Joe Biden

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. As I said, I will tomorrow go into much greater detail. Again, keep your eye on the ball and level with the American people as we go through this process because I think if Saddam Hussein is around 5 years from now, we are in deep trouble as a country--we are in deep trouble.

Mr. BIDEN. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President: The Senator from New Mexico has the floor; is that right?

Mr. BIDEN. How much time does the Senator have left?

Mr. BIDEN. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, in June I introduced S. 2633, the Reducing America's Vulnerability to Ecstasy Act, also known as the RAVE Act. Since that time there has been a great deal of misinformation circulating about this legislation. I rise today to correct the record. Simply stated, my bill provides technical corrections to an existing statute, one which has been on the books for 16 years and is well established. Critics of my bill have asserted that if the legislation were to become law ``there would be no way that someone could hold a concert and not be liable'' and that the bill ``holds the owners and the promoters responsible for the actions of the patrons.'' That is simply untrue. We know that there will always be certain people who will bring drugs into musical or other events and use them without the knowledge or permission of the promoter or club owner. This is not the type of activity that my bill would address. The purpose of my legislation is not to prosecute legitimate law-abiding managers of stadiums, arenas, performing arts centers, licensed beverage facilities, and other venues because of incidental drug use at their events. In fact, when crafting this legislation, I took steps to ensure that it did not capture such cases. My bill would help in the prosecution of rogue promoters who not only know that there is drug use at their event but also hold the event for the purpose of illegal drug use or distribution. That is quite a high bar. I am confident that the overwhelming majority of promoters are decent, law-abiding people who are going to discourage drug use, or any other illegal activity, at their venues. But there are a few promoters out there who are taking steps to profit from drug activity at their events. Some of these folks actually distribute drugs themselves or have their staff distribute drugs, get kickbacks from drug sales at their events, have thinly veiled drug messages on their promotional flyers, tell their security to ignore drug use or sales, or send patients who need medical attention because of a drug overdose to a hospital across town so people won't link emergency room visits with their club. What they are doing is illegal under current law. My bill would not change that fact. Let me be clear. Neither current law nor my bill seeks to punish a promoter for the behavior of their patrons. As I mentioned, the underlying crack house statute has been on the books since 1986, and I am unaware of this statute ever being used to prosecute a legitimate business. The RAVE Act simply amends the current crack house statute in two minor ways. First, it clarifies that Congress intended for the law to apply not just to ongoing drug distribution operations, but to single- event activities, such as a party where the promoter sponsors the event with the purpose of distributing Ecstasy or other illegal drugs. After all, a drug dealer can be arrested and prosecuted for selling one bag of drugs, and the government need not show that the dealer is selling day after day, or to multiple sellers. Likewise, the bill clarifies that a one-time event where the promoter knowingly distributes Ecstasy over the course of an evening, for example, violates the statute the same as a crack house which is in operation over a period of time. Second, the bill makes the law apply to outdoor as well as indoor venues, such as where a rogue rave promoter uses a field to hold a rave for the purpose of distributing a controlled substance. Those are the only changes the bill makes to the crack house statute. It does not give the Federal Government sweeping new powers as the detractors have asserted. Critics of the bill have also claimed that it would provide a disincentive for promoters to take steps to protect the public health of their patrons including providing water or air-conditioned rooms, making sure that there is an ambulance on the premises, et cetera. That is not my intention. And to underscore that fact, I plan to remove the findings which is the only place in the bill where these items are mentioned, from the bill. Certainly there are legitimate reasons for selling water, having a room where people can cool down after dancing, or having an ambulance on hand. Clearly, the presence of any of these things is not enough to signify that an event is ``for the purpose of'' drug use. The reason that I introduced the RAVE Act was not to ban dancing, kill the ``RAVE scene'' or silence electronic music, all things of which I have been accused. Although this legislation grew out of testimony I heard at a number of hearings about the problems identified at raves, the criminal and civil penalties in the bill would also apply to people who promoted any type of event for the purpose of drug use or distribution. If rave promoters and sponsors operate such events as they are so often advertised, as places for people to come dance in a safe, drug-free environment, then they have nothing to fear from this law. In no way is this bill aimed at stifling any type of music or expression--it is only trying to deter illicit drug use and protect kids. I appreciate the opportunity to correct the record about what my legislation does and does not do. I hope that all of my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill.

Mr. BIDEN

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

Mr. BIDEN. I apologize for not hearing the Senator's entire remarks. On what I heard at the end, I fully concur.

Mr. BIDEN. I beg your pardon. Does the Senator actually believe the President would veto this? I mean, the President speaks so glowingly and lovingly--and I believe he means it--about our veterans and our responsibilities and our obligations. If you laid out to the American people what we are talking about here, they would understand this just does not make sense. Most people--who are not veterans, who are not disabled, who do not participate in any way--I think assume the law is as you and Senator Reid and myself and others are trying to change it. I ask the Senator, A, do you really believe the President would veto this? And, B, what is the real reason for the veto? I mean, is there something I am missing here?

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak 2 minutes on this point--just 2 minutes.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I have been here 30 years. This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. This is absolutely mind-boggling. This is brain dead. We have a roughly $400 billion defense bill. We may be asked to go to war. And some bureaucratic functionary, somewhere in the bowels of OMB--if that is what is to be believed--is suggesting that we hold up this bill because they do not want to allow disabled veterans to have concurrent receipt of their disability and their military pension. That is brain dead. And, Mr. President--you are not listening; but I hope your staff is listening--stop this. Stop this. Stop this. It makes no sense, Mr. Chairman, to yield to blackmail that they'll veto this bill when the Senate has overwhelmingly voted for concurrent receipt. If you yield to this, Mr. Chairman, I will be dumbfounded--dumbfounded. I know you've worked a whole year. I have worked a whole year, and up to 8 years, on legislation. But I can't believe you'd even listen to somebody who would say this. Why wouldn't you pick up the phone and call up the President and say: Mr. President, is this the deal? Is this the deal? Tell me straight up, boss. What is the deal? Because if it is, it is outrageous. So I suggest we just pick up the phone and call the President. You have a close relationship with him. Call him. Ask him. Ask him. I pray to God he would not even think of saying to you: No. I will veto a $400 billion bill at the same time while nailing the veterans. Call him. Phone home.

