed yesterday. Specifically, I commend Representative Sensenbrenner, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and his staff, including Phil Kiko, Jay Apperson, and Katy Crooks. I also thank Ranking Member Conyers and his staff, including Perry Applebaum and Bobby Vassar. I also thank Representative Delahunt for his leadership, and his counsels Mark Agrast and Christine Leonard. Finally, I thank my own staff who have worked diligently over the last 3 years to pass this important legislation, including Louisa Terrell, Jonathan Meyer, and Neil MacBride. Mr. President, yesterday's action by Congress were a long time coming, and I join my cosponsors in thanking our colleagues for passing this legislation. I now hope the President will quickly sign this bill into law, so that we can finally tackle the untested rape kits and start bringing hope and closure to victims of sexual assault.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I compliment the chairman and ranking member of the committee. This bill was held up for a long while. Provisions were added to the bill, which I totally support, that will allow people who were wrongly accused of having committed crimes to be able to have DNA testing to prove their innocence. I don't want anyone to misunderstand why this is so important. All of you should know so you can tell your constituents. In fact, we set up a provision in the crime bill whereby when there is a rape or a sexual assault, we have put a lot of money--you have put a lot of money over the years into providing for training of police, training forensic nurses and doctors to be able to take DNA samples. There are over 800,000 so-called rape case kits sitting on shelves of the cities where you live and the States you represent. They have never been tested because of the cost of testing them. The bottom line is that an estimated 48 percent of outstanding rapes could be solved by just comparing the database that will come from testing these kits and the existing database in our State prison systems where DNA is already on the record. This will liberate thousands of women from the fear and concern that the man who raped them is out there and will be back again. We have done a good thing today. You should let your people back home know. It is a big deal. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, unless someone else wishes to speak on this, 15 minutes. I think I can do it in 10, but let's say 15 minutes to protect myself.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, this is very straightforward. Right now, the chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee are ex officio members of the Intelligence Committee, with no voting rights, no requirement that they be there to make a quorum. Quite frankly, they are there to be able to listen when they seek to do that. Senator Lugar and I are proposing the same exact status be made available for the chairman and ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee. I know the argument will be, why don't we make everybody, every chairman, every ranking member, ex officio members? But the Foreign Relations Committee does need access to this information. I know it will come as a shock, but because of the necessary requirement of focusing on certain subject matters, which hopefully we gain some expertise on, the Foreign Relations Committee and its chairman and ranking member, hopefully, have some insights occasionally which other Members may not have because they do not spend the time on that issue. Just as in the Armed Services Committee, the ranking member and the chairman may have access to information that is not intelligence information but is information that would shed light upon judgments being made by the Intelligence Committee as a consequence of information made available by the CIA and other intelligence operations. Because, as we all know, intelligence operations can have major impacts for good or for ill on American foreign policy. I am necessarily, as we all are, restrained from giving contemporary examples of that, but I have been here a long time and go back to the period of the Cold War. I sat on the Intelligence Committee at the time, but I was not a ranking member. I was on the Intelligence Committee for 10 years, I think as long as anybody who served in this body. There may be somebody who served longer than me on that committee. But one of the things I learned is occasionally the Intelligence Committee would come up with initiatives made available under our special rules, which are necessary, special rules that are applicable only to the Intelligence Committee, and access and brief only the Intelligence Committee, and many members on the committee would not be aware that there were totally different operations going on on a diplomatic front or on an arms control front or on a matter relating to national security that were not explicitly--explicitly-- intelligence matters. Let me give you a few examples without giving, obviously, the details, but generic examples. Intelligence collection and analysis are essential to the verification of compliance with arms control and nonproliferation agreements. A few years ago, we on the Foreign Relations Committee heard that a particular intelligence system that is important to that function--that is, collecting intelligence for compliance on nonproliferation treaties and arms control--we heard that function was in danger of being lost. We took the initiative. We raised it with the Intelligence Committee because we had heard this. We let them know what we had heard to make sure the executive branch retained this particular system that we believed, in the Foreign Relations Committee, was essential to a matter