Joe Biden

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, as my good friend Senator Hollings has just stated, we are on the brink of a very important decision. Do we continue to underfund a national passenger rail system? Or do we finally stand behind the system, committing to it once and for all? I agree with my good friend, the chairman of the Commerce Committee, and that's why I joined him in introducing this important bill. For 30 years, I have witnessed Congress dangling a carrot in front of Amtrak's eyes, funding it just enough for it to limp along. And I'll tell you, this has to stop. Now is the time to commit politically and financially to a strong, safe, and efficient passenger rail system. And now is the time to determine once and for all, what exactly it is that we want out of passenger rail service in the country. Should this be a truly national system? And should we devote the resources necessary to maintain and expand this networks? Senator Hollings and the rest of my colleagues know that I support funding the highway and aviation networks, our Nation has relied upon them for years, and they have served us well. But I look around today and I see crowded skies and congested roads. At the very same time, I see empty rails, with the potential to relieve this transportation burden and serve as a useful alternative for Americans. As Senator Hollings discussed just now, the events of September 11 further demonstrated, in stark and rigid terms, the necessity of transportation choices. For years I have argued that we need to sit down together and begin an honest and frank discussion in order to create a blueprint for the future of passenger rail. And, let me tell you this, this bill that I am introducing with Senator Hollings is a good, solid start. Instead of maintaining the status quo, the bill offers a vision and a set of priorities for the future of passenger rail in this country. It says: we need to make sure this system is safe, as September 11 demonstrated it must be. It says: we need to seriously invest in the future of this system, which is high-speed rail. And it says: the Federal Government will need to adequately fund a national passenger rail network, no matter how the system is structured. And that is something that has always mystified me. When it comes to other forms of transportation, highways and airplanes, we have given them all they ask for, consistently providing full Federal backing. Since 1971, in fact, we have given $750 billion to highways and aviation. In the same period of time, since the birth of Amtrak, we have only given $25 billion to our national passenger rail system. That's only 3 percent of all transportation funding in that period. That is appalling. If we want a national passenger rail system, and most Americans do, as all the polls indicate, then we are going to have to pay for it, and understand the long-term commitment it takes to get this kind of system up and running. Passenger rail in this country has never had a stable funding source instead, it has been subjected to the whims and follies of the political process, and it has lost this battle time and time again. Every single industrialized country, France, Japan, Germany, subsidizes a national rail system. For years, we have been living in a fantasy - that somehow, we can have our cake and eat it too: that we could mandate Amtrak to be self-sufficient without giving it nearly enough money to do so. But Amtrak cannot run a national rail network, without adequate levels of Federal investment, and still be expected to be commercially self-sufficient. That is just not rational. There are two steps, then, in ensuring the future of passenger rail. Short-term, we have got to make sure that we do not allow Amtrak to go bankrupt, or worse, mortgage off their future in a desperate attempt to stay afloat. That is why, alongside many of my colleagues, I have pushed for the full $1.2 billion appropriations amount that Amtrak has requested for next year. This bare-bones minimum will give them the ability to maintain the current state of passenger rail, nothing more, nothing less. And in the long-term, we need a new vision for the future of national passenger rail so these one-time, bare-bones funding requests are no longer an issue. This bill represents just such a vision. It would invest seriously in the planning and implementation of high-speed rail corridors, which provides the most bang for the buck and which almost every State Governor, Democrat or Republican, has been clamoring for for years. It would provide money for debt payments, which Amtrak has incurred as a direct result of Federal underfunding. It would authorize capital investment funds, to begin to correct the $5.8 billion capital backlog Amtrak faces today. And it would fund operating costs for the long-distance trains that provide essential service to rural areas of the country. Moreover, it would address the serious security concerns that plague our rail system today. I stood up here months ago, right after one of the worst events in our Nation's history. I stood up here in order to call attention to what I thought, and continue to think, is a dire situation. And that is this matter of rail security. The events of September 11 dramatically and starkly revealed how essential it is that the United States have a national, effective, and secure railroad passenger system. It also exposed how vulnerable that system is right now to terrorist attacks. I have traveled through the train tunnels that Amtrak uses, and let me tell you, these tunnels are just plain frightening, poor ventilation, poor lighting, inadequate evacuation routes. This reauthorization bill would help the system deal with these tunnels and other gaps in our passenger rail security. A one-time investment of $1.4 billion would provide security fencing, closed circuit television, tunnel rehabilitation, increased security inspections, essential security-related improvements. The Department of Transportation itself has warned several times in the last few years about the necessity of quickly and fully funding Amtrak's security needs. $1.4 billion is a small price to pay to avoid a repeat of September 11. Finally, this bill would bring a greater level of accountability to the whole structure. As Senator Hollings indicated, the $1.55 billion in funds for high-speed corridor planning and implementation would be run through the Department of Transportation, so that the Federal Government can work together with state and local agencies in promoting the future of our rail system. This bill, together with the $1.2 billion appropriations for next year, will bring us closer to the type of passenger rail system that our Nation deserves and needs. As my good friend Senator Hollings alluded to, 50 years ago, our leaders had the vision and foresight to stand up and say, we need an interstate highway system, and we need to fund it appropriately. Let us today go forward with this blueprint in hand and create a similar network for passenger rail.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, as my good friend Senator Hollings has just stated, we are on the brink of a very important decision. Do we continue to underfund a national passenger rail system? Or do we finally stand behind the system, committing to it once and for all? I agree with my good friend, the chairman of the Commerce Committee, and that's why I joined him in introducing this important bill. For 30 years, I have witnessed Congress dangling a carrot in front of Amtrak's eyes, funding it just enough for it to limp along. And I'll tell you, this has to stop. Now is the time to commit politically and financially to a strong, safe, and efficient passenger rail system. And now is the time to determine once and for all, what exactly it is that we want out of passenger rail service in the country. Should this be a truly national system? And should we devote the resources necessary to maintain and expand this networks? Senator Hollings and the rest of my colleagues know that I support funding the highway and aviation networks, our Nation has relied upon them for years, and they have served us well. But I look around today and I see crowded skies and congested roads. At the very same time, I see empty rails, with the potential to relieve this transportation burden and serve as a useful alternative for Americans. As Senator Hollings discussed just now, the events of September 11 further demonstrated, in stark and rigid terms, the necessity of transportation choices. For years I have argued that we need to sit down together and begin an honest and frank discussion in order to create a blueprint for the future of passenger rail. And, let me tell you this, this bill that I am introducing with Senator Hollings is a good, solid start. Instead of maintaining the status quo, the bill offers a vision and a set of priorities for the future of passenger rail in this country. It says: we need to make sure this system is safe, as September 11 demonstrated it must be. It says: we need to seriously invest in the future of this system, which is high-speed rail. And it says: the Federal Government will need to adequately fund a national passenger rail network, no matter how the system is structured. And that is something that has always mystified me. When it comes to other forms of transportation, highways and airplanes, we have given them all they ask for, consistently providing full Federal backing. Since 1971, in fact, we have given $750 billion to highways and aviation. In the same period of time, since the birth of Amtrak, we have only given $25 billion to our national passenger rail system. That's only 3 percent of all transportation funding in that period. That is appalling. If we want a national passenger rail system, and most Americans do, as all the polls indicate, then we are going to have to pay for it, and understand the long-term commitment it takes to get this kind of system up and running. Passenger rail in this country has never had a stable funding source instead, it has been subjected to the whims and follies of the political process, and it has lost this battle time and time again. Every single industrialized country, France, Japan, Germany, subsidizes a national rail system. For years, we have been living in a fantasy - that somehow, we can have our cake and eat it too: that we could mandate Amtrak to be self-sufficient without giving it nearly enough money to do so. But Amtrak cannot run a national rail network, without adequate levels of Federal investment, and still be expected to be commercially self-sufficient. That is just not rational. There are two steps, then, in ensuring the future of passenger rail. Short-term, we have got to make sure that we do not allow Amtrak to go bankrupt, or worse, mortgage off their future in a desperate attempt to stay afloat. That is why, alongside many of my colleagues, I have pushed for the full $1.2 billion appropriations amount that Amtrak has requested for next year. This bare-bones minimum will give them the ability to maintain the current state of passenger rail, nothing more, nothing less. And in the long-term, we need a new vision for the future of national passenger rail so these one-time, bare-bones funding requests are no longer an issue. This bill represents just such a vision. It would invest seriously in the planning and implementation of high-speed rail corridors, which provides the most bang for the buck and which almost every State Governor, Democrat or Republican, has been clamoring for for years. It would provide money for debt payments, which Amtrak has incurred as a direct result of Federal underfunding. It would authorize capital investment funds, to begin to correct the $5.8 billion capital backlog Amtrak faces today. And it would fund operating costs for the long-distance trains that provide essential service to rural areas of the country. Moreover, it would address the serious security concerns that plague our rail system today. I stood up here months ago, right after one of the worst events in our Nation's history. I stood up here in order to call attention to what I thought, and continue to think, is a dire situation. And that is this matter of rail security. The events of September 11 dramatically and starkly revealed how essential it is that the United States have a national, effective, and secure railroad passenger system. It also exposed how vulnerable that system is right now to terrorist attacks. I have traveled through the train tunnels that Amtrak uses, and let me tell you, these tunnels are just plain frightening, poor ventilation, poor lighting, inadequate evacuation routes. This reauthorization bill would help the system deal with these tunnels and other gaps in our passenger rail security. A one-time investment of $1.4 billion would provide security fencing, closed circuit television, tunnel rehabilitation, increased security inspections, essential security-related improvements. The Department of Transportation itself has warned several times in the last few years about the necessity of quickly and fully funding Amtrak's security needs. $1.4 billion is a small price to pay to avoid a repeat of September 11. Finally, this bill would bring a greater level of accountability to the whole structure. As Senator Hollings indicated, the $1.55 billion in funds for high-speed corridor planning and implementation would be run through the Department of Transportation, so that the Federal Government can work together with state and local agencies in promoting the future of our rail system. This bill, together with the $1.2 billion appropriations for next year, will bring us closer to the type of passenger rail system that our Nation deserves and needs. As my good friend Senator Hollings alluded to, 50 years ago, our leaders had the vision and foresight to stand up and say, we need an interstate highway system, and we need to fund it appropriately. Let us today go forward with this blueprint in hand and create a similar network for passenger rail.