Mr. BIDEN

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

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, last night the President of the United States said something very important about United Nations inspections in Iraq. He said: Clearly, to actually work, any new inspections. . .will have to be very different. . . . To ensure that we learn the truth, the regime must allow witnesses to its illegal activities to be interviewed outside the country, and these witnesses must be free to bring their families with them so they are all beyond the reach of Saddam Hussein's terror and murder. And inspectors must have access to any site, at any time, without pre-clearance, without delay, without exceptions. The President is right on the money about the inspections. This is how to get the information the world needs on Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction programs. But how is the U.N. to do that? Where will those weapons scientists and their families go, once they've told the truth about Saddam's weapons programs? They can't go home again. And at least in the short run, there will be no safe haven in the region for the people who reveal Saddam's most terrible secrets. So where will those scientists go? Maybe some can go to Europe, although both al Qaeda cells and Saddam's agents have operated there. Maybe some can go to Canada, or to South America. But if the United States wants the world to show resolve in dealing with Saddam Hussein, then we should show the way by taking the lead in admitting those Iraqis who have the courage to betray Saddam's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs. We have a large country in which to absorb those people, and, for all our problems, we have the best law enforcement and security apparatus to guard them. What we do not have is an immigration system that readily admits large numbers of persons who have a recent involvement with weapons of mass destruction, have recently aided a country in the so-called ``axis of evil,'' and are bringing their families. I am introducing today, therefore, legislation to admit to our country those Iraqi scientists, engineers and technicians, and their families, who give reliable information on Saddam's programs to us, to the United Nations, or to the International Atomic Energy Agency. My esteemed colleague on the Judiciary Committee, Senator Specter of Pennsylvania, joins me in introducing this legislation, and I am very pleased to have his support. This bill is not political. Rather, it is a bipartisan effort to help the President succeed in forcing Iraq to destroy all its weapons of mass destruction capabilities. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Why? Because those Iraqis will deserve our protection. And equally important, because they will not come forward unless we offer that protection. Charles Duelfer, former Deputy Executive Director of UNSCOM, the original U.N. inspection force in Iraq, recently wrote an article entitled, ``The Inevitable Failure of Inspections in Iraq.'' He made the following recommendations: First, inspectors should be mandated to interview the few hundred key scientists, engineers, and technicians who were involved in the previous weapons of mass destruction efforts and have them account for their activities since December 1998. The U.N. knows who these individuals are. If, as is suspected, Iraq has been continuing to develop weapons of mass destruction, some or most of these people will have been involved. Second, the conditions for such interviews must be changed. Iraqi government observers must not be present. the previous UNSCOM agreement to the presence of such ``minders'' was a mistake. The fact that junior workers would shake with fear at the prospect of answering a question in a way inconsistent with government direction made this obvious. Third, and most important, the U.N. should offer sanctuary or safe haven to those who find it a condition for speaking the truth. The people are key to these programs. Access to the people under conditions where they could speak freely was not something UNSCOM ever achieved except in the rare instances of defection. Mr. Duelfer concludes: I often summarized this problem to Washington by suggesting that, if UNSCOM had 100 green cards to distribute during inspections, it could have quickly accounted for the weapons programs. Other experts, including Dr. Khidir Hamza, a former Iraqi nuclear weapons scientist who testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on July 27, have pointed out that by enticing scientists and engineers away from Iraq, we will also deprive Saddam Hussein of the very people he needs to produce those weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles. If we do, in the end, have to go to war against Saddam, then the fewer weapons scientists he has, the better. Current law includes several means of either paroling non-immigrants into the United States or admitting people for permanent residence, notwithstanding their normal inadmissibility under the law. These are very limited provisions, however, and they will not suffice to accommodate hundreds of Iraqi scientists and their families. The legislation that I am introducing, the ``Iraqi Scientists Liberation Act of 2002,'' will permit the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, acting jointly and on a case-by-case basis, to admit a foreigner and his family for permanent residence if such person: is a scientist, engineer, or technician who has worked in an Iraqi program to produce weapons of mass destruction or the means to deliver them, during the years since the inspectors left and Saddam began rebuilding those programs; is willing to supply or has supplied reliable information on that program to UNMOVIC, to the IAEA, or to an agency of the United State Government; and will be or has been placed in danger as a result of providing such information. The Attorney General will be empowered to set the rules and regulations governing implementation of this law, in consultation with the Secretary of State and other relevant officials. Finally, this legislation will be limited to the admission of 500 scientists, plus their families, over 3 years. If it works and we need to enlarge the program, we can do so. The important thing for now is to give our country the initial authority, and to give United Nations inspectors the ability to call on us when one of Saddam's nuclear, chemical or biological weapons experts is willing to help the world to bring those programs down. It is hard to predict what we will achieve by opening our doors. Iraq will surely object to giving UNMOVIC the inspection and interview powers that the President proposes. But if UNMOVIC does get into Iraq under a stronger Security Council resolution in the coming weeks, then having this law on the books could help to undermine Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction programs. Even if inspectors never get in, a public offer of asylum for Iraq's scientists could lead some to defect, as Dr. Hamza did. Last night the President called for inspections that protect the lives of those who are interviewed and their families. We owe it to the President to do all we can to make that possible. We owe it to the United Nations inspectors to give them every chance to succeed. We owe to it Iraq's people and its neighbors to do everything we can to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction programs. And we owe it to our own people to do all we can to achieve that end peacefully, and with international support. This bill is a small step toward those ends, but it is a vital one. I urge my colleagues to give it their immediate attention and their considered support. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my bill appear following my remarks in the Congressional Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to call attention to Section 2202 of the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act which directs the President--in consultation with the Attorney General, the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of Education--to review all Federal drug and substance abuse treatment, prevention, education and research programs and make recommendations about how to ``streamline, consolidate, coordinate, simplify, and more effectively conduct and deliver'' these services.

