Joe Biden

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, it has been 16 years since the United States Congress last enacted re-authorizing legislation governing our controls on the export of dual-use technology, those items suited for both civilian and military uses. For much of the past 7 years, the President has been forced to exercise emergency powers to maintain dual-use export controls following the expiration of the 1979 Export Administration Act. This temporary exercise of authority has limited the penalties the Federal Government can enforce on export control violators and has opened up existing export controls to a series of legal challenges. It is high time, therefore, that the Senate act on S. 149, a bill to re-authorize the Export Administration Act. I look forward to the passage of this bill and the creation of a modern system of export controls. We owe this to U.S. companies, which deserve a rational and predictable framework of export controls. We owe this to our friends and allies, who look to the U.S. export control system as a model in devising their own systems. And, most importantly, we owe this to our national security, we cannot rely forever on an ad hoc system that metes out insufficient penalties and is based on shaky legal ground. Export controls exist, first and foremost, for reasons of national security. The United States must not export items when the item or the end-user may contribute to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, strengthen the military capabilities of those who would oppose us, or otherwise endanger U.S. national security. A comprehensive export control system is just as important to preserving America's freedom and security as a strong military. But export controls also exist to facilitate the free trade of goods and services, an essential building block of our international economy. The future growth of our economy and a leading global role for U.S. industry require a vital export market. I think all of us can agree that national security considerations must always come first in devising export controls. We can all agree that such controls should not be so arbitrary as to stifle legitimate trade. We may differ, however, on where we draw the line in balancing these two opposing considerations. Export controls can also serve another purpose. They can help reaffirm America's global leadership on human rights. Let me take this opportunity to commend Senators Sarbanes and Enzi for accepting an amendment proposed by Senator Leahy and me in this regard. The managers' amendment to S. 149 will tighten the controls on the export of items expressly designed for torture or especially susceptible to use in torture. We are talking about items such as stun guns and shock batons, leg cuffs and restraint chairs. Yes, some of these items can have legitimate law enforcement uses and are in fact employed in a manner that does not abuse human rights. That is why this amendment would continue to allow their export, but make them subject to the licensing process and require the specific concurrence of the State Department as well as the approval of the Commerce Department. The items covered by this amendment are devices that governments around the world too often use in suppressing political dissidents and ethnic opposition. This amendment requires the U.S. government to license each and every export of such items. It will help ensure that the United States does not indirectly contribute to the torture of individuals by engaging in the unlicensed trade of items used for torture. It is my hope that the Commerce and State Departments, working together, will see to it that licensed exports of these items are permitted only to those countries whose governments carry unblemished human rights records. I once again thank Senators Sarbanes and Enzi for accepting this amendment, and especially Senator Leahy, who is once again a champion of human rights and with whom I am always delighted to work. During this debate, a group of Senators, led by my good friends Senator Thompson and Senator Kyl, has led an intense effort against S. 149. They argue that this bill fundamentally favors commercial equities over our national security interests. They are skeptical that the Commerce Department, which is responsible for cultivating U.S. business interests around the world, can play an impartial role in weighing national security considerations. Truth be told, I have shared some of their concerns. That's why I am pleased that the floor managers have reached a compromise with Senators Thompson and Kyl. This compromise includes amendments to S. 149 to: 1. enhance the discretionary authority of the Commerce Department to deny export licenses to another country when it is blocking legitimate post- shipment verifications of sensitive exports and 2. tighten the definition of foreign availability determinations which can exempt items from export controls. These changes to S. 149 approved today offer real improvements to this bill. I plan to vote for S. 149. On the whole, this bill takes the right steps to bring our export controls for dual-use technologies into the 21st century. Is it a perfect bill? No. The House International Relations Committee, in marking up this bill last month, approved dozens of amendments, on a bipartisan basis. I would hope, therefore, to see further improvement of this bill in conference. But now is not the time for delay on S. 149. The Senate has a duty to pass this legislation and to restore stability and predictability to our export control system for sensitive dual-use technologies.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to be able to join with Senators Thurmond and Hatch in introducing the Fugitive Apprehension Act of 2001. This bill authorizes the Attorney General to issue administrative subpoenas in cases involving fugitives. Its passage will provide law enforcement with the tools it needs to more effectively track and apprehend fugitives from justice, and I look forward to its prompt consideration. Crime across the country continues to trend downwards, though we have seen some mixed statistical signals of late. As chairman of the newly- created Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs, I am extremely concerned by the Nation's fugitive problem. According to estimates from the Department of Justice, there are approximately 54,000 fugitives from justice in Federal cases. A total of 565,611 fugitives, including state and local felony cases, have been entered into the database of the National Crime Information Center, up from 340,000 10 years ago. But this figure only begins to measure the problem, as the National Crime Information Center receives just 20 percent of all outstanding State and local felony warrants. These fugitives from justice are a very real and dangerous concern. For example, last December, there was a shooting in Wilmington, DE. The shooter was charged with attempted murder and weapons violations and was jailed in Chester, PA, on a separate, earlier shooting charge. He then posted $500 bail on those charges, and promptly fled the jurisdiction. Members of Delaware's Violent Fugitive Task Force soon determined this violent criminal was hiding out in West Los Angeles. They alerted local FBI agents, who soon located the fugitive in a car and tried to stop him. He led the agents on a two-mile, high-speed chase, crashed into a pole, then tried to escape on foot. He was eventually captured, arrested, and he was recently returned to Delaware to face charges. This fugitive is particularly dangerous: he has a long record of drug and other offenses, including 52 arrests in Delaware dating all the way back to when he was 13. Unfortunately, this incident from my home State is not an isolated one, and we should not hamstring law enforcement when they try to catch these criminals. To better equip our Federal law enforcement agents with the resources they need to track and apprehend dangerous fugitives from justice, we need to make some changes to our criminal laws. The Fugitive Apprehension Act of 2001 gives the Attorney General, principally through the United States Marshals Service, authority to issue administrative subpoenas in cases involving fugitives. Last year, the Director of the Marshals Service testified as to the need for these subpoenas in fugitive cases; he noted that seldom is a grand jury available to issue a subpoena in these instances. In fugitive cases, time is often of the essence and successful investigations depend on real-time information, such as telephone subscriber and credit records. The time required to get a court order can make the difference between whether a fugitive is apprehended or remains at large. Given the privacy concerns that rightfully arise whenever Fourth Amendment protections are impacted, I want to take a moment to describe some of the safeguards in the bill we introduce today. First, and importantly, the bill's provisions apply only to those fugitives charged with or convicted of violent felonies or trafficking in drugs. Second, the bill in no way authorizes searches by law enforcement agencies; the subpoenas envisioned by the bill may be used only to obtain documents. Witness testimony and searches still must meet the Constitution's warrant requirement. Third, each administrative subpoena issued must be approved by the local United States Attorney for the district in which the subpoena will be served. I realize the Marshals Service and other law enforcement groups would rather this safeguard not be in the bill, but I insisted upon its inclusion at this point so as to ensure this new investigative power is not abused. I look forward to continuing my discussions with the Marshals Service and others concerning the effect this safeguard could have on their fugitive apprehensions. Fourth, the bill allows the person on whom an administrative subpoena is served to request to a court that it be overturned--judicial review is mandated each time an administrative subpoena is challenged. I am mindful of the fact that Federal law enforcement already has administrative subpoena power in other types of cases, including drug enforcement, child abuse and child pornography investigations. The need for administrative subpoena authority should be more clear in fugitive cases; there, the criminal being pursued has already proven his danger to society by committing a very serious crime. The bill we are introducing today is quite limited in scope, and its built in safeguards coupled with the opportunity for judicial review I believe balance well the rights of individuals with the clear need to catch those violent criminals on the lam, criminals whose very presence on our streets threatens us all. I thank Senator Thurmond for his leadership in this area, and I look forward to working with him and Senator Hatch to see this bill signed into law.