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay homage to the legion of African-American leaders who have made extraordinary contributions to humanity by fighting to secure equality and justice for us all. As a consequence of their valiant efforts, people of color can now enjoy a quality of life, including unprecedented educational and professional opportunities, never before realized. Because of their courage, we all can experience the benefits that flow from building a nation that values the creativity and talent of all her citizens. I am, and we all should be, proud to be the beneficiaries of their heroic acts. Despite the extraordinary accomplishments of the past century, however, we began this new millennium still burdened by the weight of racial prejudice and the hatred, and sometimes violence, that emanates from it. Based on improved data collection efforts, we now know that far too frequently individuals may be victimized or otherwise targeted for vicious acts, simply because of the color of their skin, or the content of their faith, or because of any number of distinguishing characteristics--differences that should form the basis of our best American values, but instead are used to injure certain individuals and tarnish the American spirit. Simply stated, hate violence is a scourge on our national consciousness, and the incidents of it are embarrassingly high. Perhaps the best-known racially-motivated hate crime in recent years is the callous killing of James Byrd, who, for no other reason except the color of his skin, was chained to the back of a pickup truck and dragged to his death. Mr. Byrd's death was senseless and shocking, but by no means is it the only example of such a crime. Each year, thousands of Americans are subjected to hate crimes, in perhaps not so savage a manner as Mr. Byrd's murder, but no less cruel and no less harmful. Consider these numbers: while the overall number of crimes reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 2000 declined slightly, by 0.2 percent, reported hate crimes increased 2.3 percent, from 7,876 in 1999 to 8,063. And by all indicators, those numbers likely underestimate the true magnitude of hate violence in our country. Studies by organizations like the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives have revealed that countless targets of hate violence, some of whom are immigrants who fear reprisals or deportation, decline to report these crimes to the police. As disturbing as the quantity of hate crimes committed each year, however, is the record number of young people who are perpetrating these crimes. According to a special report by the Federal Bureau of Justice Statistics, from 1997 to 1999, 33 percent of all known hate crime offenders were under the age of 18 years. For that same time period, another 29 percent of all hate crime offenders were 18 to 24 years of age. In total, an alarming 62 percent of all offenders were under the age of 24. When they should be imagining their college years or their early career plans, some kids, sometimes suffering under great mental depression, are instead conjuring up awful acts of hatred. The damage caused by these crimes cannot be measured solely in terms of the physical injury inflicted or the property costs incurred. The devastation they provoke is far greater and much more destructive. These crimes fragment our society and inspire distrust. They fuel fear and suspicion of groups and communities that are unfamiliar. And, perhaps most fatal, they threaten to stall the important growth and community-building that must transpire for this Nation to retain its standing as a world leader for centuries to come. If we have learned anything from the tragic events of September 11, it is that we cannot tolerate acts of hatred. We must enable a swift and tough law enforcement response by refining Federal hate crime laws, as well as give our children the tools to confront violent bigotry by providing necessary education and programming. We can undertake to do nothing more important, nor pay any greater tribute to the heroes we honor during Black History Month, than to fight hate violence in every form and in every way we know. The security and safety of all Americans depend on it.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I am pleased to submit today a resolution calling on the Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee to recommend a commemorative stamp honoring the 19th century illustrator, Felix Octavius Carr Darley. My distinguished colleague from the other body, Congressman Michael Castle, has already introduced an identical resolution in the House of Representatives. Felix Darley was the consummate American artist. He was born in Philadelphia, PA in 1821, but spent much of his later years in Delaware, where he died in 1888. In fact, for the last 29 years of Darling's life he lived in my hometown of Claymont, DE, where he produced many of his most famous and renowned drawings. As a Delawarean, and a resident of Claymont, Felix Darley has special significance for me. But he also has a special significance for the entire Nation. Mr. Darley has been described as ``one of the most famous illustrators of his time'' and ``the first major American illustrator.'' His works have even been said to have forged our very national identity. Felix Darley was the illustrator of books produced by the legendary writers of his time, including such masterful storytellers and poets as Charles Dickens, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Edgar Allan Poe, Washington Irving, Nathaniel Hawthorne, and James Fenimore Cooper. Moreover, he is credited with helping to capture the image of the American frontier, which has become such an integral image of our collective imagination and consciousness. As a testament to his greatness, he was inducted into the Society of Illustrators Hall of Fame last year. Through his works, Felix Darley commemorated and captured our history and the creative achievements of some of our greatest writers. It is time we commemorate his life and his works for posterity by honoring him with a memorial postage stamp. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in sponsoring this resolution which calls on the Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee to recommend such a stamp. It is a small, but needed step to recognize an American artist who gave us so much.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today, as we near the end of Black History Month, to focus attention on the widening gap between those Americans who use or have access to telecommunications technologies, like computers and the Internet, and those who do not. Surprisingly, there are those naysayers who suggest that the ``digital divide'' does not exist, that it is a myth or fabrication of consumer and civil rights advocates. Perhaps it is because the term ``digital divide'' has been so over-used and, in some instances, mis-used that it causes some to doubt its existence. Perhaps the term has so thoroughly infiltrated our everyday discourse that it causes skeptics to under-estimate its very real and powerful consequences. No matter the reason for these naysayers' doubt, the unequivocal answer to their question ``is there really a digital divide'' is a resounding ``YES.'' A series of reports issued by the U.S. Department of Commerce not only confirms that the ``digital divide'' exists; it suggests that, while the number of Americans accessing the Internet has grown rapidly in recent years, the technology gap between poor and minority communities, on one hand, and other Americans, on the other, is actually widening. Take this seemingly encouraging example: from December 1998 to August 2000, the percentage of African-American households with Internet access more than doubled, from 11.2 percent to 23.5 percent--an encouraging development, by any measure. But during that same time period, the percentage of total households nationally with Internet access soared to 41.5 percent. And the access rates for White Americans and Asian-Americans/Pacific Islanders--46.1 percent and 56.8 percent, respectively--significantly outpaced that national average. As a consequence, the already substantial gap between African-American Internet usage and national usage grew 3 percentage points. The gap was even greater when comparing African-American usage with that of White Americans or Asian-Americans and Pacific Islanders. Similarly, during that same 20-month period, the gap between Hispanic households with Internet access and the national average grew 4 percentage points. The effect: What was once a gap is now swelling into a chasm. Just this morning, the Wall Street Journal reported that, in 1997, ten percent of Americans earning less than $25,000 a year used the Internet, compared with 45 percent of those earning more than $75,000. By 2001, despite increased usage by both groups, the ``gap'' had grown to 50 percentage points. Yes, the ``digital divide'' exists, and that fact should concern us greatly. In today's information age, unequal access to the national information infrastructure affects nearly every part of our lives. Access to these networks increasingly dictates the ease with which we can pursue education, conduct our financial affairs, apply for a job, or participate in the political process. Lack of access will only reinforce and magnify already existing inequalities in these important areas of life. Against that backdrop, I am shocked by the Bush administration's apparent efforts to dismantle many programs designed to eliminate the inequality of access to technology. These programs, including the popular E-Rate Program, have a demonstrated record of success connecting roughly 1 million public school classrooms and 13,000 community libraries to modern telecommunications networks. Moreover, the vast majority of the funding is dedicated to low-income communities, and significant dollars flow to schools under the Bureau of Indian Affairs. By all accounts, these initiatives are working, yet the Administration is maneuvering to eliminate them one by one. Don't be fooled: This is a not a debate about electronic gadgets or computer megabytes. It is a debate about who gets to speak and who gets to listen. At its heart, it implicates the very nature of our democracy. It is a debate about who among us, as the information revolution takes off, will be left behind. Electronic commerce has become a critical factor in determining future economic development and prosperity. Communities and individuals without access to the Internet will be excluded from that growth. The sadness, however, is that, by leaving some behind, we impoverish not only those individuals, we also impoverish ourselves. None of us will enjoy sustained economic growth unless we expand the information revolution to all parts of our society. With that in mind, we cannot afford to make technology decisions based on dated and ill-conceived perceptions about the interest or ability of minorities and poor people to purchase certain ``high-end'' technology. Nor can we simply bypass low-income and minority communities, where the telecommunications and electronic network infrastructure may be older and, therefore, less able to provide more sophisticated services. To the extent that technology, including the Internet and telecommunications services, is deployed in a way that avoids poor and minority communities, we must do all that we can to deter this form of redlining. Toward this end, the administration should keep its promise to invest $400 million to create and maintain more than 2,000 community technology centers in low-income neighborhoods by 2002. The role that community technology centers plays in helping to bridge the digital divide cannot be overstated. Community technology centers are instrumental in closing the information technology divide, and, by tapping demand for these services, supporters of community technology initiatives can open up new markets for companies that serve the Internet economy. The development of information technology holds great potential to strengthen and invigorate American society. That potential cannot be fully realized, however, unless we pay attention to the hundreds of thousands of individuals, many of whom reside in largely minority and/ or low-income communities, who have no, or limited, access to our burgeoning national information infrastructure. We can, and must, inform decisionmakers about the true value of minority markets receptive to advanced services. We must provide private industry with incentives to deploy in these markets. And, perhaps most important, we must continue to make public investments in underserved communities. Our failure will only dampen private sector and philanthropic efforts, and, more tragically, handicap a generation of Americans for years to come.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to address the problem of substance abuse in our country. Last year the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation called substance abuse America's number one health problem. I don't think that overstates it. Most of us know someone, a family member, maybe a neighbor, a colleague, or a friend, who is addicted to drugs or alcohol. In fact, 14 million people in this country abuse alcohol or are alcoholics. Nearly 15 million use drugs. And nearly four million are in need of treatment but not receiving it. Drug and alcohol abuse has far reaching consequences. It exacerbates social ills. It's a public safety problem. It's a public health problem. It's a public expenditure problem. There is an undeniable correlation between substance abuse and crime. Eighty percent of the two million men and women behind bars today have a history of drug and alcohol abuse or addiction or were arrested for a drug-related crime. Illegal drugs are responsible for thousands of deaths each year. They fuel the spread of AIDS and Hepatitis C. They contribute to child abuse, domestic violence, and sexual assault. And we all pay the price. It costs this Nation almost $276 billion in law enforcement, criminal justice expenses, medical bills, and lost earnings each year. That means that preventing and treating substance abuse makes sense. It makes good criminal justice sense. It makes public health sense. It makes budgetary sense. Not to mention the fact that it's the right thing to do. Yet there remains a reluctance to recognize substance abuse as a health issue. There's a reluctance to accept addiction as a disease. It's a reluctance that has kept public policy from asserting that addicts should be in treatment. Whether addicts are in prison or out, it seems to me, treatment is the only legitimate choice. Not only must we authorize it, we must take full advantage of the treatments that have been developed. For too long, access to effective therapies, such as methadone and LAAM for heroin addiction, has been strangled by layers of bureaucracy and regulation. The result is that only 22 percent of opiate addicts are now receiving pharmaco-therapy treatment. Yet, when I introduced a bill during the last Congress with Senators Hatch, Levin and Moynihan to help improve access by allowing qualified doctors to prescribe certain anti-addiction drugs such as buprenorphine right from their offices, just like other medicines, the bill initially met with resistance. But, because the facts about addiction are finally beginning to sink in, 69 percent of Americans now support treatment instead of jail as the primary focus for drug abusers, and because we were frustrated enough to be persistent, the bill eventually passed and President Clinton signed it into law. But it's not only about increasing access to treatment. It is also about moving treatment into the medical mainstream. Unless family doctors, nurses, physician assistants and social workers can identify addiction when they see it, unless they know how to intervene, we will never make any real progress. That aspect of the challenge came into sharp focus for me when I read a report a few years ago by The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, CASA. That report said that fewer than one percent of doctors presented with the classic profile of an alcoholic older woman could diagnose it properly. Eighty-two percent mis-diagnosed it as depression, some treatments for which are dangerous when taken with alcohol. A follow-up study showed that 94 percent of primary care physicians fail to diagnose substance abuse when presented with the classic symptoms. And 41 percent of pediatricians fail to diagnose illegal drug use in teenage patients. No one recognizes this problem better than the doctors themselves. Fewer than one in five, only 19 percent, feel confident about diagnosing alcoholism. And only 17 percent feel qualified to identify illegal drug use. Having said that, even if they diagnose it, most doctors don't believe that treatment works. Among practitioners, as well as policy makers, we need to get the message out. It needs to be loud and clear. Addiction is a chronic relapsing disease, and as with other such diseases, while there may not be a cure, medical treatment can help control it. The medical professionals have to be educated to recognize the signs of substance abuse and to pursue the effective therapies that are available. That is why I am introducing legislation to create a grant program to train medical professionals to prevent and recognize addiction and refer patients to treatment if they need it. Representative Patrick Kennedy will introduce companion legislation in the House of Representatives. Like treatment, training works. According to a study published in the Brown University Digest of Addiction Theory and Application, 91 percent of health professionals who took part in training on addiction at Boston University were using the techniques they learned one to five years later. Every family doctor does not need to be an addiction specialist, but they do need to be able to recognize the signs. And they need to know what help is available. It's another step, and, in my view, a crucial one, to help bridge the divide between