Mr. BIDEN. Yes, I would. Mr. President, I want to make it clear that Section 2202 of the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act was not included because the Senate wants to cut substance abuse treatment, prevention, education and research programs. After all, when the Senate unanimously passed S. 304, the Drug Abuse Education, Prevention and Treatment Act, which Senators Hatch, Leahy and I introduced, it went on record supporting an increase in funding for demand reduction programs, including providing treatment for some of the 3.9 million people in this country who need it but are not receiving it. I know that the President does not want to shrink these programs either. Recall that when he announced Mr. Walters' nomination to be drug czar, he said that ``the most effective way to reduce the supply of drugs in America is to reduce the demand for drugs in America'' and he pledged that his administration ``will focus unprecedented attention on the demand side of the problem.'' As I see it, the study is meant to assess current programs in order to identify where there may be duplication of effort and where we need to increase effort. The belief that demand reduction programs are a valuable part of our national drug policy needs to guide this report. That does not mean that the authors should be afraid of recommending ways to deliver services more efficiently or to suggest that there is duplication of effort that needs to be streamlined. What it means is that the report should not be interpreted as a directive from Congress to decrease the level of effort dedicated to demand reduction. Increasing access to treatment is critical. Drug addiction is a chronic relapsing disease. And as with other chronic relapsing diseases, such as diabetes, hypertension and asthma, there is no cure, although a number of treatments can effectively control the disease. According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, the rate of adherence to treatment programs and relapse rates are similar for drug addiction and other chronic diseases. That means that treatment for addiction works just as well as treatment for other chronic relapsing diseases. I hope these facts will be reflected in the drug czar's report, particularly in terms of relapse. We should not be skimping on the amount of time a patient spends in treatment because someone thinks that would be more efficient. In truth, it would be less efficient. Studies have shown that the longer a patient spends in treatment the more likely that patient is to stay off drugs. But even with the best treatment protocol, patients relapse. That does not mean that treatment does not work, however. Research is another area where returns on investment are not always linear or predictable. But I believe that we need to be doing more research on new forms of treatment, particularly when it comes to developing new anti-addiction medications. In the last Congress, I worked with Senators Levin and Hatch and former Senator Moynihan to pass a law to allow qualified doctors to prescribe certain anti- addiction medications from their offices rather than requiring patients to pick them up at special clinics. The bill helps to move drug treatment using anti-addiction medications into the medical mainstream. And buprenorphine, the first medication that could be prescribed under the system created by the bill, is expected to be approved any day now. We need to develop additional medications for this new system to treat cocaine and methamphetamine addiction as well as to curb the cravings associated with addiction. The last item that I would suggest that the drug czar keep in mind when drafting his report is the importance of prevention, particularly school-based prevention programs. After several years of a stable level of drug use in the United States, this year drug use is up 11 percent among 12 to 17-year-olds and 18 percent among 18 to 25-year-olds. It is vital that we increase our current efforts at preventing drug use among teens and young adults. After all, we know that if we can get a child through age 21 without abusing drugs, they are unlikely ever to do so. My goal is not to dictate what the drug czar writes in his report. Rather, I want to make clear that when Congress directs that the drug czar write a report on how to ``streamline, consolidate, coordinate, simplify, and more effectively conduct and deliver'' Federal drug and substance abuse treatment, prevention, education and research programs, it does not mean that we are trying to minimize the importance of these programs. We are merely looking for guidance on how they could be delivered more effectively and more efficiently.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, what can I say about Strom Thurmond? I remember, back in 1981, the Senate Judiciary Committee had a new chairman--and a new ranking member, and there were more than a few folks looking forward to the fireworks. There was a new conservative Republican administration and new Republican majority in the Senate. The Judiciary Committee seemed destined to be one of the main ideological battlegrounds over issues that divided us then and still divide us today. There were more than a few Washington insiders who thought that Strom Thurmond the seasoned veteran conservative Republican chairman who first made his mark on the national political scene as an advocate of State's rights--and Joe Biden a northeastern Democrat still in his thirties whose interest in politics was sparked, in large measure, by the civil rights movement would never find an inch of common ground-- not an inch. But I knew that was not going to be the case. I had served with Strom for eight years by then . . . I knew his personal strengths, and admired them greatly, regardless of our political differences, and I knew those strengths would guide us to consensus rather than gridlock. I knew, with Strom, there would be comity--not enmity. And I knew debate would be civil and constructive rather than divisive and filled with meaningless partisan rhetoric. Strom, as usual, didn't let me down. In his six years as chairman-- and for several years after that when we switched roles--he exceeded my expectations in every way. There were many heated debates and contentious hearings, but we weathered them and we weathered the kinds of controversies which I've seen poison the well for other committees for years afterward. But that kind of cooperation would not have happened if it weren't for Strom Thurmond's strength of character. It would not have happened if he were not, first and foremost, a gentleman--unfailingly courteous, respectful, and always dignified. Strom's word is his bond, and each of us, even the most partisan political opponents knows that, in the heat of debate, under extraordinary pressure, when the stakes are exceedingly high, Strom Thurmond will always, always keep his word. There's an old Greek proverb that says: ``The old age of an eagle is better than the youth of a sparrow.'' Well, Strom Thurmond is an eagle among us. He's been my neighbor in the Russell Building for many years now. Actually, he has most of the offices around me so I'd say he is more like the landlord. He has more seniority in this chamber than any United States Senator has ever had, and more seniority than most Americans will ever dream of having. But longevity is not the measure of a man like Strom Thurmond. Longevity is a very small part of why we come to this floor to pay tribute to him today--a tribute he richly deserves--not only for a long life, but for a grand life, an accomplished life. I joke about it sometimes. About the time, for example, someone came up to him and challenged his strength and his tenacity and--right there--Strom took off his coat and started doing push ups. He has lived long and he has lived well. He has served his country well. And, more than any other public figure, he has been a constant force in this nation for the better part of a century. Never stopping. Never giving up. Always fighting for his beliefs. Unequivocally. Unashamedly. Whether it was his independent run for President 54 years ago, or serving the people of South Carolina as Superintendent for Education of Edgefield County, as a City and County Attorney, a state senator, a circuit court judge, Governor, or United States Senator--he has been truly, sincerely, honorably, one of America's most engaged, committed, and enduring public servants. He was born back in 1902. It was not until a year later, that the Wright brothers flew the first powered flight. He was 6 when Henry Ford introduced the Model T. He received his degree from Clemson one year after the Yankees signed Babe Ruth. When Strom joined the army, Calvin Coolidge was elected President. The Golden Gate Bridge was completed the year Strom was elected to the state senate. Judging from that time-line, you might conclude that American legends tend to lead somewhat parallel lives. There is no doubt that Strom Thurmond is an American legend. He served only one term as a State senator, but in that one term most people don't realize he became an education Senator, raising teachers' pay and extending the school year. Not to mention the fact that he sponsored South Carolina's first Rural Electrification Act. Legend has it that when the U.S. declared war against Germany--Strom was a circuit court judge at the time--he literally took off his robes and volunteered for active duty that day. He went on to earn five battle stars, eighteen decorations, medals, and awards--the Legion of Merit with Oak Leaf Cluster, a Purple Heart, a Bronze Star, the Belgian Order of the Crown and the French Croix de Guerre. Then, in 1947, he was elected Governor of South Carolina. He added 60,000 new private sector jobs. Paved 4100 miles of farm-to-market roads, raised teachers' pay again, started a trade and technical education system and lowered property taxes. Not a bad record. But Strom was not done. He was elected to this Chamber in 1954. I have been here for 30 years. I consider that to be quite a long time but Strom arrived 18 years earlier. But Strom came the hard way. He was a write-in candidate. I believe he has the distinction of being the first person to be elected to a national office that way. It wasn't long before he became an expert on the military and an advocate for a strong national defense. He's been on the Armed Services Committee since the Eisenhower Administration--1959. He was a Democrat back then. We could use you again now, Senator. But seriously, Strom held to his convictions about a strong military and, in 1964, said the Republican Party more closely represented his views, so he switched and, when he did, changed the future of South Carolina politics. Strom and I may disagree on most issues, but, the fact is, it was Strom Thurmond who, one way or another, helped shape the debate on many of those issues for the better part of the last century. A long life is the gift of a benevolent God, but a long life with a powerful and lasting impact is the treasure of a grateful Nation. He has had that kind of impact, and we are grateful. His achievements, his list of awards, the many schools and buildings named--for him too many to enumerate here--are only a small tribute to a man who has done in a hundred years more than most of us could accomplish in a thousand. And, the truth is, most of us wouldn't have the energy to even try. The real beneficiaries of Strom Thurmond's legacy are the citizens of South Carolina. Not since the days of John C. Calhoun has South Carolina enjoyed such memorable representation as it does today with Senator Thurmond and Senator Hollings. From his own reflections and experiences, Calhoun wrote the famous Disquisition on Government. Some political scientists have said that essay is a key to modern American politics, a handbook for defending against the tyranny of the majority, and for building pragmatic coalitions. In that work, Calhoun wanted to maintain the Constitutional rights of States, and the delicate relationship between federal and state powers. Strom Thurmond wears the mantle of that heritage. Some years back, Senator Thurmond was quoted as saying, ``The Constitution means today exactly what it meant in 1787 or it means nothing at all.'' Armed with that conviction all of his life, he's been an able advocate of State's rights--the balance of power between branches of Government--individual rights against Government prerogatives and usurpations--private enterprise--decentralized Government--and strict Constitutional interpretation. He has not only been a successful politician who helped shape the last century, but a political philosopher with whom I do not always agree, but for whom I have the deepest respect. Let me tell you one of my most memorable stories about Strom. It was when we went down to the White House to try to convince President Reagan to sign a crime bill. President Reagan was in the beginning of his second term. We sat in that Cabinet room. We were on one side of the table and William French Smith, Ed Meese, and someone else, I can't recall whom, were on the other side. The President walked in and sat down between Strom and me. We told him why we thought he should sign the bill, why it was important for him to sign it. At first, the President looked like he was thinking about it, and then, to the shock of everyone on the other side of the table, he began to look like he was being convinced--that he actually might sign it.-- This is absolutely a true story. Ed Meese stood up at that point. He looked at us and then he looked at the President and said. ``Mr. President, it's time to go.'' The President hesitated. He looked over at Strom and nodded as if he wanted to hear more. But Ed Meese said again, ``Mr. President, it's time to go.'' At that point, the President made a motion to get up, and Strom reached over and put his hand firmly on the President's arm. He grabbed it and pulled him back down and said, ``Mr. President, the one thing you got to know about Washington is that when you get as old as I am, you want to get things done, you have to compromise.'' There was Ronald Reagan, not that much younger than Strom, and there was Strom, smiling, making the President laugh. And there was Ed Meese not looking very happy as Strom talked the President into his position. That's a remarkable ability, and it works for Strom because people always know where his heart is. They know what his objective is. People know that he believes what he says and says what he believes and it's real and it is honest. One more personal story that I will never forget. It was during a contentious hearing on a Supreme Court Justice and a difficult time in my career. Strom and I disagreed on the nominee. And I was being blasted in the press back in 1988. I called a meeting of the entire committee and said that if the accusations relevant to me were getting in the way of the work of the committee, I would resign as Chairman. But before I could get the last word out of my mouth, Strom stood up. ``That's ridiculous,'' he said. ``You stay as chairman. We all have confidence in you.'' I said, ``Don't you want me to explain?'' And Strom said, ``There's no need to explain. I know you.'' I will never forget what he said that day. ``There's no need to explain. We know you.'' I have told this story before, but to this day, I can't think of many other people who would, having a significant political advantage, not only not take it, but stand by me. That's the Strom Thurmond I know and will always admire. I have been honored to work with him, privileged to serve with him, and proud to call him my friend. As I said earlier: A long life may well be the gift of a benevolent God, but a long life with an impact as powerful and lasting as his is the treasure of a grateful Nation. Strom Thurmond is, without doubt, an American treasure. The truth of the matter is that his longevity lies in his strength of character, his absolute honesty and integrity, his sense of fairness, his civility and dignity as a gentleman, and his commitment to public service. None of these things are skills you learn. They are qualities that burn deep within leaders like Strom Thurmond. And people who know him well can sense them. The measure of Strom Thurmond is not how long he has lived or how long he has served, but the good he has done, the record of success he has achieved, and the standard of leadership he has set. The truth is that Strom's ongoing legacy is not about time, it is about extraordinary leadership and dedicated service to the people of South Carolina and the nation. And for that we say, ``Thank you, Strom, and a hundred more.''

