Joe Biden

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am extremely pleased that the Senate today is taking up S. 2487, the ``Global Pathogen Surveillance Act of 2002.'' This bill authorizes $150 million over the next two fiscal years to provide assistance to developing nations to improve global disease surveillance to help prevent and contain both biological weapons attacks and naturally occurring infectious disease outbreaks around the world. This bill is the result of a joint effort by Senator Helms and I to act on key lessons learned during an important hearing the Foreign Relations Committee held last September on the threat of bioterrorism and emerging infectious diseases. I am also proud that Senators Kennedy and Frist, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Public Health Subcommittee of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, are original cosponsors of this bill. Senator Helms and I recognize all too well that biological weapons are a global threat with no respect for borders. A terrorist group could launch a biological weapons attack in Mexico in the expectation that the epidemic would quickly spread to the United States. A rogue state might experiment with new disease strains in another country, intending later to release them here. A biological weapons threat need not begin in the United States to reach our shores. For that reason, our response to the biological weapons threat cannot be limited to the United States alone. Global disease surveillance, a systematic approach to tracking disease outbreaks as they occur and evolve around the world, is essential to any real international response. This country is making enormous advances on the domestic front in bioterrorism defense. Mr. President, $3 billion has been appropriated for this purpose in FY 2002, including $1.1 billion to improve State and local public health infrastructure. Delaware's share will include $6.7 million from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to improve the public health infrastructure and $548,000 to improve hospital readiness in my State. Earlier this year, the President signed into law a comprehensive bioterrorism bill drafted last fall following the anthrax attacks via the U.S. postal system. Those attacks, which killed five individuals and infected more than 20 people, highlighted our domestic vulnerabilities to a biological weapons attack. We need to further strengthen our nation's public health system, improve federal public health laboratories, and fund the necessary research and procurement for vaccines and treatments to respond better to future bioterrorist attacks. As an original cosponsor of the ``Kennedy-Frist'' bill in the Senate, I know the implementation of this new law will help achieve many of those objectives. Nevertheless, any effective response to the challenge of biological weapons must also have an international component. Limiting our response to U.S. territory would be shortsighted and doomed to failure. A dangerous pathogen released on another continent can quickly spread to the United States in a matter of days, if not hours. This is the dark side of globalization. International trade, travel, and migration patterns offer unlimited opportunities for pathogens to spread across national borders and to move from one continent to another. Moreover, an overseas epidemic could give us our first warning of a new disease strain that was developed by a country or by terrorists for use as a biological weapon, or that could be used by others for that purpose. How does disease surveillance fit into all of this? A biological weapons attack succeeds partly through the element of surprise. A cluster of flu-like symptoms in a city or region may be dismissed by individual physicians as just the flu when in fact it may be anthrax, plague, or another biological weapon. Armed with the knowledge, however, that a biological weapons attack has in fact occurred, doctors and nurses can examine their patients in a different light and, in many cases, effectively treat infected individuals. Disease surveillance, a comprehensive reporting system to quickly identify and communicate abnormal patterns of symptoms and illnesses, can quickly alert doctors across a region that a suspicious disease outbreak has occurred. Epidemiological specialists can then investigate and combat the outbreak. And if it is a new disease or strain, we can begin to develop treatments that much earlier. A good surveillance system requires trained epidemiological personnel, adequate laboratory tools for quick diagnosis, and communications equipment to circulate information. Even in the United States today, many states and localities rely on old-fashioned pencil and paper methods of tracking disease patterns. Thankfully, we are addressing those domestic deficiencies through the new bioterrorism law and substantially increased appropriations. For example, in Delaware, we are developing the first, comprehensive, state-wide electronic reporting system for infectious diseases. This system will be used as a prototype for other states, and will enable much earlier detection of infectious disease outbreaks, both natural and bioterrorist. My congressional colleagues from Delaware and I have been working for over 2 years to get this project up and running, and we were successful in obtaining $2.6 million in funding for this project over the past 2 years. I and my colleagues have requested $1.4 million for additional funding in FY 2003, and we are extremely optimistic that this funding will be forthcoming. It is vitally important that we extend these initiatives into the international arena. However, as many developing countries are way behind us in terms of public health resources, laboratories, personnel, and communications, these countries will need help just to get to the starting point we have already reached in this country. An effective disease surveillance system is beneficial even in the absence of biological weapons attacks. Bubonic plague is bubonic plague, whether it is deliberately engineered or naturally occurring. Just as disease surveillance can help contain a biological weapons attack, it can also help contain a naturally occurring outbreak of infectious disease. According to the World Health Organization, 30 new infectious diseases have emerged over the past 30 years; between 1996 and 2001 alone, more than 800 infectious disease outbreaks occurred around the world, on every continent. With better surveillance, we can do a better job of mitigating the consequences of these disease outbreaks. According to a report by the National Intelligence Council, developing nations in Africa and Asia have established only rudimentary systems, if any at all, for disease surveillance, response, and prevention. The World Health Organization reports that more than sixty percent of laboratory equipment in developing countries is either outdated or nonfunctioning. This lack of preparedness can lead to tragic results. In August 1994 in Surat, a city in western India, a surge of complaints on flea infestation and a growing rat population was followed by a cluster of reports on patients exhibiting the symptoms of pneumonic plague. However, authorities were unable to connect the dots until the plague had spread to seven states across India, ultimately killing 56 people and costing the Indian economy $600 million. Had the Indian authorities employed better surveillance tools, they may well have contained the epidemic, limited the loss of life, and surely avoided the panic that led to economically disastrous embargoes on trade and travel. An outbreak of pneumonic plague in India this February was detected more quickly and contained with only a few deaths--and no costly panic. Developing nations are the weak links in any comprehensive global disease surveillance network. Unless we take action to shore up their capabilities to detect and contain disease outbreaks, we leave the entire world vulnerable to a deliberate biological weapons attack or a virulent natural epidemic. It is for these reasons that Senator Helms and I have worked together to craft the Global Pathogen Surveillance Act of 2002. This bill authorizes $150 million in FY 2003 and FY 2004 to strengthen the disease surveillance capabilities of developing nations. First, the bill seeks to ensure in developing nations a greater number of personnel trained in basic epidemiological techniques. It offers enhanced in-country training for medical and laboratory personnel and the opportunity for select personnel to come to the United States to receive training in our Centers for Disease Control laboratories and Master of Public Health programs in American universities. Second, the bill provides assistance to developing nations to acquire basic laboratory equipment, including items as mundane as microscopes, to facilitate the quick diagnosis of pathogens. Third, the bill enables developing nations to obtain communications equipment and information technology to quickly transmit data on disease patterns and pathogen diagnoses, both inside a nation and to regional organizations and the WHO. Again, we are not talking about fancy high-tech equipment, but basics like fax machines and Internet-equipped computers. Finally, the bill gives preference to countries that agree to let experts from the United States or international organizations promptly investigate any suspicious disease outbreaks. If this bill becomes law, the Global Pathogen Surveillance Act of 2002 will go a long way in ensuring that developing nations acquire the basic disease surveillance capabilities to link up effectively with the WHO's global network. This bill offers an inexpensive and common sense solution to a problem of global proportions--the dual threat of biological weapons and naturally occurring infectious diseases. The funding authorized is only a tiny fraction of what we will spend domestically on bioterrorism defenses, but this investment will pay enormous dividends in terms of our national security. In addition Senator Helms and I have introduced a managers' amendment, which I expect will be adopted. This amendment, drafted in response to specific suggestions by executive branch departments and agencies as well as nongovernmental organizations, addresses two important objectives. First, it ensures that priority in the provision of assistance to developing countries under the authority of this bill will be given those nations which agree to provide early notification of disease outbreaks. In the past, too many nations have sought to limit the release of information on disease outbreaks out of fear for the likely impact on their trade and tourism. In today's world, where an epidemic could be the first signs of a biological weapons attack, that type of reticence by national governments is simply unacceptable. The amendment also stipulates that priority in assistance under this bill be assigned to those countries which agree to share with the United States data collected through its pathogen suveillance networks. Our epidemiological experts at the Centers for Disease Control and other U.S. departments and agencies are among the best in the world in analyzing such data. We should strive to create an international framework where multilateral organizations, national governments, and even private groups can examine aggregrate data on disease characteristics and symptom reports to help detect emerging patterns and provide early warning on alarming developments. In short, the more information shared under pathogen surveillance, the better protected the world is against surprise bioterrorist attacks and rapid natural epidemics. Second, the managers' amendment makes the necessary changes to take into account the need for the quick transmission of data collected through pathogen surveillance networks to appropriately respond to local conditions. In the United States and other advanced industrial nations, disease surveillance may well operate most efficiently through Internet-based communications. In some developing countries, however, the cost of introducing new Internet links and computer equipment may be prohibitive. In those cases, leveraging existing telephone-based networks may prove a more cost-effective method in quickly relaying information such as patient reports. Under certain conditions, mobile phones may even prove a reliable tool. The managers' amendment will provide for such flexibility. In conclusion, the fundamental premise of the Global Pathogen Surveillance Act of 2002 is that we cannot leave the rest of the world to fend for itself in combating biological weapons and infectious diseases if we are to ensure America's security. Indeed, this bill can serve as a key contribution to strengthening our homeland security. I urge the Senate to pass S. 2487 and the related managers' amendment today.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, in recent years, I have supported fast track legislation, I voted for NAFTA, for the last round of the GATT and the creation of the WTO. I supported China's accession to the WTO. I am convinced by the overall fundamental performance of our economy, during a period of expanded trade and the successful completion of trade deals, that expanding international trade generally and expanding markets for American products in particular is good for the United States. With every step down the road toward a freer, more open international trading system, I believe that the risks are becoming greater and the rewards are less clear. The risks we face--to our own workers' ability to control their destinies, to the peoples of our new trading partners, to the global environment--are growing as we expand trade deals into regions of the world that lack many of the fundamentals needed for a balanced trade relationship. The rewards from moving deeper into those less developed economies could be substantial, for us and for them. But I am afraid that without stronger protections, and those benefits may never materialize for the vast majority of the citizens of the poorest developing nations. At the same time, without strong protections for the men and women whose jobs--in some cases whose towns, in many cases whose whole way of life is at risk without protections for them, they, too, will see little or nothing of the benefits of freer trade. That is why I am going to vote against the conference report before us today, not because I expect it to be defeated, but because I fully expect it to pass, and I want to make it clear that I, as one Senator, have gone about as far as I can go in my support of freer trade without some stronger assurances that the gains will outweigh the risks, and that those gains will be fairly and efficiently distributed. I voted for many amendments to the Senate fast-track bill, amendments that would have provided some of the assurances I am seeking. I voted for stronger protections for our State and local environmental laws when they are threatened by foreign firms. I voted for stronger protections for labor and environmental standards in trade deals with developing nations. Even though those and other amendments were not adopted, I nevertheless supported sending the bill on to a conference with the House. Today we are voting on a bill that not only lacks those provisions, but has weakened many of the important improvements in the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program that were contained in the Senate version. As we expand trade among the nations of the world, we are engaged in a real-life experiment in economic theory. I believe that expanding markets and opportunities are indispensable to a better life for the people of our country as well as for the citizens of other nations. Just as indispensable are political rights, human rights, a healthy environment--things that we cannot just take for granted, things that aren't provided automatically by the invisible hand of the market. That is particularly true as we undertake to integrate our developed economy--as well as our system of political and human rights, our strong environmental protection standards, our history and institutions of labor rights. We do ourselves no good, and the citizens of other nations no good, if we fail to maintain those values in balance with the real, tangible benefits of free trade. Because this new chapter in the history of expanding trade presents so many challenges, public opinion, here and abroad, shows a deep concern about the ultimate costs of global economic integration. Of course, there are still those who believe trade itself is the cause of most of the world's problems, and on the other side, there are those who blithely assume that expanded trade itself is the highest goal. I think we should listen to the common sense of the average citizen, both here and abroad. They understand the benefits that can come from free markets, but they hold other values, too. They want to maintain control over their own fates, and the fates of their families, their towns, their countries. They want to treat the environment responsibly. They want, to maintain some balance among the values they hold. So I will vote no today, in the knowledge that we will be granting this administration and the next one the authority to negotiate and bring home important new trade deals, in a new round of WTO talks, and in other key areas. I hope they use this authority wisely, and that they treat the negotiating objectives we are giving them today as a floor and not a ceiling on the standards they apply in their negotiations. If they do not, they should not bring us trade deals for our consideration under this fast track authority. Along with the authority we are granting the administration, we are providing ourselves, in Congress with new oversight of the progress of trade talks. We will use this new authority to keep our negotiators on course. The slim margin in the House, and the vigorous debate on the Senate bill should provide ample guidance about the standards we will apply to any trade deal negotiated under this authority. We will continue to remind our negotiators of those concerns over the three-year life of this authority. A 2-year renewal will not be automatic not in this new climate of concern about the net benefits of trade nor should it be. My ``no'' vote today is not a vote against expanded trade. It is a vote against complacency in the conduct of our trade negotiations. Today is not the end of the debate on this new grant of fast track authority. It is the beginning.