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to be able to join with Senators Thurmond and Hatch in introducing the Fugitive Apprehension Act of 2001. This bill authorizes the Attorney General to issue administrative subpoenas in cases involving fugitives. Its passage will provide law enforcement with the tools it needs to more effectively track and apprehend fugitives from justice, and I look forward to its prompt consideration. Crime across the country continues to trend downwards, though we have seen some mixed statistical signals of late. As chairman of the newly- created Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs, I am extremely concerned by the Nation's fugitive problem. According to estimates from the Department of Justice, there are approximately 54,000 fugitives from justice in Federal cases. A total of 565,611 fugitives, including state and local felony cases, have been entered into the database of the National Crime Information Center, up from 340,000 10 years ago. But this figure only begins to measure the problem, as the National Crime Information Center receives just 20 percent of all outstanding State and local felony warrants. These fugitives from justice are a very real and dangerous concern. For example, last December, there was a shooting in Wilmington, DE. The shooter was charged with attempted murder and weapons violations and was jailed in Chester, PA, on a separate, earlier shooting charge. He then posted $500 bail on those charges, and promptly fled the jurisdiction. Members of Delaware's Violent Fugitive Task Force soon determined this violent criminal was hiding out in West Los Angeles. They alerted local FBI agents, who soon located the fugitive in a car and tried to stop him. He led the agents on a two-mile, high-speed chase, crashed into a pole, then tried to escape on foot. He was eventually captured, arrested, and he was recently returned to Delaware to face charges. This fugitive is particularly dangerous: he has a long record of drug and other offenses, including 52 arrests in Delaware dating all the way back to when he was 13. Unfortunately, this incident from my home State is not an isolated one, and we should not hamstring law enforcement when they try to catch these criminals. To better equip our Federal law enforcement agents with the resources they need to track and apprehend dangerous fugitives from justice, we need to make some changes to our criminal laws. The Fugitive Apprehension Act of 2001 gives the Attorney General, principally through the United States Marshals Service, authority to issue administrative subpoenas in cases involving fugitives. Last year, the Director of the Marshals Service testified as to the need for these subpoenas in fugitive cases; he noted that seldom is a grand jury available to issue a subpoena in these instances. In fugitive cases, time is often of the essence and successful investigations depend on real-time information, such as telephone subscriber and credit records. The time required to get a court order can make the difference between whether a fugitive is apprehended or remains at large. Given the privacy concerns that rightfully arise whenever Fourth Amendment protections are impacted, I want to take a moment to describe some of the safeguards in the bill we introduce today. First, and importantly, the bill's provisions apply only to those fugitives charged with or convicted of violent felonies or trafficking in drugs. Second, the bill in no way authorizes searches by law enforcement agencies; the subpoenas envisioned by the bill may be used only to obtain documents. Witness testimony and searches still must meet the Constitution's warrant requirement. Third, each administrative subpoena issued must be approved by the local United States Attorney for the district in which the subpoena will be served. I realize the Marshals Service and other law enforcement groups would rather this safeguard not be in the bill, but I insisted upon its inclusion at this point so as to ensure this new investigative power is not abused. I look forward to continuing my discussions with the Marshals Service and others concerning the effect this safeguard could have on their fugitive apprehensions. Fourth, the bill allows the person on whom an administrative subpoena is served to request to a court that it be overturned--judicial review is mandated each time an administrative subpoena is challenged. I am mindful of the fact that Federal law enforcement already has administrative subpoena power in other types of cases, including drug enforcement, child abuse and child pornography investigations. The need for administrative subpoena authority should be more clear in fugitive cases; there, the criminal being pursued has already proven his danger to society by committing a very serious crime. The bill we are introducing today is quite limited in scope, and its built in safeguards coupled with the opportunity for judicial review I believe balance well the rights of individuals with the clear need to catch those violent criminals on the lam, criminals whose very presence on our streets threatens us all. I thank Senator Thurmond for his leadership in this area, and I look forward to working with him and Senator Hatch to see this bill signed into law.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, today I am proud to submit a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that October 30, 2001, be designated as ``National Weatherization Day.'' By doing so, we will anchor a national effort by States, localities, and community groups to raise the awareness of all Americans concerning the importance of weatherizing the Nation's housing stock to conserve energy, thereby reducing consumption of all forms of energy. October is already designated as Energy Awareness Month and will serve as the ideal host month for this day. Why, then, do we need a day specifically devoted to supporting weatherization efforts? Although some people today know of the benefits of weatherizing a home, most unfortunately do not. Weatherization Day, then, will help bring targeted recognition of these efforts, and specifically those of the U.S. Department of Energy's Weatherization Assistance Program, which uses Federal, State, local, and private dollars to provide cost- effective, energy-efficient retrofits to homes occupied by low-income families. The average family in the United States spends more than $1,300 annually on utility bills. For low-income families, that can take away almost 15 percent of their entire annual income, and 18 percent if fuel costs rise as they have been for the past year. That is unacceptable and that is why the Weatherization Assistance Program exists today. The average energy cost savings for each home that is weatherized is more than $250 annually. This gives these families the ability to purchase essential items like groceries and prescription drugs, pay for medical bills, and make themselves more self-sufficient. At the same time, weatherizing a home also provides a substantial economic and environmental boon to local communities, by adding an average of 52 jobs for every $1,000,000 invested and by reducing carbon dioxide emissions by an average of 1 ton per weatherized household. I think that we owe it to ourselves and, more importantly, to our future generations, to continue to improve the awareness of all Americans of the importance of energy conservation, pollution reduction, and safer homes. By having a designated Weatherization Day, we will provide much-needed attention to this issue.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. I thank the Senator from California. I will try not to take the whole 3 minutes. If there is one thing that got the attention of the American people, of everything that has happened in the last 7 months, it is this issue. Why? The only thing I have ever seen that every Conservative, Liberal, Democrat, Republican, Socialist, Communist, Fascist--anybody who has a water tap in America--agrees upon, it is they fully expect, above all else, when they turn on their water tap, the water they are about to consume or give to their children is healthful, not harmful. We can argue about 50 parts per billion, 10 parts per billion. This has been a revelation to the vast majority of the American people who do not already have water that is being held to the highest standard. We do not have to say anything back to folks in Delaware other than that our standards are the same as Bangladesh, lower than Europe. This is not complicated. The science sustains the position that was taken. This was not arrived at. We are not even dictating 10 parts per billion in this amendment. We both wish we were, but we are not even doing that. I conclude my very brief comments by saying my State of Delaware is not known as some liberal bastion. We are the corporate State of America. The legislature in my State of Delaware passed a law which says water coming out of the taps in Delaware can be no less than 10 parts per billion. To those who do not like this amendment, get ready to explain it at home. I compliment the Senator. She is dead on. This is one issue that every single constituent I know, unless they own a mining company, supports.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I have the honor of joining with 51 of my colleagues in submitting a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that the week that includes Veterans' Day this year be designated as ``National Veterans Awareness Week.'' The purpose of National Veterans Awareness Week is to serve as a focus for educational programs designed to make students in elementary and secondary schools aware of the contributions of veterans and their importance in preserving American peace and prosperity. Why do we need such an educational effort? In a sense, this action has become necessary because we are victims of our own success with regard to the superior performance of our armed forces. The plain fact is that there are just fewer people around now who have had any connection with military service. For example, as a result of tremendous advances in military technology and the resultant productivity increases, our current armed forces now operate effectively with a personnel roster that is one-third less in size than just 10 years ago. In addition, the success of the all-volunteer career-oriented force has led to much lower turnover of personnel in today's military than in previous eras when conscription was in place. Finally, the number of veterans who served during previous conflicts, such as World War II, when our military was many times larger than today, is inevitably declining. The net result of these changes is that the percentage of the entire population that has served in the Armed Forces is dropping rapidly, a change that can be seen in all segments of society. Whereas during World War II it was extremely uncommon to find a family in America that did not have one of its members on active duty, now there are numerous families that include no military veterans at all. As a consequence of this lack of opportunity for contacts with veterans, many of our young people have little or no connection with or knowledge about the important historical and ongoing role of men and women who have served in the military. This omission seems to have persisted despite ongoing educational efforts by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the veterans service organizations. This lack of understanding about military veterans' important role in our society can have potentially serious repercussions. In our country, civilian control of the armed forces is the key tenet of military governance. A citizenry that is oblivious to the capabilities and limitations of the armed forces, and to its critical role throughout our history, can make decisions that have unexpected and unwanted consequences. Even more important, general recognition of the importance of those individual character traits that are essential for military success, such as patriotism, selflessness, sacrifice, and heroism, is vital to maintaining these key aspects of citizenship in the armed forces and even throughout the population at large. Among today's young people, a generation that has grown up largely during times of peace and extraordinary prosperity and has embraced a ``me first'' attitude, it is perhaps even more important to make sure that there is solid understanding of what it has taken to attain this level of comfort and freedom. The failure of our children to understand why a military is important, why our society continues to depend on it for ultimate survival, and why a successful military requires integrity and sacrifice, will have predictable consequences as these youngsters become of voting age. Even though military service is a responsibility that is no longer shared by a large segment of the population, as it has been in the past, knowledge of the contributions of those who have served in the Armed Forces is as important as it has ever been. To the extent that many of us will not have the opportunity to serve our country in uniform, we must still remain cognizant of our responsibility as citizens to fulfill the obligations we owe, both tangible and intangible, to those who do serve and who do sacrifice on our behalf. The importance of this issue was brought home to me last year by Samuel I. Cashdollar, who was then a 13-year-old seventh grader at Lewes Middle School in Lewes, Delaware. Samuel won the Delaware VFW's Youth Essay Contest that year with a powerful presentation titled ``How Should We Honor America's Veterans''? Samuel's essay pointed out that we have Nurses' Week, Secretaries' Week, and Teachers' Week, to rightly emphasize the importance of these occupations, but the contributions of those in uniform tend to be overlooked. We don't want our children growing up to think that Veterans Day has simply become a synonym for department store sale, and we don't want to become a Nation where more high school seniors recognize the name Britney Spears than the name Dwight Eisenhower. Now, it is appropriate to ask, ``We already have Veterans Day, why do we need National Veterans Awareness Week?''