relating to nonproliferation, something that most of the members on the Intelligence Committee, understandably, serving on many committees other than Foreign Relations or Armed Services, did not see the particular relevance of. So when briefed by the Intelligence Committee, it seemed all right. It didn't seem like this particular system was critical for a foreign policy initiative that was underway and a treaty that existed. And by the way, we only heard about it from someone in the executive branch who had made it known to a member of the Foreign Relations Committee. Intelligence is also needed to give warning of new dangers and opportunities around the world. That may require different capabilities from those of us who serve on the Armed Services Committee or who served in the Armed Services. The Armed Services Committee rightly worries about intelligence support for military operations. Why is that unrelated to major diplomatic operations? That can have as much consequence on American security as tactical military operations. The Foreign Relations Committee has a concern to ensure that there is a balance, that U.S. intelligence resources are not devoted primarily or overwhelmingly to tactical targets. My friend, the chairman of the committee, may disagree with me, but if I translate that, we only have so many assets that can be brought to bear. If I can make an analogy to the FBI, there are only 11,600 FBI agents, I think maybe 11,800. By the way, I might note, before 9/11 there were only 11,300. So we haven't done much there. But let's assume we say what is going on right now. There is a decision being made that those agents should focus on counterterror. That is a legitimate issue. But what about the Mafia? What about organized crime units that deal in drugs that are not involved in terror? It is a legitimate issue to debate as to where the resources should be placed. Of that 11,800, you have about 4,000 people to be made available. You only have so many satellites. You only have so many agents. You only have so many resources. And, understandably, the Armed Services Committee wants to make sure those resources are focused on those tactical issues that are critically important. I am not suggesting they should not. But there should be a voice there that is fully informed on the foreign policy side and has access that other members of the Foreign Relations Committee do not have because, as we all know, there are certain things that are made available to the Foreign Relations Committee, under our rules, only to the ranking member and only to the chairman and not the whole membership. And so absent having the fact that we have a member who may be brighter than and more informed than the chairman or the ranking member, they don't have the same access. They don't have the same access to all the diplomatic initiatives that are underway. So if it makes sense to have Armed Services have tactical input here, it seems to me that this false separation of our foreign policy and our defense policy is one of the reasons we got ourselves in trouble to begin with. What are we doing now? We are agreeing to change the rules. We are about to change the rules, I hope, when we get into reorganizing this body. And we are going to say no longer is a member of the Foreign Relations Committee not able to serve on Armed Services, and no longer is a member of Armed Services not able to serve on the Foreign Relations Committee. Why? We are going around making sure that there are not stovepipes in the Intelligence Committee. We finally figured out there should not be stovepipes in terms of information and access and expertise as it relates to strategic doctrine, foreign policy, and tactical military operations. It is necessary. I know of one matter on which we were kept in the dark for some months, then briefed earlier this year. And we have gotten no information since. We go back, the chairman and I, and say: We want more information. They say: We already told the Intelligence Committee. Then the Intelligence Committee tells us, which is literally true: We can come and read whatever it is that is there. We all know how this place works. If you are not there in the middle of a hearing, if you are not there in that closed session, if you are not able to probe what is being said and have a perspective that may be different than the members of the committee, you are not likely to get the information. That is especially true because if we gained information as ex officio members of the Intelligence Committee, we would be bound by the same nondisclosure rules that apply to other members of the Intelligence Committee. I found in my 10 years on the Intelligence Committee--I think that is longer served time than anybody who presently sits on the Intelligence Committee, or as long; I could be wrong about that--I found, as one of my friends said early on when I got put on that committee originally: I don't want to go on because it is like Pac-Man. They will tell you information that you otherwise could learn, but once they have told you, you can't disclose it because if you do, even though it appears in the New York Times, you have violated the law. One of the things that is useful, I find that people are much more open with me as a junior member of the Intelligence Committee rather than a 31-year member of the Foreign Relations Committee. So we would be bound by the same rules. The Foreign Relations Committee also has a major concern for the safety and security of overseas embassies. We have shared that concern in this regard with the Intelligence Committee, which doesn't want to see intelligence personnel or information put at risk by ineffective security in our embassies. We will be