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, this is a happy day in the Senate. We are here to talk about our buddy, Jesse Helms. It is a sad day in that we talk about Jesse Helms leaving. Other than the Senator from Alaska, there is no one who has served longer with Jesse Helms than I have. We came here during the same election cycle, and we came here the same day. We started off with a rocky start. I was a 30-year-old kid who had only been in this Senate once before in my life. That was when I came on the floor of the U.S. Senate while spending a weekend at Georgetown University. Back in those days, you didn't have all the guards and all the security. I came in Saturday morning. I was mesmerized by this magnificent place. I walked in the back doors. They were open. I walked right through. The Senate had been in on Saturday. I was unaware it had been in session. By the time I got here, it had gone out of session. I literally walked onto the floor of the Senate. I was absolutely, as kids used to say, blown away. I stood there in awe. I literally stood at that door. I walked up there. No one was here. I stood where the Presiding Officer was. The next thing I knew, this guy grabbed me by the shoulder and put me under arrest. He was a Capitol policeman. He took me downstairs. Most people do not know there is a Capitol police office in the basement of the Capitol. He took me down there, and he was going to arrest me for trespassing. He realized I was just a college kid who was in awe. They didn't do anything. They just said do not do it again. The next time I was on the floor of the U.S. Senate, and the first time I really spoke spontaneously on the floor, was to my friend Jesse Helms. I remember he was a junior Senator with immense experience. He had been an administrative assistant to one of the leading Senators in the U.S. Senate. He knew the place. He knew the system. He was standing at the desk, if I recollect, in that quadrant in the back. He was on the floor. There was another Senator from Kentucky named Marlow Cook who was standing on the floor. He was moving what is the most thankless job in the U.S. Senate for any Senator other than being on the D.C. Committee; that is, he had the responsibility of moving the legislative appropriations bill. I walked onto the floor to see what was going on. I was literally walking through. We had a committee meeting which had ended. I walked over to see what the state of play was. I was aware of the junior Senator from North Carolina. My seat used to be in the very back corner. I walked onto the floor through that door, walked across, and stopped where the junior Senator from North Carolina was. There was a heated debate going on between the junior Senator from North Carolina-- Sam Ervin was the senior Senator--and Marlow Cook, the Senator from Kentucky. It was about either staff pay or Senators' pay, or whatever it was, and the Senator from North Carolina, as usual, was making a very compelling case as to why we should be basically not paying anything. I am only kidding, Jesse. It was close to that. I stood there on the floor, and as I have done many times in my 30- year career in the U.S. Senate, I did not listen to the admonition I am told you used to be given by the Speaker of the House, Sam Rayburn. I am told in his board-of-education way he used to say to new Members of the House back in the 1950s, If you can say nothing, say nothing; if you can nod, don't speak; if you don't have to nod, don't do anything or something to that effect, meaning keep your mouth shut. I have often broken that rule, unfortunately. I stood there listening to this debate, and I spoke up. I made the mistake of taking on the Senator from North Carolina. He won't remember this. The result was I ended up with a black-box editorial--literally, an editorial on the front page of the New Hampshire Manchester Union Leader with a big black box around it, which used to be done by Mr. Loeb in those days, talking about the audacity of the young Senator from Delaware taking on the point being made by the Senator from North Carolina. That was my first encounter of debating the Senator. It warranted me a front-page article in the Manchester Union Leader that was not flattering at all, which taught me two things. No. 1, if you are going to debate the Senator from North Carolina, come prepared with the facts. No. 2, understand that his reach goes far beyond North Carolina. It did even then as a new U.S. Senator, a freshman U.S. Senator, the Senator from North Carolina, walked on this floor. From the day he arrived, he had an impact. I do not think that can be said of anyone, I say to Senator Helms, in our class. We had a big class. There were, I think, 13 new Members that year. Far and away, the man who stood out was the Senator from North Carolina. He has stood out every day since then. It is no surprise to anyone here the Senator from North Carolina, Senator Helms, and I have not always seen eye to eye. We come from different political points on the spectrum. We have had some heated debates. The Senator advocated some positions I would fight to my dying day to defeat as he would things I proposed which he feels in principle are not the way to go. One of the magic things about this place I learned from Senators with whom Senator Helms and I served when we first got here--Senators such as Goldwater, Humphrey, and Kennedy--is you can have serious disagreements on this floor about the direction of this Nation, but that is no excuse to be personally disagreeable. I can remember--as my friend from North Carolina can, as can my friend from New Mexico, who came the same year, and as can the Senator from Alaska, who was here before us--the day when Hubert Humphrey walked on the floor literally dying, and we watched Barry Goldwater walk up to him, embrace him, and put his arms around him in that well, and both of them cried. These were men of opposite sides of the political spectrum of the day--two leading figures in American politics representing the left and the right, and they stood in that well and embraced. They embraced in an emotional moment no one could misunderstand the meaning of. It was real. It was genuine. It was deep. It is, in my view, the unique and, I think, single most endearing feature of this body, the U.S. Senate. If we serve here long enough, and if we are smart enough, we understand that it is not appropriate to question the motivation of a Senator for what he or she is proposing. It is totally appropriate to question their judgment. It is totally appropriate to question whether they are right. It is totally appropriate to disagree. But it is inappropriate to question the motivation of a Senator because the men and women who come here are men and women of honor. They come here because they care deeply about the fate of their Nation. They care deeply about specific issues, and some intensely on some issues. The thing that I think the Senator from North Carolina embodies most is that tradition that no matter how intensely you disagree on the issue, the Senator from North Carolina, speaking for myself, has never, ever questioned my motive, never, ever questioned my desire to do good, whether or not he thought what I was proposing would, in fact, ``do good.'' We have not agreed on a lot of things, but we have also agreed on an awful lot of things. I can tell you that I will miss Senator Helms. Let me tell you, with, as they say in this body, a point of personal privilege, a few stories about Senator Helms. There are two figures remaining in the Senate who are, for either political extreme, left and right--left of the Democratic Party and right of the Republican Party--who are lightning rods. It is Senator Helms in the Republican Party and Senator Kennedy in the Democratic Party. They are sort of the icons of both parties. They are men who are revered in their parties. They are both nationally known. I can say what a lot of people don't know about the Senator from North Carolina: For all the intensity with which he takes on issues, for all the depth of his feelings about issues that are so socially highly charged--left and right--this is a man who has a very, very soft side. I had gone to the Senator, when I was the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, and indicated to him--not even asking but lamenting--the fact that I did not have enough staff allowance to hire certain people. And the Senator from North Carolina said: Take my money. The Senator from North Carolina said: Who do you need? What do you need? OK. He did not have to do that, by the way. Many other committees around here fight tooth and nail over exactly who is going to get to be the doorman to whether or not you have to sign off to get stationery. Not the Senator from North Carolina, not the Senator from North Carolina. When I was ill, it was the Senator from North Carolina who was on the phone immediately checking to talk to my doctors to make sure he thought I had the right doctors, and checking at Walter Reed regularly to see how I was doing. If you want to understand something about Senator Helms, you ought to meet Mrs. Helms. If you met Mrs. Helms, who is one of the finest, most decent women I have ever met--she is the definition of a lady--you would understand the depth of Jesse Helms. For a woman of her grace, a woman of her compassion, a woman of her depth, to love and be devoted to this man as deeply as she is, you know, you know, you know there has to be something awfully, awfully, awfully good about Jesse Helms. My mom has an expression. She says: If my children love somebody, I love them, too, because I know how good they are and they could not love unless there was something there. Dot Helms adores Jesse Helms, as he adores her. Those of us who have had the privilege to serve with Jesse up close and personal for a long time have seen some of what Mrs. Helms has seen and what a lot of the world does not see. They see the gentlemanly side of him. They see the courtly side of him. They appreciate him. But they do not fully understand the depth of the compassion, the depth of the friendship, the depth of the loyalty that resides in that man Jesse Helms. There was a guy named Bud Nance. If you knew Bud Nance, you knew Jesse Helms. If you knew how Bud Nance adored Jesse Helms, that would be the second piece of evidence you would know of what a fine man this man Jesse Helms is. Jesse, I love you. I think you are dead wrong on the issues, still. I disagree with you completely. As you said, when I cast my 10,000th vote, you congratulated me as the youngest man in history to have cast 10,000 votes, and lamented it would have been better had I cast some of them the right way. And I understand. We both feel that way about each other's voting record. But I want you to know how I personally feel about you and how I think the vast majority--anybody who has gotten to work with you as closely as I have--feels about you. I am going to sincerely miss you, Jesse. And we are going to miss your courtly manners. We are going to miss the fact that whenever there is a crunch, one of the first guys to step up to offer help is Jesse Helms. But I have no doubt you will still be there for me. I have no doubt you will still be there for the rest of us. We need you. Some think Jesse Helms and I could not possibly see eye to eye, that we come from opposite points on the political spectrum. There is no denying that is true. Senator Helms has advocated some positions I would fight to my dying breath to defeat but he also represents the best of this institution. He is a friend, an honorable Senator who holds boldly to his values, and yet has always held to the civility of debate in the pursuit of comity. Some said he and I couldn't possibly work together on the Foreign Relations Committee. In fact, I think we have worked very well together and I think he would agree. We may not have agreed on many of the important issues that have faced this Nation. In fact, we probably haven't agreed on most of them. But I can say this: I will deeply miss Senator Helms. I will miss his voice in this Chamber. I will miss his counsel. I will miss his genuine kindness. His devotion to his duty and the dignity with which he unfailingly performs it. I will miss his brand of leadership. That determined, dedicated, forceful, committed leadership, that leadership that comes from a deep and abiding concern for this Nation and from deeply held values and beliefs which he fights to uphold. And, yes, I will miss his warmth. Though some might not always see it, it is there, I can assure you. Some of my more combative Democratic friends might be skeptical of me for saying these things, but they don't know Jesse Helms like I do. They don't know that even if you find yourself precariously balanced on your side of the political spectrum, in the heat of a debate, whether it is on foreign aid, on issues of war and peace, civil rights, equal rights, constitutional law, whatever the issue, Senator Helms may disagree with you and point out the holes in your argument, but you can count on him to hold out his hand. He holds strong views, but he is exceedingly respectful--a gentleman committed to his position but willing to listen to yours. He is, in the truest sense, a man of honor and considerable decency. And, quite frankly, there are no qualifies more important to this Chamber. Few Senators in my tenure have played as significant a role in the affairs of this Nation as Jesse Helms. But the most remarkable thing about this man is that, not withstanding his impeccable conservative credentials, when confronted with new facts and new ideas, he has always been at least willing to listen. A perfect example was his leadership in reconciling and restoring the position of the United States at the U.N. And, while chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, he directed and accomplished the most significant reorganization of the State Department in recent memory. Having served with Jesse Helms for almost 30 years, I can tell you, on a personal level, he is one of the most thoughtful, considerate, and gracious Senators to grace this Chamber. If you knew Mrs. Helms, his beloved Dot, you would know why he is this way. Senator Helms and I arrived here the same day and took the oath together. Before he came, he served in the Navy in World War II. As a broadcaster and journalist, Senate staffer, editor of a banking publication that he made the largest in the Nation, a broadcaster CEO, editorial writer, city councilman, a Baptist deacon, a Sunday school teacher, and a U.S. Senator, Jesse Helms has served with distinction. These 30 years have passed all too quickly. But I am honored to have known him. I am proud to have worked with him, especially over these last 6 years. I have learned much from him, and will continue to seek his counsel and his advice. William Penn said, ``A good friend . . . advises justly, assists readily, adventures boldly, takes all patiently, defends courageously, and continues a friend unchangeably,'' Jesse Helms has been a good friend, and I expect to continue our friendship as well as our debate long after he leaves this Chamber. He will, indeed, be missed. I thank my colleagues for the extended time. I could talk for an hour about what a good man Jesse Helms is.