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, each year on the last Sunday in August, a commemorative festival is held in Wilmington, DE. Known as the Big Quarterly, or the August Quarterly, the festival celebrates the heritage of the independent black church movement, and the continuing importance of the movement's cultural, political and social, as well as religious, influence. For us in Delaware, as for our Nation as a whole, the history is both proud and painful. The first fully independent black church was founded in Wilmington in 1813; originally called the Union Church of Africans, it is now known as the African Union Methodist Protestant, AUMP, Church. It was founded by a former slave, Peter Spencer, and was built on land purchased with the help of Delaware's Quaker community, which notably included the station-master of the Underground Railroad, Thomas Garrett. Affectionately known as ``Father,'' and formally as Bishop, Peter Spencer believed in the ``twin'' forces of education and religion to empower and to liberate African-Americans. The movement toward religious freedom was closely linked with the anti-slavery campaign, just as predominantly black churches in more recent times have provided leadership in the civil-rights movement and in the ongoing work toward equality of opportunity. The Big Quarterly, also initiated in 1813, commemorates the founding of the Mother AUMP Church, and honors Peter Spencer's visionary leadership. The festival combines worship with a cultural celebration and a sprit of reunion, of renewing ties with family, friends and with a history of activism that continues to inspire us all. The history and spirit represented by the Big Quarterly are important to our identity and character as a community and as a nation. It is an event that both reminds us of what has been overcome, and challenges us to complete the journey.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and my colleagues I would like to place in the record a bipartisan statement of appreciation for the outgoing Ambassador of Pakistan, Dr. Maleeha Lodhi. Ambassador Lodhi has served her country with exceptional distinction. Her prior experience as both an academic and a journalist has proved to be a great advantage: she has always articulated her government's positions with the precision of a scholar and the persuasive reach of a news analyst. Perhaps most significantly, Ambassador Lodhi has served as a cultural bridge. She has played an invaluable role in harmonizing the various goals shared by Pakistan and the United States, goals ranging from advancing the international war on terror to de-escalating tensions in South Asia. Moreover, Ambassador Lodhi has- by both her words and her personal example- helped bridge the chasm of misunderstanding between the United States and the Islamic world. Ambassador Lodhi's mission has been to serve the people and nation of Pakistan, and she has fulfilled that mission superbly. But at this critical juncture, Ambassador Lodhi has also been a great asset in furthering the common interests not only of Pakistan and United States, but of many voices of moderation, tolerance and progressive thinking all across the Muslim world. Her presence here in Washington will be sorely missed, and we wish her all the best on her return home.''

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today is a day of profound disappointment to me. We have completed a debate on proposals to provide prescription drug coverage to Medicare beneficiaries, the most vulnerable sector of our population, and we have come up empty. I applaud my colleagues for their earnestness and conscientiousness as this issue was discussed on the Senate floor, but earnestness and conscientiousness do not help the senior citizen who cannot afford to pay for needed medications. I introduced a bill, the Prescription Drug Benefit Act of 2002, that would have provided an excellent benefit for Medicare beneficiaries by adding prescription drug coverage to Medicare Part B with no new premiums or deductibles, and I still believe that should be our goal. But at this point, we don't even have a consensus for a first step toward a Medicare prescription drug plan for seniors. Last week, I voted for the Graham-Miller plan, a comprehensive approach to this problem that, although not as good as my own bill, was a worthy compromise. It was defeated. Today, I voted for the Graham- Smith plan that would at least offer us a starting point toward a comprehensive prescription drug plan. It was defeated. I and all of my colleagues who are concerned about the welfare of our seniors are regrouping with an eye toward taking another run at this critical problem in the very near future. The seniors and the disabled still need their life-saving medications. They still have to pay large amounts out-of-pocket for drugs, even though the legislation we passed today should help reduce the overall cost of pharmaceuticals for everyone. The percentage of the population covered by Medicare is rising. Medical advances are leading to important new drugs for various diseases. Our nation's seniors cannot, and should not, be left behind in the race toward longer and healthier lives. We have moved this debate forward, but it is far from over, and we will need to continue to be resourceful and persistent in the future. The life and health of 40 million Americans hang in the balance.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my support for H.R. 3764, the Sarbanes-Oxley bill. While not perfect, this is important legislation. I commend my friend and colleague, Senator Sarbanes, the distinguished chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, for his relentless effort to usher this landmark legislation through the Senate. I am proud to have worked with him on such an important cause. To restore some level of confidence, the accounting reform legislation we have passed is critical to stem the corporate greed threatening our economy. Over the last several months the market has lost considerable value. The dollar is at a 2-year low. Investors are questioning the strength of our financial markets. Each day seems to bring new revelation of corporate excess--some horrific story about unabashed corporate greed and malfeasance. It is a seemingly endless onslaught. We don't know where it will end. And, frankly, we fear how deep it might go. There is a crisis of confidence in American business. It runs deep, with revelations about cooked books, fraudulent numbers, inflated values, and stock options that make the average working American--who earns about $31,000 a year and fears for his or her pension and health care benefits--sick. In fact, a Pew Forum survey conducted in March, long before the recent revelations, said the esteem in which business executives are held is falling by the day. I shudder to think what those numbers would be now. Something is clearly wrong with the way corporate America is doing business. Everyone here knows that--and--if you follow the money--you will see that investors also know it. They are registering their concern by pulling out of the market. Some have lost their retirement savings. Others have to postpone their retirement. They are unable to pay college tuition. Surely they have a right to expect a little truth in accounting. The accounting reform legislation we approve today goes a long way to restore their confidence and stem the tide of market uncertainty. It will bring accountability and transparency to corporations, their officials, and their accountants. We should insist on nothing less. In addition, the Sarbanes-Oxley bill includes significant new criminal laws for white collar offenses, and raises penalties for a number of existing ones. I am proud to have sponsored, along with my good friend from Utah, Senator Hatch, S. 2717, the White-Collar Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002. It grew out of a series of hearings I held this year in the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs in which we heard about the ``penalty gap'' between white collar offenses and other serious Federal criminal offenses. The Senate unanimously adopted our bill as an amendment to the Sarbanes bill several weeks ago, and we are pleased that its key provisions are in the legislation approved by the House- Senate conference. Let me briefly summarize those provisions which will become law once the President signs this legislation. Our bill significantly raised penalties for wire and mail fraud, two common offenses committed by white collar crooks in defrauding financial victims. It also created a new 10-year felony for criminal violations under the Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Under current law, a car thief who committed interstate auto theft was subject to 10 years in prison, while a pension thief who committed a criminal violation of ERISA was subject to up to 1 year in prison. Our bill now treats pension theft under ERISA like other serious financial frauds by raising the penalties to 10 years. Our bill also amended the Federal conspiracy statute which currently carries a maximum penalty of 5 years in prison. In contrast, in our Federal drug statutes, a drug kingpin convicted of conspiracy is subject to the maximum penalty contained in the predicate offense which is the subject of the conspiracy--a penalty which can be much higher than 5 years. I say what is good for the drug kingpin is good for the white collar crook. Thus, our bill harmonized conspiracy for white collar fraud offenses with our drug statutes. Now, executives who conspire to defraud investors will be subject to the same tough penalties--up to 20 years--as codefendants who actually carry out the fraud. Our bill also directed the U.S. Sentencing Commission to review our existing Federal sentencing guidelines. As you know, the sentencing guidelines carefully track the statutory maximum penalties that Congress sets for specific criminal offenses. Our bill requires the sentencing commission to go back and recalibrate the sentencing guidelines to raise penalties for the white collar offenses affected by this legislation. Finally, and most significantly, our bill required top corporate officials to certify the accuracy of their companies' financial reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Incredibly, under current law, there is no requirement that corporate officials certify the accuracy of these reports. As we have seen in the cases of WorldCom and others, this is no small matter. Willful misstatements about the financial health of a company--once uncovered-- can lead, almost overnight, to a company's bankruptcy, wholesale loss of jobs for its employees, and a total collapse in the value of the company's pension funds. That is why Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan last week testified before the Senate Banking Committee that imposing criminal sanctions on CEOs who knowingly misrepresent the financial health of their company is the key to real reform of corporate wrongdoing. I am pleased that this centerpiece of the Senate-passed accounting bill is retained in the final legislation. Our provision is simple: corporate officials who cook the books and then lie about their companies' financial health will go to jail. Our bill says that all CEOs and CFOs of publicly traded companies must certify that their financial reports filed with the SEC are accurate. If they ``knowingly'' certify a false report, they are subject to a 10-year felony; if they ``willfully'' certify a false report, they are subject to a 20-year felony. But we may have left one stone unturned. I regret that this final bill makes a small but significant change from the original Biden-Hatch amendment put the chairman of the board on the hook, along with the CEO and CFO. This final bill removed the board chairman from the group of corporate officials who are required to certify the accuracy of the reports. I think that is a mistake. Contrary to what some in the business community argued, requiring the board chairman to certify the accuracy of these financial reports would not have threatened the management of a corporation or the integrity of its executives. Rather, our bill merely would have formalized what should be normal procedure--and what every American thinks is plain old common sense-- namely that corporate executives certify that their books are not cooked and their numbers are truthful. I do not see--and I am sure the American people fail to see--what is wrong with demanding truthfulness in the valuation of a publicly traded company. It would seem to me that those in positions of responsibility in the business community, at every level--from the chairman of the board on down--should embrace the notion of truth in accounting. Why would they demand anything less after what we have seen in the last few weeks with a $4 billion discrepancy in WorldCom's books? After all, ``the buck stops'' with the chairman of the board--to whom the CEO and CFO report. It strikes me as crazy that we will now hold the CEO and CFO responsible, but not their boss. Indeed, as many have recently pointed out, in most American corporations, the CEO is the chairman of the board. To let board chairs off the hook could create a loophole where crooked CEO's simply change their title to escape accountability for their corporate filings. Some naysayers have suggested that the certification requirement would undermine the ability of the chair to oversee and act independently of the chief executive officer. It is absurd that a requirement that merely prohibits top corporate officers from lying about the company's financial health would sacrifice board independence. If anything, it ensures proper oversight by fostering a healthy division of responsibility between management and the board of directors, by encouraging the board chair to be actively engaged in the periodic process of checking the accuracy of financial statements; and by recognizing that the board chair has a vital role in ``stopping corporate debacles'' by not knowingly or willfully contributing to the filing of false financial reports. Other opponents suggested that the certification requirement would likely drive independent chairmen out of business and discourage otherwise good business leaders from serving on boards of directors. This is the same old ``sky is falling'' claim that Wall Street uttered during consideration of the original securities legislation in the 1930s, and it has repeated this mantra with virtually every congressional reform offered ever since. Truth be told, the certification requirement only imposes criminal sanctions for top corporate officials who lie about their financial records. Specifically, it only applies to ``knowing'' and ``willful failures to certify financial statements--a very high standard. It would be one thing if the requirement applied criminal sanctions on a ``strict liability'' or ``neglience'' standard to board chairs who certify false reports. I could even understand their concern under the original ``reckless'' standard--that is, that the board chair ``should have known'' that the statements were false. But our requirement is only triggered where top corporate officials knowingly or willfully certify financial statements that they know to be false. So, only top corporate officers who are consciously aware of a false statement--and not those who act out of ignorance, mistake, accident or even sloppiness--would conceivably be subject to criminal sanctions. It is troubling, but quite revealing, that even this relatively meek certification would alarm some in the business community. Regrettably, that is the stone that was left unturned. I wish we had turned it. I wish we had, in our infinite wisdom, included board chairmen in our legislation. Nevertheless, this bill represents a huge step forward. It will strengthen accountability. It will tell CEOs and CFOs--we expect you to watch your books, and not bury your heads in the sand!'' It will given prosecutors important new tools to fight white collar crime. It will give judges the ability to impose meaningful sentences for white collar crooks. In closing, a common theme I have heard at our Crime Subcommittee hearings is that white collar crimes are not ``crimes of passion,'' as a general rule. Rather, they are the result of a careful, ``cost- benefit'' analysis in which the crook considers his chance of being caught; and his chances of actually going to prison. To date, it was a pretty safe bet for the white collar crook to assume he would avoid detection, and, even if he was detected, he would not go to jail. I have a message today for white collar crooks: ``We are deadly serious. We will prosecute you to fullest extent of the law. And we will put you in jail for your crimes.''