able to pursue that shared interest more effectively if our chairman and ranking member have ready access to the information on this security and security around the world. And lastly, because I am getting pretty close here, the idea of being able to completely separate the functioning of our State Department and the functioning of the intelligence community in little neat boxes does not comport with reality. That is not how it works. Other than the present chairman of the committee maybe not wanting the Government expense of adding two more chairs at the table, I quite frankly don't understand what the problem is. I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, you know, one of the problems of being around here a while is that you get in this body and you take things in a personal context. This has nothing to do with overseeing the Intelligence Committee. This is about expanding the capability of the Intelligence Committee. Let me give my friend an example. I think he totally misses the point. He views this as an assault on the committee, a weakening. We are looking at them. I wonder if the Senator is aware that on the Foreign Relations Committee, there are numerous occasions when the ranking member and chairman are made aware by the Secretary of State and/or the President himself of a diplomatic initiative that they have no idea is about to be undertaken. I wonder if he knows that. It is not about the collection of intelligence, it is about a diplomatic initiative. Let me make something up. Assume we were having great difficulty with Canada and they are our enemy. The President and Secretary of State call the chairman and ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee down to get our judgment on whether, if we made the following entree diplomatically to a particular group in Canada--say, Quebec--we might be able to move the ball, and, at the same time, the Intelligence Committee is hearing information that is meat and potatoes, critically important, that there is an initiative underway in the Intelligence Committee to eavesdrop upon the undertakings of the very people who are about to make this initiative. It might be a useful thing, not an assault on the chairman or a diminution of his authority but another access and avenue of, hopefully, an informed person with a different perspective on something that is not banking, or it is not agriculture; it is serious stuff. We tend, when we think about intelligence, to think only in terms of covert operations and the military. The fact is, that is part of our problem. This false separation of the conduct of American foreign policy and the policy of our strategic doctrine and our tactical doctrine is part of our problem. So this is not about sitting down and babysitting, or whatever the phrase used by my friend was; this is about being collaborative and letting them maybe know a perspective they didn't know. Lastly, we all have access to all kinds of information. The problem is, unless we are essentially tasked with the responsibility and obligation, there is so much we have to do, we don't get to do it. I know what the chairman is worried about: this guy sitting next to me. I hired him in the Intelligence Committee 20 years ago. He sat there for 10 years. Now he works for me on the Foreign Relations Committee. There is a worry--not about my particular colleague on my left--but we will have staff there that will do what they do in every committee if they attend a hearing: Mr. Chairman, this is about to happen, and it is a small thing and it totally conflicts with what you have been told by the Secretary of State and it may be useful.

Mr. BIDEN. Do I have any time beyond that?

Mr. BIDEN. The bottom line is, I wish we would get together in this place and stop viewing everything as sort of an assault on somebody else's jurisdiction. This is not about that. I got off of the Intelligence Committee. I was on the Intelligence Committee, the Budget Committee, the Foreign Relations Committee, and the Judiciary Committee. I concluded that I could not do all four of those, so I got off. I gave up the chairmanship of the Budget Committee because I didn't think I could do that and my job on the Foreign Relations Committee and the Judiciary Committee. The strength of this institution lies in our willingness to recognize the contribution that each of us can make, the perspective we bring to the table, and, occasionally, just maybe a degree of expertise that maybe another colleague doesn't have. I clearly do not have the expertise of my colleague on the Intelligence Committee on intelligence matters now. He is fully, contemporaneously, totally informed. I don't have the competence on matters relating to the Banking Committee and the international banking system as the chairman and ranking member do because that is their obligation. I don't have the competence my friend from Alaska has on the Appropriations Committee and how all these pieces fit together, but I respectfully suggest that I might be able to contribute. Whoever succeeds me--the Senator from Connecticut, I think, is next in line to be chairman or ranking member of the Foreign Relations--I respectfully suggest he has a perspective that might be useful. Why do we view this in terms of competition? If you hang around this place long enough, you kind of go through a couple phases, one of which is you end up sometimes not recognizing the potential strength that lies here. Senator Hagel and Senator Rockefeller are brilliant members of the Foreign Relations Committee. Senator Rockefeller, because he is the cochairman, has not been able to attend one-fifth of our hearings, and he should not be at our hearings. He should be doing the work of the Intelligence