research and practice. It will help chip away at the incredible substance abuse-related costs we face each year in human as well as monetary terms. I hope that my colleagues will join me to support this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, before I came into the Chamber, I said to Senator Kennedy, ``This is discouraging. I am about to be 60 and you just turned 70 and I don't like it. I don't like anything about this. As a matter of fact, it drives me crazy.'' As a matter of fact, Senator Kennedy, with a much more distinguished career than me, has suffered through the same illusion and delusion that I have. I got here when I was a couple days younger than he, and for the longest time I was the youngest, and all of a sudden you wake up and say, oh, my God. In my case, there are only a total of six Senators who have been here longer than me. That is equally discouraging. In his case, I think only two have been here longer than him. This place has a way of promoting the delusion that you are still young. One thing about Ted Kennedy, having had the honor--and I mean that sincerely--of working with him for 29 years is that he is still young. He is younger, I think, than anyone in this Chamber because I have observed, as have we all, that he is still as passionate, as devoted, as committed to the notion that he can change the world as he was when he got elected at 30 years old. My dad is in the hospital and I hope he is watching. He has an expression: ``It is a lucky man or woman who gets up in the morning, puts both feet on the floor, knows what they are about to do, and thinks it still matters.'' That said, I think Ted Kennedy may be the luckiest man I have ever known. He has no doubt. Just watch him; he knows and feels it still matters. In his 70 years, Senator Kennedy has enjoyed and shared with us a lifetime of public service, a tradition of excellence, a family of faith and courage in the face of extraordinary tragedy, and through it all, he has shown an unrelenting resolve to keep moving, keep working, and never stop believing in the power of ideas to change the world and change this Nation. In doing so, he has seen to it, as he once said in another context, that the dream will never die. That is Ted Kennedy. That is who he is; it is what he believes, and, I suspect, although I have just known him for 30 years, it is what he has always believed. To him, this institution, this democracy, this Chamber is about honor and tradition. It is about a legacy of hope, of a proud family, and a grateful Nation. It is about believing in the nobility of public service and passing that belief, or, as his brother said, that ``torch,'' to the next generation of Americans, as it was passed to him. As I said, I have had the pleasure to serve with him for 29 years, to stand with him, to learn from him, to lean on him, and to watch him in action in this Chamber. I have seen him raise his voice time after time not only for his constituency but for every single American. And for those who have no choice, I have heard him shout in this Chamber, and other places, at the top of his lungs for justice. For those who have been wronged, I have heard him demand and stand fast until fairness happened. For women, for minorities, those victims of intolerance and persecution for nothing more than the color of their skin, I have seen him fight with every fiber in his body to give them more strength and a sense of equity. I have seen him exhausted, angry--a couple times at me--but I have never seen him give up or back down from what he believes is right, fair, and just. Everybody today says Massachusetts is an automatic liberal State. I can remember when it wasn't such an automatic liberal State. I argue-- and I mean this sincerely--the reason Massachusetts, in part, is the way it is is because of Ted Kennedy, for when Ted Kennedy spoke out on the things we all take for granted today--and some may say it is easy for him to do that in Massachusetts, but when he started that, that was not the overwhelming view in Massachusetts or any other State. I argue, and I truly believe, that if anybody listening wonders whether or not one man or one woman can change the way people think, not a single vote--not a change in outcome, but change the way people look at a subject, I respectfully suggest that you look at Ted Kennedy. Ted Kennedy hasn't changed a darn thing that he has said or believed in these issues for 30 years. But the State has changed, the Nation has changed, so I remind everybody that when people say it is OK for Ted Kennedy to get up and fight for the poor, fight for African-Americans, fight for gays, fight for minorities, he can afford it. Well, he can't afford it; he made it. He made it acceptable. He made it change more than any other man or woman in this country in the last 30 years. Madam President, I say to the people of Massachusetts and to Americans everywhere, no matter what they believe, whether they are left or right, Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, know that the idea of representative democracy is the very embodiment of Ted Kennedy. I know people think because we are all his friends we are standing up and saying these nice things. Well, I will tell you, if you doubt what I am saying, or what anybody else said, after a bitter fight on this floor, after Ted Kennedy nearly breaks his desk in anger or in frustration for what is not happening, watch how passionate he is, and then watch, whether he wins or loses, how he walks across the aisle and he is greeted on the other side of the aisle with a genuine, genuine, genuine respect and friendship. Every time I try to tell anybody, whether I am traveling in another country, or traveling in my State, or in this country and speaking with students, or with anybody talking about representative democracy, and I give you my word to this, I want to give an example of how this place is so different--and this is one of the things that has changed, unfortunately--I tell them about Ted Kennedy. I pick out the guy who has been known as the most liberal guy in the Senate, and I have watch him go against conservatives such as Orrin Hatch, and I say after it is all over--it used to always be like this--whether he wins or loses, he will invite the person to whom he won or lost to go with him and have a sandwich or a cup of coffee or he will invite them back to his office because the fight is over and democracy, whether it was the right decision or the wrong decision, has prevailed. He settles it and comes back to fight again the next day. People are always amazed. Why is it that so many conservatives who work with him love Ted Kennedy? It is because he understands the deal. He is like Chris Dodd. He understands the deal. He understands that you give and you take when you make a commitment, and you make a commitment even after a while. I say this about my friend from Connecticut as well, who is one of the few people who does this, and the tables change and it becomes a political liability to stick with your word--he never approaches you and says: You know, Joe, I have a problem. He never says a word. He just does what he committed to do. I can't tell you that in the 29, almost 30 years I have been here, how that one piece of courtesy is the thing I most regret having been diminished in this place. It used to be you could turn and say that about 80 people here. I should not be saying what I am saying, but it is true. And so the fact of the matter is, I have seen him move a concept, as others have spoken--a concept from inception to law with the skill of a surgeon. This guy is good. How does Kennedy win? How does it happen? No. 1, he is smarter than most of us. No. 2, he knows the process better than anybody. No. 3, he gives and he takes and he never, never stops; and he is always, always honorable. If you were going to point out the persons you think would get the most done--and I do not think anybody's legislative record and accomplishments match the Senator; there are great women and men who serve here and with whom I have served over the last 30 years. But think about it. The least likely guy to have that happen is the one viewed as being the furthest on the party spectrum, not the person in the middle, the so-called--I love these new guys in the parties-- centrist. One would think it would be the centrist who would get the most done. In spite of, some might suggest, his incredibly firm convictions and sometimes being at the point of the spear, Ted Kennedy gets the most done. If one would ask Republicans, some publicly and 95 percent privately would say the single best legislator in this body--and has been for some time--is Ted Kennedy. As I said, I have seen him move a concept from an idea to a law. In my view, he is literally the best of his generation. He is the personification of what people talk about in political science classes, about the nobility of a public servant. He makes democracy work for people he represents. One would never know that he is 70 because he has not lost an edge at all. As a matter of fact, I remember in a different context when he was consoling me about something, he said there is life after this. And obviously he embraced it fully because ironically he has been incredibly and increasingly more productive as every year goes by, even though over 50 percent of the people here probably only served with him 6 years or so. There are two words to describe Ted Kennedy: He is the quintessential legislator, and he is the gentleman in the Senate. His may be the one most powerful voice to echo in this Chamber for those who have not been lucky enough to have drawn that long straw. When it comes to health care and workers--others have talked about it, so I will not go into it--when it comes to children, equal rights, justice, when it comes to speaking loudly and clearly for those who are weak and small and altogether too silent, he is the one legislator who always has been on their side regardless of the fashion and regardless of the polls. The gift Ted Kennedy has given us every day is far more than we could ever give back in 70 years or 100 years or 170 years. All we are able to really say to Ted Kennedy today is happy birthday. But I want to say one more thing--as they say in this body, a point of personal privilege. We all have had difficult times in our lives, and I have had some difficult times in my life, relating to losses in my family and other events. But from the first time Ted Kennedy came to Delaware as a 39- year-old guy campaigning for a 29-year-old guy before 3,000 people at the final dinner in my State, he stood up and said a lot of nice things about me, but he said: My only doubt is that he may be too young, making a play on the fact that he had been as young as I was when he was elected. The next day the Wall Street Journal ran in that column they have straight deadpan: Kennedy wonders aloud: Is Biden too young for the Senate? Maybe he has tried to make up for that ever since then; I do not know. When my wife and daughter were killed, the first guy there was Ted Kennedy. When Ted Kennedy's mother was alive, he or she called me and invited me to bring my children and go out with them. He did not know me from Adam. Madam President, I will not take any more time to talk about those personal things, but I want you to know they make a difference in this place. They make a gigantic difference. When some doctors told me my chances of hanging around were not all that good after a couple aneurysms, he was the guy who took the time to take the train by himself to Wilmington, DE, the guy who had nothing to do or say but just came and made himself available, hung out all day and spent 15, 16 hours at my house and in the pool with my kids, in the kitchen with my wife, talking about how this was all going to work out, and then without me knowing it, got on the train late at night and headed back and never, never said a word. He was the first guy to ever come to me when I was down in this place and sat with me when I did not want to be here after 6 months--Ted Kennedy. He is the guy who introduced me to the gym. Ted may remember. He would come by two to three times a week to drag me out of my office. I want to tell my colleagues, I will never forget it. Madam President, I say to my colleagues in the Senate, I want to make one closing remark. My political hero got me involved in politics. There are a lot of great men--and the two Kennedy brothers who are deceased were great--but my personal favorite is Robert Kennedy. I cannot believe there is nothing prophetic about what Robert Kennedy said in a speech and maybe somebody else mentioned this. But it seems he must have had his kid brother in mind when he said: Our answer is the world's hope. The cruelties and obstacles of a swiftly changing planet will not yield to the obsolete dogmas and outworn slogans. It cannot be moved by those who cling to a present which is already dying, who prefer the illusion of security to the excitement and danger which comes with even the most peaceful process. The world demands the quality of youth, not time of life, not but a state of mind, a temper of the will, a quality of the imagination, predominance of courage over timidity, of appetite for adventure over the love of ease. He was talking about his brother. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to address the problem of substance abuse in our country. Last year the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation called substance abuse America's number one health problem. I don't think that overstates it. Most of us know someone, a family member, maybe a neighbor, a colleague, or a friend, who is addicted to drugs or alcohol. In fact, 14 million people in this country abuse alcohol or are alcoholics. Nearly 15 million use drugs. And nearly four million are in need of treatment but not receiving it. Drug and alcohol abuse has far reaching consequences. It exacerbates social ills. It's a public safety problem. It's a public health problem. It's a public expenditure problem. There is an undeniable correlation between substance abuse and crime. Eighty percent of the two million men and women behind bars today have a history of drug and alcohol abuse or addiction or were arrested for a drug-related crime. Illegal drugs are responsible for thousands of deaths each year. They fuel the spread of AIDS and Hepatitis C. They contribute to child abuse, domestic violence, and sexual assault. And we all pay the price. It costs this Nation almost $276 billion in law enforcement, criminal justice expenses, medical bills, and lost earnings each year. That means that preventing and treating substance abuse makes sense. It makes good criminal justice sense. It makes public health sense. It makes budgetary sense. Not to mention the fact that it's the right thing to do. Yet there remains a reluctance to recognize substance abuse as a health issue. There's a reluctance to accept addiction as a disease. It's a reluctance that has kept public policy from asserting that addicts should be in treatment. Whether addicts are in prison or out, it seems to me, treatment is the only legitimate choice. Not only must we authorize it, we must take full advantage of the treatments that have been developed. For too long, access to effective therapies, such as methadone and LAAM for heroin addiction, has been strangled by layers of bureaucracy and regulation. The result is that only 22 percent of opiate addicts are now receiving pharmaco-therapy treatment. Yet, when I introduced a bill during the last Congress with Senators Hatch, Levin and Moynihan to help improve access by allowing qualified doctors to prescribe certain anti-addiction drugs such as buprenorphine right from their offices, just like other medicines, the bill initially met with resistance. But, because the facts about addiction are finally beginning to sink in, 69 percent of Americans now support treatment instead of jail as the primary focus for drug abusers, and because we were frustrated enough to be persistent, the bill eventually passed and