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a Resolution congratulating Bosnia and Herzegovina on the tenth anniversary of its recognition by the United States. During the decade since its recognition, Bosnia and Herzegovina has made significant progress in overcoming the legacy of the bloody conflict of 1992-95, which was instigated by ultra-nationalist forces and claimed more than two hundred thousand lives and made millions more homeless. The NATO-led peacekeeping force, known originally as IFOR, now as SFOR, has provided the security umbrella that has allowed the slow, difficult process of reconciliation and democracy-building to take place. The international community under the direction of a resident High Representative, the United Nations, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the European Union, and many individual countries have joined the United States in providing and delivering economic and technical assistance to the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Last year for the first time democratic, non-nationalist parties gained control of the national and Federation governments, and the government of the Republika Srpska is considerably more democratic than it was under the infamous Radovan Karadzic. Elections will be held this coming October, which will determine whether the country will continue on a democratic, multi-ethnic, and free market path. Obviously, it is in the interest of the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bosniaks, Serbs, Croats, and others, that it do so. Equally obviously, it is in the interest of the United States that Bosnia and Herzegovina become a normal, peaceful, democratic country. My Resolution commends Bosnia and Herzegovina for the progress it has made and urges it to take several steps to continue the process. They include: further strengthening of respect for human rights, of the rule of law, and of its free market economy; as rapidly as possible making fully operational all national institutions and state-level governmental bodies mandated by the Dayton Peace Agreement; creating a joint military command as soon as possible; accelerating the return of refugees and displaced persons; and intensifying its cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia at The Hague, in particular surrendering to the Court individuals indicted for war crimes. The stability of the Balkans is essential for European stability. And stability in Europe is of fundamental importance to the United States of America. A peaceful, democratic, multi-ethnic Bosnia and Herzegovina can be an important element in the new Balkans. I urge my colleagues to vote for this Resolution, which makes clear our support for just such a Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to add outpatient prescription drug coverage as a new and integral benefit under Part B of Medicare. Under this bill, like the rest of the services under Part B, Medicare will pick up 80 percent of the cost of prescription drugs. This would be the case until a beneficiary hits a $4000 annual out-of-pocket limit, at which point the government picks up 100 percent of drug costs. Moreover, beneficiaries will not have to pay increased monthly premiums or annual deductibles as a result of this new drug benefit. Now, we have been discussing prescription drug coverage for seniors in this chamber for many years, and there have been numerous proposals brought forward. Some might ask, why do you feel the need to propose your own prescription drug plan; what is wrong with the many previous proposals. Well, to my way of thinking, we have lost our focus on this issue. In developing a drug plan, we have concentrated too much on such things as budget allotments, philosophy of government, desires of committee chairs, election politics, and other related issues, while ignoring the one thing that really counts: what do the citizens of this country, the ones who are supposed to use this plan, really want? All of these prescription drug plans will be voluntary, and yet unless a plan is attractive enough to ensure the participation of close to 100 percent of those eligible, it probably won't work from an economic point of view. Those of us who were around in 1988 for the debates about catastrophic health care remember with great clarity the consequences of passing a health-related bill that the citizens don't want. Frankly, I have some doubts about whether any of the prescription drug proposals to date provide what the citizens in Delaware or elsewhere really want. And I think I have a pretty good idea of what people want in a prescription drug plan, at least people in my home state of Delaware. I live in Delaware, and I commute back and forth on AMTRAK every day between Delaware and Washington DC. I have been a Senator for 30 years and people in Delaware know me well. They have no reluctance about walking up to me at the local diner, on the train, or at the drugstore, to give me a piece of their minds. And here is what Delawareans want in a prescription drug bill. They want something simple and easily understandable. They don't want a plan with a lot of fine print, exclusions, complicated payment formulas, gaps in coverage, lengthy paragraphs filled with whereases and wherefores. They don't want to be in a state of constant anxiety because they really don't know what they have signed up for and what they are covered for. They don't want to have to spend hours on the phone listening to music while waiting for an insurance company clerk to answer the phone and try to explain what the benefits are. They don't want to spend a whole day filling out paperwork to try to get reimbursed for their expenses when they could just as well be playing with their grandchildren. They don't want to be caught in the middle of a fight between their drug insurance plan and their Medicare over who is going to pay for what. They want a plan that provides meaningful and substantial financial help towards the cost of their medications. For most people I talk to, a cut in prescription drug costs from $5000 per year down to $4700 per year is not very helpful; they are still faced with choosing between paying for medications and paying for rent. With the increasing costs of prescription drugs these days, this is a criterion that is just as important to the middle class as it is to those with low incomes. They want a plan that is stable, reliable, and predictable. They don't want to sign up with an insurance company and then have the company pull out of the state the following year. They don't want the specifics of their benefits to be changing every year. They want to know what they are getting. They want a guarantee that a plan will be available to them. They don't want a guarantee that a plan will be available only if an insurance company decides it will offer a plan or if an insurance company decides they are a good risk. They want a plan that is uniform, not one whose benefits change drastically if they happen to move a few miles. Delaware is a small state, and people who live or work in Delaware move back and forth across state lines with great frequency. My prescription drug bill is focused on what consumers want, and it fulfills all of these requirements. People are already very familiar with Medicare Part B, so the addition of a prescription drug benefit will not add any confusion. People know that Medicare is stable, reliable, predictable, and the same all over the country. People know that Medicare Part B covers a substantial 80 percent of their medical expense. We know that people like Medicare Part B, since 94 percent of those eligible have voluntarily signed up for it. The addition of a new prescription drug benefit to Part B, without any change in monthly premiums or deductibles, is almost certain to increase the voluntary participation rate close to 100 percent. Can we afford such a bill? Absolutely. It's just a matter of priorities and choices. And these choices simply reflect our values. My values tell me that providing life-saving prescription drugs to the seniors and disabled is a higher priority than, say, making permanent a tax cut for the well-to-do that they probably don't need and have not really requested. Many of my colleagues in the Senate, and a large number of their staff, have been working enormously hard to develop a Medicare prescription drug bill that satisfies everybody's concerns. However, I am reminded of the statement by the noted British engineer Sir Alec Issigonis, who commented that ``A camel is a horse designed by committee''. If the public is expecting a horse, we better not end up with a camel. Our current situation here in Congress brings to mind a story related by a local TV weatherman here in Washington, DC. This weatherman works in a very high tech underground office with fancy color radars, computers, split-second communications devices, and state of the art graphics. Yet before each broadcast, the weatherman goes upstairs and looks out the window to make sure it is not raining. I would ask my colleagues, as they work through their cost estimates, economic projections, and so forth in developing a prescription drug plan, to walk upstairs and look out the window. Policy makers must not work in protective isolation, in a vacuum; they need a strong dose of reality to inform their deliberations. I believe that my bill provides the kind of prescription drug plan that Medicare beneficiaries in Delaware, and around the country, really want. I encourage my colleagues to keep the wants of their constituents foremost as they move to craft a vitally-needed prescription drug bill for Medicare beneficiaries.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to add outpatient prescription drug coverage as a new and integral benefit under Part B of Medicare. Under this bill, like the rest of the services under Part B, Medicare will pick up 80 percent of the cost of prescription drugs. This would be the case until a beneficiary hits a $4000 annual out-of-pocket limit, at which point the government picks up 100 percent of drug costs. Moreover, beneficiaries will not have to pay increased monthly premiums or annual deductibles as a result of this new drug benefit. Now, we have been discussing prescription drug coverage for seniors in this chamber for many years, and there have been numerous proposals brought forward. Some might ask, why do you feel the need to propose your own prescription drug plan; what is wrong with the many previous proposals. Well, to my way of thinking, we have lost our focus on this issue. In developing a drug plan, we have concentrated too much on such things as budget allotments, philosophy of government, desires of committee chairs, election politics, and other related issues, while ignoring the one thing that really counts: what do the citizens of this country, the ones who are supposed to use this plan, really want? All of these prescription drug plans will be voluntary, and yet unless a plan is attractive enough to ensure the participation of close to 100 percent of those eligible, it probably won't work from an economic point of view. Those of us who were around in 1988 for the debates about catastrophic health care remember with great clarity the consequences of passing a health-related bill that the citizens don't want. Frankly, I have some doubts about whether any of the prescription drug proposals to date provide what the citizens in Delaware or elsewhere really want. And I think I have a pretty good idea of what people want in a prescription drug plan, at least people in my home state of Delaware. I live in Delaware, and I commute back and forth on AMTRAK every day between Delaware and Washington DC. I have been a Senator for 30 years and people in Delaware know me well. They have no reluctance about walking up to me at the local diner, on the train, or at the drugstore, to give me a piece of their minds. And here is what Delawareans want in a prescription drug bill. They want something simple and easily understandable. They don't want a plan with a lot of fine print, exclusions, complicated payment formulas, gaps in coverage, lengthy paragraphs filled with whereases and wherefores. They don't want to be in a state of constant anxiety because they really don't know what they have signed up for and what they are covered for. They don't want to have to spend hours on the phone listening to music while waiting for an insurance company clerk to answer the phone and try to explain what the benefits are. They don't want to spend a whole day filling out paperwork to try to get reimbursed for their expenses when they could just as well be playing with their grandchildren. They don't want to be caught in the middle of a fight between their drug insurance plan and their Medicare over who is going to pay for what. They want a plan that provides meaningful and substantial financial help towards the cost of their medications. For most people I talk to, a cut in prescription drug costs from $5000 per year down to $4700 per year is not very helpful; they are still faced with choosing between paying for medications and paying for rent. With the increasing costs of prescription drugs these days, this is a criterion that is just as important to the middle class as it is to those with low incomes. They want a plan that is stable, reliable, and predictable. They don't want to sign up with an insurance company and then have the company pull out of the state the following year. They don't want the specifics of their benefits to be changing every year. They want to know what they are getting. They want a guarantee that a plan will be available to them. They don't want a guarantee that a plan will be available only if an insurance company decides it will offer a plan or if an insurance company decides they are a good risk. They want a plan that is uniform, not one whose benefits change drastically if they happen to move a few miles. Delaware is a small state, and people who live or work in Delaware move back and forth across state lines with great frequency. My prescription drug bill is focused on what consumers want, and it fulfills all of these requirements. People are already very familiar with Medicare Part B, so the addition of a prescription drug benefit will not add any confusion. People know that Medicare is stable, reliable, predictable, and the same all over the country. People know that Medicare Part B covers a substantial 80 percent of their medical expense. We know that people like Medicare Part B, since 94 percent of those eligible have voluntarily signed up for it. The addition of a new prescription drug benefit to Part B, without any change in monthly premiums or deductibles, is almost certain to increase the voluntary participation rate close to 100 percent. Can we afford such a bill? Absolutely. It's just a matter of priorities and choices. And these choices simply reflect our values. My values tell me that providing life-saving prescription drugs to the seniors and disabled is a higher priority than, say, making permanent a tax cut for the well-to-do that they probably don't need and have not really requested. Many of my colleagues in the Senate, and a large number of their staff, have been working enormously hard to develop a Medicare prescription drug bill that satisfies everybody's concerns. However, I am reminded of the statement by the noted British engineer Sir Alec Issigonis, who commented that ``A camel is a horse designed by committee''. If the public is expecting a horse, we better not end up with a camel. Our current situation here in Congress brings to mind a story related by a local TV weatherman here in Washington, DC. This weatherman works in a very high tech underground office with fancy color radars, computers, split-second communications devices, and state of the art graphics. Yet before each broadcast, the weatherman goes upstairs and looks out the window to make sure it is not raining. I would ask my colleagues, as they work through their cost estimates, economic projections, and so forth in developing a prescription drug plan, to walk upstairs and look out the window. Policy makers must not work in protective isolation, in a vacuum; they need a strong dose of reality to inform their deliberations. I believe that my bill provides the kind of prescription drug plan that Medicare beneficiaries in Delaware, and around the country, really want. I encourage my colleagues to keep the wants of their constituents foremost as they move to craft a vitally-needed prescription drug bill for Medicare beneficiaries.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Iowa if he has a time constraint, I will yield to him. Just so he knows, I was in the Chamber before he came. I took a phone call and came back. But if the Senator has a time constraint, I have 10 to 12 minutes, but I will be happy to yield.