Committee because that is his primary responsibility. Senator Hagel is the same way. They are both incredibly well-informed people. They both serve on the committee, but they do not have the full access Senator Lugar has to every diplomatic initiative that Senator Lugar may be aware of or the particular concerns or the sensitivity of a particular initiative and at a particular time. I conclude by saying, I go back to my days on the Intelligence Committee. I happened to be aware, only because Senator Pell made me aware, of an initiative that was underway in a particular Eastern European country. At the time, Mr. Casey and Ugell were running operations there. Only because I was made aware by the chairman of the committee of what he had been briefed on and was allowed to communicate was I able to say in a hearing and I think--I don't know this for a fact. I know I asked for two hearings, as a member of the Intelligence Committee of the entire Senate. I demanded there be a secret hearing, that we close the doors, only Senators, no staff. It does not often happen because you only have one of two choices when you are informed about what you think is a dangerous initiative that is underway in the intelligence community. You go forward and you blow it and you suffer the consequences, you have broken the law, or under the laws, you can ask for a secret meeting of the Senate. There was an operation that was proposed. This is years ago in the early days of the Reagan administration, relating to the very country in which there was a serious diplomatic initiative being made, in a sense covertly, not by the intelligence community, but by the State Department and the White House. When I made the Congress aware of that, it was concluded that maybe it was not a good operation, and I signed on that piece of paper. You still have to sign off: I oppose this action. Whether it is because I did that or not, I cannot say, but the action was jettisoned. It was ill-conceived and totally at odds with the initiative the Reagan administration had going over in another piece of it. I do not know if that was a positive contribution or not, but I can tell you it was a different perspective.

Mr. BIDEN. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield for a question? I will be very brief.

Mr. BIDEN. I used to have a friend who used to say: You have to know how to know. The Senator has been on the Intelligence Committee long enough to know that unless one is there and they know what has been said, reading the report is not particularly relevant half the time. My question is this: What is the problem? The committee does not have enough seats? The committee does not have enough chairs if we walk in? What is the deal? What is the concern? That we would release the information more than anyone else on the committee might? I mean, I am a little confused. Like from that line in the movie: What is the story, Richie? What is the problem? What is the downside? Do we breathe too much of the oxygen in the room? Are we going to take up more time? I do not quite get it. I understand what the Senator says about how we are covering it. What I do not understand is, no one has said to me what is the downside of Senator Lugar being able to, when he feels like it, show up, sit there and ask questions just like the Senator asks questions because he has a perspective. I am a little curious about that. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN. I ask unanimous consent that the chairman have 2 minutes to respond.

Mr. BIDEN. I do not believe that is accurate.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, Senator Specter and I introduce today the Enhanced Second Chance Act of 2004, 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 or no job skills, inadequate drug treatment, insufficient housing, lack of positive influences, a paucity 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 114,000 officers all across the country. And our crime rate has plummeted. Murder is down 37.8 percent, rape 19.1 percent, and aggravated assaults 28 percent. The overall crime rate sharply declined by 28 percent. But now, we are seeing some troubling indicators that crime is back on the rise. Murder was up 2.5 percent in 2001, 1 percent in 2002, and 1.3 percent in 2003. Forcible rape is up as is robbery. Car theft is up 10 percent over the last four years. If we are going to ensure that these latest numbers are only a blip on the continued downward trend of crime rates, as opposed to the beginning of a comeback in crime, we simply have to make strong, concerted, and common-sense efforts now to help ex-prisoners successfully reenter and reintegrate into their communities. There's a record number of people currently serving time in our country--over two million. This translates into 1 out of every 143 U.S. residents. In its latest statistics on the matter, the Bureau of Justice Statistics found that the Nation's overall prison population increased by over 40,000 from midyear 2002 to midyear 2003, the largest increase in 4 years. Also vital to realize is that 95 percent of all these millions we lock up will eventually get out. That equals nearly 650,000 being released from Federal or State prisons to communities each year. In a State like Delaware, that's over 4,000 inmates per year. And here's the kicker--a staggering \2/3\ of these 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 not 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 to 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 estimates of involvement with drugs or alcohol around the time of the offense as high as 84 percent. These huge numbers of released prisoners each year and the out-of- control recidivism rates are a recipe for disaster--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 pose the greatest risk of reoffending upon release because they lack the education, job skills, stable family or living arrangements, and the health services they need to successfully reintegrate into society. Senator Specter has also been a dedicated and tireless leader on crime and public safety issues throughout his career and has, for many years, seen the serious public safety ramifications of high recidivism rates. For example, my colleague from Pennsylvania has been the leader on the effort to ensure that offenders who are being released back into our communities have adequate education and work training to become productive members of our society. I couldn't be more pleased than to join efforts with Senator Specter on the Enhanced Second Chance Act of 2004. 