President Clinton signed it into law. But it's not only about increasing access to treatment. It is also about moving treatment into the medical mainstream. Unless family doctors, nurses, physician assistants and social workers can identify addiction when they see it, unless they know how to intervene, we will never make any real progress. That aspect of the challenge came into sharp focus for me when I read a report a few years ago by The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, CASA. That report said that fewer than one percent of doctors presented with the classic profile of an alcoholic older woman could diagnose it properly. Eighty-two percent mis-diagnosed it as depression, some treatments for which are dangerous when taken with alcohol. A follow-up study showed that 94 percent of primary care physicians fail to diagnose substance abuse when presented with the classic symptoms. And 41 percent of pediatricians fail to diagnose illegal drug use in teenage patients. No one recognizes this problem better than the doctors themselves. Fewer than one in five, only 19 percent, feel confident about diagnosing alcoholism. And only 17 percent feel qualified to identify illegal drug use. Having said that, even if they diagnose it, most doctors don't believe that treatment works. Among practitioners, as well as policy makers, we need to get the message out. It needs to be loud and clear. Addiction is a chronic relapsing disease, and as with other such diseases, while there may not be a cure, medical treatment can help control it. The medical professionals have to be educated to recognize the signs of substance abuse and to pursue the effective therapies that are available. That is why I am introducing legislation to create a grant program to train medical professionals to prevent and recognize addiction and refer patients to treatment if they need it. Representative Patrick Kennedy will introduce companion legislation in the House of Representatives. Like treatment, training works. According to a study published in the Brown University Digest of Addiction Theory and Application, 91 percent of health professionals who took part in training on addiction at Boston University were using the techniques they learned one to five years later. Every family doctor does not need to be an addiction specialist, but they do need to be able to recognize the signs. And they need to know what help is available. It's another step, and, in my view, a crucial one, to help bridge the divide between research and practice. It will help chip away at the incredible substance abuse-related costs we face each year in human as well as monetary terms. I hope that my colleagues will join me to support this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, each year, we pause in February--Black History Month--to celebrate the outstanding achievements of African- Americans past and present, and the extraordinary contributions they have made to American history. When the annual tradition originated more than 75 years ago, ``black history'' was barely studied. African- Americans had been in this country at least as far back as colonial times, but the history books largely ignored the black American population and the experiences that sprang from it. However, prodded by the vision and ambition of Dr. Carter G. Woodson--one of this country's great historians and the son of former slaves--all of that began to change in 1926. In that year, we first recognized ``Negro History Week'' and later, in 1976, expanded the celebration to span a full month. Now, Black History Month is celebrated all over North America. Our Nation is far different today from the nation that existed when we started this annual tradition. Racial discrimination--once buttressed by our legal system--is no longer sanctioned by law. Segregated lunch counters and water fountains--commonplace only a few decades ago--are now relics of the past. Barriers like poll taxes and other shams--once tolerated--are no longer permitted to bar African- Americans from voting. Yes, America is a far better and much richer country today because of the enlightenment delivered, in no small part, by the leaders and foot soldiers of the movement for civil rights. They awakened a nation to the cause of equality and justice for all--and, because of their courage and foresight, America is stronger. We are undoubtedly better thinkers because of it . . . and better citizens because of it. Yet, it is that sense of accomplishment that is, perhaps, our greatest enemy. Having survived the civil rights movement and then reaped the benefits that struggle produced, we are inclined to believe that our work is done, that racial disparities don't exist. But that simply is not true. While we may no longer tolerate legal discrimination and segregation--more than ever before--we live segregated lives in segregated neighborhoods. We worship in segregated churches, synagogues and mosques. And nearly a half century after the landmark desegregation case Brown v. Board of Education, our kids still attend largely segregated schools. Now is no time to rest on the accomplishments of yesteryear. We must remain vigilant in our efforts and true to the vision of legends like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Shirley Chisholm and Thurgood Marshall and Barbara Jordan--all of whom knew what we now know--namely, that America can only be great when all her citizens are afforded an equal opportunity to grow and learn and, themselves, be great. I was called to the U.S. Senate 30 years ago, inspired largely by this promise of equal opportunity and by the legions of civil rights workers who risked life and limb to ensure that America kept that promise. When I commenced my service in 1972, we were living in tumultuous times--only a few years before, this country had witnessed the assassination of her bravest sons; we had survived a war abroad; and our security at home threatened, then, by unfriendly foreign powers and a deeply divided public--was uncertain. I thought then, as I do now, that vigilance and strong, outspoken leadership could usher in the healing and transformation we so desperately needed. Today, as America commemorates Black History Month, we are again facing troubled times. The tragic events of September 11th have tested our commitment to keeping America's promise to all her citizens. We honor the nearly 3,000 innocents who died in New York, at the Pentagon and in that field in western Pennsylvania not by cowering in fear or by abandoning our guarantee of traditional civil rights. Rather, we honor their lives by, again, remaining vigilant and by exercising strong leadership in opposition to intolerance and prejudice in our society. We honor them by remaining true to our democratic principles and sense of justice. We honor them by seeking opportunities to speak out against hatred and unfairness and inequality. During this Black History Month and every month, we must remind ourselves of the great road we've traveled but, at the same time, renew our commitment to the basic truths and objectives that inspired the journey in the first place. This month and every month, we must re-dedicate ourselves to keeping America's promise.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, last week the Washington Post ran an opinion piece authored by Michael McFaul, a professor of political science at Stanford University, entitled ``The Other Half of the Job.'' Professor McFaul's thesis is that while the budget presented by the President last week contained a significant, and needed, increase in resources for the Department of Defense, it failed to provide a significant, and needed, increase for ``the other means for winning the war on terrorism.'' The budget, Professor McFaul writes, ``builds[] greater American capacity to destroy bad states, but it adds hardly any new capacity to construct good states.'' I share Professor McFaul's concerns about the inadequacy of the international affairs budget, that is, the funds for the State Department and foreign assistance. The President's budget request for foreign affairs for Fiscal Year 2003 is actually less than the amount provided in Fiscal Year 2002, if the funds provided in the emergency supplemental after September 11 are included in the calculation. America's armed forces are doing a brilliant job in the military campaign in Afghanistan. But it will take American diplomats, and our assistance agencies, working with other partners, to win the peace. We cannot win the peace there, or prevent other failed states from becoming havens for terrorism, without giving our people the tools they need. I commend Professor McFaul's article to my colleagues. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the final day of a legislative session often brings a flurry of activity as bills get un-jammed, compromises emerge, and the Senate produces progress on important issues. Depending upon one's perspective, these last-minute actions include both good things and bad things. Nevertheless, I think we all can agree that today's passage of the Bioterrorism Preparedness Act is a real accomplishment in improving America's homeland defense. This bill authorizes $3.25 billion for comprehensive measures to take the first step in improving our nation's capability, in the event of a biological weapons attack, to respond quickly, contain the attack, and treat the victims. I want to applaud Senators Kennedy and Frist for coming together in a bipartisan spirit and displaying real leadership in drafting this bill. When Sam Nunn testified in early September before the Foreign Relations Committee on the threat posed by biological weapons, he was very clear--bioterrorism is a direct threat to the national security of the United States and we need to invest the necessary resources to counter this threat accordingly. As troubling as the recent spate of anthrax by mail attacks was, we were very fortunate that this was a comparatively small-scale attack. Eighteen Americans contracted inhalation or cutaneous anthrax; unfortunately, five individuals died. The next time a biological weapons attack occurs, we may not be so fortunate in dealing with a small number of victims who emerge over a period of weeks and months. Instead, we may face thousands of victims flooding local emergency rooms and overwhelming our hospitals in a matter of hours. Let's be real here--the anthrax attacks, as small-scale as they may have been, have greatly stressed our national public health infrastructure. One out of eight Centers for Disease Control employees at their headquarters in Atlanta is working on the current anthrax outbreak, forcing the CDC to sideline other essential core activities for the time being. Folks, what we have just been through is small potatoes compared to what we potentially will face. Plain and simple, we can't afford to be so under-prepared in the future. Among Sam Nunn's recommendations for countering biological terrorism, he declared, ``We need to recognize the central role of public health and medicine in this effort and engage these professionals fully as partners on the national security team.'' There are many good things in this bill, ranging from the expansion of the National Pharmaceutical Stockpile to efforts to enhance food safety, but I am especially pleased that the Bioterrorism Preparedness Act provides direct grants to improve the public health infrastructure at the state and local level. Our doctors, nurses, emergency medical technicians, and other public health personnel are our eyes and ears on the ground for detecting a biological weapons attack. We can't afford not to do everything we can to make sure they have the necessary tools and resources in containing any BW attack. This bill goes a long way toward fulfilling that core commitment. So I am very pleased the Senate today has passed the Bioterrorism Preparedness Act and I look forward to a quick reconciliation of this bill with counterpart House legislation early next year. When this bill was introduced, I had expressed my serious concern that it was ignoring the international aspects to any effective response to potential bioterrorism. As Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, I know that we cannot address the threat of bioterrorism within the borders of the United States alone. A biological weapon attack need not originate in the United States to pose a threat to our nation. A dangerous pathogen deliberately released anywhere in the world can quickly spread to the United States in a matter of days, if not hours. The scope and frequency of international trade, travel, and migration patterns offer unlimited opportunities for pathogens to spread across national borders and even to move from one continent to another. Therefore, I continue to believe we need to view all infectious disease epidemics, wherever they occur, as a potential threat to all nations. It is for this reason that, when the Bioterrorism Preparedness Act was being drafted, Senator Helms, the distinguished Ranking Member on the Foreign Relations Committee, and I had worked together in seeking to insert provisions in this bill to enhance global disease monitoring and surveillance. With Senator Kennedy's strong backing, we had sought to ensure the full availability of information (i.e., disease characteristics, pathogen strains, transmission patterns) on infectious epidemics overseas that may provide clues indicating possible illegal biological weapons use or research. Even if an infectious disease outbreak occurs naturally, improved monitoring and surveillance can help contain the epidemic and tip off scientists and public health professionals to new disease that may be used as biological weapons in the future. The World Health Organization (WHO) established a formal worldwide network last year, called the Global Alert and Response Network, to monitor and track infectious disease outbreaks in every region of the world. The WHO has done an impressive job so far working on a shoestring budget. But this global network is only as good as its components--individual nations. Many developing nations simply do not possess the personnel, laboratory equipment or public health infrastructure to track disease patterns and detect traditional and emerging pathogens. In fact, these nations often just seek to keep up in treating those who have already fallen ill. Doctors and nurses in many developing countries only treat a small fraction of the patients who may be ill with a specific infectious disease--in effect, they are only witnessing the tip of a potentially much larger iceberg. According to the National Intelligence Council, governments in developing countries in Africa and Asia have established rudimentary or no systems at all for disease surveillance, response or prevention. For example, in 1994, an outbreak of plague occurred in India, resulting in 56 deaths and billions of dollars of economic damage as trade and travel with India ground to a halt. The plague outbreak was so severe because Indian authorities did not catch the epidemic in its early stages. Authorities had ignored or failed to respond to routine complaints a flea infestation, a sure warning signal for plague. Owing to the lack of resources, developing nations are the weak spots in global disease monitoring and surveillance. Without shoring up these nations' capabilities to detect and contain disease outbreaks, we are leaving the entire world vulnerable to either a deliberate biological weapons attack or an especially virulent naturally occurring epidemic. For all of these reasons, Senator Helms and I had worked together in proposing language to authorize $150 million in FY 1001 and FY 2003 to strengthen the capabilities of individual nations in the developing world to detect, diagnose, and contain infectious disease epidemics. The proposed title would have helped train entry-level public health professionals from developing countries and provide grants for the acquisition of modern laboratory and communications equipment essential to any effective disease surveillance network. Upon