Mr. BIDEN. I hope the Senator listens very closely. He may learn something. I know I learn when I listen, and I do not always listen enough. Mr. President, let me begin where the Senator from Virginia ended, and that is that I think the bill fashioned by Senator Sarbanes and this committee does exactly what the Senator from Virginia was suggesting. That would be balanced; we do not do more harm than good. If you look at other times--and I have been a Senator for a while--we faced crises such as this, we have had occasion to overreact. We have found sometimes that the cure is worse than the disease. I note we probably did that in my early days here with Senate campaign financing and other issues. There is a real balance that the Senator from Maryland has struck. I compliment the Senator. I cannot think of any Senator better positioned to be chief spokesman for the Senate and Congress on this issue, not only for the American people but all our allies and the investors worldwide. The dollar now has weakened drastically. In my capacity as chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I have had occasion to meet with leading government officials from European countries and from Asia, asking me, as if I were some kind of broker: Can we continue to invest in your market? Is it real? What is going on? How much more is coming? We are fortunate to have the steady and always cautious voice of the Senator from Maryland, whose background academically as well as politically suits him well, and in this moment, as probably no one else in this place is better prepared, to take on this issue. I compliment the Senator and his quiet, reasoned voice, and his profound understanding of the problem we face as well as his determination to move ahead and try to restore confidence. It is a welcome circumstance at the moment. I compliment the Senator. I realize from listening to him and knowing him as well as I do, as a point of personal privilege, some will discount my remarks because they know the Senator and I are close personal friends and I admire him as much as anyone I have served in all my years in the Senate. I understand there are other things that he may or may not have wanted to put in the bill to strengthen our position and the Nation's position and the economy, but he wants to make sure there is consensus and overwhelming support of whatever we do. This is not a circumstance of questioning motives and wondering whether it is more for show than for serious reconstruction of the circumstances. I say at the outset, I have one disagreement with the President of the United States. Although there probably, pray God, are only a ``few really bad apples''--I think that was his phrase--in the corporate world, I do think we have a systemic problem. The marvel is that there are so many men and women in corporate America who have high moral standards and have overcome a fairly overwhelming temptation that exists in the way business is being done, the way in which we have loosened some of the not regulations, loosened some of the oversight on corporate America. It is a testament to the fact that there are so many honorable people running America's major corporations and multinational corporations. The fact is, we have a systemic problem which leads me to my friend from Michigan, Senator Levin. Senator Levin, Senator McCain, Senator Corzine, Senator Edwards, myself, and several others, in varying degrees, think what this debate is all about is fundamental fairness and efficiency of our economy. A lot of what we read about these days is focused on corporate scandals, individual villains, their schemes, their greed. There is plenty of that and maybe more than I can remember any time in my Senate career. I believe we need to focus on the behavior of corporate executives who have betrayed their positions of power, recklessly endangering the careers of tens of thousands of employees and the savings of millions of Americans. That is why it was so important the Senate unanimously adopted my amendment last week and the amendment which was contained in that of the Senator from Vermont for stronger penalties for corporate crime. In the hearings I have held in my criminal law subcommittee in the Judiciary Committee, I made clear from the outset--and I try never to overpromise what criminal law can do, even though we are only now finally beginning to rectify and make our criminal justice system reflect our values more clearly--that is not a solution. It is a part of a solution. The Senator from Iowa and I conducted hearings in that subcommittee. We have asked for stronger penalties. We have passed them. One small example: If you were to violate the Federal law relating to pension security, ERISA, it is a misdemeanor that could cost someone their entire pension or 1,000 people their pensions, totaling hundreds of millions of dollars. It is a misdemeanor. All you get is up to 1 year in jail. Yet if you steal my automobile--I live 2 miles from the Pennsylvania State line, in Delaware--and you drive across the State line into Pennsylvania, you get 10 years under Federal law. Something is awry. Criminal penalties are not the answer. They are just rectifying this incredible inequity within our system. Hopefully we are beginning to reestablish some sense of faith in the system where average people think big guys get away with it and little guys go to jail. Punishing and deterring corporate crime, although it is a major part of our response to excesses committed by some of the most privileged and powerful corporate executives, is not enough. We face another fundamental problem. It is the loss of trust in our system, most apparent, perhaps, in the recent drop in the stock market. More than 200 off the DOW in the days following the President's speech, and when I came to the floor the DOW was down 300 points. I don't know where it is right now. I hope and pray to God it has moved up. The fact is, there is a profound lack of confidence at the moment in our economy. There used to be a chairman of the board of the Dupont Company, a big, old farm boy from Ohio. He had great big hands. I remember, he was a wonderful guy, a first-rate chemist, first-rate scientist, as well as corporate executive. I was meeting with him one day and said: We have a problem; we are in the hole. And he turned and looked at me and said: My father always said, Joe, when you get in the hole, stop digging. Maybe the President should stop making speeches for a couple of days. He has spoken twice and the market went down 500 points while he was speaking. It is not because of a lack of anything in the President, but people are looking for real change. They assume that if there is any rhetoric, it must not be likely to be followed by something real. The Senator from Maryland has done something real. What the Senator from Utah and his committee has done is real. This is real. This underlying bill is real; it is positive; it is substantial. The bottom line is, no pun intended, there is a profound lack of confidence at the moment and that our economy can be shaken right now to the very foundations of our market democracy. For a market democracy to work, we have to have faith in our economy that will continue to create opportunities for job advancement and that our Government will continue to promote, as our Constitution requires, the general welfare. In recent months, to be reminded how much we have in common, how much of our unique blessings we have come to take for granted prior to September 11, we were reminded that in the end we are all in this thing together. Among those blessings we had come to take for granted was the most dynamic economy in the world, that had just come off the longest, strongest expansion in history. In the new economic arena, we are now reminded how much we depend on trust in each other to make our markets work. That sounds silly. No one was using the word trust before when we talked of the market economy. We talked innovation, the new economy, productivity, et cetera, but when you cut it all aside, it is all based upon trust, which is based upon transparency. If you cannot get out there and make your judgment to invest or not invest in a corporation with a clear sense that you have been told everything that is reasonable to tell you about the state of affairs of that company, then you might as well play the lottery. You might as well come on over to Delaware and play the slot machines at Delaware Park. You have about the same shot, unless you are on the inside. The task we are debating today is how to restore the strength of our economy, which is to restore the trust. At the core of that task is revival of confidence that consumers and investors, including foreign investors, need to get back into the market. This is going to turn around, Mr. President. You and I both know it. I am absolutely sure it is going to turn around. The question is, how many bodies will be littered along the way; how many pensions will be lost; how many jobs will be lost; how long is it going to take? It will turn around. I am sure the greatest strength of our system continues to be its resiliency: Our ability to see change as opportunity. I am sure of that because we have met this kind of adversity before. Every time we have come out stronger. I remember when the Senator from Maryland and I were on the Banking Committee in those dark days of the savings and loan crisis. We made it through. We made some very difficult decisions that, I might add, Japan and other countries have not made, and it resulted in an even stronger economy. So I am confident we can come out of this stronger. After the glare from all the glitter during the boom phase and as our vision becomes a lot clearer, we know that our economy is, in fact, fundamentally stronger than it was, notwithstanding what is going on now. Productivity gains were real. Information technology and corporate reorganization created real growth. It was not imaginary. It was not like these profit margins that people were suggesting they had on the balance sheets that were a lie. There actually was growth. The economy, the marketplace has created real growth. In what economists like to call the real economy where jobs are created, where goods are produced, the real economy is faster and more efficient today than it was a decade ago. Even old industries in our manufacturing sector have gained from advances in new materials, as well as improvement in information sharing and organization. We also know that a lot of what looked like growth, particularly in the financial sector, was only paper profits and a lot of it was written in disappearing ink. Profits and paper valuations were all too often inflated by wishful thinking, by self-dealing analysts, by accounting gimmicks, and by outright fraud. The amendment I am proud to support offered by Senators Levin and Corzine and others addresses one of the most glaring problems behind those inflated profit statements that fueled the stock boom that is now unwinding. Stock options are, as advocates tell us, a useful device. They can reward employees when companies are so young that they have little else to offer. Of course, we all want to encourage startup companies in every responsible way we can. Also, stock options in theory, and sometimes in practice, keep employees' and corporate officers' incentives tied to the growth of their companies, but unlike virtually every other kind of compensation the firm can give its employees, stock options do not have to be listed on annual reports as an expense, and that means the more stock options you give, the less compensation you have to report, the lower your reported expenses, the higher your reported bottom line. That part is simple, and that is a big reason stock options became so attractive not only for the good things they can do, but also for the convenient way they inflated earnings statements and I would even say, if I want to go overboard and defend corporate America, even defending those corporate executives who when they take the train up to Wall Street and have some 30-year-odd or 35-year-old guy sitting around a table saying: OK, what are you going to do next quarter? And giant companies that are strong and mature would say: We are going to do as well as last quarter. That is not good enough. We are going to downgrade your stock and your company. I remember one CEO of a major Fortune 10 company telling me, I have to do one of three things: I have to say, so be it, and keep on the long-term course or go out there and find some new product on the shelf, which I wish I had, that could increase productivity and profit, or go home and do something. The ``do something'' usually meant go home and cut the number of employees you have, cut expenses. Guess what. I do not think these are bad, evil, and venal people. They went home, and there is an easy way to do it. Let's make sure compensation is not reflected as an expense. So instead of paying the top executives an additional $15 million in compensation, give them stock options. Guess what. The bottom line looked $15 million better than it did before. That is not rocket science, and it may have been produced by Wall Street's desire for immediate gratification, immediate response. Whatever the reason, it turned out to be as much of a liability in the literal sense, as much as a damaging impact as the good things it could do by tying the employees' fate as well as the CEO's fate to their company. I see my friend from Utah standing. Does he want to ask me a question?