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 on this vital issue. I am proud to have worked with Representatives Rob Portman, Danny Davis, and John Conyers, just to name a few, in the House or Representatives. In the Senate, a number of my colleagues, in addition to Senator Specter, have shown strong interest in offender reentry issues, including Senators Brownback, DeWine, Leahy, Kennedy, Landrieu, Bingaman, Hatch, Grassley, and Santorum. The Second Chance Act of 2004 was introduced in the House and Senate recently, and I was proud to have worked extensively on that bipartisan, bicameral process. The bill Senator Specter and I introduce today builds on those efforts. Like the Second Chance Act, the central component of our bill provides a competitive grant program to promote innovative programs to test out a variety of methods aimed at reducing recidivism rates. Efforts would be focused 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 more than three times as much funding than the House bill. While the House bill contains $40 million per year for the main grant program, our bill provides $130 million. This isn't being wasteful with our scarce federal resources, it's just an acknowledgment 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 crimes. We must remember that the average cost of incarcerating each prisoner exceeds $20,000 per year. In Delaware, this translates into over $200 per resident just to pay for jail and prison operating expenses. In constant 2001 dollars, state prison costs in our country have increased from $11.7 billion per year in 1986 to $29.5 billion in 2001. And even with these kinds of resources being spent, by the end of 2002, 25 States and the Federal prison system reported operating at 100 percent or more of their highest capacity. My own home State of Delaware continues to see a prison system bulging at the seams. We have tried, but simply cannot build our way out of this problem. We need tough--but smart--strategies to stop the revolving door of prisoners being released from prison, only to re-offend and land right back behind bars. We simply can't be penny-wise but pound-foolish. The Enhanced Second Chance Act of 2004 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 to say that we don't want to restrict former drug addicts from working in pharmacies, for example, or to bar sex offenders from working in 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 robust 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 Enhanced 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, civic rights, substance abuse, and prisoner mentoring--efforts and changes in law that we can do now. Some of these important provisions are included in the House bill, others are in addition to those efforts, but all are common-sense efforts in the art of the possible. Our goal is to do as much as possible right now. Our Enhanced Second Chance Act is a next, natural step in our campaign against crime. Making a dent in recidivism rates 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 require sustained focus. The safety of our neighbors, our children, and our communities depends on it. I'm proud today to introduce the Enhanced Second Chance Act with Senator Specter and ask our colleagues to join with us in this vital effort. I ask unanimous consent to have the text of our bill printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, Senator Specter and I introduce today the Enhanced Second Chance Act of 2004, 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 or no job skills, inadequate drug treatment, insufficient housing, lack of positive influences, a paucity 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 114,000 officers all across the country. And our crime rate has plummeted. Murder is down 37.8 percent, rape 19.1 percent, and aggravated assaults 28 percent. The overall crime rate sharply declined by 28 percent. But now, we are seeing some troubling indicators that crime is back on the rise. Murder was up 2.5 percent in 2001, 1 percent in 2002, and 1.3 percent in 2003. Forcible rape is up as is robbery. Car theft is up 10 percent over the last four years. If we are going to ensure that these latest numbers are only a blip on the continued downward trend of crime rates, as opposed to the beginning of a comeback in crime, we simply have to make strong, concerted, and common-sense efforts now to help ex-prisoners successfully reenter and reintegrate into their communities. There's a record number of people currently serving time in our country--over two million. This translates into 1 out of every 143 U.S. residents. In its latest statistics on the matter, the Bureau of Justice Statistics found that the Nation's overall prison population increased by over 40,000 from midyear 2002 to midyear 2003, the largest increase in 4 years. Also vital to realize is that 95 