first glance, $150 million is chump change in a bill that authorizes more than $3 billion. But I have been assured by public health experts that $150 million alone can go a long ways in making sure that developing countries the basic disease surveillance and monitoring capabilities to effectively contribute to the WHO's global network. The bottom line is that these provisions would have offered an inexpensive, common-sense solution to a problem of global proportions. I was greatly disappointed, therefore, when the White House expressed resistance to the language Senator Helms and I had worked out and sought to drop it from the final bill. While voicing support for our ideas, the White House believed that the Bioterrorism Preparedness Act should only focus on domestic defenses against bioterrorism and was not the appropriate vehicle for the international programs we proposed. I strongly disagreed. It doesn't make sense to draw artificial boundaries between ``domestic'' and ``international'' responses to bioterrorism. I have already pointed out that pathogens deliberately released in an attack anywhere in the world can quickly spread to the United States if we are unable to contain the epidemic at its source. The National Intelligence Council has concluded that infectious diseases are a real threat to U.S. national security. To ignore the international arena in favor of domestic solutions alone just doesn't make any sense. Therefore, when the Bioterrorism Preparedness Act was introduced in November without any provisions to enhance global disease surveillance, I announced my intention to introduce an amendment to ensure this bill would enhance the capabilities of developing nations to track, diagnose, and contain disease outbreaks resulting from both BW attacks and naturally occurring epidemics. This week, the Senate leadership chose to move this bill under an unanimous consent procedure. I initially objected because I strongly believed the Senate should have an opportunity, at the very least, to vote on an amendment to incorporate global disease surveillance activities in the Bioterrorism Preparedness Act. But I understand the urgency of the moment. There is no greater vulnerability in our nation's defenses than against the threat of bioterrorism and it is the responsibility of Congress to act quickly to correct this deficiency. Therefore, I have chosen, for now, to cease my effort to include this amendment in this bill. Office of Management and Budget Director Mitch Daniels today sent me a letter where he expresses appreciation for the proposals contained in this amendment and recognizes that ``International public health has a critical role to play in protecting the United States and our global partners''. Furthermore, Daniels highlights the Administration's intention to engage in discussions with myself and other interested colleagues on these proposals when the Congress reconvenes in January. I ask for unanimous consent that the full text of this letter be included at the end of this statement in the Congressional Record. I expect the Administration to follow up on this letter by planning and budgeting for improved global pathogen surveillance in Fiscal Year 2003. The need is urgent and our ability to lessen the threat posed by bioterrorism is real. The steps we take to combat bioterrorism overseas can keep diseases from reaching our shores and will give us vital early warning of new diseases and strains for which we must prepare. Let me again salute today's passage by the Senate of the Bioterrorism Preparedness Act. While it does not include every essential proposal in enhancing our nation's bioterrorism defenses, it still accomplishes a great deal. If this bill becomes law, which I have no reason to doubt, it is my hope that the Congress will follow up next year with the necessary appropriations to carry out the programs authorized in this bill. Let me close with an excerpt of testimony from the Foreign Relations Committee hearing on bioterrorism in September from Dr. D.A. Henderson, the man who spearheaded the international campaign to eradicate smallpox in the 1970's. Today, he is the director of the newly-formed Office of Emergency Preparedness in the Department of Health and Human Services, which has the mandate to help organize the federal government's response to future bioterrorist attacks. Dr. Henderson was very clear on the value of global disease surveillance: ``In cooperation with the WHO and other countries, we need to strengthen greatly our intelligence gathering capability. A focus on international surveillance and on scientist-to-scientist communication will be necessary . . .''

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, as a former Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I would like to shed a bit of the light of history on the Committee's record this year with regard to judicial nominations. The first year of an Administration is always difficult, with a new Administration settling in and the need in the Senate to confirm a host of non-judicial officials to serve in that new Administration. As a result, the Senate's duty to ``advise and consent'' in judicial nominations is all the more difficult to fulfill. I was privileged to serve as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee the last two times a new Administration came into the White House. In 1993, when President Clinton arrived, we worked hard and confirmed 28 judges that first year, with the White House and the Senate controlled by the same party. In 1989, when the first President Bush took office, with an opposing Senate, we managed only 15 judicial confirmations in the first year. This year, the White House got a late start on its executive branch nominees, due to the election battle. For this and other reasons, no judges were confirmed while the Republicans held the Senate this year. Since June, when the Democrats took control of the Senate, the White House and the Senate have been controlled by different parties, normally a recipe for stagnation on judicial confirmations. Still, by the end of this year, if all goes as expected, we will have confirmed more judges--more than twice the number confirmed in 1989, and even more than we accomplished in 1993, when the White House and the Senate were held by the same party. And as the guy who was running the Judiciary Committee in 1989 and 1993, I can tell you that we were not sitting on our hands back then. And clearly the Committee has not been dawdling this year. Now, some people would come back and say ``well, what about appeals courts? Appellate judges are far more important than district court judges.'' As a matter of fact, we have confirmed more nominees to the appeals courts since June than were confirmed in all of 1993 or 1989. Some people will come back and say ``but Joe, you know what really matters is whether the number of vacancies is growing or shrinking. Are we filling the slots?'' That's true--what really matters is not the whole number of judges confirmed, but whether we are making progress on filling the vacancies that have opened up on the federal bench. Again, let's look at the numbers. In 1993, with the White House and Senate in the same hands, we barely managed to reduce the number of vacancies, by 3 slots. In 1989, with the White House and the Senate split between the Republicans and the Democrats, the number of vacancies grew over the course of the year by 14 slots--the Senate could not keep pace with the retirements and resignations of federal judges. (It's worth noting as well that, during the entire recent period when the Committee was chaired by the Republicans, judicial vacancies grew by 65 percent). By contrast, this year, we will have reduced the number of vacancies by 20, or 18 percent. And that's only since June. With the White House and the Senate controlled by different parties. And with the September 11 attacks happening right smack in the middle of that period! I should point out that another hurdle was thrown into the Senate confirmation process this year, which was not there in previous years. The White House announced that it would no longer vet potential nominees with the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Judiciary. As a result, now the ABA's evaluation of nominees must happen as part of the Senate confirmation process, after the candidate has been nominated by the White House. This step adds weeks to any confirmation. I should also point out that, not only did September 11 disrupt just about everything that was happening in this country, but it particularly affected the Senate; we had to turn immediately to legislation necessary to authorize the war on terrorism. Moreover, the arrival of anthrax on Capitol Hill displaced many Senators and staff, including Judiciary Committee staff. My own Judiciary Committee staff has not had access to their judicial nominations files--not to mention their office--for the past two months. Despite all of these disruptions and delays, which I did not face when I chaired the Committee, and which the Republicans did not face during the past 6 years when they controlled the Committee, we will have confirmed more judges by the end of this year than in the first year of the Clinton Administration, and more than twice as many as in the first year of the first Bush Administration. And we will have significantly reduced the number of judicial vacancies from in just 6 months. So, let my friends on the other side of the aisle tone down their rhetoric, and consult their history books.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am very pleased to urge Senate adoption of S. 1803, the Security Assistance Act of 2001. This is legislation that the Foreign Relations Committee reports out each year, either free-standing or as a title in our State Department authorization bill. But the substance of the Security Assistance Act is anything but routine. It includes: foreign military assistance, including Foreign Military Financing, FMF, and International Military Education and Training, IMET; international arms transfers; and many of our arms control, nonproliferation and anti-terrorism programs. The Security Assistance Act of 2001 covers those programs and includes not only routine adjustments, but also some significant initiatives. For example, a 5-year National Security Assistance Strategy is mandated, so as to provide country-by-country foreign policy guidance to a function that may tend otherwise to operate on the basis more of military or bureaucratic concerns. Several provisions are designed to streamline the arms export control system, so as to make it more efficient and responsive to competitive requirements in a global economy, without sacrificing controls that serve foreign policy or nonproliferation purposes. This is a vital enterprise. U.S. industry depends upon the efficient processing of arms export applications, and U.S. firms lose contracts when the U.S. Government cannot make up its mind expeditiously. At the same time, however, an ill-advised export license could lead to sensitive equipment getting into the hands of enemies or of unstable regimes. So there is a tension between the need for efficiency and the need not to make the mistake that ends up putting U.S. lives at risk. This bill addresses that tension by providing funds for improved staffing levels, information and communications to enable the State Department to make quicker and smarter export licensing decisions. The Security Assistance Act of 2001 includes several new nonproliferation and antiterrorism measures. For example, the ban on arms sales to state supporters of terrorism, in section 40(d) of the Arms Export Control Act, is broadened to include states engaging in the proliferation of chemical, biological or radiological weapons. Subtitle III-C of this bill establishes an interagency committee to coordinate nonproliferation programs directed at the independent states of the former Soviet Union. This provision is based on S. 673, a bill introduced by Senator Hagel and me with the co-sponsorship of Senators Domenici and Lugar. It will ensure continuing, high-level coordination of our many nonproliferation programs, so that we can be more confident that they will mesh with each other. The need for better coordination was cited in the report, earlier this year, of the Russia Task Force chaired by former Senator Howard Baker and former White House counsel Lloyd Cutler. Section 308 of this bill encourages the Secretary of State to seek an increase in the regular budget of the International Atomic Energy Agency, beyond that required to keep pace with inflation, and funds are authorized for the U.S. share of such an enlarged budget. This organization is vital to our nuclear nonproliferation efforts, and its workload is increasing. The lack of a sufficient assessed budget has impaired its ability to hire and retain top-flight scientists, however, so the Committee believes that an increase in that budget is essential. Subtitle III-B of this bill authorizes the President to offer Soviet- era debt reduction to the Russian Federation in the context of an arrangement whereby a significant proportion of the savings to Russia would be invested in agreed nonproliferation programs or projects. Debt reduction is a potentially important means of funding the costs of securing Russia's stockpiles of sensitive nuclear material, chemical weapons and dangerous pathogens, of destroying its chemical weapons and dismantling strategic weapons, and of helping its former weapons experts to find civilian careers and resist offers from rogue states or terrorists. The Administration is reportedly considering this funding option, and this bill gives the President authority to pursue it. A few changes were made in a managers' amendment to this bill, which I would like to summarize for the record. The managers' amendment adds, at the request of Senator Feinstein of California, a new section 206 on congressional notification of small arms and light weapons export license approvals. This section makes license approvals for commercial sales of such weapons, with a value over $1,000,000, subject to the prior notice provisions of section 36(c) of the Arms Export Control Act. It also requires annual reports on end-use monitoring of such arms transfers, the yearly value of such transfers, the activities of registered arms brokers, and efforts of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to stop U.S. weapons from being used in terrorist acts and international crime. I want to commend Senator Feinstein for raising this issue, which is central to our efforts to stem wars and civil bloodshed in Africa and other regions. The United States leads the way on this issue, but we must do more. Senator Feinstein's proposals for U.S. policy and international negotiations in this field are contained in S. 1555, which has been referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. I will work with her and with my House and Senate colleagues in the coming weeks and months to see whether we can agree on further steps on small arms and light weapons exports. Personally, I think we can do so. The managers' amendment deletes subsection 221(c), and I am sorry that we had to do this. This subsection would have returned to Israel certain funds that Israel was forced to give back to the United States due to a general rescission last year. This provision was first proposed by Republican staff to the Foreign Relations Committee, when the Republicans were in the majority, but it was one that I heartily supported. The $4,000,000 at stake may be a small amount of money, but each dollar we provide to Israel is given because it serves our national security interests. Unfortunately, the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations and the chairman of the full Appropriations Committee objected strongly to this provision, not the least because it was scored by the Congressional Budget Office as an appropriation. I intend to press this issue in the coming year, and I hope that my good friends from Vermont and West Virginia