Mr. BIDEN. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. BIDEN. To be honest with the Senator, I do not remember that.

Mr. BIDEN. In response to the Senator, I have to check more closely. I have great respect for my friend from Utah. Based on what he says, it seems to me it would have had a negative impact rather than a positive impact. That is one of the things we talk about at the front end. Whatever we do here should have a positive impact. There is something else stock options do, too. Because stock options are predominantly awarded to top executives, they are a great way to give yourself a sweetheart deal, with a powerful incentive for executives to look for ways to inflate stock prices so their stock options, at least for a while, are worth millions, even hundreds of millions of dollars. Here is what Business Week said about stock options back in March: Options grants that promised to turn caretaker corporate managers into multimillionaires in just a few years encourage some to ignore the basics in favor of pumping up stock prices. And pump they did. Here is how much stock options distorted the bottom line for some of the biggest and best companies in America. One study by a London-based consulting firm, Smither and Company, looked at the use of stock options by 145 of the largest U.S. companies. They found that those firms overstated profit by 30 percent in 1995, 36 percent in 1996, 56 percent in 1997, and 50 percent in 1998. Other analysts, including the Federal Reserve, have found the same thing. These are huge distortions in the picture the public was given about these companies and a huge distortion in information investors were using to allocate capital. That kind of distortion was clearly a big factor, maybe in addition to what my friend from Utah says, in driving up those stock prices that are now falling back to Earth. This is no simple problem. The 200 biggest firms now allocate more than 16 percent of their stock in options. Let me repeat that. The 200 biggest firms now allocate more than 16 percent of their stock in options, mostly for their very top executives. The potential for distortion and the temptation to distort is great. Remember these stock options are predominantly given to top executives. One study in 1998 found that 220 of the top managers at Fortune 500 firms received an average of 279 time the number of stock options awarded to each of the firms' other employees. Two hundred and seventy-nine times what ordinary employees got. Despite the increased use of stock options this is clearly a device top management has largely preserved for itself, and the kind of incentives they created are now all too clear. This amendment takes what I believe is the most restrained and most careful approach to the problem of stock options. It does not legislate accounting standards, and it does not dictate outcomes. It tells the Financial Accounting Standards Board that it is given new resources and new independence by the underlying Sarbanes amendment. It provides for FASB to come up with appropriate techniques to account for stock options, it does not dictate a one-size-fits-all at this moment, and it gives them a year to do it. This is not about Government intervention this is about getting us out of the way of what every expert from Alan Greenspan to Warren Buffett and FASB itself says should be done. It does nothing to interfere with the issuing of stock options. It is about giving shareholders and investors the information they need to reassert their control over America's corporations. That will help to promote companies' long-term value, and reduce the temptation to pump up short-term stock prices. This amendment can help promote a stronger form of stockholder democracy, to cure a system that a greedy few have turned to their own personal advantage. That kind of democracy needs openness and clarity-- honest information to make informed decisions. This amendment is real reform, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I thank my friend from Utah for his intervention, and I thank my friend from Iowa for listening. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, this amendment is from Senator Hatch and me. He had as much input in this as I had. Let me respond in the spirit in which I was asked to do this and explain what the Biden-Hatch amendment does and then yield to my colleague to make any additional statements. Based on what Senator Lott has just pointed out, he has indicated that there are four basic sections to his amendment. On the first one, doubling the penalties for title 18, sections 1341 and 1343, that is exactly the same provision that is in the Biden-Hatch bill. Secondly, making it a crime for document shredding: If I am not mistaken, that is in the Leahy amendment we just passed and that I cosponsored, as well as many others. The third part of the amendment discussed by the Republican leader is something with which I happen to agree. It is not in either the Leahy bill just passed or in the Biden-Hatch amendment. That is the 45-day freeze on corporate executives' extraordinary income based upon the SEC being able to hold that in escrow and freeze it for 45 days while they look at it. I, for one, would be willing--I will yield to my colleague from Utah at the appropriate time--to accept that or join that in our amendment. Fourth, the Sentencing Commission provisions that were referred to by my friend from Mississippi are in the Biden-Hatch bill. There is only one piece of the legislation of the Senator from Mississippi, as I understand it, based on the summary, that is not either already passed or included in Biden-Hatch. But there are three areas that are not included which we think are very important. One is in section 2 of our legislation, which relates to conspiracy. Under title 18, section 371, the maximum penalty for general conspiracy to commit a crime is 5 years in prison regardless of whether the penalty for the predicate offense--that is, the thing they are conspiring to do--is considerably more than 5 years. So what Senator Hatch and I do is we allow the penalty for conspiracy to be consistent with what the penalty would be for the underlying crime; that is, the predicate crime. That is not included in the amendment of the Senator from Mississippi. Also, a very important provision of Biden-Hatch is that right now, under ERISA, the Employment Retirement Security Act of 1974--we were both here to vote for that--under current law, a violation for essentially squandering someone's pension to the tune of tens of millions, maybe billions, of dollars is a misdemeanor with a maximum penalty of 1 year. If you were to steal an automobile from my driveway, which is about 2 miles from the Pennsylvania line, drive it across the Pennsylvania line, under Federal law, it is a 10-year sentence. There is obviously a bizarre disparity. What we do is we increase the penalty for criminal violation of ERISA to 1 to 10 years, based upon the value of what is stolen in ERISA. If the loss in ERISA is a $20,000 pension versus several billion dollars' worth, the Sentencing Commission can make that judgment, as they do now, to have the penalty be from 1 but up to 10 years. That is not in Senator Lott's amendment. Lastly, section 6 of Biden-Hatch. Currently, the Securities and Exchange Commission requires regulated companies to file periodic financial reports with the SEC. This section of Biden-Hatch creates a new section in title 18 of the United States Code to require certification, signed by the top officials of that corporation, that the financial reports being filed accurately reflect the financial condition of the company. Criminal penalties are created for failure to comply with this section. Reckless failure to certify--you have to be able to prove it; it is a high standard--requires a penalty of up to 5 years, while a willful failure to certify on the part of these executives includes a maximum penalty of up to 10 years. The point is, A, everything but one provision of Senator Lott's amendment either has been passed or is in Biden-Hatch. I will yield to my colleague, but I am willing to accept the one provision that is not included. That is the provision relating to freezing payments for up to 45 days under the authority of the SEC of compensation packages that are excessive so there is time to look at it. I am willing to accept that. It does not include three sections: Conspiracy, the ERISA increased penalties, and the requirement of certification that the financial reports accurately reflect the financial condition of the company, with penalties to prevail if in fact they either recklessly or willfully do not sign such a document or they recklessly or willfully signed it and it does not reflect what in fact they say it reflects. That is a response to the majority leader's request of what the difference is. That is the difference. I now yield, with the permission of my colleagues, to the Senator from Utah, and I might add, this is not original stuff of Joe Biden; this was Hatch and Biden, Biden and Hatch. He takes equal responsibility for this. If we are wrong, we are equally wrong. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify the Hatch-Biden amendment by changing on page 6 of our amendment, under the title ``Failure of corporate officers to certify financial reports,'' line 19--it presently reads: (1) any person who recklessly violates any provision of this section. . . . I ask unanimous consent to amend it to say on line 19, subsection 1: Any person who recklessly-- And add the words ``and knowingly''-- recklessly and knowingly. Page 6, line 19, fourth word in, add as a fifth word ``and'' and the sixth word ``knowingly.''