. Historically, Veterans Day was established to honor those who served in uniform during wartime. Although we now customarily honor all veterans on Veterans Day, I see it as a holiday that is focused on honoring individuals, the courageous and selfless men and women without whose actions our country would not exist as it does. National Veterans Awareness Week would complement Veterans Day by focusing on education as well as commemoration, on the contributions of the many in addition to the heroism and service of the individual. National Veterans Awareness Week would also present an opportunity to remind ourselves of the contributions and sacrifices of those who have served in peacetime as well as in conflict; both groups work unending hours and spend long periods away from their families under conditions of great discomfort so that we all can live in a land of freedom and plenty. Earlier this year, the Senate adopted my amendment to the education bill calling on the Department of Education to assist in the development of educational programs to enlighten our country's students about the contributions of veterans. Last year, my Resolution designating National Veterans Awareness Week had 60 cosponsors and was approved in the Senate by unanimous consent. I ask my colleagues to continue this trend of support for our veterans by endorsing this resolution again this year. Our children and our childrens' children will need to be well informed about what veterans have accomplished in order to make appropriate decisions as they confront the numerous worldwide challenges that they are sure to face in the future.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my serious concerns about the President's nominee to Chair the Consumer Product Safety Commission, Mary Sheila Gall. The Consumer Product Safety Commission was created nearly 30 years ago with the mission of protecting our families from consumer products that pose serious health or safety risks. The Commission serves as the consumer advocate for our Nation's children, protecting them from potentially dangerous, and in some cases deadly, products. In short, the Commission is charged with saving lives, and it has done so with great success over the past several years. This success is based primarily on the advocacy role that the Commission has assumed in fulfilling its duties for America's families and children. And it is Ms. Gall's apparent opposition to this advocacy role that has given me serious concerns about her nomination. As a Commissioner for the past ten years, Ms. Gall has opposed reasonable attempts to review questionable products and implement common sense protections for consumers. Perhaps the most troubling example of this trend has been Ms. Gall's record on fire safety issues. Ms. Gall opposed a review of upholstered furniture flammability and small open flame ignition sources, such as matches, lighters, and candles. In opposing the review, she stated that ``. . . the benefits from imposing a small open flame ignition standard on upholstered furniture are overestimated.'' With all sincerity, I doubt that the brave men and women who risk their lives every day fighting house fires in Delaware and throughout the Nation would agree with that assessment. Nor would they agree with Ms. Gall's decision to walk away from fire safety standards for children's sleepwear. In 1996, Ms. Gall voted to weaken fire safety standards that required children's sleepwear to be made from flame- resistant fabrics. Ms. Gall joined another commissioner in exempting from this standard any sleepwear for children less than nine months old, and any sleepwear that is tight-fitting for children sizes 7-14. I support the original standard, which worked for more than two decades before it was weakened by the Commission. And I have cosponsored legislation with my former colleague from Delaware, Senator Bill Roth, that called on the Commission to restore the original standard that all children's sleepwear be flame-resistant. But it's not just her record on children's sleepwear and fire safety issues that concerns me about Ms. Gall. She has turned her back on children and families on a number of occasions, rejecting moderate, common-sense warnings and improvements dealing with choking hazards, bunk bed slats, and crib slats. In some of these cases, Ms. Gall has even opposed efforts to merely review questionable products, to mention nothing about imposing regulatory standards to correct any potentially dangerous problems. For instance, Ms. Gall opposed a safety review of baby walkers that, according to the Commission, were associated with 11 child deaths between 1989 and 1994, and as many as 28,000 child injuries in 1994, alone. This safety review brought to light ways to produce walkers that were safer for children, which were then used by manufacturers to develop a voluntary standard for producing a safer product. This voluntary standard was applied within the industry, and a media campaign followed to educate parents about the new, safer walkers that were entering the marketplace. The Commission has estimated that since the review process took place in 1995, injuries related to baby walkers dropped nearly 60 percent for children under 15 months of age, from an estimated 20,100 injuries in 1995 to 8,800 in 1999. These statistics are proof that the Commission's role as child advocate produces results. But if Ms. Gall had her way, we would not have had a review of baby walkers at all. And without this review, it is unlikely we would have had the important voluntary standards that have protected thousands of children. If Ms. Gall is unwilling to even take the first step in reviewing potentially dangerous products, I question whether we can expect her to fulfill the Commission's responsibility as the Nation's child advocate. I do not make this decision to oppose Mary Sheila Gall's nomination lightly. I have long recognized that the President should generally be entitled to have an administration comprised of people of his choosing. While his selections should be given considerable deference, that power is nonetheless limited by the duty of the United States Senate to provide ``advice and consent'' to such appointments. Throughout my tenure in the Senate, I have supported countless nominees for Cabinet and other high-level positions, including many with whom I have disagreed on certain policies. But I have also cast my vote against confirmation when I have become convinced that the nominee is not suitable to fill the role to which the person was nominated. I have reluctantly reached the conclusion that this is one such case. It is one thing to serve as a commissioner, as Ms. Gall has done these past ten years. But serving as chair of this important Commission is a very different role. As such, I strongly urge my colleagues on the Senate Commerce Committee to oppose Ms. Gall's nomination as Chairwoman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. To put it simply, there is nothing less than children's lives at stake.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President I rise today with my colleague Senator Grassley to introduce a resolution to designate Monday, September 24, 2001 as ``Family Day: A Day to Eat Dinner With Your Children.'' A similar resolution has been introduced in the House of Representatives by Representative Rangel. Last year, the Senate passed the first Family Day resolution. Since that time, a number of States have followed suit. The Governors of several States--including Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Maine, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, and South Carolina, have already issued Family Day proclamations and additional States are expected to do so in the near future. Family Day has been endorsed by the National Family Partnership, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Counties, the National Fatherhood Initiative, the National Restaurant Association, Join Together, the National Council on Family Relations, and the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is also urging its member chambers to adopt Family Day. The idea for the resolution grew out of research done by The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, CASA, a New York-based research organization led by former Secretary of Health Education and Welfare Joseph A Califano, Jr. Among CASA's many projects is an annual survey of the attitudes of teens and their parents on issues related to drugs, alcohol and cigarettes. In its past three surveys, CASA has found that the more often a child eats dinner with his or her parents, the less likely that child is to use addictive substances. The results from the 1999 survey were the most striking, revealing that teens who almost always eat dinner with their families are 31 percent less likely than the average teen to smoke, drink or use illegal drugs and that teens who virtually never eat dinner with their families are 72 percent more likely to engage in these activities. Of course, having dinner as a family is just a proxy for spending time with kids. It is not the meat, potatoes and vegetables that alter a child's likelihood to use drugs. It is the everyday time spent with mom and dad, the two most important role models in most kids lives. I do not believe that this resolution will be the silver bullet to solving this Nation's drug problem. But I do feel these statistics are telling. CASA President Joe Califano talks about ``Parent Power.'' It is important that parents know the power they have over their children's decisions and the power that they have to deter kids from drinking, smoking or using drugs. For example, nearly half of the teens who have never used marijuana say that it was lessons learned from their parents that helped them to say no. Unfortunately, many parents are pessimistic about their ability to keep their kids drug-free; forty-five percent admit that they are resigned to the fact that their child will use an illegal drug in the future. This pessimism is often reinforced by news reports that indicate that while most parents say that they have talked to their kids about the dangers of drugs, only a minority of teens recall the discussion. Rather than be discouraged by this apparent disconnect, I think it should teach us an important lesson: that talking to kids about drugs ought not just be a one-time conversation. Rather, it must be an ongoing discussion. Keeping up on children's lives, including knowing who their friends are and what they are doing after school, is critical. The experts tell us that some of the telltale signs that a child is drinking or using illicit drugs include behavior changes, change in social circle, lack of interest in hobbies and isolation from family. These changes can be subtle; picking up on them requires a watchful eye. Eating dinner as a family will not guarantee that a child will remain drug-free. But family dinners are an important way for parents to instill their values in their children as well as remain connected with the challenges that children face and help them learn how to cope with problems and pressures without resorting to smoking, drinking or using drugs. I sincerely hope that all of my colleagues join me to support this resolution and send a message to parents that they can play a powerful role in shaping the decisions their kids make regarding drinking, smoking and drug use.