will work with me to provide these funds. If we are ever to have a lasting peace in the Middle East, we must do all we can to give Israel confidence that the United States will continue to help assure that country's continued sovereignty and well-being. Section 242, on funds for humanitarian demining programs, is amended in two respects. First, we have deleted any number for the Fiscal Year 2003 authorization for these programs. I welcome this change, because it comes with suggestions that the Foreign Operations Subcommittee may look favorably on an increase in that figure. I will work with that subcommittee on this matter, and I would hope that in conference we could insert a higher figure for Fiscal Year 2003 than the $40,000,000 that has been spent on humanitarian demining each of the last several years. The second change is to delete subsection (b) of section 242. The Foreign Relations Committee, in its desire to increase funds for humanitarian demining, had suggested that the Secretary of State be authorized to provide up to $40,000,000 from development assistance funds in addition to the $40,000,000 authorized in the State Department's Nonproliferation, Anti- terrorism, Demining and Related Programs account. The Foreign Operations Subcommittee informs us that this is not tenable, and I accept their point that this would have been robbing Peter to pay Paul. I think we have made our point, however, that more funds are needed for this program, which has an important political impact in addition to providing humanitarian benefits. Another provision that is deleted in the managers' amendment is section 302, (on an interagency program to prevent diversion of sensitive U.S. technology). This was an effort to authorize the Secretary of State to institute new joint programs with the Department of Commerce and the Commissioner of Customs to improve our export control, as well as a program to use retired inspectors and investigators from the U.S. Customs Service and the Bureau of Export Enforcement in our diplomatic missions overseas. Another committee questioned our jurisdiction in this matter, and we did not have time to work out this matter today, so we are dropping the provision. The need remains, however, to make more use of the many talents of current and former Commerce and Customs personnel. Especially in our overseas missions, those people can make contracts with law enforcement and border control officials in foreign countries that traditional diplomats have a hard time achieving. So I hope that we can work something out on this issue in the weeks and months to come. Another provision in the managers' amendment inserts into section 404, on improvements to the Automated Export System new subsections to extend the range of exporters that must file their Shippers' Export Declarations electronically and to increase the penalties for failure to file and for filing false information. An earlier version of these subsections was deleted by the Committee at the request of Senator Enzi of Wyoming, who spotted some faulty language. The version added to the managers' amendment was worked out with Senator Enzi and with the Department of Commerce, and I am pleased to thank my friend from Wyoming, who is a new member of the Foreign Relations Committee, but an expert in export control, for his sage counsel on this provision. Section 602 of this bill, on nonproliferation interests and free trade agreements, is deleted by the managers' amendment. There were questions from other committees as to whether this was within our jurisdiction. I hope we can resolve those concerns, because the fact remains that other countries' nonproliferation and export control laws and actions are relevant to the question of whether we should engage in free trade with those countries. The managers' amendment inserts into section 701 authorizing certain ship transfers, a subsection authorizing the transfer of four KIDD- class guided missible destroyers to Taiwan. This provision was accidentially omitted from the bill at the Committee's business meeting. In fact, these ship transfers, and the others in this bill, have already been enacted in the defense authorization act. The Foreign Relations Committee is the committee of jurisdiction on this matter, so we do that in this bill. One issue that is not addressed in this bill, but that is of considerable interest to Senator Milkulski and others, is the need for a Center for Antiterrorism and Security Training in the Department of State. We tried to get funding for this in Fiscal Year 2001, but the executive branch went to the wrong subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee and this center fell between the cracks. Now, as our Antiterrorism Assistance Program increases its course offerings for security personnel from friendly countries, the need for a training center is greater than ever. The Security Assistance Act may not be the best vehicle in which to address this issue, but I want to assure my good friend from Maryland that we work on this and that we will assure the State Department of our support for a new center. Even with the managers' amendments this is a good bill that will contribute to our national security. I am happy to urge support of it and I am very pleased that my colleagues appear ready to approve it.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the long and distinguished career of one of our Nation's top police executives, Philadelphia Police Commissioner John F. Timoney. Commissioner Timoney will leave the Philadelphia Police Department in early January, and I want to highlight some of his achievements. I believe John's record of achievement will benefit America's police officers for years to come. John Timoney immigrated to the United States from Ireland at the age of 13. In 1969, after graduating from high school, he joined the ranks of the New York Police Department. He spent the first twelve years of his career as a patrol officer and later a narcotics investigator on the streets of Harlem and the South Bronx. As his reputation for integrity, innovation, and perseverance grew, he rose through the department's management structure, eventually assuming the position of Chief of Department, the highest ranking uniformed position in the department. It was during Mr. Timoney's tenure in the upper echelons of the NYPD that New York's crime rate began to drop precipitously, due in no small part to the new management structure he instituted, merging the Housing and Transit Police Department with the NYPD. In 1996, upon his departure from the NYPD, then-Chief Timoney had accrued over 65 Department Medals, including the prestigious Medal of Valor. After retiring from the NYPD, John entered the world of private security consulting, and offered his expertise and advice to law enforcement authorities all across the country and around the world. He served as Vice Chairman of the Irish Commission on Domestic Violence, and he advised Britain's Patton Commission, which focused on policing Northern Ireland. In March of 1998, Philadelphia Mayor Ed Rendell appointed John Commissioner of the Philadelphia Police Department. His tenure in that position was marked by the same commitment to excellence and improvement which characterized his career in New York. John brought the innovative Compstat system to Philadelphia, and helped to reinvigorate the department. Running a department of 7,000 officers and 900 civilian employees is no easy task, and Commissioner Timoney's efforts to modernize the department have been rewarded by a decline in Philadelphia's crime rate. While I thank John profusely for what he has done to make the streets safer for millions of New Yorkers and Philadelphians, I rise today for another reason: to thank Commissioner Timoney for the lessons that his expertise and experience have taught the entirety of the law enforcement community. While his achievements as a cop on the beat deserve our thanks, I want to make special mention of the contribution he has made to our understanding of how police departments can better employ their resources to combat crime across the country. Commissioner Timoney's career in the upper echelons of law enforcement have been marked by two major paradigm shifts. Without them, law enforcement would not be nearly as successful. And because Commissioner Timoney's work represents what I think is the best of law enforcement--because I believe that we at the Federal level ought to encourage and promote police departments around the nation to promote just this kind of progress--I want to draw special attention to it. First, Commissioner Timoney was at the forefront of efforts to get both the New York and Philadelphia Police Departments to embrace Compstat, a high-tech system which allows police departments to monitor and analyze crime data better, empowering them to re-deploy resources as needed. Compstat was revolutionary policing in both New York and Philadelphia, contributing to dramatic crime reductions in both cities. Second, Commissioner Timoney has been an outspoken proponent of community policing, which was an integral portion of 1994's crime bill. The Commissioner has set a high standard in the practice of policing multi-ethnic and multi-racial communities by empowering precinct captains and other officers in local areas to develop constructive relationships with members of the communities they police. I've always believed that the more integrated cops are with the communities they serve the better. Commissioner Timoney has lived that principle, and the great accomplishments of his career are due in no small part to his promotion of community policing. I am grateful to be able to call John Timoney a friend. The people of Philadelphia will miss his law enforcement expertise, the police officers of his department will miss his extraordinary leadership, and the nation's law enforcement executives will lose one of their brightest lights. Good luck in your future endeavors John. A grateful and safer nation thanks you for your service.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. I join my colleagues in thanking Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens for their assistance in keeping this funding in the final bill. As my colleagues have indicated, smokeless nitrocellulose is a critical precursor for the ammunition of a number of vital weapons systems. By ensuring that more than one company produces it here in the United States, we are being both fiscally responsible and prudent. SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN HEALTH ASSOCIATION DEVELOPMENT OF A HAND HELD WATER

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to thank my Senate colleagues for their support of two important aviation needs and to express my disappointment that the House did not support those decisions. I know that it is always difficult to reconcile the decisions made in the Senate with those made in the House, but this case, I am very sorry to see that the Senate's wisdom was not sustained. When the Defense Appropriations bill left the Senate, it included full-funding for two important aviation assets--C-5 avionics modernization and 10 additional Blackhawks for the Amy National Guard. Unfortunately, the bill that we have before us does not include those items. Instead, the C-5 avionics funding is cut by $70.50 million and there are only 4 Blackhawks going to the Army National Guard. Let me first review the importance of the C-5 Avionics Modernization Program which was not only fully funded in the Senate's Defense Appropriations bill, but which both the House and Senate Armed Services Committees fully supported in their bills. The C-5 is what the military uses when it needs to deploy quickly with as much equipment as possible. This was confirmed once again in Operation Enduring Freedom where the Air Force reports that C-5s have hauled forty-six percent of the cargo during the operation while only flying approximately twenty-eight percent of the sorties. This plane is a vital part of our military success. It is also a key player in our nation's humanitarian efforts, so critical to the long-term success of our national security strategy. Taking $70.5 million from the President's funding request means that critical Secretary of Defense directed Flight and Navigation Safety modifications and Global Air Traffic Management modifications will be delayed by up to a year or more. Delays in installing the safety equipment continue to place aircrews at risk at a time when they are engaged around the world in the war on terrorism and humanitarian missions. Delays also prevent the C-5 from being fully employed in certain parts of the world as AMP modifications are necessary to comply with new GATM regulations. At a time when we are asking our military to do so much, to deny our aircrews and military planners C-5s that have the safety upgrades and operational improvements that the AMP will provide does not make sense. Again, I am sorry that the House did not agree with the Senate. I hope we can reverse this problem next year by accelerating the program with increased funding. I will certainly fight to do that and I hope that other colleagues who have been supportive in the past will join me in that fight next year. My other concern with this bill is that the Army National Guard's need for additional UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters has not been properly addressed. Today, the Army National Guard comprises fifty percent of the Army's total utility airlift capability. Unfortunately, only twenty-seven percent of the fleet is usually flyable. On a regular basis a full seventy-three percent of the utility helicopters in the Guard are grounded because of a lack of parts or safety of flight concerns! Virtually every state confronts significant shortages, and some states, like Delaware, have absolutely no modern helicopters, relying instead on one or two Vietnam-era helicopters. This means that regular state missions cannot be executed. Pilots and maintenance personnel cannot remain proficient. These skilled personnel are not able to do their job, get frustrated, and decide not to stay in the military. Meanwhile, the Army is simply unready in this area. In normal times, these are unacceptable realities. Today, when the Guard has been asked to do so much more, it is unfathomable to me that we would not do more to fix these problems. The Senate recognized the need to do more and provided a first installment of ten new Blackhawk helicopters for the Army Guard. Unfortunately, this bill only provides four. Today, many in utility aviation units do not have even the bare minimum they need to stay proficient, let alone do their missions. This is certainly true in Delaware and I know it also true for at least five other states. This bill does not even allow the Guard Bureau to put one new Blackhawk in each state that needs seven to ten! The men and women who serve in the Guard every day, both in their states and overseas, deserve to have the equipment they need to perform their missions. I am sorry the House did not agree to do more to address their aviation needs this year and I will work with my colleagues again next year to try to improve this situation. Mr. President, this bill includes a number of important items that will benefit our military and I support it. But, I want to put my colleagues on notice that next year I will be fighting to accelerate C- 5 modernization and to get additional UH-60s for the Army National Guard. The Senate spoke wisely last week in fully funding both of these aviation needs and I am sorry that the House was unwilling to sustain that wisdom. Mr. Allard. Mr. President, being that I was not able to discuss the Fiscal Year 2002 Defense Authorization Act last Thursday, I wanted to take a few minutes to discuss a few aspects of this very important bill. I strongly support the Fiscal Year 2002 Defense Authorization Act. I want to congratulate Chairman Levin and the Ranking Member Warner for the good work and the way they have moved this important bill for our men and women in the