Mr. BIDEN. I thank the Chair and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today--along with my good friend, Senator Hatch--to offer our bill, the White-Collar Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002 as a second-degree amendment to amendment No. 4174, Senator Leahy's amendment to S. 2637. Let me begin by applauding Senator Sarbanes for his leadership in sponsoring S. 2637, and guiding it through his Banking Committee with a 17-4 vote. It is my hope and expectation that it will win the same overwhelming support on the floor of the Senate. I also commend Senators Leahy and Daschle for offering the Corporate and Criminal Fraud Accountability Act, of which I am a cosponsor. Let me briefly recount the events which bring me to the floor today to offer this amendment to increase penalties on white collar criminals. In recent months, dramatic events have shaken our country out of complacency. A decade of peace and prosperity came to an end, first with a shattering reminder of our vulnerability to external threats, and then with a series of spectacular corporate collapses that revealed cracks in the very foundation of our economic system. Our response to terrorism was to come together as a nation, reminded of all we have in common, all we have to be proud of. The shock of those high-flying corporations falling spectacularly to earth presents us with different problems. We have to examine our own system--the capitalist system that has brought us so much material success, the envy of the rest of the world. As the stock market continues to lose value, as the dollar has dropped to a 2-year low, we know that investors, here at home and abroad, have lost some of their faith in the American economy. That loss of faith has a material impact of the wealth of this country, as our currency and our securities lose value. Some observers worry aloud that a full-blown loss of faith in our economy could drain even more value from our markets. The task before us is nothing less than restoring confidence in our market economy. There are many facets to this problem. One is reforming the auditing process. On the Senate floor right now is the Sarbanes bill that is essential to any effort to restore investor's faith in our markets. Audit firms are supposed to be independent voices, providing disinterested information that investors need to assess risk and to allocate funds to those companies that will have the best chance of raising our standard of living. We need more transparency, more accountability in the conduct of accounting firms, and more confidence that they have access to, and are willing to tell us, the truth about the businesses they audit. Senator Sarbanes has done us all a service by bringing this bipartisan bill to the floor. Yesterday, I was hoping to hear the President support this bipartisan approach to reform, reform that is supported by the business community in the form of the Business Roundtable, when he spoke yesterday. I still hope he will soon add his voice in support of this landmark reform. Just as important is the amendment to the Sarbanes bill that I am cosponsoring with Senator Leahy. It will put real teeth in securities fraud enforcement, providing substantial criminal penalties for those who defraud investors of publically traded securities or who destroy evidence to obstruct justice. Yesterday, the President announced his support for tougher criminal penalties for fraud offenses. I applaud the President's call for increase penalties for wire and mail fraud, and my amendment contains identical provisions. But I am concerned that the President's proposals do not go far enough. For example, in the wake of the publicly reported problems at Enron, WorldCom, and other companies, we need to restore people's faith in their pension plans. They need to know that the companies they work for will treat them fairly, handle their funds wisely, and that the investments made by pension funds are sound. Yet, I believe that the criminal penalties for violations under the Employment Retirement Investment Security Act of 1974, ERISA, limited to 1 year in jail, are woefully inadequate to protect defrauded pensioners. As chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs, I held a hearing several weeks ago--and am holding a second hearing this afternoon--on the adequacy of criminal penalties to deter this type of corporate wrongdoing. Corporate executives who defraud investors by whatever means should go to jail--period--and we need to give investigators and prosecutors the tools they need to send them there. One thing most of our hearing witnesses agreed on was that there is a ``penalty gap'' between white collar crimes and other crimes. For example, if a kid steals your car and drives it over the 14th Street Bridge into Northern Virginia, he could get up to 10 years in jail under the Federal interstate auto theft law. Yet, if a corporate CEO steals your pension and commits a criminal violation under ERISA, he is only subject to 1 year in jail. At my hearing, we heard from Charlie Prestwood, a 63-year-old Enron retiree, who lives in Conroe, TX. Charlie worked proudly for some 33 years for that company, saved and invested in his pension, and retired with about $1.3 million in his plan. Within a few tragic months, that was nearly wiped out--only $8,000 remained. Charlie is not a lawyer, but he had the good sense to know that its just not fair that a car thief who steals a jalopy can get 10 years in prison and a Gucci-clad corporate crook can steal a person's life savings and might only end up with 1 year in prison. Accordingly, the amendment that Senator Hatch and I offer today is carefully crafted to hold corporate officer responsible and to reduce the ``penalty gap'' between a number of white collar crimes and other serious crimes. It does 3 basic things. First, it goes beyond President Bush's proposal by raising penalties for those white collar crimes that are most often violated but which have insufficient penalties to deter corporate crooks. For example, it raises the maximum penalties from 1 to 10 years for ERISA criminal violations. It double penalties for wire and mail fraud from 5 to 10 years, and it treats white collar who conspire with others like drug king pins, by mandating that they receive the same maximum penalty for the offense underlying the charged conspiracy, rather than their sentence being capped at a 5-year penalty as exists under current law. When these penalty enhancements are taken in combination with the new 10-year felony for securities fraud contained in the amendment I have co-sponsored with Senator Leahy, the Government will have the full range of prosecutorial arrows in its quiver to fight pension crooks and corporate wrong doers. Respectfully, the President's penalty proposal is only one small piece of the white collar crime-fighting puzzle. Second, our amendment tells corporate big wigs that they are no longer off the hook for their companies misdeeds. My amendment requires top corporate officials to certify to the Securities and Exchange Commission that the periodic financial reports filed by their companies with the Commission accurately reflect the financial health of these corporations. Reckless failure by a corporate official to do so will result in up to 5 years in prison, while willful failure to do so will trigger a jail term of up to 10 years. Third, our amendment directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to review and amend the federal sentencing guidelines to lengthen sentences for white collar criminals to reflect these new, more serious penalties. It also directs the Commission to impose sentencing enhancement where corporate officials defraud victims. I applaud President Bush for announcing a similar proposal. Make no mistake--this amendment will not stamp out white collar crime. We live in a fallen world where bad people do bad things-- whether its stealing cars or stealing pensions. But, its time to ``level the playing field'' between white collar and blue collar criminals. I believe the amendment that Senator Hatch and I are offering will move us substantially in the direction of deterring corporate wrongdoers by holding them responsible for the criminal acts. It will also begin the restoration of confidence in our financial markets. We must do both. The time to act is now. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield the floor. amendment no. 4188

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. I am delighted to join with my dear friend and colleague, Senator Lugar, in supporting section 1203 of this bill. The Nunn-Lugar program and the several nonproliferation programs that have developed over the last decade were born in the need to secure excess weapons and dangerous materials and technology in the former Soviet Union. They have not yet fully achieved that objective, but they have accomplished far more than anybody other than Senators Nunn and Lugar foresaw a decade ago, The record of former Soviet weapons and materials secured and destroyed, and of former weapons scientists given useful and honorable work, is a testament to the importance of positive incentives in foreign and strategic policy. Proliferation is a worldwide threat, and there are sensitive materials and technology in many countries. Section 1203 is rightly designed to permit Nunn-Lugar activities the former Soviet Union, when there are opportunities to ensure that sensitive materials will never be acquired by rogue status of terrorists. I am pleased that Senator Lugar spoke of the need to give the President the authority to act in such cases. The current language of section 1203 could be construed to permit the Secretary of Defense to pursue such opportunities on his own, absent specific direction from the President. In my view, that might invite the Secretary of Defense to initiate sensitive foreign activities without the knowledge or support of the Secretary of State. I understand that this was not the intent of the managers, Senator Lugar, or cosponsors of this bill. Because this was clearly not the intent, I understand the managers will work to clarify the language of section 1203 in conference so as to make clear that the authority to order these operations resides in the President, not in the Secretary of Defense. That will be a very useful contribution, and I commend them for it. I understand also that the conferees will make clear that the authority to draw funds from other programs will extend only to other Department of Defense programs, and I appreciate that clarification. I would hope that the managers of the bill would also see fit to broaden the list of receipts of the reports required by section 1203. The Foreign Relations Committees of Congress have a legitimate interest in knowing when sensitive non-proliferation programs are to be instituted overseas. I understand that this concern will be kept in mind in conference, and I thank the managers for that courtesy.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the Senate returned yesterday to an issue which, in recent years, has polarized our debate on national security and foreign policy. An amendment proposed by Senator Warner allowed the President to add $814 million to the research and development budget for missile defense, money that was not recommended by the Armed Services Committee. It also provided the President the authority to allocate these funds to ``antiterrorism'' projects, but I have no reason to believe the President would choose this latter option. Senator Warner's amendment was passed with a second-degree amendment by Senator Levin that emphasized that combating terrorism should be the top priority for the use of these funds, although the President could still allocate the entire $814 million to missile defense activities. It has been my hope that the formal U.S. withdrawal from the Anti- Ballistic Missile Treaty, an event which took place less than 2 weeks ago, would emerge as a real turning point in the debate over national missile defense. From this point forward, I fervently wish that officials of all stripes--executive and legislative, Democratic and Republican--will be freed to evaluate missile defense as we would any other major defense initiative. The touchstone for evaluating any missile defense must be the test that the American people sent us here to propound: Will this program make the United States more secure, or less so? Will national missile defense be operationally effective under real-world conditions, or will it remain a system that no commander can rely on? Yesterday's passage of the Warner amendment was not a final decision on the future of national missile defense, nor was it a referendum on the President's decision to withdraw from the ABM Treaty. Even if the amendment had fallen, the Senate would still have authorized $6.8 billion in fiscal year 2003 on missile defense activities, a significant sum of money of any measure. The proponents of the Warner amendment contended that an $814 million reduction in an administration request totaling $7.6 billion would seriously hamper our Nation's efforts to move forward on missile defense. Let's take a closer look at a couple of these reductions proposed by the Armed Services Committee: A cut of $200 million for a number of overhead activities, variously described as ``Program Operations'' or ``Systems Engineering and Integration,'' which are repeated multiple times in the administration's budget request. The administration cited this particular cut as an attempt by missile defense opponents to block the effective integration of missile defense components. Despite repeated requests by the Armed Services Committee, however, the Missile Defense Agency never justified these duplicative requests or explained how they would fit together to enhance system integration. A reduction of $30 million, requested by the administration for the purchase of a second Airborne Laser prototype aircraft. However, the Pentagon does not plan to test the first Airborne laser aircraft until fiscal year 2005. Doesn't it make sense to delay the purchase of a second model until you get some feedback from the testing of the initial model? After all, there are real questions regarding payload and beam stability in bad weither, which relate as much to the aircraft as to the laser. Contrary to what missile defense advocates contended, the Armed Services Committee did not set out to destroy our national missile defense effort. If that has been their intention the committee would have cut far more than $814 million in a $7.6 billion budget. This debate was also over priorities. How should the United States spend an extra national defense dollar: On missile defense or on other more pressing needs? In my view, when we consider underfunded antiterrorism missions, one stands out above the beyond the others. Our first line of defense in today's world should be to ensure that rogue states and terrorists never obtain weapons of mass destruction or the materials needed to make them. We spend between $1 and $2 billion a year toward this goal. We are nowhere close to the levels recommended by numerous outside experts, including the bipartisan task force headed by Howard Baker and Lloyd Cutler a year ago, which advocated spending approximately $3 billion per year. The committee's original reduction would still have provided funding for our missile defense efforts that was four to six times what we spend on threat reduction programs. Putting aside the overall merits of national missile defense, I ask one simple question: Why can't we show the same sense of urgency and offer the same level of resources in combating the more immediate risk to a more anonymous nuclear weapon delivered without a ballistic missile, but hidden in the hull of a ship or smuggled in the trunk of a compact car? Were this any other weapons system but national missile defense, I doubt the Senate would have amended such a modest and sensible committee-recommended funding reduction. Major weapons programs often encounter problems. My friends on the Armed Services Committee are all too familiar with unpredictable testing schedules, skyrocketing budgets, and the need to maintain effective oversight with respect to all weapons programs. And so it is with national missile defense. The Armed Services Committee recommended some judicious cuts in missile defense funding on account of a lack of clarity and a lack of justification by administration officials. I believe the Senate should have rejected the Warner amendment. Neither could I support the Levin second-degree amendment. I understood the chairman's intentions--to send a clear message that this body views antiterrorism missions as the greatest priority for our Nation. He was absolutely right--that is our No. 1 priority. But the second- degree amendment still enabled the President to dedicate some, or even all, of the additional $814 million towards missile defense. The administration did not prove the case for additional funding for missile defense beyond the $6.8 billion recommended by the Armed Services Committee. Our Nation faces too many threats for which we are not adequately prepared, to justify spending this additional funding on missile defense. Regardless of what each of us may think or believe on national missile defense, it does not deserve an exemption from the basic principles of rational budgeting and honest oversight which govern every other Pentagon acquisition program.