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the conference report on H.R. 2215. With approval of this conference report, we are one step closer to authorizing the operations of the Justice Department for the first time since 1979. I commend the conferees, and particularly the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee Senator Leahy, for the work they have done on this measure. It will improve the operations of the Department, and in so doing it will strengthen our efforts against terrorism, help protect our borders, and prevent crime and drug abuse. I would like to highlight a few of the provisions of the conference report that I think are particularly important, beginning with the establishment of the Violence Against Women Office. Today is the first day of Domestic Violence Awareness Month, and it is a fitting tribute to this special month that H.R. 2215 provides this Senate with an opportunity to make our voices heard loud and clear on the importance of continuing the fight against domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking. A key tool in that fight is the permanent and independent Violence Against Women Office, a proposal I first introduced in the Senate in March, 2001, and now established in the Conference Report. This provision means that the Office will be removed from its current location inside the Office of Justice Programs, and become its own free-standing entity. The bill also sets out the jurisdiction of the Office and the extensive duties and functions of the Director. It also requires that the Director be nominated by the President, confirmed by the Senate and report directly to the Attorney General. With this bill, the Violence Against Women Office is set out in black and white. Its leadership and agenda cannot be pushed to the sidelines nor marginalized as one of many offices in a large bureau. Instead, this law gives the Violence Against Women Office the foundation and roots it deserves. It will be its own, separate and distinct office within the Department of Justice with a Director who answers only to the Attorney General. This statutory authority is long overdue. Since we passed my Violence Against Women Act in 1994, the Office has been charged with disbursing billions of dollars to states, localities, tribal governments and private organizations to improve the investigation and prosecution of crimes of domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking; to train prosecutors, law enforcement and judges on the unique aspects of cases involving violence against women; and to offer needed services to victims and their families. The Violence Against Women Office also handles and coordinates the Department of Justice's legal and policy issues regarding violence against women, everything from enforcing protection orders across State lines to issuing annual reports on stalking. The Office also works with other Federal agencies, such as the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service about Federal policies, programs, statutes, and regulations that impact violence against women. It is a tall order for the Violence Against Women Office, and to carry out these critical mandates, we must ensure that the Office has the sufficient visibility, prestige and authority. An independent office will provide just that platform. An independent office will be insulated from any attempts to undo the great work it has historically accomplished. A director nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate will have the credibility and the bully pulpit to travel this country and get local people to the table. Let me be clear, to meet its mandate, the Violence Against Women Office should not, must not, and cannot be buried within a grant-making bureaucracy. Since the Violence Against Women Act passed in 1994, we have changed the way folks think about domestic violence and sexual assault. We have hauled these matters out from the closet, and called them their proper names, ``crimes'', crimes that warrant investigation and prosecution with crime victims who desperately need our help. Across the country there are signs that the law is working. Statistics released by the Justice Department last month indicate that rape and sexual assault crimes dropped 8 percent from 2000 to 2001. The New York City Police Department is beginning to use digital cameras to capture the injuries of domestic violence which has drastically improved the way these cases are prosecuted. One of the first trials for cyberstalking is underway in Chicago. In my home State of Delaware, the Violence Against Women Act and the leadership of the Office have made an enormous impact. Just last week, the STOP grant program, one of several grant programs in the Violence Against Women Act, awarded $85,000 to the Sexual Assault Network of Delaware so that it can formalize community responses to sexual assault crimes and victims. Since 1995, Delaware has received more than 30 grants totaling almost $8.5 million dollars, all of it designated to combat violence against women. But sadly, we are not done. The National Violence Against Women Survey reports that nearly 25 percent of women sometime in their lives has been raped or physically assaulted by an intimate partner. One out of 5 adolescent girls in America becomes victims of physical or sexual abuse in a dating relationship according to a report issued by the Journal of American Medicine. We still need Domestic Violence Awareness Month this October. And we need the leadership of an independent and separate Violence Against Women Office. I want to thank the Senate conferees, Senators Leahy, Hatch and Kennedy, who worked long and hard to get an ensure that the Violence Against Women Office Act was included in the compromise Conference Report, and I thank Senators DeWine, Levin, Specter, Carnahan, Hutchison, Miller, Collins and Carper who originally joined me when I first introduced a bill for an independent office in March, 2001. And finally, in this first week of Domestic Violence Awareness Month, it is right to give thanks for the tireless efforts of advocates and service providers who support the women and children victimized by domestic violence and sexual assault. The next point I would like to highlight is that the Conference Report reauthorizes the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974. Congress has tried for over six years to get this job done and as the former Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the current Chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs I am extremely gratified we were able to renew the juvenile justice law here. Last year, Senators Kohl and Reed and I introduced S. 1165, the Juvenile Crime Prevention and Control Act. That bill reauthorized the 1974 Act, authorized the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant for the first time, and proposed to close the gun show loophole. S. 1165 contained provisions similar to H.R. 1900 and H.R. 863, and provisions complimentary to Senator Leahy's S. 1174. Major provisions of H.R. 1900, H.R. 863, S. 1165 and S. 1174 are included in this Conference Report today. Provisions from S. 1165 included in the Conference Report will ensure that youth in the juvenile justice system are protected from abuse and assault by adults in adult jails. The Conference Report ensures we will remain focused on preventing juvenile crime before it occurs: it reauthorizes Title V, the Justice Department's juvenile crime prevention grant program. Title V resources have been critical in Delaware to sponsor programs to reduce school violence, provide transition counseling to students returning to their local school from alternative school placement, reduce suspensions, expulsions, truancy, and teen pregnancy, and provide services to the children of incarcerated adult offenders. I compliment Senator Kohl for his steadfast devotion to Title V and for ensuring it is continued through this Conference Report. The Conference Report adopts provisions of S. 1165 that authorize the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant. This program was created in the 1998 Commerce Justice State appropriations bill but has never been authorized. It provides resources to States and units of local government so programs can be developed to promote greater accountability in the juvenile justice system. The Conference Report also expands the purposes to which JAIBG funds can be put, for the first time, resources are provided to support proven strategies for rehabilitating adjudicated youth and families as well as for reducing juvenile re-offense rates. In years past, my state has used JAIBG funds to establish a Serious Juvenile Offender program through the Delaware Division of Youth Rehabilitative Services, which provides an immediate secure placement of violent youth offenders who have violated the terms of their probation. Delaware has also used these funds to expand diversionary programs such as Teen Court and Drug Court, thus reducing the time between arrest and disposition of juvenile offenders, and to add psycho-forensic evaluators in the Delaware Office of the Public Defender to identify and address mental illness as a cause for delinquent conduct. I compliment the conferees for including provisions drawn from S. 1165 and H.R. 863 in this Report. I would also like to highlight the provisions in the Conference Report that are designed to strengthen Boys and Girls Clubs of America. Provisions here will allow for the establishment of 1,200 additional Clubs across the Nation. This will bring the number of Clubs to nearly 4,000, serving nearly 6 million young people across America. Finally, this Conference Report also incorporates much of S. 304, the Drug Abuse Education Prevention and Treatment Act, a bill which Senators Hatch, Leahy and I introduced together. While I am disappointed that many of the bill's drug treatment provisions were dropped in conference, I promise to fight for those provisions again in the next Congress. I want to draw attention to three of the important provisions from S. 304 that were included in the conference report to address addiction among those in the criminal justice system and make sure that we are doing all we can to keep them from reoffending. Specifically, the conference report reauthorizes two key programs created in the 1994 Biden Crime Law to deal with drug addicts in the criminal justice system, prison-based drug treatment and the drug court program, and includes my ``Offender Reentry and Community Safety Act of 2001,'' which creates demonstration programs to oversee the reintegration of high-risk, high-need offenders into society upon release. Let me address prison-based drug treatment first. Providing prison- based treatment is not ``soft''; it is smart crime prevention policy as the Key and Crest programs in my home state of Delaware have shown. If we do not treat addicted offenders before they are released, they will return to our streets with the same addiction problem that got them in trouble in the first place, and they are likely to re-offend. This is not my opinion; it is fact. More than 80 percent of inmates with five or more prior convictions have been habitual drug users, compared to approximately 40 percent of first-time offenders. Prison-based treatment programs are a good investment and an important crime prevention initiative. And so are drug courts. The Federal Government has funded drug courts since 1994 as a cost-effective, innovative way to deal with non-violent offenders who need drug treatment. Rather than just churning people through the revolving door of the criminal justice system, drug courts help these folks get their acts together so they won't be back. When they graduate from drug court programs they are clean and sober and more prepared to participate in society. In order to graduate, they are required to finish high school or obtain a GED, hold down a job, and keep up with financial obligations, including drug-court fees and child-support payments. Drug courts have been proven effective at keeping offenders with little previous treatment history in treatment, providing closer supervision than other community programs to which the offenders could be assigned, reducing crime and being cost-effective. Just as treating addicted offenders when they are in the criminal justice system is smart crime policy, so is making sure that high-risk, high-need offenders get reintegrated into society upon release. These individuals have served their prison sentences, but they pose the greatest risk of re-offending because they lack the education, job skills, stable family or living arrangements, and the substance abuse treatment and other mental and medical health services they need to successfully re-integrate into society. The demonstration reentry programs created in this conference report will help supervise high- risk people when they are released from jail and make sure they get the services and other support that they need so they won't go back to a life of crime and can be productive members of our society. Once again, I thank the conferees, Senators Leahy, Hatch and Kennedy and their staff, including Bruce Cohen, Beryl Howell, Ed Pagano, Tim Lynch, Steve Dettelbach, Makan Delrahim, Leah Belaire, Wan Kim, Melody Barnes and Robin Toone, for their unfailing support for these provisions, and for their hard work in bringing the Conference Report to the floor. Violence Against Women Office