military. I believe this is a balanced bill which provides a much needed and deserved increase for our military men and women. After years of declining budgets, this bill continues the increase in resources which started 2 years ago. The bill provides $343.3 billion in budget authority, plus authorizes the $21.2 billion in emergency supplemental appropriations as requested by the President in order to respond to the terrorist attacks. The bill also adds over $779.4 million above the request for the Department of Energy's environmental cleanup programs and nuclear weapons activities. When I became the Personnel Subcommittee Chairman in 1999, the subcommittee provided the first major pay raise for our troops in over 20 years and I am glad that this year's bill continues this trend. The bill provides a targeted pay raise effective January 1, 2002, ranging 5 to 10 percent, with the largest increase going to junior officers and non-commissioned officers. While no member enjoys having bases closed in their State, or even the possibility of closure, it is that time that we recognize we do have excess capacity and that is time to consider another round of base closings as requested by the administration. After much negotiating, the conferees authorized a round of base closings in 2005, with established criteria based on actual and potential military value that the Secretary of Defense must use to determine which bases to recommend. As the rulemaking member of the Strategic Subcommittee, I would like to congratulate my chairman, Senator Reed, for his good work on this bill. He worked in a bipartisan and even handed manner. While we disagreed on the missile defense programs, Senator Reed and I were in agreement on most of the remaining major issues before the subcommittee. While many in Congress may disagree on funding levels of missile defense, no one can argue that ballistic missiles, armed with nuclear, biological, or chemical warheads, present a considerable threat to U.S. troops deployed abroad, allies, and the American homeland. The consequences of such an attack on the United States would be staggering; yet the United States currently has no system capable of effectively stopping even a single ballistic missile headed toward the American homeland or depolyed U.S. troops. To end this vulnerability, the President requested a significant increase in funding for ballistic missile defense programs which was an important first step toward protecting all Americans against ballistic missile attack. The conference provided up to $8.3 billion, $3 billion more than the fiscal year 2001 level, for the continued development of ballistic missile defenses. In addition, the conferees provided flexibility for the President to use up to $1.3 billion of these funds for programs to combat terrorism. In an effort to increase the efficiency and productivity of the missile defense programs, the administration requested to fundamentally restructure the nation's ballistic missile defense programs into six primary areas: Boost, Midcourse, Terminal Defenses, Systems Engineering, Sensor, and Technology Development. This new approach will provide the flexibility to allow programs that work to mature but the ability to cancel programs that do not. Plus, the program will provide enhanced testing and test infrastructure. A major testing initiative included in the President's request is the 2004 Pacific missile defense test bed, the conferees supported the request, for $786 million for the including $273 million for construction primarily at fort Greely, Alaska and other Alaska locations. Beginning in 2004, the Pacific missile test bed will allow more challenging testing in a far wider range of engagement scenarios than can be accommodated today. The conferees provided the following levels for the restructured programs: $780 million for BMD system activities including battle management, communications, targets, countermeasures, and system integration; $2.2 billion (matching the President's request) for terminal defense systems, including Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC- 3), Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS), Navy Area (which has now been cancelled by the Administration), Theater High Altitude Air Defense (THAAD), and international missile defense programs, including the Arrow program; $3.9 billion (matching the President's request) for mid-course defense systems, including ground-based (formerly known as national Missile Defense) and sea-based (formerly known as Navy Theater Wide Defense) missile defense programs; $685 million (matching the President's request) for boost phase systems, including the Airborne Laser (ABL) and Space-Based Laser (SBL); $496 million (matching the President's request) for the Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS) and international sensor programs, including the Russian-American Observation Satellite project; $113 million (matching the President's request) for development of technology and innovative concepts necessary to keep pace with evolving missile threats; However, the conferees did not support the President's request to transfer PAC-3, Medium Extended Air Defense System, and Navy Area programs from BMDO to the military services. The bill requires the Secretary of Defense to establish guidelines for future transfers, and to certify that transferred programs are adequately funded in the future year defense program. Just as the President moves to reduce our nuclear forces the conferees repealed the statute that prohibits the U.S. from retiring or dismantling certain strategic nuclear forces until START II enters into force. As part of this effort, the conferees increased funding for the retirement of the Peacekeeper ICBM. The Strategic Subcommittee also has oversight over two-thirds of the Department of Energy's budget as it relates to our nuclear forces and defense nuclear cleanup programs. During the subcommittee's hearings, we heard from DOE that one of the major shortfalls of the Department is the conditions of the infrastructure of our DOE labs and plants, the need for a principal deputy administrator at the National Nuclear Security Administration, and an increase in DOE's environmental cleanup programs and nuclear weapons activities. Therefore the conferees provided $6.2 billion for DOE environmental cleanup and management programs including: $3.3 billion for work at facilities with complex and extensive environmental problems that will be closed after 2006; $1.1 billion for the Defense Facilities Closure Project; $959.7 million for construction and site completion at facilities that will be closed by 2006; $216 million ($20 million more than the President's request) for the Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Science and Technology programs; and $153.5 million ($12 million more than the President's request) for Defense Environmental Management Privatization. In regards to the National Nuclear Security Administration conferees provided $7.1 billion for managing the nation's nuclear weapons, nonproliferation and naval reactor programs, including: $1 billion for stockpile life extension and evaluation programs; $2.1 billion for focused efforts to develop the tools and knowledge necessary to ensure the safety, reliability, and performance of the nuclear stockpile in the absence of underground nuclear weapons testing. Included in this, the conferees provided $219 million to fully fund plutonium pit manufacturing and certification; $200 million to begin to recapitalize the nation's nuclear weapons complex infrastructure, much of which dates to the post-World War II era; $688 million for the naval reactors program, which supports operation, maintenance and continuing development of Naval nuclear propulsion systems. There is one issue that I am very proud to say is included in this bill and that is the creation of the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge. This effort has been done in a bipartisan manner with Congressman Udall and more than 2 years worth of work by local citizens, community leaders, and elected officials. Its passage has ensured that our children and grandchildren will continue to enjoy the wildlife and open space that currently exists at Rocky Flats. However, even with its passage, my primary goal remains the safe cleanup and closure of Rocky Flats. I would like to mention a few of the following high points of the bill. Rocky Flats will remain in permanent federal ownership through a transfer from the Department of Energy to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service after the cleanup and closure of the site is complete; Secondly, we understand the importance of planning for the transportation needs of the future and have authorized the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of the Interior the opportunity to grant a transportation right-of-way on the eastern boundary of the site for transportation improvements along Indiana Street; The third point is one of the most important directives in this Act and it states that ``nothing . . . shall reduce the level of cleanup and closure at Rocky Flats required under the RFCA or any Federal or State law.'' I believe it is important to reiterate that the cleanup levels for the site will be determined by the various laws and processes set forth in the Rock Flats Cleanup Agreement and State and Federal law; and Fourth, we firmly believe that access rights and property rights must be preserved. Therefore, this legislation recognizes and preserves all mineral rights, water rights and utility rights-of-ways. This act does, however, provide the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of Interior the authority to impose reasonable conditions on the access to private property rights for cleanup and refuge management purposes. I would also like to highlight another section of the bill which encourages the implementation of the recommendations of the Space Commission, which concluded that the Department of Defense is not adequately organized or focused to meet U.S. national security space needs. There are four major sections of the provision. The first provision requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a report on steps taken to improve management, organization and oversight of space programs, space activities, and funding and personnel resources. The second provision requires the Secretary of Defense to take actions that ensure space development and acquisition programs are jointly carried out and, to the maximum extent practicable, ensure that offers of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force are assigned to and hold leadership positions in such joint program offices. Third, the conferees request that the Comptroller General report back to Congress on the actions taken by the Secretary of Defense to implement the recommendations contained in the Commission report. Fourth, due to the concerns of the ``tripled hatted'' nature of the Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Air Force Space Command, the bill states that the position should not serve concurrently as commander of the North American Air Defense Command and as Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Space Command. Plus, the bill provides the needed flexibility in general officer limits to ensure that the commander of Air Force Space Command will serve in the grade of general. Finally, even though I strongly support the Fiscal Year 2002 Authorization Act, I am very disappointed that this bill ignored real shortcoming as it relates to our military's voting rights. While my original bill went much further in implementing the Space Commission report, I believe this is a first good step and, if needed, I hope we can revisit this issue next year to ensure that space management and programs get the senior level support it deserves. Finally, even though I strongly support this bill, I am very disappointed that this bill ignored a real shortcoming as it relates to our military voting rights. When I introduce S. 381, my Military Voting Rights Bill, I sought to improve the voting rights of overseas military voters in six key ways. And this Senate agreed to include that bill in our version of the defense authorization. But I am severely dismayed that the conference report contained none of the most important provisions relating to military voting. Considering the egregious acts of last November, with the memory of campaign lawyers standing ready with pre-printed military absentee ballot challenge forms, we needed to respond. And yet the House of Representatives, led by the House Administration Committee, refused to accept the sections of the Senate passed bill that would most effectively ensure the voting rights of our military men and women and their families. In September, the GAO released a 92-page report entitled ``Voting Assistance to Military and Overseas Citizens Should Be Improved.'' I will not read the entire thing, but let me read one of the summary headers: ``Military and Overseas Absentee Ballots in Small Countries Were Disqualified at a Higher Rate Than Other Absentee Ballots.'' I also have an article from the Washington Post, page A17, November 22, 2000 that reads in part `` . . . lawyers spent a contentious six hours trying to disqualify as many as possible of the absentee ballots sent in by overseas military personnel.'' Let me also read from a Miami Herald article, November 19, 2000: ``Forty percent of the more than 3,500 ballots in Florida were thrown out last week for technical reasons, and elections observers are wondering whether the State's election laws are fair, especially to military personnel.'' Two main flaws in the military voter system--flaws that we have concrete proof were exploited--could have been fixed last week by sections of the Military Voting Rights bill that the House refuses to accept. The first section prohibits a State from disqualifying a ballot based upon lack of postmark, address, witness signature, lack of proper postmark, or on the basis of comparison of envelope, ballot and registration signatures alone--these were the basis for most absentee ballot challenges. There has been report after report of ballots mailed--for instance form deployed ships or other distant postings--without the benefit of postmarking facilities. Sometimes mail is bundled, and the whole group gets one postmark, which could invalidate them all under current law. Military ``voting officers'' are usually junior ranks, quickly trained, and facing numerous other responsibilities. We can not punish our service personnel for the good faith mistakes of others. And military voters who are discharged and move before an election but after the residency deadline cannot vote through the military absentee ballot system, and sometimes are not able to fulfill deadlines to establish residency in a State. There are roughly 20,000 military personnel separated each month. Our section allowed them to use the proper discharge forms as a residency waiver and vote in person at their new polling site. This brings military voters into their new community quicker. But the House rejected this section as well. The Senate moved to address these problems. The Houses refuses to do so. This is an issue I, and those who feel as strongly as I do, such as our nation's veteran and active duty service organizations, will continue to press.