percent of all these millions we lock up will eventually get out. That equals nearly 650,000 being released from Federal or State prisons to communities each year. In a State like Delaware, that's over 4,000 inmates per year. And here's the kicker--a staggering \2/3\ of these 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 not 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 to 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 estimates of involvement with drugs or alcohol around the time of the offense as high as 84 percent. These huge numbers of released prisoners each year and the out-of- control recidivism rates are a recipe for disaster--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 pose the greatest risk of reoffending upon release because they lack the education, job skills, stable family or living arrangements, and the health services they need to successfully reintegrate into society. Senator Specter has also been a dedicated and tireless leader on crime and public safety issues throughout his career and has, for many years, seen the serious public safety ramifications of high recidivism rates. For example, my colleague from Pennsylvania has been the leader on the effort to ensure that offenders who are being released back into our communities have adequate education and work training to become productive members of our society. I couldn't be more pleased than to join efforts with Senator Specter on the Enhanced Second Chance Act of 2004. 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 on this vital issue. I am proud to have worked with Representatives Rob Portman, Danny Davis, and John Conyers, just to name a few, in the House or Representatives. In the Senate, a number of my colleagues, in addition to Senator Specter, have shown strong interest in offender reentry issues, including Senators Brownback, DeWine, Leahy, Kennedy, Landrieu, Bingaman, Hatch, Grassley, and Santorum. The Second Chance Act of 2004 was introduced in the House and Senate recently, and I was proud to have worked extensively on that bipartisan, bicameral process. The bill Senator Specter and I introduce today builds on those efforts. Like the Second Chance Act, the central component of our bill provides a competitive grant program to promote innovative programs to test out a variety of methods aimed at reducing recidivism rates. Efforts would be focused 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 more than three times as much funding than the House bill. While the House bill contains $40 million per year for the main grant program, our bill provides $130 million. This isn't being wasteful with our scarce federal resources, it's just an acknowledgment 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 crimes. We must remember that the average cost of incarcerating each prisoner exceeds $20,000 per year. In Delaware, this translates into over $200 per resident just to pay for jail and prison operating expenses. In constant 2001 dollars, state prison costs in our country have increased from $11.7 billion per year in 1986 to $29.5 billion in 2001. And even with these kinds of resources being spent, by the end of 2002, 25 States and the Federal prison system reported operating at 100 percent or more of their highest capacity. My own home State of Delaware continues to see a prison system bulging at the seams. We have tried, but simply cannot build our way out of this problem. We need tough--but smart--strategies to stop the revolving door of prisoners being released from prison, only to re-offend and land right back behind bars. We simply can't be penny-wise but pound-foolish. The Enhanced Second Chance Act of 2004 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 to say that we don't want to restrict former drug addicts from working in pharmacies, for example, or to bar sex offenders from working in 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 robust 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 Enhanced 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, civic rights, substance abuse, and prisoner mentoring--efforts and changes in law that we can do now. Some of these important provisions are included in the House bill, others are in addition to those efforts, but all are common-sense efforts in the art of the possible. Our goal is to do as much as possible right now. Our Enhanced Second Chance Act is a next, natural step in our campaign against crime. Making a dent in recidivism rates 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 require sustained focus. The safety of our neighbors, our children, and our communities depends on it. I'm proud today to introduce the Enhanced Second Chance Act with Senator Specter and ask our colleagues to join with us in this vital effort. I ask unanimous consent to have the text of our bill printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I rise in support of the Delaware National Coastal Special Resources Study Act and join my colleague, Senator Carper, in asking this body to support our efforts to construct the Delaware National Coastal Heritage Park. Delaware is the only State not to have a national park and we feel strongly that the time has come. Today, through this legislation, we are asking the Secretary of the Interior to study the feasibility of establishing a National Park Service unit in the State of Delaware. As I stand before you, I know what most of you are thinking. Do we have an area worthy of such designation? Do we have picturesque mountains like the Grand Tetons or the Great Smokey Mountains? Are people drawn to our coasts to find the spirituality of JoshuaTree? Do we possess landscape on par with the beauty and serenity of Acadia National