Mr. BIDEN. That is absolutely correct. Rather than be one of many offices subsumed in a larger bureau or office, the Violence Against Women Officer will now be its own, separate and distinct entity within the Department of Justice. This provision means that the Office will be removed from its current location in the Office of Justice Programs, and become its own free-standing entity. This is a non-negotiable and unambiguous provision of the act. What this means is that the leadership and the agenda of the Office cannot be pushed to the sidelines or marginalized. You and I both know that ending violence against women is too important of an issue to be relegated to a back office.

Mr. BIDEN. A director who is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate will have the stature, credibility and authority necessary to spearhead the efforts to end violence against women. In practical terms, a director within this sort of clout will attract the attention of key Congressional leaders, will be able to travel the country and bring state leaders to the table for local initiatives, and will be able to command the nation's bully pulpit on these issues. Another key provision in the statute creating the Violence Against Women Office is the explicit instruction that the Director report directly to the Attorney General. Would the Senator agree?

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to present to the Senate the conference report on H.R. 1646, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for fiscal year 2003. The bill contains two divisions. Division A is the State Department Authorization Act, and contains authorization of appropriations for the Department of State, and other foreign policy programs, and also contains several policy provisions. Division B contains the Security Assistance Act, which provides authorizations and legal authorities under the Arms Export Control Act and the Foreign Assistance Act. This bill includes several important items, including the completion of a project that Senator Helms and I began in 1997, the legislation to authorize payment of our back dues to the United Nations in exchange for reform in that organization. The conference report would facilitate the final installment of $244 million in arrears to the UN and other international organizations. I salute the former Chairman of the Committee, Senator Helms, for initiating this project six years ago and for sticking with it. It has made a material difference in improving the relationship between the United States and the United Nations. The bill includes two other provisions important to continuing the improvement of our relationship with the United Nations. First, the bill clears the way for the payment of nearly $80 million in new arrears which have accumulated in the last few years. Second, the bill authorizes the payment of our dues to the UN at the beginning of the calendar year, rather than the current system whereby we pay our dues at the start of the U.S. fiscal year. That late payment of our dues is detrimental, not only to UN operations, but to U.S.-UN relations. I hope the Administration will embrace this provision and request the necessary funds in the fiscal year 2004 budget. Further, the bill authorizes funding at levels equal to or exceeding the President's budget request for the Department of State, embassy security, contributions for international organizations and international peacekeeping, and international broadcasting. The United States is a great power, and it has substantial responsibilities around the world, In order to meet those responsibilities, it must have a well-funded and well-equipped diplomatic corps. And if we are going to deploy our diplomats around the world, we must protect them. We cannot provide perfect security for our people, but we can and must take all reasonable precautions against known dangers. In 1999, Congress provided an authorization of $4.5 billion over five years--or $900 million per year, for embassy construction and security. This bill adds an additional $100 million to this authorization for fiscal year 2003. Division B of this bill is the Security Assistance Act of 2002. It includes: foreign military assistance, including Foreign Military Financing and International Military Education and Training; international arms transfers; and many of our arms control, nonproliferation and antiterrorism programs. This division includes some significant initiatives. For example, several provisions are designed to streamline the arms export control system, so as to make it more efficient and responsive to competitive requirements in a global economy, without sacrificing controls that serve foreign policy or nonproliferation purposes. This is a vital enterprise. U.S. industry depends upon the efficient processing of arms export applications, and U.S. firms lose contracts when the U.S. Government cannot make up its mind expeditiously. At the same time, however, an ill-advised export license could lead to sensitive equipment getting into the hands of enemies or of unstable regimes. So there is a tension between the need for efficiency and the need not to make a mistake that ends up putting U.S. lives at risk. This bill addresses that tension providing funds for improved staffing levels, information and communications to enable the State Department to make quicker and smarter export licensing decisions. It also raises modestly the prior notice thresholds for most arms sales to our NATO allies, Australia, New Zealand or Japan. On the other hand, this bill adds a prior notice requirement for some sales of small arms and light weapons and strengthens the prior notice requirement for changes in the United States Munitions List. Division B includes several new nonproliferation and antiterrorism measures. For example, the ban on arms sales to state supporters of terrorism, in section 40(d) of the Arms Export Control Act, is broadened to include states engaging in the proliferation of chemical, biological or radiological weapons. This bill requires the President to establish an interagency mechanism to coordinate nonproliferation programs directed at the independent states of the former Soviet Union. This provision is based on S. 673, a bill introduced by Senator Hagel and me with the co- sponsorship of Senators Domenici and Lugar. It will ensure continuing, high-level coordination of our many nonproliferation programs, so that we can be more confident that they will mesh with each other. The need for better coordination has been cited in several reports, including last year's report of the Russia Task Force of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, chaired by former Senator Howard Baker and former White House counsel Lloyd Cutler. This bill encourages the Secretary of State to seek an increase in the regular budget of the International Atomic Energy Agency, beyond that required to keep pace with inflation. Because the IAEA's budget for 2003 has already been adopted, this bill authorizes an increase in the U.S. voluntary contribution to IAEA programs. This organization is vital to our nuclear nonproliferation efforts, its workload is increasing, and now it has begun a major program to locate and secure ``orphaned'' radioactive sources that could otherwise show up in a terrorist's radiological weapon. Subtitle XIII-B of this bill is the ``Russian Federation Debt for Nonproliferation Act of 2002,'' a provision that Senator Lugar and I introduced, with the support of Senator Helms. This subtitle authorizes the President to offer Soviet-era debt reduction to the Russian Federation in the context of an arrangement whereby the savings to Russia would be invested in agreed nonproliferation programs or projects. Debt reduction is a potentially important means of funding the costs of securing Russia's stockpiles of sensitive nuclear material, chemical weapons and dangerous pathogens, of destroying its chemical weapons and dismantling strategic weapons, and of helping its former weapons experts to find civilian careers and resist offers from rogue states or terrorists. Three months ago, the Bush Administration persuaded the G-8 countries to take a significant step: they agreed to what is known as ``10 plus 10 over 10,'' a commitment to provide the Russian Federation $10 billion in U.S. nonproliferation assistance and $10 billion in assistance from the other G-8 members over the next 10 years. This joint willingness to provide $20 billion opens new possibilities in Russian nonproliferation. It also sends a message to Moscow that working with the West or nonproliferation will be more profitable than selling dangerous technology to Iran. The G-8 agreement included the important possibility of the leading economic powers using debt reduction to finance this assistance, and the Administration worked with us to ensure that this subtitle gives the President the flexibility he would need if he chose to use debt reduction. Pursuant to the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, he must still obtain appropriations for the cost of reducing any debt pursuant to this section. I have every hope, however, that we will see the day when both the United States and several of our allies use debt reduction to increase our nonproliferation assistance to Russia. In closing, I thank my colleagues on the conference committee, particularly Chairman Hyde and Representative Lantos in the other body, and Senator Helms, for their cooperation in putting together this bill. I would also like to recognize the hard work of all the staff on both the House and Senate committees, who did much of the preliminary work to prepare the bill for consideration by the conference committee. Equally important, I want to recognize the invaluable contributions and tireless efforts of the Deputy Legislative Counsel in the Senate, Art Rynearson. Mr. Rynearson labored many hours, including all of this past weekend, to assist the Committee staff in preparing and refining the legislative language in the conference report. This report would not have been ready for consideration at this time without his hard work. This conference report is important to the operation of our U.S. foreign policy agencies. It has received strong approval in the other body. I urge its approval by the Senate.