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I have the honor of joining with 50 of my colleagues in submitting a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that the week that includes Veterans' Day this year be designated as ``National Veterans Awareness Week.'' This marks the third year in a row that I have introduced such a resolution, which has been adopted unanimously by the Senate on both previous occasions. The purpose of National Veterans Awareness Week is to serve as a focus for educational programs designed to make students in elementary and secondary schools aware of the contributions of veterans and their importance in preserving American peace and prosperity. This goal takes on particular importance and immediacy this year as we find ourselves at war in the wake of the attack against us on our own territory. Why do we need such an educational effort? In a sense, this action has become necessary because we are victims of our own success with regard to the superior performance of our armed forces. The plain fact is that there are just fewer people around now who have had any connection with military service. For example, as a result of tremendous advances in military technology and the resultant productivity increases, our current armed forces now operate effectively with a personnel roster that is one-third less in size than just 10 years ago. In addition, the success of the all-volunteer career-oriented force has led to much lower turnover of personnel in today's military than in previous eras when conscription was in place. Finally, the number of veterans who served during previous conflicts, such as World War II, when our military was many times larger than today, is inevitably declining. The net result of these changes is that the percentage of the entire population that has served in the Armed Forces is dropping rapidly, a change that can be seen in all segments of society. Whereas during World War II it was extremely uncommon to find a family in America that did not have one of its members on active duty, now there are numerous families that include no military veterans at all. As a consequence of this lack of opportunity for contacts with veterans, many of our young people have little or no connection with or knowledge about the important historical and ongoing role of men and women who have served in the military. This omission seems to have persisted despite ongoing educational efforts by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the veterans service organizations. This lack of understanding about military veterans' important role in our society can have potentially serious repercussions. In our country, civilian control of the armed forces is the key tenet of military governance. A citizenry that is oblivious to the capabilities and limitations of the armed forces, and to its critical role throughout our history can make decisions that have unexpected and unwanted consequences. Even more important, general recognition of the importance of those individual character traits that are essential for military success, such as patriotism, selflessness, sacrifice and heroism, is vital to maintaining these key aspects of citizenship in the armed forces and even throughout the population at large. Among today's young people, a generation that has grown up largely during times of peace and extraordinary prosperity and has embraced a ``me first'' attitude, it is perhaps even more important to make sure that there is solid understanding of what it has taken to attain this level of comfort and freedom. Even in the midst of our ongoing war against terrorism, with Americans in uniform finding themselves in harm's way around the world, many young people seem to be totally divorced from the implications of the conflict that is raging. The failure of our children to understand why a military is important, why our society continues to depend on it for ultimate survival, and why a successful military requires integrity and sacrifice, will have predictable consequences as these youngsters become of voting age. Even though military service is a responsibility that is no longer shared by a large segment of the population, as it has been in the past, knowledge of the contributions of those who have served in the Armed Forces is as important as it has ever been. To the extent that many of us will not have the opportunity to serve our country in uniform, we must still remain cognizant of our responsibility as citizens to fulfill the obligations, we owe, both tangible and intangible, to those who do serve and who do sacrifice on our behalf. The importance of this issue was brought home to me two years ago by Samuel I. Cashdollar, who was then a 13-year-old seventh grader at Lewes Middle School in Lewes, DE. Samuel won the Delaware VFW's Youth Essay Contest that year with a powerful presentation titled ``How Should We Honor America's Veterans?'' Samuel's essay pointed out that we have Nurses' Week, Secretaries' Week, and Teachers' Week, to rightly emphasize the importance of these occupations, but the contributions of those in uniform tend to be overlooked. We don't want our children growing up to think that Veterans Day has simply become a synonym for department store sale, and we don't want to become a Nation where more high school seniors recognize the name Britney Spears than the name Dwight Eisenhower. National Veterans Awareness Week complements Veterans Day by focusing on education as well as commemoration, on the contributions of the many in addition to the heroism and service of the individual. National Veterans Awareness Week also presents an opportunity to remind ourselves of the contributions and sacrifices of those who have served in peacetime as well as in conflict; both groups work unending hours and spend long periods away from their families under conditions of great discomfort so that we all can live in a land of freedom and plenty. Last year, my resolution designating National Veterans Awareness Week had 58 cosponsors and was approved in the Senate by unanimous consent. Responding to that resolution, President Bush issued a proclamation urging our citizenry to observe National Veterans Awareness Week. I ask my colleagues to continue this trend of support for our veterans by endorsing this resolution again this year. Our children and our children's children will need to be well informed about what veterans have accomplished in order to make appropriate decisions as they confront the numerous worldwide challenges that they are sure to face in the future.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join today my good friend and colleague, Senator Domenici, in introducing a vital amendment to the Department of Defense authorization bill to reduce the odds that terrorists or rogue states will acquire the necessary ingredients overseas for nuclear and radiological terrorism. This amendment takes important steps to expand the legal mandate for specific U.S. nuclear nonproliferation programs and lays down a marker on the necessary funding levels. We have every expectation that, before this bill emerges from conference, the additional money will indeed be made available through both the supplemental fiscal year 2002 appropriations and regular fiscal year 2003 appropriations. Senator Domenici is to be both commended and supported for drafting this amendment, and the underlying bill, S. 2545, from which it is derived. This amendment will lead to greater levels of effort and, I believe, greater levels of achievement in U.S. nuclear nonproliferation programs. For example, it authorizes $40 million to accelerate and expand current international programs to blend down highly enriched uranium (HEU) needed to make nuclear bombs, making it less likely that terrorists or rogue states will get their hands on lethal nuclear materials. It authorizes $35 million to develop options for a global program for international safeguards and proliferation-resistant technologies to ensure that civilian nuclear reactors in other nations are not illicitly producing significant quantities of weapons-grade material or are vulnerable to terrorist assault. This amendment also allocates $30 million in funding for a new research, development, and demonstration program to help respond to nuclear or radiological terrorism. For example, the program would fund expanded research into monitors and gauges capable of detecting nuclear and/or radiological materials, for use at border crossings and ports of entry. It will help identify and account for radioactive sources located abroad. And all of these efforts will be carried out in cooperation with Russia and the rest of the international community. On May 8 Jose Padilla, an American citizen working with al-Qaida, was arrested on the charge of planning to attack the United States with a Radiological Dispersion Device, more commonly called a ``dirty bomb.'' Padilla is only the first person associated with a major terrorist group to have been caught plotting an attack using a radiological weapon. It would be folly to think that he will be either the last or the most competent and successful. The fact that radiological terror is real and a threat to the nation will come as no great surprise to the Senate. On March 6 the Foreign Relations Committee held a public hearing on the twin threats of nuclear and radiological terrorism. On March 5 we held a classified briefing on the same subject, followed a month later by an even more detailed classified session for all Senators. We assembled the finest scientists from government, the nuclear weapons laboratories, public interest groups and academia to speak of the dangers of dirty bombs. Without exception they told us that there was a real possibility that terrorists could obtain radioactive material and blow it up with a conventional bomb, spreading the material for miles. But they also agreed on the likely consequences of a radiation attack on an American city. Despite Attorney General John Ashcroft's statement from Moscow on June 10 that a dirty bomb can ``cause mass death and injury,'' the facts are very different. The Foreign Relations Committee learned that even the worst credible radiological attack will not be catastrophic. Few, if any, Americans will die from the radiation or even experience the symptoms of radiation poisoning. Most, if not all, of the casualties will come from the conventional explosive used to spread the radioactive material. The bottom line on casualties is: A dirty bomb won't kill very many people. But a dirty bomb could still be an economic crime of the first magnitude. We do not know how to decontaminate large buildings and large areas to the degree that the Environmental Protection Agency mandates. The levels EPA uses in the case of accidents within a laboratory are extraordinary: clean-up must be so complete that out of 1,000 people living on-site 24 hours a day for about 40 years, only 1 additional person would die of cancer. We must begin to examine the radiation protection rules in the light of homeland security in the event of an attack instead of just applying the strict environmental guidelines appropriate to peacetime. Our witnesses estimated that if a small device, containing only a few curies of cobalt-60 or cesium-137, had been detonated in lower Manhattan on September 10, 2001, and if existing EPA rules were applied to the clean-up, more buildings would have had to be evacuated, razed, and trucked away to low-level radioactive waste dumps than were lost or damaged by the al-Qaida attack of September 11. That is more damage, more financial loss, than was caused when the Twin Towers came down, but with this difference: almost nobody would be killed. At most a few dozen people might get sick. We must do more to prepare for an attack, and also to prevent one. Fortunately, we can, in fact, make such an attack much harder to pull off and much easier to recover from. Proper preparation for an attack will make a world of difference; we need to begin putting response plans into place and testing them rigorously, both in the field and in table-top exercises. First responders need the tools to act. You cannot see or smell radiation; it can only be detected with special instruments. Small radiation detectors are the size of a pocket pager; larger ones could easily be built into a squad car. A network of detectors in fixed locations could be erected, a few per square mile, in cities such as Washington or Wilmington at a cost of a few million dollars per city. Such sensors might provide early warning of smuggled material on the roads and information on affected areas if somebody brings radiological terror to our cities. Avoiding panic among the American people will be an important goal of responders, and that will require education. Claims of probable mass casualties from a radiological attack do an injustice to the American people. If repeated over and over again this doom-saying will be a self-fulfilling prophecy spreading panic if an attack actually does happen. Should we be attacked by radiological terrorists, there are very simple things those who have been exposed can do to reduce their chances of being a casualty to nearly zero. The first is to remain calm. The next is to stay near the point of exposure long enough for nuclear response crews to check for radioactive contamination. And the last, the easiest, is to put your clothes in a plastic bag and then take a good shower and shampoo. Radioactive dust washed off the body is radioactive dust no longer available to do harm to you. We need to look to the radioactive material itself. Radioactive sources must be kept in responsible hands; but that is difficult because they are used throughout industry, for example, to take x-ray pictures of oil pipelines, and even to tell if a can of soda is properly filled. Radioactive sources are indispensable to modern medicine, where they are used to treat cancer or to perform crucial diagnostic tests. We should not eliminate these sources from our society. We can, however, provide greater protection for such sources. Before September 11, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission focused its efforts on safety. It assumed that licensed users were responsible users. Since September 11, the Commission has begun to reevaluate its rules with the added assumption that some folks might seek licenses in order to gain access to the material as part of a plot to attack this country or its allies. We need tighter rules, and we also need a bigger Federal effort to track down and secure missing radioactive sources. The fact is that sometimes sources just go astray; they are ``orphaned,'' in the jargon of that business. There are very few places where companies can safely dispose of sources they no longer need. The Department of Energy ``Off-Site Source Recovery Program'' is supposed to take charge of excess sources. But the administration has cut this vital program from $5.7 million in fiscal year 2001 to a paltry $2.2 million requested for fiscal year 2003. Congress should fix that. Overseas, the greatest