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise to voice my strong support for the Material Protection, Control, and Accounting, or MPC&A, program managed by the Department of Energy to better secure and protect nuclear weapons and materials in the former Soviet Union. I want to strongly urge the House-Senate conference committee for this bill to increase the funding for this important initiative. I call upon the Senate conferees to join with our House colleagues in supporting a $190 million funding level for fiscal year 2002. The MPC&A program is often referred to as the first line of defense in safeguarding Russian nuclear materials against potential diversion or theft. From the mundane, such as installing barbed wire fences around sites, to more sophisticated measures like implementing computerized material accounting systems to keep track of nuclear materials, the MPC&A program helps ensure that rogue regimes and terrorist groups do not have access to the most dangerous byproducts of the cold war. Let me make clear that this program has been considered an enormous success. Various studies and reports have confirmed the cost effectiveness of this program. Simply put, it benefits both Russia and the United States, as well as all the other former members of the Soviet Union. But our current efforts may not be enough. A high-level bipartisan level headed by former Majority Leader Howard Baker and Lloyd Cutler declared earlier this year: While the security of hundreds of tons of Russian material has been improved under the MPC&A Program, comprehensive security upgrades have covered only a modest fraction of the weapons-usable material. There is no program yet in place to provide incentives, resources, and organizational arrangement for Russia to sustain high levels of security. The Baker-Cutler panel goes on to recommend $5 billion in improvements and upgrades to the MPC&A program over the next 8 to 10 years to accomplish these objectives. That may be too ambitious an objective given our current budget environment. At the very least, the Baker-Cutler report points to the need to build upon, not cut back, existing funding for the MPC&A program. In testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee in March, Senator, and now Ambassador, Baker offered a personal concern: I am a little short of terrified at some of the storage facilities for nuclear material and nuclear weapons; and relatively small investments can yield enormous improvements in storage and security. So, from my standpoint, that is my first priority. I share his well-grounded fear, and I hope my colleagues in both houses will recognize the vital benefits that the MPC&A program contributes to our national security.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am very pleased that the Senate will unanimously pass Senate Concurrent Resolution 53: Africa Hunger to Harvest. I became a cosponsor of the resolution because I strongly believe that it is an important first step towards a renewed commitment to acting in concert with our African partners to significantly reduce poverty and hunger on the sub-continent in the next ten years. I saw to it that the resolution moved out of the Foreign Relations Committee expeditiously because I wanted this legislation to pass with all due haste. As you know, the G-8 members are preparing for their meeting in Genoa. I hope that President Bush will interpret the passage of Africa: Hunger to Harvest as a signal of the Senate's support for development in Africa, and obtain commitments from other members of the G-8 to devise comprehensive plans to increase the ability of African nations to feed their people. Sub-Saharan Africa is a region with vast human and economic potential. There is a preponderance of natural resources, and a large enough population to provide the labor necessary to fuel industry. Yet Africa, for the most part, has not prospered. It is the only region of the world where hunger is increasing. In the past thirty years the number of hungry people in Africa has more than doubled to the point where one of every three Africans is chronically undernourished. There are many reasons why: war, natural disaster, corruption, and poor governance, to name a few. And while African themselves must take ultimate responsibility for the success or failure of their countries, we have the resources and opportunity to help improve the lives of millions of people living there. This resolution lays out a preliminary blueprint for doing so. It directs the Agency for International Development to devise solid, concrete five- and ten-year strategic plans to help Africans reverse the current state of affairs for many living in the region, and asks that the plans focus on such key areas as the establishment of democratic institutions, private sector and free market development, access to education, improved health, and debt relief. The blueprint itself acknowledges that hunger and poverty must be attached along these critical fronts to be eliminated. A necessary component to achieving development is stability in the region, but stability alone will not result in economic growth and improved living conditions. The establishment of the rule of law and democratic institutions is also necessary. Africans must have a say in the structure of their societies. They must be able to find a remedy through courts, they must have rules and regulations in place that provide an atmosphere of accountability. They must be able to put leaders in place that are dedicated and capable of imposing sound fiscal and economic policies. Leaders that work for the African people. That is why an emphasis on building democratic institutions is an essential building block in any plan to help improve conditions in African countries. Establishing institutions, accountability and rule of law helps establish favorable conditions for investment in the private sector. Such investment is supported by increased opportunities for education, especially for women and girls. Education must be an integral part of this undertaking. While the illiteracy rate for women in the developing world stands at 32 percent, in Africa it is approaching 48 percent. In other words nearly half the women in Sub- Saharan Africa are completely illiterate, according to the World Bank. This has very serious and costly implications. Women with more education have fewer children, and start families later. Great education increase a mother's knowledge about child healthcare, which increases the chances that their offspring will grow to adulthood. Having fewer children frees more resources to educate the children families do have. The illiteracy rate for man and Africa is just as startling: 31.1. percent compared to 18 percent in the rest of the developing world. Economic growth is nearly impossible without investment in human capitol. We must work to change this state of affairs. Health indicators are equally alarming. The infant mortality rate in Sub-Saharan Africa is higher than in any other region of the world. For every 1000 children born, 107 die in infancy. The under five mortality rate is 160 for every child born. This rate is significantly lower than it is in the rest of the developing world. Life expectancy for women fortunate enough to survive childhood is less than 48 years. Men who survive childhood live just shy of 46 years on average. Seventy percent of those living with HIV/AIDS are in sub-Saharan Africa. The UN Human Development Report states that Rwanda, Botswana, Burundi, Namibia, Zambia, and Zimbabwe life expectancy has dropped more than seven years because of the disease. It knows no boundaries of income or education or occupation. Teacher and soldiers as well as mine workers and women who work in the house are equally at risk. While there are a few notable exceptions, it seems as through African heads of state are just now beginning to realize that they cannot hold their heads in the sand with respect to this issue. We must help and encourage them to not only devise credible plans to combat the spread of the disease, but to speak out about it. All of the above emphasizes the fact that development in the health sector must be addressed as part of the USAID's strategic plans on humanitarian grounds and economic grounds. If we fail to do so, we risk losing a huge portion of the population of African countries, both in infancy due to childhood maladies and between the ages of 15 and 49, which is the bulk of the working population. Finally, let me say that while we have made great strides on the issue of debt relief, we need to continue our efforts. Many countries will continue to have unsustainable levels of debt despite the advances that were made by the global ecumenical debt relief movement. Debt relief has positive results. In Uganda, for example, debt relief has meant that the government has increased spending on education so that children are able to attend primary school for free. New ways must be found to provide resources for countries where the poorest of the poor residents reside. A reversal of fortune for the region is sorely needed. The rest of the world is leaving Africa behind in terms of economic development. It was the only region in the world to have experienced a shrinkage of Gross Domestic Product during the past 25 years. This trend must not continue. We have a lot of work ahead of us. The United States will never be able to help African nation feed their hungry populations without dedicating resources to implement plans which concentrate on the areas aforementioned. My colleagues have heard me say over and over again that we are not spending enough money on constructive foreign assistance programs such as the one set out in Senate Congressional Resolution 53. I repeat that admonition and add this: We can direct USAID to develop as many plans as we want to. At the end of the day, we must be willing to finance such plans. I stand ready to do so. I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, on July 12, the Committee on Foreign Relations reported S. 494, the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001. At the time the bill was reported, the cost estimate from the Congressional budget Office was not available. I ask unanimous consent that the CBO estimate be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, on July 12, the Committee on Foreign Relations reported S. 180, the Sudan Peace Act. At the time the bill was reported, the cost estimate from the Congressional Budget Office was not available. I ask unanimous consent that the CBO estimate be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, on July 12, the Committee on Foreign Relations reported S. 1021, a bill to re-authorize the Tropical Forest Conservation Act of 1998 through fiscal year 2004. At the time the bill was reported, the cost estimate from the Congressional Budget Office was not available. I ask unanimous consent that the CBO estimate be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with Senator Kohl and Senator Reed, the Juvenile Crime Prevention and Control Act of 2001. This is a balanced bill that recognizes the need to get tough on juvenile crime and violence, attempts to break the dangerous link between kids and guns, and, most importantly, puts the Federal Government firmly behind the proposition that preventing juvenile violence is the most effective crime fighting measure any of us could craft. Before I discuss the specifics of the bill, let me give a brief overview of the current state of juvenile crime in America. Juvenile crime, like almost all other categories of crime, is down. Last December, the FBI released statistics that show the homicide arrest rate for juveniles down 68 percent from its 1993 peak. We are now experiencing the lowest rate of juvenile homicide arrests since 1966. Between 1994 and 