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Byrd amendment. I had a conversation recently with Alexander Giacco, the former chairman of the board of Hercules, Incorporated. Mr. Giacco, although not taking a position on this amendment, impressed upon me the difficulty of wholesale organizational change, of the importance of getting such a structural upheaval right, and it is his comments which in part guide my vote this morning. Senator Byrd has it right. Senator Byrd warned us months ago that a Department of Homeland Security was needed, but that the way to create such a massive new structure was not to rush into a new flow chart without asking questions first. The way to do this job right is to be deliberate, to be thoughtful, and to ask the tough questions about how our Federal agencies will interact so as to better protect the Nation. Senator Byrd's amendment gets us to a new Department as quickly as does the President's proposal and as does the proposal reported favorably by the Committee on Governmental Affairs in July. It is important for us first to understand all that has been done since September 11 to boost our homeland defenses. In the 12 months since the attacks, the President and the Congress have moved with dispatch. The President created the Office of Homeland Security and selected the able Tom Ridge as its head. I was proud to work with my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee to draft the USA Patriot Act. That bill was a long overdue strengthening of our laws against terror. It increased the ability of law enforcement to share information, facilitated the sharing of information from criminal investigations, and reconsidered the wall that has in the past prevented the FBI and the CIA from working effectively together. The FBI has expanded its terrorist threat warning system. A new five- level homeland security alert system has been created. Ninety-three antiterrorism task forces have been created in U.S. Attorney offices around the country. INS and Customs are working together to increase their cooperation in border enforcement. The FBI now provides information, on a daily basis, to terrorism task forces nationwide as well as to the CIA and the Defense Department. Director Mueller is in the process of revamping the entire FBI so that its primary focus is the prevention of terrorism. The INS and the State Department have together developed a Consolidated Consular Database, a database that includes visa information and photographs for aliens seeking entry into the U.S. We have created an entire new agency, the Transportation Security Administration. Its sole mission is to protect the Nation' s transportation systems. TSA has deployed federal passenger screeners to 122 airports. They have hired more than 32,000 new Federal security screeners. These screeners will be in all 429 commercial airports by November 19. Ultimately, TSA will hire some 54,000 Federal passenger and baggage screener workers. This represents a wholesale change from the way the country organized its airport security systems prior to September 11. Congress, with the leadership of Senator Byrd, has passed an emergency supplemental spending bill designed to increase the resources available to our States and localities and so the country can better prevent and respond to terror threats. The President's proposal was developed extremely rapidly, after months of Administration claims that a Homeland Security Department was not necessary, and by a tiny number of people with little to no expertise in security matters. In contrast, the chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee has been at this issue for over a year, Senator Lieberman rightly alerted us to the recommendations of the Hart / Rudman Commission and others even before September 11. His committee held a series of hearings over the past year to determine how best to restructure and reorganize Federal agencies so that they are best positioned to respond to terror. It is much more important that we do this right rather than doing this quickly. Imagine the impact on our country if we get this massive job wrong. Reorganizations are hard work, and if history is any guide our first effort often needs to revisited. Modern management principles teach that the agencies and functions of the executive branch should be grouped together based on their major purposes or missions. The National Security Act of 1947 created the Department of Defense, the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Council. Even this well thought out proposal has required serious congressional tinkering: Congress made further amendments to the organization of our national security agencies in 1949, 1953, 1958, and in 1986. Senator Byrd's amendment builds on the work of the Committee on Governmental Affairs. The amendment retains the overall administrative structure as envisioned by the committee: six new directorates, each headed by an Under Secretary. A new Directorate of Immigration Affairs is created, and recommendations made by Senators Kennedy and Brownback to reform the INS are adopted there. The new Secretary of Homeland Security is required to submit to Congress recommendations for structuring the other five directorates. The first recommendation would be received by Congress no later than February of next year. Congress is required to take action on all of the administration's proposals by 13 months from after the legislation goes into effect. The Department would be in place in 13 months time at the latest, the same timeframe envisioned by Senator Lieberman's proposal. The Byrd amendment gives us an orderly process under which agencies are transferred into the new Department. The Governmental Affairs bill requires that agencies are transferred to the new Department over a transition period lasting 13 months. But neither the Byrd Amendment nor the Governmental Affairs Committee's bill guarantees that a new Department will be ``up and running'' in just over a year's time. In fact, the General Accounting Office has testified that Congress should not expect ``meaningful and sustainable results'' from the new Department for at least 5 years, and perhaps as long as 10 years, due to the inherently slow nature of transitioning so many agencies into one new structure. Timing of the creating of a new Department is thus not an issue under either proposal. Senator Byrd's proposal guarantees that the new Department will be created with increased congressional oversight over its functions. Congress will not be able to pass this bill and walk away. Rather, we will be forced to more closely scrutinize these proposals to better ensure that the new Department will function effectively. I urge my colleagues to support the Byrd amendment.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I am submitting a resolution designating October 18, 2002, as ``National Mammography Day''. I am pleased that 54 of my colleagues have endorsed this proposal by agreeing to be original cosponsors. I might note that I have introduced a similar resolution each year since 1993, and on each occasion the Senate has shown its support for the fight against breast cancer by approving the resolution. Each year, as I prepare to submit this resolution, I review the latest information from the American Cancer Society about breast cancer. For the year 2002, it is estimated that over 203,000 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer and slightly fewer than 40,000 women will die of this disease. In past years, I have often commented on how gloomy these statistics were. But as I review how these numbers are changing over time, I have come to the realization that it is really more appropriate to be optimistic. The number of deaths from breast cancer is falling from year to year. Early detection of breast cancer continues to result in extremely favorable outcomes: 97 percent of women with localized breast cancer will survive 5 years or longer. New digital techniques make the process of mammography much more rapid and precise than before. Government programs will provide free mammograms to those who can't afford them, as well as Medicaid eligibility for treatment if breast cancer is diagnosed. Information about treatment of breast cancer with surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy has exploded, reflecting enormous research advances in this disease. So I am feeling quite positive about our battle against breast cancer. A diagnosis of breast cancer is not a death sentence, and I encounter long-term survivors of breast cancer nearly daily. In recent months, the newspapers have been filled with discussion over whether the scientific evidence actually supports the conclusion that periodic screening mammography saves lives. It seems that much of this controversy relates to new interpretations of old studies, and the relatively few recent studies of this matter have not clarified this issue. Most sources seem to agree that all of the existing scientific studies have some weaknesses, but it is far from clear whether the very large and truly unambiguous study needed to settle this matter definitively can ever be done. So what is a woman to do? I do not claim any expertise in this highly technical area, so I rely on the experts. The American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute, and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force all continue to recommend periodic screening mammography, and I endorse the statements of these distinguished bodies. On the other hand, I recognize that some women who examine these research studies are unconvinced of the need for periodic screening mammography. However, even those scientists who do not support periodic mammography for all women believe that it is appropriate for some groups of women with particular risk factors. In agreement with these experts, I encourage all women who have doubts about the usefulness of screening mammography in general to discuss with their individual physicians whether this test is appropriate in their specific situations. So my message to women is: have a periodic mammogram, or at the very least discuss this option with your own physician. I know that some women don't have annual mammograms because of either fear or forgetfulness. It is only human nature for some women to avoid mammograms because they are afraid of what they will find. To those who are fearful, I would say that if you have periodic routine mammograms, and the latest one comes out positive, even before you have any symptoms or have found a lump on self-examination, you have reason to be optimistic, not pessimistic. Such early-detected breast cancers are highly treatable. Then there is forgetfulness. I certainly understand how difficult it is to remember to do something that only comes around once each year. I would suggest that this is where ``National Mammography Day'' comes in. On that day, let's make sure that each woman we know picks a specific date on which to get a mammogram each year, a date that she won't forget: a child's birthday, an anniversary, perhaps even the day her taxes are due. On National Mammography Day, let's ask our loved ones: pick one of these dates, fix it in your mind along with a picture of your child, your wedding, or another symbol of that date, and promise yourself to get a mammogram on that date every year. Do it for yourself and for the others that love you and want you to be part of their lives for as long as possible. And to those women who are reluctant to have a mammogram, I say let National Mammography Day serve as a reminder to discuss this question each year with your physician. New scientific studies that are published and new mammography techniques that are developed may affect your decision on this matter from one year to the next. I encourage you to keep an open mind and not to feel that a decision at one point in time commits you irrevocably to a particular course of action for the indefinite future. I urge my colleagues to join me in the ongoing fight against breast cancer by cosponsoring and voting for this resolution to designate October 18, 2002, as National Mammography Day.