threat is likely to come from the poorly guarded radioactive materials from the former Soviet Union. Late in 2001, two containers containing enormous amounts of radioactive strontium-90 were found by hunters in the woods of the Republic of Georgia. The sources were so hot that they melted the snow for yards around, leading the three woodsmen to cart them off to warm their tent. By the next morning all were sick with radiation poisoning, including severe burns where they had touched the containers. Those two radioactive sources were left over from a Soviet program to build compact, powerful, and very portable electrical generators for use in remote areas. Nobody knows where all of the Soviet-produced generators wound up, but wherever they are, they are very dangerous. Other countries, including Brazil and Mexico, have seen old sources stolen, broken into, melted down to make reinforcing bars and patio furniture, with resulting injuries and deaths to some of their citizens. The United States must work through the International Atomic Energy Agency to ensure the physical protection and accountability of significant radioactive sources throughout the globe. This will require additional U.S. voluntary contributions to the IAEA and may also require additional non-proliferation assistance to the states of the former Soviet Union. After all, that is where the majority of the unaccounted for hot sources are thought to have been made. I commend the administration for yesterday's announcement of a new joint United States-Russian program to spend $20 million this year to secure and safeguard radiological materials in the former Soviet Union. The program would focus on the radioactive power generators I mentioned earlier, as well as a dozen poorly guarded storage areas for radiological materials. Of course, the former Soviet Union is not the sole overseas repository of radioactive sources attractive to terrorists. But this program may serve as a model for future efforts. So there is plenty for us to do to lessen the risk and the impact of radiological terrorism. The United States has begun to contribute to the IAEA's Program Against Nuclear Terrorism. Today's amendment is a good step in increasing U.S. assistance in this area. But I worry far more about something even worse than radiological terrorism. I worry about terrorists building or stealing a real atomic bomb. Our committee learned in chilling detail, in classified session, just how easy it is to make a bomb, given only a comparatively small amount of highly enriched uranium-235. In those sessions Senators were able to see and handle a full-scale mockup, complete in almost every detail, but using inert material instead of uranium. I won't reveal the design; I don't want to give away any information that could be used against us. But building that device is easy. It could be done in a machine shop with ordinary lathes and drills and mills without any need for computer-controlled and export-controlled dual-use equipment. And it would fit in the trunk of a compact car or the back end of a pickup. Those who attended the briefing also saw a small tactical nuclear weapon, again a full-scale mockup of a real one once in the U.S. inventory. With one of those you don't need a fancy brief-case bomb; you can lift it with one hand. I am not worried about American nuclear weapons going missing, but I am very worried about the tens of thousands built by the Soviet Union. Their tactical nuclear weapons are no bigger than ours, and unless Russia's security for those weapons is a lot better than for its chemical weapons, our colleagues in the Russian Duma should be as worried as I am. Terrorists with an improvised nuclear device or a stolen weapon could kill tens or hundreds of thousands of people, not a mere handful. A crude nuclear weapon set off at Metro Center would likely kill people near the Capitol complex. A Hiroshima-sized bomb detonated near the White House would leave the Capitol in ruins. And, talk about a dirty bomb, a small nuclear blast at ground level would spew out hundreds or thousands of times more radioactive material than the biggest dirty bomb imaginable. That much fallout would kill Americans. We must invest in new technologies to detect bomb-grade uranium and plutonium. That is not an easy task. Neither material is particularly radioactive, at least not compared to cesium-137, cobalt-60, strontium- 90 and iridium-192, the isotopes of choice for a dirty bomb. Frankly, we do not know how to detect most bomb-grade fissile material today; certainly not if the weapon is shielded a bit, concealed in a cargo container being whisked through our ports or stashed in the hold of a freight aircraft. None of us knows how long we have to prepare for nuclear terrorism, but we know for sure that the terrorists are shaping their own plans. We, this body, must act sooner rather than later: to provide our responders the tools they need; to secure radioactive and fissile material, both here and abroad, to the greatest extent possible; and to secure our borders against smugglers who would literally flatten our cities. The Baker-Cutler report card on Department of Energy non- proliferation programs with Russia proposed spending about $30 billion over 8 to 10 years to secure Russia's excess plutonium and bomb-grade uranium, improve security controls on its nuclear materials, and downsize its nuclear complex without leaving its weapons scientists prey to offers from rogue states or terrorists. Senator Baker and Mr. Cutler called this ``the most urgent unmet national security threat to the United States today.'' In my view, they were absolutely right. Indeed, we must build on their recommendations: by adding support for programs to secure radioactive sources; and by securing any weapons-grade material in nuclear reactors around the world. This amendment Senator Domenici, I, and our fellow co-sponsors are introducing today takes some sensible steps toward these goals. For example, the new research, development, and demonstration program I mentioned earlier will help fund efforts to assist other nations in developing means for the safe disposal of radioactive materials and a proper regulatory framework for licensing control of radioactive sources. But we all must recognize that this amendment is only a first step to address a threat of this urgency and magnitude. Today we spend $7 or $8 billion a year to guard against the unlikely event of Iran, Iraq, or North Korea putting a nuclear weapon on an intercontinental ballistic missile with a return address, and firing it at us despite the assurance of overwhelming retaliation. We need to show the same sense of urgency in combating the more immediate risk of a more anonymous nuclear weapon without that missile. In the wake of the World Trade Center attacks, committees of the House and Senate are rightly asking whether more could have been done to detect and prevent that attack and how we can do a better job in the future. What sort of investigation will we have? How will we rebuild our people's trust in government? And what will we tell our children and grandchildren, if we fail to do everything we can to prevent terrorists from doing a hundred times more harm?

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, last week the Supreme Court ruled, in a case called Atkins v. Virginia, that the execution of mentally retarded persons violates the eighth amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. The Court thereby reversed its 1989 holding in Penry v. Lynaugh, which it decided at a time when only two States with death penalty laws forbade the execution of the mentally retarded. In Atkins, the Court noted that in the 13 years following Penry, 16 additional States have enacted laws banning such executions. In addition, 12 States do not have the death penalty at all, meaning that a total of 30 States do not permit the execution of the mentally retarded. Therefore, the Court concluded that a ``national consensus'' has emerged against the execution of the mentally retarded. Because the Court interprets the eighth amendment in accordance with ``evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society,'' the Court concluded that the emergence of this national consensus rendered such executions unconstitutional. I applaud the Supreme Court's decision. And I do so not from the perspective of one who opposes the death penalty in all its applications. Rather, I am a supporter of the death penalty. I believe that, when used appropriately, it is an effective crime-fighting tool and a deterrent. Indeed, I am the author of two major Federal crime laws that extended the availability of the death penalty. I authored the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, which extended the death penalty to drug kingpins. And I authored the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which extended the death penalty to roughly 60 crimes, including--just to name a few--terrorist homicides, murder of Federal law enforcement officers, large-scale drug trafficking, and sexual abuse resulting in death. But I believe that when we apply this ultimate sanction--which is, of course, irrevocable--we must do so consistent with the values that we stand for as a nation and as a civilized people. We must be as reasonable, as fair, and as judicious as we possibly can be. And we must ensure that we reserve the death penalty only for monstrous people who have committed monstrous acts. In short, we must apply the death penalty in a way that is worthy of us as Americans. That is why I have led the fight to make sure that the Federal death penalty--which I strongly support--does not apply to the mentally retarded. Just as we would not execute a 12-year-old who commits a crime, even though that 12-year-old knows the difference between right and wrong, so we should not execute a mentally retarded person. To be mentally retarded is to be deprived of the ability to comport oneself in a normal way, not because of anything that one did, but because of an accident of birth. We all know families into which children are born who do not have a high enough intelligence quotient to justly and fairly measure their actions against every other person in society. I cannot imagine strapping in a chair someone with an I.Q. of less than 70, with the mental capacity of a 12-year-old--at most--and telling him that he must die for his crimes. Let me be clear: I do not believe that a mentally retarded criminal is blameless. Far from it. A mentally retarded person, like a child, may well know the difference between right and wrong, and may be able to control his actions. Therefore, I must be clear about one further point. This is not about choosing between executing mentally retarded criminals or letting them roam the streets. That is a false choice. Under the Federal laws that I have authored, as well as under State statutes, we provide for every possible penalty short of death for the mentally retarded, including life imprisonment without possibility of parole. That was true last week, and it remains true today. The Supreme Court decision does not alter that fact one bit. It remains within our ability--and it remains our duty--to ensure that dangerous mentally retarded criminals are kept far away from law-abiding citizens. We have a host of penalties available to us to ensure that we are able to do so. And we have been doing so effectively. Since the 1989 Penry decision, only five States have resorted to executing mentally retarded persons. The remaining States, as well as the Federal Government, have effectively confined and deterred mentally retarded criminals by means of incarceration. Some people have argued that we must allow executions of the mentally retarded because it is often extremely difficult to define and determine mental retardation. I disagree. That has not been the experience of the States in recent years. More importantly, whether something is difficult to do has no bearing on whether it is the right thing to do. Sparing the lives of mentally retarded criminals is manifestly the right thing to do, regardless of whether it is difficult on the margins. We ask judges and juries to make difficult decisions every day of the year, because a system of justice based upon avoiding difficult decisions would provide no justice at all. In 1990, I led the fight against an amendment that would have changed the Federal death penalty statute to permit the execution of the mentally retarded. During the floor debate, I implored my colleagues, ``Let us show that our support for the death penalty is bonded by humanity.'' I asked my colleagues to remember that to be mentally retarded is to be denied the ability to develop the full human faculties that the rest of us take for granted. ``We do not execute children,'' I noted. ``Let us not execute people who never get beyond that stage in their life through absolutely no fault of their own.'' I am proud that a majority of this body agreed with me and rejected the amendment. And I am proud that by our action, we, in our own small way, helped galvanize our brothers and sisters in State legislatures to such an extent that, 12 years later, the Supreme Court can state that a national consensus has emerged against executing the mentally retarded. As a supporter of the death penalty, I know that this ultimate sanction is justifiable only if it is administered in a way that comports with American values. Last week, the Supreme Court agreed, and we are a stronger nation for it.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I rise today to salute a man who has lampooned me more than anyone else in Delaware throughout my 30 years as a U.S. Senator. He has stuck me in the mud, dirtied by political campaigns. He has sketched me swimming in an inner tube fighting for NATO's involvement in Bosnia. He has put me in my place in, an over-sized Chair to characterize my position on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He has donned me in a wizard's robe next to a giant cooking pot simmering over a fire. Yes, today I rise to salute a man whose signature is a talking frog. Today I rise to salute a man who has made me laugh nearly every morning that I have opened my local newspaper for nearly the past 40 years and flipped to the editorial page. Today I rise to salute long-time News Journal editorial cartoonist Jack Jurden. After nearly four decades of his whimsical, witty, thought-provoking, light-hearted, good-natured sketches, Jack Jurden is retiring. He is not quite putting his pencils and paper in a drawer permanently. Fortunately for us in Delaware, he has promised to produce a few editorial cartoons a year. But I and so many daily readers of Delaware's largest newspaper will miss his black and white sketches that have added so much color and laughter to our lives. Jack joined the News Journal in 1952 as a photo engraver. His real love was drawing, so the News Journal decided to take a chance on him as the editorial Cartoonist. In my opinion, that is the best decision that newspaper ever made. Jack's start in the newspaper business started long before his career with the News Journal. Like many of us, as a kid growing up, Jack was a newspaper delivery boy. Fresh out of high school in Allentown, PA, he put his artistic talents on hold to serve his country in World War II. As an army soldier, he was stationed in the Philippines and in occupied Japan. Over the years, I am very fortunate to have gotten to know Jack well. His love for his craft, his country and his community are surpassed only by his love and loyalty to his family: his wife of 50 years, Faye; his daughter Jenifer and his daughter Jan, who is a Superior Court Judge in Delaware. These days Jack's true love is his grandchildren. I realize this is not your typical Senate tribute. But I so admire this man and his talent that I have many of his cartoons lampooning me framed in my office and in my home. So I will miss him. And I think I speak for thousands of others in Delaware who have laughed heartily every morning with their coffee, their coworkers and their family as they scan his take on events in our State and our world, always looking for that little talking frog in the corner to offer some words of wisdom. My very best wishes to him and his family.