1999, the arrest rate of juveniles for violent crimes, murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault, dropped 36 percent. These statistics have not eased public concern about the scope and nature of juvenile crime. One 1998 poll showed that 62 percent of those asked believed juvenile crime was increasing. A poll conducted in 1999 revealed that 71 percent thought it likely that a shooting could occur in a school in their community. In the face of these popular perceptions, the Education Department reports that American children face a one in 2 million chance of being killed in their school. Why the disparity? There are several reasons, in my opinion. First, and probably most importantly, while arrests of juveniles are unquestionably down, juvenile crime is still too high. The incidence of the most common crime committed by juveniles, property offenses, changed little throughout the last two decades. The rate of juvenile violent crime arrests has not yet returned to its 1988 level. Second, and this cannot be understated, too many of our kids have access to guns, and those guns are finding their way into our Nation's schools at an alarming rate. A report released last year by the Education Department revealed that over 3,500 students were expelled in 1998 and 1999 for bringing guns to school, that's an average of 88 kids per week. The juvenile arrest rate for weapons crimes fell 39 percent from 1993 to 1999, but it too has not yet returned to 1988's low point. Third, the American people understand that crime cannot stay down forever. I like to say that fighting crime is like mowing the grass, If you don't keep at it, it's going to come back up. We have good, demographic reasons to think this is particularly true in the case of juvenile crime. Today, there are approximately 39 million children younger than age 10. These kids, the children of the baby boom generation, stand on the edge of their teen years, the years when every reliable study reveals they are most at-risk of turning to drugs and crime. What does this mean for juvenile crime? Even if we do everything right, even if we fund programs that work, put incorrigible juveniles behind bars, crack down on gun crimes, the demographic inevitability of this so-called ``baby boomerang" means there is likely to be a 20 percent increase in juvenile murders by 2005. Such a jump would increase the overall murder rate by 5 percent. Our challenge is to make sure that does not happen. We need to take another look at the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974. That Act expired on September 30, 1996, and, despite the good efforts of several Congresses, Members on both sides of the aisle, and the prior Administration, it has not been reauthorized. We should get that job done in the 107th Congress. The bill I introduce today includes provisions to reauthorize the Act, to fine tune some of its grant provisions, and to make some common sense changes to our firearms laws, changes that respect the rights of gun owners. My bill reauthorizes the Community Prevention Grant Program, commonly known as Title V. It funds this critical juvenile crime prevention initiative at $250,000,000 per year for the next six years and mandates that no State would receive less than $200,000 in annual prevention grants. These funding levels would more than double juvenile crime prevention funding, enough resources for localities to implement a comprehensive delinquency prevention strategy and then fund smart prevention programs that work. In Delaware, Title V funds have been used to sponsor programs to reduce school violence, provide transition counseling to students returning to their local school from alternative school placement, reduce suspensions, expulsions, truancy, and teen pregnancy, and provide services to the children of incarcerated adult offenders. Prevention is the key to keeping our juvenile crime rate down, and we need to extend Title V to guarantee that these funds continue to flow to States and localities. The bill also reauthorizes the Formula Grant Program for the next six years at $200,000,000 per year. I have included provisions to expand the permissible uses of these funds so as to make clear that employment training, mental health treatment, and other effective programs that meet the needs of children and youth in the juvenile system could be funded. The bill reauthorizes gang prevention programs and emphasizes the disruption and prosecution of gangs. It extends the juvenile justice mentoring program, and adds a pilot program to encourage and develop mentoring initiatives that focus on entire families. The bill also includes funds for grants to States to upgrade and enhance their juvenile felony criminal record histories. My bill includes important provisions to continue the core protections for incarcerated youths that were included in the original Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974. It continues the Act's function of protecting children from abuse and assault by adults in jails by prohibiting any contact between juveniles and adult inmates. The bill ensures that children are not detained in any jail or lockup for adults, except for very limited periods of time and under very limited circumstances. And it continues current law's requirement that States address the disproportionate number of minority children in confinement. The bill authorizes $500,000,000 per year over the next six years for the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant program. Funded for the past three fiscal years, this program has never been authorized. Its purpose is to strengthen State juvenile justice systems. States would receive funds as long as they implement or consider implementing graduated sanctions, though this condition can be met through a reporting requirement. The language I have included in my bill is drawn from H.R. 863, a measure which is currently working its way through the other body. I am supportive of that measure, as it will provide much needed funds for States to hire additional prosecutors, juvenile court judges, probation officers, and court-appointed defenders and special advocates. In years past, my State has used these funds to establish a Serious Juvenile Offender program through the Delaware Division of Youth Rehabilitative Services, which provides an immediate secure placement of violent youth offenders who have violated the terms of their probation. Delaware has also used these funds to expand diversionary programs such as Teen Court and Drug Court, thus reducing the time between arrest and disposition of juvenile offenders, and to add psycho-forensic evaluators in the Delaware Office of the Public Defender to identify and address mental illness as a cause for delinquent conduct. This is a good program and it needs to be authorized. My bill also reauthorizes the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund. The Trust Fund, created in the 1994 Crime Bill, has been the key to our successful fight against crime over the past several years. Unfortunately, it expired in 2000. The Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund was the vehicle for providing billions of dollars to State and local governments to implement a variety of law enforcement and crime- fighting initiative, from the COPS program to the Violence Against Women Act to youth violence programs. Without the Trust Fund, I fear we may not have the resources necessary to continue our struggle to keep our streets safe. I am pleased to include provisions in this bill that will extend the Fund through fiscal year 2007. Finally, the bill I am introducing today includes several common sense gun safety provisions. First, it incorporates Senator Reed's Gun Show Background Check Act. This language will ensure that criminals cannot purchase guns at gun shows, and I applaud Senator Reed for his leadership in this area. Second, I have included Senator Kohl's Child Safety Lock Act. This moderate provision would require handguns to be sold with government-certified trigger locks. Studies indicate trigger locks save lives; I was pleased to see the Administration's endorsement of this idea in its budget request for the upcoming fiscal year; and I thank Senator Kohl for including his bill in this larger measure today. Third, the bill would extend the Brady Law to dangerous juvenile offenders. This provision would make it unlawful for any person adjudicated a juvenile delinquent for serious drug offenses or violent felonies to possess firearms. This is an important step toward getting guns out of the hands of criminals, and its enactment will prevent violent juveniles from accessing weapons and thus make it difficult for them to commit gun crimes as adults. This is not a perfect bill, and I am not wedded to each and every line. I welcome comments from my colleagues, the juvenile justice community, and anyone interested in preventing and controlling juvenile crime. I am committed, however, to renewing our efforts to keep our children and our communities safe from crime and violence. I am committed to protecting our kids through meaningful prevention and intervention programs, to cracking down on drugs and the violence that accompanies them, and to ensuring that meaningful, appropriate and swift punishment is imposed on all juvenile offenders. I believe the Juvenile Crime Prevention and Control Act that I introduce today is an important step toward accomplishing these goals. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with Senator Kohl and Senator Reed, the Juvenile Crime Prevention and Control Act of 2001. This is a balanced bill that recognizes the need to get tough on juvenile crime and violence, attempts to break the dangerous link between kids and guns, and, most importantly, puts the Federal Government firmly behind the proposition that preventing juvenile violence is the most effective crime fighting measure any of us could craft. Before I discuss the specifics of the bill, let me give a brief overview of the current state of juvenile crime in America. Juvenile crime, like almost all other categories of crime, is down. Last December, the FBI released statistics that show the homicide arrest rate for juveniles down 68 percent from its 1993 peak. We are now experiencing the lowest rate of juvenile homicide arrests since 1966. Between 1994 and 1999, the arrest rate of juveniles for violent crimes, murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault, dropped 36 percent. These statistics have not eased public concern about the scope and nature of juvenile crime. One 1998 poll showed that 62 percent of those asked believed juvenile crime was increasing. A poll conducted in 1999 revealed that 71 percent thought it likely that a shooting could occur in a school in their community. In the face of these popular perceptions, the Education Department reports that American children face a one in 2 million chance of being killed in their school. Why the disparity? There are several reasons, in my opinion. First, and probably most importantly, while arrests of juveniles are unquestionably down, juvenile crime is still too high. The incidence of the most common crime committed by juveniles, property offenses, changed little throughout the last two decades. The rate of juvenile violent crime arrests has not yet returned to its 1988 level. Second, and this cannot be understated, too many of our kids have access to guns, and those guns are finding their way into our Nation's schools at an alarming rate. A report released last year by the Education Department revealed that over 3,500 students were expelled in 1998 and 1999 for bringing guns to school, that's an average of 88 kids per week. The juvenile arrest rate for weapons crimes fell 39 percent from 1993 to 1999, but it too has not yet returned to 1988's low point. Third, the American people understand that crime cannot stay down forever. I like to say that fighting crime is like mowing the grass, If you don't keep at it, it's going to come back up. We have good, demographic reasons to think this is particularly true