Park? Well, in a word, yes. A little of all of the magnificence found in some of our Nation's most famous parks can be found in our State of Delaware and that is why the proposal presented by Senator Carper is so unique and worthy of the next step. I have to commend my colleague. Senator Carper brought together a committee of dedicated Delawareans to analyze the validity of a national park in the State of Delaware. After much deliberation, the committee suggested a series of four interpretive centers, scattered throughout the state, to highlight the many treasures of our state. While there are numerous sites identified in the proposal, I would just like to take a moment to speak to several that have been especially close to me in my years in the Senate. Pea Patch Island is a 228-acre park located off the coast of Delaware City, Delaware that houses Fort Delaware, one of our country's oldest Civil War-era fortifications and Delaware's oldest State Park. The island, with its fort, seawall and other archeological remains, is listed on the National Registry of Historic Places. The island also houses a State nature preserve, providing critical habitat to thousands of wading birds. It is also the largest heronry north of Florida. Delaware also played a special role in the Underground Railroad and the proposal will highlight the 18 sites in Delaware including a hideout at the Governor's mansion, the court house where abolitionist Thomas Garrett was tried, the Mother African Church in Wilmington where an African American Festival founded in 1814 was used as a cover to help slaves escape is still celebrated, and numerous other sites utilized by the principal Underground Railroad conductor, Harriet Tubman. Finally, I would like to mention our coastline, our beaches. Now into October, we have said goodbye to another fantastic beach season with millions of people visiting our shores. The historic sites and wildlife refuges that dot our coastline are unique to the area and to the Nation. These links to Delaware's past are important to our Nation's future and I am proud to join my colleague in supporting this legislation.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I rise in support of the Delaware National Coastal Special Resources Study Act and join my colleague, Senator Carper, in asking this body to support our efforts to construct the Delaware National Coastal Heritage Park. Delaware is the only State not to have a national park and we feel strongly that the time has come. Today, through this legislation, we are asking the Secretary of the Interior to study the feasibility of establishing a National Park Service unit in the State of Delaware. As I stand before you, I know what most of you are thinking. Do we have an area worthy of such designation? Do we have picturesque mountains like the Grand Tetons or the Great Smokey Mountains? Are people drawn to our coasts to find the spirituality of JoshuaTree? Do we possess landscape on par with the beauty and serenity of Acadia National Park? Well, in a word, yes. A little of all of the magnificence found in some of our Nation's most famous parks can be found in our State of Delaware and that is why the proposal presented by Senator Carper is so unique and worthy of the next step. I have to commend my colleague. Senator Carper brought together a committee of dedicated Delawareans to analyze the validity of a national park in the State of Delaware. After much deliberation, the committee suggested a series of four interpretive centers, scattered throughout the state, to highlight the many treasures of our state. While there are numerous sites identified in the proposal, I would just like to take a moment to speak to several that have been especially close to me in my years in the Senate. Pea Patch Island is a 228-acre park located off the coast of Delaware City, Delaware that houses Fort Delaware, one of our country's oldest Civil War-era fortifications and Delaware's oldest State Park. The island, with its fort, seawall and other archeological remains, is listed on the National Registry of Historic Places. The island also houses a State nature preserve, providing critical habitat to thousands of wading birds. It is also the largest heronry north of Florida. Delaware also played a special role in the Underground Railroad and the proposal will highlight the 18 sites in Delaware including a hideout at the Governor's mansion, the court house where abolitionist Thomas Garrett was tried, the Mother African Church in Wilmington where an African American Festival founded in 1814 was used as a cover to help slaves escape is still celebrated, and numerous other sites utilized by the principal Underground Railroad conductor, Harriet Tubman. Finally, I would like to mention our coastline, our beaches. Now into October, we have said goodbye to another fantastic beach season with millions of people visiting our shores. The historic sites and wildlife refuges that dot our coastline are unique to the area and to the Nation. These links to Delaware's past are important to our Nation's future and I am proud to join my colleague in supporting this legislation.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. The purpose of S. 2195, The Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004, is to address the abuse of steroids by athletes and, especially, by youngsters and teenagers. Some substances marketed as dietary supplements, such as androstenedione, will be anabolic steroids under this bill. That means that they will be regulated as controlled substances and not as dietary supplements. As such, there will be significant controls on their distribution and use, including substantial criminal penalties.

Mr. BIDEN. I will.