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, prior to the August recess, the Committee on Foreign Relations reported several bills without written report. At the time, the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, estimates on the bills were not available. I ask unanimous consent that the CBO estimates on these bills, S. 1777, H.R. 4558, and H.R. 2121, be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, as another school year starts, many college students are worrying not only about their class loads and their coursework, but about where the money to pay for their educations will come from. Today, the average cost of attending a public 4-year college has jumped to $9,000, up 7.7 percent from last year. This represents the highest rate of increase since 1993. For those families that choose to send their children to a private institution, that number rises. Up 4.7 percent from the year before, the average cost of a private 4-year institution is now close to $24,000 a year. What do these rising tuition costs mean? Hard working American families are spending a larger percentage of their incomes than ever before to send their children to college. To attend the University of Delaware, where I went to school, it costs nearly 20 percent of a Delaware family's average annual income to cover costs. To attend a private college or university, that number, in some instances can jump to over 40 percent of annual income. To help remedy this situation I come to the floor today to reintroduce legislation to help American families afford their children's tuition. This comprehensive package, ``The Tuition Assistance for Families Act,'' builds upon previous steps that others and I have taken to make it possible for more families to provide their children with a college education. I introduce this bill so that the decision to send one's child to college will not be overshadowed by the decision of how to pay for it. The ``Tuition Assistance for Families Act'' will provide middle class American families with a $12,000 tuition tax deduction each year. Based on legislation that I introduced with Senator Schumer last year, at $12,000 this deduction provides real, meaningful tax relief. Tax relief that American families have been waiting for. Tax relief that can go a long way in helping them afford room, board and tuition. The bill that I am introducing today also expands the two tuition tax credits enacted in 1997--the Hope Scholarship and the Lifetime Learning Tax Credit. Under current law, the Lifetime Learning Credit allows a 20 percent tax credit on the first $10,000 in higher education expenses in year 2003. Under my bill, the Lifetime Learning Tax Credit percentage would jump from 20 to 25 percent and raise the amount of education expenses subject to the credit to $12,000. In terms of real dollars, this would mean that a student who files in tax year 2003 under my plan could get up to $3,000 back in taxes. Under current law, the maximum allowable credit is only $2,000. That is a $1,000 difference. $1,000 that can go directly into a student's pocket to pay for books, a computer or tuition. The also raises the income limits for each credit to $130,000 per family, per year, so that more families are afforded the help that they need. This bill reintroduces the idea of a $1,000 merit scholarship to be awarded to the top 5 percent of each high school's graduating class. These types of scholarships not only reward student achievement, they help to ensure that the best and brightest students have the ability to go on to college--thereby increasing the pool of well-qualified American workers for the information technology age. This act also increases the maximum Pell Grant award from $4,000 to $4,500. During the 2001-2002 school year, the maximum Pell Grant award covered about 42 percent of the average tuition, room and board at a public 4-year university. During the 1975-76 it covered 84 percent of these same costs. Clearly, the purchasing power of these grants has dramatically declined. As such, the debt load of American families and American students has increased considerably over the years as students have looked to federal and private loans to finance their educations. A report released just this March by the State PIRG's Higher Education Project found that at the end of the 1999-2000 school year, 64 percent of college students graduated with student loan debt at an average of $16,928, nearly double the average debt load just eight years ago. Double the debt load in 1994. It is the dream of every American to provide for their child a better life than they had themselves. Helping families afford the increasing cost of a college education will move us closer to making that dream a reality. For this reason, I have spent a great deal of time in the Senate fighting to provide tax relief for middle class American families struggling with the cost of college. And while I was pleased when some of the ideas I advocated were adopted in the 1997 tax cut bill, it is clear that as tuition costs rise dramatically, working Americans need additional assistance. The ``Tuition Assistance for Families Act'' will provide extra help so that more families can afford to give their children a brighter and better future. Let's not allow a college education to become a luxury when, in the information technology age, it is an absolute necessity.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, as another school year starts, many college students are worrying not only about their class loads and their coursework, but about where the money to pay for their educations will come from. Today, the average cost of attending a public 4-year college has jumped to $9,000, up 7.7 percent from last year. This represents the highest rate of increase since 1993. For those families that choose to send their children to a private institution, that number rises. Up 4.7 percent from the year before, the average cost of a private 4-year institution is now close to $24,000 a year. What do these rising tuition costs mean? Hard working American families are spending a larger percentage of their incomes than ever before to send their children to college. To attend the University of Delaware, where I went to school, it costs nearly 20 percent of a Delaware family's average annual income to cover costs. To attend a private college or university, that number, in some instances can jump to over 40 percent of annual income. To help remedy this situation I come to the floor today to reintroduce legislation to help American families afford their children's tuition. This comprehensive package, ``The Tuition Assistance for Families Act,'' builds upon previous steps that others and I have taken to make it possible for more families to provide their children with a college education. I introduce this bill so that the decision to send one's child to college will not be overshadowed by the decision of how to pay for it. The ``Tuition Assistance for Families Act'' will provide middle class American families with a $12,000 tuition tax deduction each year. Based on legislation that I introduced with Senator Schumer last year, at $12,000 this deduction provides real, meaningful tax relief. Tax relief that American families have been waiting for. Tax relief that can go a long way in helping them afford room, board and tuition. The bill that I am introducing today also expands the two tuition tax credits enacted in 1997--the Hope Scholarship and the Lifetime Learning Tax Credit. Under current law, the Lifetime Learning Credit allows a 20 percent tax credit on the first $10,000 in higher education expenses in year 2003. Under my bill, the Lifetime Learning Tax Credit percentage would jump from 20 to 25 percent and raise the amount of education expenses subject to the credit to $12,000. In terms of real dollars, this would mean that a student who files in tax year 2003 under my plan could get up to $3,000 back in taxes. Under current law, the maximum allowable credit is only $2,000. That is a $1,000 difference. $1,000 that can go directly into a student's pocket to pay for books, a computer or tuition. The also raises the income limits for each credit to $130,000 per family, per year, so that more families are afforded the help that they need. This bill reintroduces the idea of a $1,000 merit scholarship to be awarded to the top 5 percent of each high school's graduating class. These types of scholarships not only reward student achievement, they help to ensure that the best and brightest students have the ability to go on to college--thereby increasing the pool of well-qualified American workers for the information technology age. This act also increases the maximum Pell Grant award from $4,000 to $4,500. During the 2001-2002 school year, the maximum Pell Grant award covered about 42 percent of the average tuition, room and board at a public 4-year university. During the 1975-76 it covered 84 percent of these same costs. Clearly, the purchasing power of these grants has dramatically declined. As such, the debt load of American families and American students has increased considerably over the years as students have looked to federal and private loans to finance their educations. A report released just this March by the State PIRG's Higher Education Project found that at the end of the 1999-2000 school year, 64 percent of college students graduated with student loan debt at an average of $16,928, nearly double the average debt load just eight years ago. Double the debt load in 1994. It is the dream of every American to provide for their child a better life than they had themselves. Helping families afford the increasing cost of a college education will move us closer to making that dream a reality. For this reason, I have spent a great deal of time in the Senate fighting to provide tax relief for middle class American families struggling with the cost of college. And while I was pleased when some of the ideas I advocated were adopted in the 1997 tax cut bill, it is clear that as tuition costs rise dramatically, working Americans need additional assistance. The ``Tuition Assistance for Families Act'' will provide extra help so that more families can afford to give their children a brighter and better future. Let's not allow a college education to become a luxury when, in the information technology age, it is an absolute necessity.