in the case of juvenile crime. Today, there are approximately 39 million children younger than age 10. These kids, the children of the baby boom generation, stand on the edge of their teen years, the years when every reliable study reveals they are most at-risk of turning to drugs and crime. What does this mean for juvenile crime? Even if we do everything right, even if we fund programs that work, put incorrigible juveniles behind bars, crack down on gun crimes, the demographic inevitability of this so-called ``baby boomerang" means there is likely to be a 20 percent increase in juvenile murders by 2005. Such a jump would increase the overall murder rate by 5 percent. Our challenge is to make sure that does not happen. We need to take another look at the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974. That Act expired on September 30, 1996, and, despite the good efforts of several Congresses, Members on both sides of the aisle, and the prior Administration, it has not been reauthorized. We should get that job done in the 107th Congress. The bill I introduce today includes provisions to reauthorize the Act, to fine tune some of its grant provisions, and to make some common sense changes to our firearms laws, changes that respect the rights of gun owners. My bill reauthorizes the Community Prevention Grant Program, commonly known as Title V. It funds this critical juvenile crime prevention initiative at $250,000,000 per year for the next six years and mandates that no State would receive less than $200,000 in annual prevention grants. These funding levels would more than double juvenile crime prevention funding, enough resources for localities to implement a comprehensive delinquency prevention strategy and then fund smart prevention programs that work. In Delaware, Title V funds have been used to sponsor programs to reduce school violence, provide transition counseling to students returning to their local school from alternative school placement, reduce suspensions, expulsions, truancy, and teen pregnancy, and provide services to the children of incarcerated adult offenders. Prevention is the key to keeping our juvenile crime rate down, and we need to extend Title V to guarantee that these funds continue to flow to States and localities. The bill also reauthorizes the Formula Grant Program for the next six years at $200,000,000 per year. I have included provisions to expand the permissible uses of these funds so as to make clear that employment training, mental health treatment, and other effective programs that meet the needs of children and youth in the juvenile system could be funded. The bill reauthorizes gang prevention programs and emphasizes the disruption and prosecution of gangs. It extends the juvenile justice mentoring program, and adds a pilot program to encourage and develop mentoring initiatives that focus on entire families. The bill also includes funds for grants to States to upgrade and enhance their juvenile felony criminal record histories. My bill includes important provisions to continue the core protections for incarcerated youths that were included in the original Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974. It continues the Act's function of protecting children from abuse and assault by adults in jails by prohibiting any contact between juveniles and adult inmates. The bill ensures that children are not detained in any jail or lockup for adults, except for very limited periods of time and under very limited circumstances. And it continues current law's requirement that States address the disproportionate number of minority children in confinement. The bill authorizes $500,000,000 per year over the next six years for the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant program. Funded for the past three fiscal years, this program has never been authorized. Its purpose is to strengthen State juvenile justice systems. States would receive funds as long as they implement or consider implementing graduated sanctions, though this condition can be met through a reporting requirement. The language I have included in my bill is drawn from H.R. 863, a measure which is currently working its way through the other body. I am supportive of that measure, as it will provide much needed funds for States to hire additional prosecutors, juvenile court judges, probation officers, and court-appointed defenders and special advocates. In years past, my State has used these funds to establish a Serious Juvenile Offender program through the Delaware Division of Youth Rehabilitative Services, which provides an immediate secure placement of violent youth offenders who have violated the terms of their probation. Delaware has also used these funds to expand diversionary programs such as Teen Court and Drug Court, thus reducing the time between arrest and disposition of juvenile offenders, and to add psycho-forensic evaluators in the Delaware Office of the Public Defender to identify and address mental illness as a cause for delinquent conduct. This is a good program and it needs to be authorized. My bill also reauthorizes the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund. The Trust Fund, created in the 1994 Crime Bill, has been the key to our successful fight against crime over the past several years. Unfortunately, it expired in 2000. The Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund was the vehicle for providing billions of dollars to State and local governments to implement a variety of law enforcement and crime- fighting initiative, from the COPS program to the Violence Against Women Act to youth violence programs. Without the Trust Fund, I fear we may not have the resources necessary to continue our struggle to keep our streets safe. I am pleased to include provisions in this bill that will extend the Fund through fiscal year 2007. Finally, the bill I am introducing today includes several common sense gun safety provisions. First, it incorporates Senator Reed's Gun Show Background Check Act. This language will ensure that criminals cannot purchase guns at gun shows, and I applaud Senator Reed for his leadership in this area. Second, I have included Senator Kohl's Child Safety Lock Act. This moderate provision would require handguns to be sold with government-certified trigger locks. Studies indicate trigger locks save lives; I was pleased to see the Administration's endorsement of this idea in its budget request for the upcoming fiscal year; and I thank Senator Kohl for including his bill in this larger measure today. Third, the bill would extend the Brady Law to dangerous juvenile offenders. This provision would make it unlawful for any person adjudicated a juvenile delinquent for serious drug offenses or violent felonies to possess firearms. This is an important step toward getting guns out of the hands of criminals, and its enactment will prevent violent juveniles from accessing weapons and thus make it difficult for them to commit gun crimes as adults. This is not a perfect bill, and I am not wedded to each and every line. I welcome comments from my colleagues, the juvenile justice community, and anyone interested in preventing and controlling juvenile crime. I am committed, however, to renewing our efforts to keep our children and our communities safe from crime and violence. I am committed to protecting our kids through meaningful prevention and intervention programs, to cracking down on drugs and the violence that accompanies them, and to ensuring that meaningful, appropriate and swift punishment is imposed on all juvenile offenders. I believe the Juvenile Crime Prevention and Control Act that I introduce today is an important step toward accomplishing these goals. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. I thank my colleague, and with his assurances, I will not offer this amendment. I do so only because of his assurances that we will deal with this aviation crisis in the fiscal year 2002 defense bill and because I believe this supplemental is so vital to our military that I do not wish to endanger its speedy passage. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I had planned to offer an amendment to this supplemental appropriations that would have alleviated the emergency shortages of utility helicopters in the Army National Guard. Senators Leahy, Bond, Carnahan, Dodd, Lieberman, and Carper were cosponsors of the amendment and some have short statements that they will enter. Our amendment would have procured 20 new Blackhawks for those Guard units in States with the most serious shortages of modern lift helicopters. It is my understanding that there are between seven and nine States that are at a critical level, having no modern aviation assets. Delaware is one of those States. The people of my State expect the Army Guard to be there when emergencies hit. Unfortunately, the Army Guard may not be there because they do not have lift helicopters that are flyable. Let me repeat that and be more specific. Since January, the Delaware National Guard has had no more than two UH-1 Huey helicopters that were flyable--two out of a fleet of twenty-three, and they have had two only rarely. The norm has been one. One vintage Vietnam-era helicopter out of a fleet of twenty-three is all they have had to fly for 6 months--6 months. This is absolutely insupportable. Pilots cannot fly and stay proficient and the people who depend on the Guard can no longer be sure of their assistance in emergencies. A week ago, the Secretary of Defense released his amended budget for 2002. Unfortunately, there was only enough funding for 12 new Blackhawk helicopters for the Army. This is incredible. It is completely insufficient to deal with this problem. Over the next 5 years, the Army is retiring over 700 Vietnam-era helicopters that are no longer safe to fly, but nothing is replacing them. Instead of the 330 Blackhawks that are needed--130 for the active duty and 200 for the National Guard-- less than 70, or about twenty percent of the requirement, are funded. I have a copy of a letter sent to all of the leaders of the congressional defense committees and the appropriations committees that details this critical problem. It describes the concern these generals have that their ability to do their national security missions today is severely impaired and that the situation will only get worse and qualified pilots and technicians leave the Guard because they are not able to do their missions or even train for them. The letter was signed by the 50 Adjutant Generals of the United States. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN. I have repeatedly asked the Army how it plans to address the immediate needs of States like Delaware and the larger issue of a clear crisis in Army aviation. A crisis that impacts the readiness of our Army today and in the future. It was my hope that we would have a plan early this year. Nine months later, I am still waiting for a comprehensive plan from the Army and I see no evidence that the new budget addresses this problem. I ask the distinguished Chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, who I know has long supported adequate funding for our National Guard units, to seriously consider the problem this amendment was intended to address. Twenty new Blackhawks this year is only the tip of the iceberg, but I believe we have a genuine crisis on our hands. It was an emergency nine months ago and it has only gotten worse today. Certainly, that is true in the state of Delaware and I have heard nothing from the Army to make me think that the same is not true in aviation units throughout the nation. If, as I understand to be the case, the distinguished managers of this bill believe that this funding cannot be designated as emergency funding, then I hope that they will pledge to adequately address this issue within the fiscal year 2002 defense budget. I cannot go home to Delaware and tell them that we are aware of this crisis, have been for almost a year, and yet did nothing and have no plans to do anything. This problem must be addressed this year.