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the Foreign Operations appropriations bill is one of the most important appropriations related to national security that Congress makes during the course of the year. It is a little known fact to most Americans, but foreign assistance is among the first lines of defense in ensuring the safety and security of each and every American here and abroad. Through this appropriation we fund anti-terrorism activities, we provide money to give jobs to Russian nuclear physicists who would otherwise be offering their services to whatever terrorist organizations were willing to pay them, we fund our antinarcotics efforts and provide money to combat the spread of deadly diseases before they reach our shores. Mr. President, we are in no way devoting the necessary resources to the front line. I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Foreign Operations Appropriation sub-Committee. They did the best they could with the allocation they were given. I know that if he had his druthers the chairman would have been working with a much bigger number. I do not intend to criticize the hard work that the subcommittee has done. And I will acknowledge that for its part, the Senate Budget Committee certainly exceeded the administration's grossly inadequate request when it made the initial allocation. I applaud that. And I applaud the fact that the conferees understood the importance of the Non-proliferation, AntiTerrorism, Demining and Related Programs, fully funding vitally important accounts such as those for Non-proliferation and Disarmament, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organization Preparatory Commission, Antiterrorism, Terrorist Interdiction and the International Science and technology Centers. What I would say to my colleagues, however, is that the conference report, although it is slightly more than the administration's request, makes it clear that we need to do much, much more. We need to stop thinking about foreign assistance as a handout, as welfare for the developing world, and consider it a strategic investment in America's security. The tragic events of September 11 were a wake-up call. The United States is not isolated from the rest of the world in a sea of invulnerable tranquility. As we stand here today, there are radicals preaching anti-American sentiments around the globe. They are saying that democracy breeds corruption, and that globalization is the reason for poverty. These radicals take advantage of the desperation of the poor and the hopeless. Poverty and ignorance are one of the most fertile breeding grounds of terrorism. By now my colleagues are aware of the fact that many members of the Taliban, the same group of radical fiends that harbored Osama bin Laden, were refugees in Pakistan who were too poor to afford school. They were educated in radical seminaries that they attended free of charge. Where were we and the rest of the international community with an alternative for these children? We were absent. It did not concern us. It was not our problem. On the other side of the world in Mali, a Washington Post article dated September 30 states that Muslim missionaries have taken ``hundreds of recruits'' abroad for religious training. The story states that radical Islamic religious movements are gaining popularity due to corruption and rising poverty. Are we going to ignore the warning signs in west Africa as well? Will we let Mali, an emerging democracy struggling to hold on by the skin of its teeth, become a source of turmoil, unrest and violence? The government there is trying to do the right things in terms of economic and market reform. We should be empowering the Agency for International Development and the State Department to provide the country with the ability to make the transition to democracy in such a way that all people benefit. This appropriation in no way provides enough money to adequately do so. Those who are hopeless and disaffected swell the ranks of terrorist organizations. Autocratic politically repressive regimes, where discontent and disagreement cannot be expressed, are fertile grounds for terrorist recruitment. In countries that prohibit free speech, freedom of association and political choice, violence becomes the only means through which to affect political change. The United States foreign policy apparatus has the mandate to push for change in these countries. It lacks the means to do so to the extent necessary. I say to my colleagues that we have got to take heed. The problems in other countries are our problems. We need to engage, and it is impossible to do so on the cheap. We cannot adequately engage the world with the monies allocated in this appropriation. The United States cannot hope to participate meaningfully in the reconstruction of Afghanistan out of these meager funds. The cost of that alone is projected to be as much as $18-20 billion over the next 5 years. A cost which we must be prepared to share among the donor community. As we speak there are students in the very schools in Pakistan that I spoke of learning to hate America. As we speak there are anti-Western sentiments being preached to people in some mosques in west Africa. What are we doing to expose them to American values and ideals so that they will not be the perpetrators of violence against U.S. citizens in the future? The United States cannot be all things to all people everywhere. We cannot cure the ills of the world. And I do not believe that eliminating poverty will be the silver bullet that eradicates terrorism. There is no silver bullet or magic potion that will achieve that aim. But let's consider the state of our efforts today. President Bush has declared a war on terrorism. He has stated that we must fight terrorism on all fronts. I submit that foreign assistance is one important tool in our arsenal. We have just been rudely and shockingly awakened to the fact that we need to take advantage of each of these tools. There is nothing we can do which would 100 percent guarantee that America will not be attacked by terrorists again. What we can do is mitigate the threat. We can help the UN and the government of Pakistan provide alternatives to the madrassass that refugee children in Pakistan attend because there is no other form of education available. We can help eliminate poverty and corruption in developing countries that radical elements seize on as a reason to attack so called western values and democracy. The United States is spending a billion dollars a month on the war in Afghanistan. I do not begrudge a penny of that money. We must do whatever it takes for however long it takes to wipe Al-Qaida from the face of the earth. However, I strongly believe that we must do all we can to prevent ever having to fight such a war again. One of the ways we can do this is to invest more in preventative measures. We must foster the spread of democracy, bolster the judicial and law enforcement capabilities of developing countries and help strengthen the economies where necessary. What we have done to date is clearly not enough.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the National Child Protection Improvement Act of 2001. Today, 87 million of our children are involved in provided by child and youth organizations which depend heavily on volunteers to deliver their services. Millions more adults are also served by public and private voluntary organizations. Organizations across the country, like the Boys and Girls Clubs, often rely solely on volunteers to make these safe havens for kids a place where they can learn. The Boys and Girls Clubs and others don't just provide services to kids, their work reverberates throughout our communities, as the after-school programs they provide help keep kids out of trouble. This is juvenile crime prevention at its best, and I salute the volunteers who help make these programs work. Unfortunately, some of these volunteers come to their jobs with less than the best of intentions. According to the National Mentoring Partnership, incidents of child sexual abuse in child care settings, foster homes and schools ranges from 1 to 7 percent. Volunteer organizations have tried to weed out bad apples, and today most conduct background checks on applicants who seek to work with children. Unfortunately, these checks can often take months to complete, can be expensive, and many organizations do not have access to the FBI's national fingerprint database. These time delays and scope limitations are dangerous: a prospective volunteer could pass a name-based background check in one state, only to have a past felony committed in another jurisdiction go undetected. Today I am introducing a bill designed to solve some of these problems. The National Child Protection Improvement Act of 2001 creates a new, FBI national center to conduct criminal history fingerprint checks at the request of volunteer organizations. Funds are authorized so that volunteer organizations could have the national checks performed at no cost to them, the Federal government ought to be supporting those groups who seek to safeguard our kids, and this is a modest investment that deserves to be made. Other child-serving organizations who sought the services of the new national center would have checks conducted at a minimal cost. My bill envisions as many as 10 million background checks conducted per year at this center, enough to prevent felons and other dangerous members of society from getting anywhere near our kids. States perform many of these checks today, so to help them do their jobs better my bill authorizes $5 million per year to hire personnel and improve fingerprint technology so that they can update information in national databases. All of us understand the positive impact that volunteer organizations are making. Now we need to give these groups the tools and resources they need to ensure absolute safety for the children they serve. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the National Child Protection Improvement Act of 2001. Today, 87 million of our children are involved in provided by child and youth organizations which depend heavily on volunteers to deliver their services. Millions more adults are also served by public and private voluntary organizations. Organizations across the country, like the Boys and Girls Clubs, often rely solely on volunteers to make these safe havens for kids a place where they can learn. The Boys and Girls Clubs and others don't just provide services to kids, their work reverberates throughout our communities, as the after-school programs they provide help keep kids out of trouble. This is juvenile crime prevention at its best, and I salute the volunteers who help make these programs work. Unfortunately, some of these volunteers come to their jobs with less than the best of intentions. According to the National Mentoring Partnership, incidents of child sexual abuse in child care settings, foster homes and schools ranges from 1 to 7 percent. Volunteer organizations have tried to weed out bad apples, and today most conduct background checks on applicants who seek to work with children. Unfortunately, these checks can often take months to complete, can be expensive, and many organizations do not have access to the FBI's national fingerprint database. These time delays and scope limitations are dangerous: a prospective volunteer could pass a name-based background check in one state, only to have a past felony committed in another jurisdiction go undetected. Today I am introducing a bill designed to solve some of these problems. The National Child Protection Improvement Act of 2001 creates a new, FBI national center to conduct criminal history fingerprint checks at the request of volunteer organizations. Funds are authorized so that volunteer organizations could have the national checks performed at no cost to them, the Federal government ought to be supporting those groups who seek to safeguard our kids, and this is a modest investment that deserves to be made. Other child-serving organizations who sought the services of the new national center would have checks conducted at a minimal cost. My bill envisions as many as 10 million background checks conducted per year at this center, enough to prevent felons and other dangerous members of society from getting anywhere near our kids. States perform many of these checks today, so to help them do their jobs better my bill authorizes $5 million per year to hire personnel and improve fingerprint technology so that they can update information in national databases. All of us understand the positive impact that volunteer organizations are making. Now we need to give these groups the tools and resources they need to ensure absolute safety for the children they serve. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. I have no objection to the Senator continuing his speech. I am wondering how long he is likely to speak. Will the Senator say roughly how long he is going to speak?

Mr. BIDEN. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. That is a fact.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, Delaware has proudly named after the strongest group of revolutionary fighters in the Revolution from the State of Delaware. Back in those days, cock fights were very much in vogue. The toughest of those competitors were the Blue Hens of Delaware. I want the record to show the Blue Hens have taken Panthers, Badgers, and Bears in their stride, including the Black Bears of Maine. We are little, but we are very strong. I often wish the mascot in the Revolutionary War for the Delaware regiment had been a panther or a lion, but it happened to be a blue hen. So we are the Delaware Blue Hens, and proud to be such.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, before the Senator begins a more serious discussion, and I will wait my turn, may I intervene to discuss this issue for just a moment, coming from a State that has won Division II championships more than any of you, and one that this year for the first time in a long while did not make it in the playoffs. I want my friend from Montana to know I warned my seatmate from South Carolina about you all. We understand about the Grizzlies in Delaware. They have been a very powerful Division I-AA team actually the last--almost the last decade, the last 8 years or so. I just want you to know that, even though the Presiding Officer is from a State that has a team called the Spartans--and they only get 100,000 folks or so to show up to their games; they don't understand, as the Presiding Officer prior to this, from the University of Michigan and Michigan State, where they get 110,000 people--they don't understand real football that the three of us understand. At some point we should have a more far-reaching discussion about football as it is really still played, where there are student athletes who take seriously that undertaking, as they do their football. I want to say that people who do not follow and understand that--and many do not because of the media--who do not follow Division II football, should understand there are some very serious ballplayers. It is very good football, high-caliber football. And, in any given year, such as this year, a team such as the Grizzlies is able to compete with Division I teams. They couldn't do it day in and day out. They could not do it 10 games a year. But it is very serious football. I have been through these bets myself over the last 29 years here because my alma mater has been engaged in this national championship more than once. Delaware this year had a lousy season, relatively speaking--a winning season but a lousy season. But we have a coach who this year made it to the ranks of only 6 coaches in the history of college football to win over 300 football games. I just want to rise and salute Division II football, where it is not a 40-hour-a-week job to attend school, but it is serious, serious football. I would argue the pressure on some of the fine athletes at Northern Iowa and the University of Montana, the University of Delaware, to play this caliber football and what is also expected of them off the field, is a real strain, a real burden on some of them because they do not get the same opportunities, same scholarships, same treatment, on occasion, that some of the major Division I school athletes do. I salute the Grizzlies. They are one tough team. When I told my friend from South Carolina about your record, because I was very familiar with it, he blanched and said, as only he could say because he is one of the most humorous guys here: My Lord, if that's the case and they lose, and I have to recite that, they should change that fight song. Having said that, I yield the floor and wait my turn to speak on a more serious subject.