Mr. BIDEN

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

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, on July 18 here in Washington, the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology will be honoring its members who have won the Nobel Prize for Medicine or Physiology. The honorees include the three Nobel Prize winners from the year 2000: Dr. Arvid Carlsson from Goteborg University in Sweden, Dr. Paul Greengard from Rockefeller University in New York City, and Dr. Eric Kandel from Columbia University in New York City. Also being honored is the 1970 Nobel Prize winner, Dr. Julius Axelrod from the National Institutes of Health in Maryland. Together, these Nobel Prize winners have helped us begin to understand how that most mysterious and important human organ, the brain, actually works. The brain is a huge collection of nerve cells, connected to each other in complicated networks. Nerve impulses, which are the means of communicating information from the brain to the various parts of the body, are conducted from one end of a nerve cell to another by a form of electrical action. Dr. Axelrod's work set the stage for our modern knowledge of brain neurochemistry by establishing the important role of neurotransmitters, which are chemicals that serve to transmit these nerve impulses from one nerve cell to another through a connecting region called the synapse. A key first step in understanding the brain was this discovery that, as nerve impulses move from nerve cell to nerve cell, they switch from an electrical conduction to a chemical conduction and then back again to an electrical conduction. Dr. Carlsson started to fill in this general outline by discovering that the chemical dopamine was one of these important chemicals that transmits nerve signals from one nerve cell to another. Moreover, dopamine seemed to be very important in controlling body motions. Dr. Carlsson's work with experimental animals who were deficient in dopamine led to the seminal discovery that Parkinson's disease in humans, a disabling and progressive disease associated with tremors and impaired mobility, was directly related to a deficiency of dopamine in certain parts of the brain. This landmark finding led directly to the treatment of Parkinson's disease with L-dopa, a drug that is converted to dopamine in the body. To this very day, the foundation for treatment of this illness is the use of medications that increase dopamine in the brain or mimic its action there. Dr. Carlsson also discovered that the drugs used to treat schizophrenia, a severe mental illness affecting thought processes, also seemed to work by affecting the action of dopamine in the brain. In contrast to the situation with Parkinson's disease, in which administration of L-dopa seemed to work by increasing dopamine in the brain, the antipsychotic drugs such as thorazine, which are used to treat schizophrenia, seemed to work by blocking the action of dopamine in the brain. To this very day, medications that block the effects of dopamine remain the mainstay of treatment for schizophrenia. Dr. Carlsson's work was instrumental in establishing the biological foundation of mental illness, which has led to our ability to target treatment of such disorders with medications based on their specific biochemical cause. Dr. Greengard carried this line of work one step further, examining exactly how such neurotransmitters work as they transfer nerve impulses from one nerve cell to another through the connecting region called the synapse. He described in detail the cascade of chemical reactions that occurs as the neurotransmitter chemicals stimulate the next nerve cell in the nerve pathway, which results in conversion of the nerve impulse back into an electrical signal. Particularly important was the discovery of the different speeds at which these nerve signals are transmitted across the synapse. This framework enabled him to establish, on a molecular and biochemical level, the mechanism of action of various drugs that act on the central nervous system. Finally, Dr. Kandel expanded the context of this research area by showing how such complex processes as memory and learning are directly related to the basic biochemical foundations outlined by Drs. Greengard, Carlsson, and Axelrod. In detailed studies in animals, Dr. Kandel showed that the process of memory was associated with specific changes in the shape and functioning of the synapse region that connects pairs of nerve cells. This research revealed that these connections between nerve cells, rather than being just passive junctions, are actually vitally important in the complicated processes of the nervous system. The brain could be said to be the ultimate human frontier. As scientists pieced together the function of all the other organs in the body over the last few centuries, the brain remained an enigma. The work of Drs. Axelrod, Carlsson, Greengard, and Kandel starts to clear away some of the mystery that surrounds the brain, and this research has already led to practical, clinical advances to help millions of people with neurological and mental disorders such as Parkinson's disease and schizophrenia. This basic understanding of how the brain works is clearly necessary for understanding of the numerous brain disorders that affect many more millions of people worldwide, some of which are just starting to be elucidated. Moreover, these pioneering studies have opened the door to the development of targeted medications to treat such illnesses. I am particularly excited about the possibility that this research will unlock the key to the medical treatment of substance abuse disorders, whose social impact in our country is enormous. On behalf of the many people who stand to live longer and more fulfilling lives as a result of their discoveries, I extend my deepest congratulations to these esteemed Nobel laureates.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Five minutes.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I always find these debates about attorney's fees fascinating. I find my friends on both sides of the aisle who usually are seeking to restrict attorney's fees are the most big-time free enterprise guys in the world. They are people who tell us we should not freeze and/or put limitations on the amount of money energy companies can make, even though it bears no relationship to cost. They are folks who told us out in California--when you have utility companies gouging the public--that we should not, even though we have authority under Federal law, put on some limitations. They are folks who tell us that, notwithstanding the fact that a drug company may be able to manufacture a pill for one-quarter of 1 cent and sell it for $75, there should not be any relationship between the amount of cost involved and the profit made. I find it absolutely fascinating. For example--I am not going to do it--a great amendment to the amendment by my friend from Virginia would be the following: That any fee charged by an HMO for health care coverage must bear direct relationship to their cost and cannot exceed a profit rate of X amount. That would be fair, right? All these folks who can't afford health insurance, who are getting banged around and battered, we are trying to help, but I imagine I would not get many votes for that. I bet my friend from Virginia would not vote for that because that is free enterprise. My grandfather Finnegan used to have an expression. He said: You know, it's kind of fascinating. There's free enterprise for some people, free enterprise for the poor, and socialism for the rich. You find yourself in a position where, if you are representing the right interest, we talk about free enterprise; if you don't like the interests that are at stake, you find that you should have socialism, you should have imposed limitations on fees or on profits, based on whether you like what is going on. I do not know whether most people know this, that an awful lot of these folks who want to bring suit against a giant company don't have any money. These giant companies, they have a lot of money and a lot of lawyers. So what they do is, they depose you to death, which costs thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars. So what happens? You go to a lawyer, and you say: Look, I have this claim. And the lawyer sits down and says: OK, who knows what the jury will do, and who knows what will happen with regard to the defense that is going to be put up? And it seems to me you have a case. You have a 60-percent chance of winning this case. I'll tell you what I will do. I am going to front all the expenses. I am going to take all the chances. It is sort of free enterprise. It may cost that law firm $50, $500, $5,000, $50,000, $100,000, and they are betting on the come. They are betting on the come. Some law firms actually risk their solvency on a case that they believe is worth pursuing. Then you are going to come along and say: By the way--after the fact, after the risk is taken on behalf of a client, where you may get absolutely nothing and you may end up in the hole, losing a lot of money, because I can tell you, major corporations do what they are entitled to do under this system. They have batteries of lawyers, and they just depose the devil out of you. It costs. For example, the person taking down my comments right now, the cost to the American taxpayer for that transcription is hundreds of thousands of dollars a year--millions of dollars a year. We need to have a record, and we do it. The same thing happens in the depositions. Somebody sits with a little machine like that and types away. So if I am the deep-pocket company and I want to run you out, all I do is I keep deposing you; I keep submitting interrogatories; and I run your cost up because you have to pay for that. I guess the only point I am trying to make is--and I don't want to take the time because I am sure everybody's mind is already made up on this thing--if you feel good about lawyer bashing, if you feel good about making the case that you should have to justify, on an hourly basis, exactly what you do, and all of these things, not calculate the risk, not calculate the cost, then fine, have at it. But I don't know; what is good for the goose isn't good for the gander. If we do this with regard to attorney's fees and we don't do this with regard to health care costs and fees, what is the fundamental difference? Tell me the fundamental difference, all of a sudden, in the great interest of my friends to protect the poor, aggrieved plaintiff, who has been wronged by the insurance company. At any rate, I am as anxious to get out of here as everybody is. I wanted to make it clear: I think this is bad law, bad policy, a bad idea, and it is, in a literal sense, discriminatory.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate President Bush for his unequivocal support for the next round of enlargement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which he voiced during his recent trip to Europe. Several months ago I made clear my opposition to a so-called ``zero option'' of not admitting any new country to membership at next year's NATO Summit in Prague. Largely at the administration's urging, the alliance last week formally laid the ``zero option'' to rest. At least one country will be invited to membership in Prague. In addition, in several venues I have declared that no country outside of NATO has any veto right over which country or countries the alliance will invite to membership. Most particularly this statement applies to the three Baltic states-- Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia--and Russia's evident opposition to their joining NATO. It would be totally unacceptable to grant Russia any such veto. Let us not forget the history of the last 61 years. In 1940, Moscow rigged bogus ``invitations'' from the three independent Baltic states to be incorporated by the Soviet Union. I am proud as an American that this country for more than 50 years never recognized this illegal annexation. Following annexation, and during the ensuing 5 years, the Soviets murdered thousands of Baltic citizens and deported thousands more to deepest Siberia. Guerilla warfare against the occupiers erupted in the forests of all three countries, with the last anti-Soviet partisan in Lithuania not surrendering until the 1960s. Despite their heroic struggle, the Baltic peoples had to endure the iron repression of Soviet communism for half a century. Now, in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union, all three Baltic countries are full-fledged democracies that are developing their civil societies and free-market economies. After Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia suffered the 51 years of Soviet- inflicted brutalities, it would be morally grotesque to deny them the fundamental right to choose their own system of security that is accorded to every other European country. This would be the ultimate ``double whammy,'' in essence saying, ``since you suffered so much, you may not ensure your safety in the future!'' No, Mr. President, we must never repeat, even by inference, the infamous Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939, which carved up northeastern Europe between Stalin and Hitler: There must be no more ``red lines'' in Europe. Russia, with which I sincerely hope we can develop a harmonious and productive relationship, must understand that NATO enlargement in general, and a Baltic dimension to enlargement in particular, pose absolutely no threat whatsoever to Russia. With several of its high-ranking military officers permanently attached to NATO and SHAPE, Russia must know that the old Soviet propaganda was a deliberate lie. NATO is, and always was, a purely defensive alliance. I believe that President Bush and Secretary of State Powell are correct in saying that it is premature at this time to ``name names'' of countries to be invited to NATO membership at the Prague Summit. The Alliance has laid out a detailed procedure for qualifying for membership. Most importantly, in the spring of 2002 NATO must make a third evaluation of each country's membership action plan or ``MAP.'' But it is no secret that some countries are making significant progress militarily, politically, economically, and socially. Slovenia, I believe, is already eminently qualified for NATO membership. Unless it lapses into over-confidence during the next year, it should be a shoo-in in Prague. Lithuania has apparently done remarkably well in fulfilling its MAP, and its neighbors, Latvia and Estonia, are also coming on strong. The legal status and treatment of the Russian minority in all three countries now is in full compliance with international standards. As long as lingering remnants of bigotry in the Baltic states continue to be erased by democratic education and practice, the political requirements for NATO membership should be met. Slovakia, after having lost precious time under the populist administration of Vladimir Meciar, now has a democratic government that is also making giant strides toward membership. Its national elections in the fall of 2002 will be decisive in proving to NATO that this progress is permanent. The southern Balkans, of course, are strategically the most important area for NATO enlargement. Romania and Bulgaria are potentially vital members for the Alliance. Both countries have overcome various kinds of misrule and are also making progress. Other aspirant countries in the southern Balkans are more long-term candidates. In 1998, I had the privilege of being floor manager for the successful Senate ratification of the legislation admitting Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic to NATO. I look forward to playing the same role in 2003 for the admission of one or more of the current candidate countries.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to reauthorize the Drug Free Communities Act, a program which currently funds more than 300 community coalitions across the country that work to reduce drug, alcohol, and tobacco use. Four years ago, I worked with Senator Grassley, Representatives Sandy Levin and Rob Portman, and others to create this important program to fund coalitions of citizens--parents, youth, businesses, media, law enforcement, religious organizations, civic groups, doctors, nurses, and others--working to reduce youth substance abuse. Community coalitions across the country--including two in my home State of Delaware--are galvanizing tremendous support for prevention efforts. They are helping fellow citizens make a difference in their communities. And they are helping all sectors of the community send a consistent message about alcohol, drugs, and tobacco. I have been fighting for this type of anti-drug program for local communities for over a decade because I believe that prevention is a critical--but too often overlooked--part of an effective drug strategy. Substance abuse is one of our Nation's most pervasive problems. Addiction is a disease that does not discriminate on the basis of age, gender, socioeconomic status, race or creed. And while we tend to stereotype drug abuse as an urban problem, the steadily growing number of heroin and methamphetamine addicts in rural villages and suburban towns shows that is simply not the case. We have nearly 15 million drug users in this country, 4 million of whom are hard-core addicts. We all know someone--a family member, neighbor, colleague or friend--who has become addicted to drugs or alcohol. And we are all affected by the undeniable correlation between substance abuse and crime--an overwhelming 80 percent of the 2 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. All of this comes at a hefty price. Drug abuse and addiction cost this Nation $110 billion in law enforcement and other criminal justice expenses, medical bills, lost earnings and other costs each year. Illegal drugs are responsible for thousands of deaths each year and for the spread of a number of communicable diseases, including AIDS and Hepatitis C. And a study by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University (CASA) shows that 7 out of 10 cases of child abuse and neglect are caused or exacerbated by substance abuse and addiction. Another CASA study recently revealed that for each dollar that States spend on substance-abuse related programs, 96 cents goes to dealing with the consequences of substance abuse and only 4 cents to preventing and treating it. Investing more in prevention and treatment is cost- effective because it will decrease much of the street crime, child abuse, domestic violence, and other social ills that can result from substance abuse. If we can get kids through age 21 without smoking, abusing alcohol, or using drugs, they are unlikely to have a substance abuse problem in the future. But there are still those who shrug their shoulders and say ``kids are kids--they are going to experiment.'' Others find the thought of keeping kids drug-free too daunting a task, and they give up too soon. But the truth is that we are learning more and more about drug prevention as researchers isolate the so-called ``risk'' and ``protective'' factors for drug use. In other words, we now know that if a child has low self-esteem or emotional problems; has a substance abuser for a parent; is a victim of child abuse; or is exposed to pro- drug media messages, that child is at a higher risk of smoking, drinking and using illegal drugs. But the good news is that we are also learning what decreases a child's risk of substance abuse. The Drug Free Communities program allows coalitions to put prevention research into action in cities and towns nationwide by funding initiatives tailored to a community's individual needs. In my home State of Delaware, both the New Castle County Community Partnership and the Delaware Prevention Coalition's Southern Partnership are working to prevent youth substance abuse by helping kids do better in school, addressing their behavioral problems, and teaching them the dangers associated with drug, alcohol, and tobacco use. The Delaware coalitions know that teachers who have high expectations of their students and help them develop good social skills also help to prevent substance use. And they know that if kids think that drugs, alcohol, and tobacco are bad for them, they will be less likely to use them. Other coalitions are working to engage the religious community. In Florida, the Miami Coalition for a Safe and Drug Free Community has developed a substance abuse manual for religious leaders so that they will know how to identify substance abuse and help people who need treatment find it. They are also teaching religious leaders how to incorporate messages about substance abuse into their sermons. Still other groups are working with the business community. A coalition in Troy, MI, is working with the Chamber of Commerce to form an Employee Assistance Program for a consortium of small businesses who could not otherwise afford to have one. These are just a few examples of the efforts that are making a difference and just a few of the reasons why I am proud to support community coalitions. Drug abuse plagues the entire community. We all feel the consequences--crime, homelessness, domestic violence, child abuse, despair--and we all need to do something about it. Prevention messages must come from all sectors of the community, from a number of different voices. Coalitions bring those groups together, give them information they need, help develop programs that work, and nurture them to success. I believe that the Drug Free Communities program is a powerful prevention initiative and I urge my colleagues to support its reauthorization. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.