Joe Biden

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a few words of appreciation and to say ``Farewell'' to one of the Senate's finest public servants, Marty Paone. For our visitors in the gallery, and for our viewers on C-SPAN, it may look like Senators are running this place. Mr. President, we know better. We trust dedicated, professional staff like Marty Paone to make sure things get done. As all of my colleagues know, Marty is the secretary for the majority, and when we were fewer Democrats around here, he was our secretary for the minority. He has held this position for the past 13 years. Before that, he served as the assistant secretary, worked as floor staff and in the cloakroom, going back nearly three decades. In short, Marty has spent close to his entire adult life here on the Senate floor, getting Senators where they need to be, when they are supposed to be there. To do his job, Marty has to be a combination of traffic cop, diplomat, and parliamentarian--and he has to have the trust of the Senators who follow his direction. Marty has that trust, because he has earned that trust, and because he has all those other skills, too. I have been here 35 years; it is hard for me to remember a time when Marty wasn't here. And I don't just mean year in and year out. I mean any hour of the day and night. Whenever this place is open for business, Marty has been here, helping to maintain order and to get things done. We are indebted to his many personal sacrifices, when he was here instead of home with his family. Indeed, it has been hard to get much done around here without relying on Marty's expertise on Senate process. I don't know how he has managed to juggle all the demands on him. He is the ``go to guy'' for help on moving amendments, overcoming objections, getting a place in line for debate, complying with Senate rules, strategizing passing or defeating a measure. If you want to know what is happening ``behind the scenes,'' Marty is the person to look to. There isn't a vote that happens, there isn't a negotiation that takes place, there isn't a unanimous consent agreement--which is what makes this place function--that Marty hasn't helped to piece together or made sure it's done correctly. And Marty works for each of us. While, technically, he works for the Democrats, I know that many of my Republican colleagues have turned to Marty for guidance. He is known for always being candid and straightforward. He has served us all with his honest counsel--you could always count on him for a straight answer. And, remarkably, he has never lost patience with any of us--no matter what we ask or how often we call. It is hard to describe to those who haven't spent much time in the Senate how very important Marty Paone has been to the Senate, day-to- day life and historic moments. Mr. President, this is the end of an era. We all hope it will be the beginning of a new one for Marty, away from the heavy responsibilities he has met so well for so long. We wish him well. He will be missed very much.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President. Today I rise to introduce an important resolution designating the week of February 10-16, 2008 as National Drug Prevention and Education Week. While we have made progress in curbing the rate of illegal drug use among teens in this country, there remains a great deal of work to be done. Key components of staying on top of emerging drug threats and lowering the overall rate of drug use in this country are prevention and education. These efforts start at the local level and this resolution encourages communities, schools, parents, and youth to engage in and carry out community-based prevention and education activities and programs to reduce and stop drug use before it starts. We have come a long way in combating drug use in this country, in large part because of the good work of so many talented professionals in the prevention and treatment fields. However, the rates of illegal drug use among teens and adults remains too high. The overall rate of current illegal drug use among persons aged 12 or older is 8.3 percent, which has remained stable since 2002. Moreover, the well-known Monitoring the Future survey found ``a clear pattern of gradually rising use [of ecstasy] in the upper grades'' over the past couple of years. Thus, as the data shows, clearly we have got a lot of work left to do. The threat of illegal drugs is not our only concern. Newly released data shows that abuse of prescription and over-the-counter medicines is a huge problem that has not declined in recent years. One in ten 12th graders has reported non-medical use of the powerful painkiller Vicodin within the past year and abuse rates of other powerful narcotics are similarly troubling. Abuse of over-the-counter drugs has also become concerning, with nearly 6 percent of 12th graders having used over-the-counter cough and cold medications in the past year for the purpose of getting high. These problems don't simply pose serious health risks, but they are also closely linked to low educational achievement and increased risk of illegal activity and crime. One critical component of stemming drug use is prevention. Over 20 years of research has demonstrated that prevention intervention, designed and tested to reduce risk and enhance protective factors, can help children at every step along their developmental path, from early childhood into young adulthood. The more successful we are at general prevention of drug use in younger adolescents, the less we will have to deal with the concomitant economic and societal consequences of their use-including the more than $500 billion in societal costs associated with drug and alcohol use. Community anti-drug coalitions provide the flexibility needed to effectively address the local needs of their communities. Coalitions of local leaders, including parents, teachers, religious leaders, local law enforcement officials, youth, and business leaders have the power to reduce the demand for drugs, and we must support their efforts and applaud them for their outstanding work on these issues. During the week of February 10-16, thousands of community anti-drug coalition leaders and community based substance abuse prevention, treatment, and education specialists will come to Washington, DC to receive state-of-the-art technical assistance, training, and education on drug prevention at the Community Anti-Drug Coalition of America's Annual National Leadership Forum. I applaud these community leaders-- and prevention and treatment professionals around the Nation--for their tireless efforts to curb drug use in our country and, in recognition of these efforts I have introduced this resolution to designate the week of February 10-16, 2008 as National Drug Prevention and Education Week.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the Federal Law Enforcement Congressional Badge of Bravery Act of 2007 establishes an award to honor exceptional acts of bravery in the line of duty by Federal law enforcement officers. This bipartisan bill is cosponsored by Senators Arlen Specter and John Sununu and it is supported by the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association along with other law enforcement groups. An ``ABC Nightly News'' series last November reported that 2007 may turn out to be one of the deadliest years in history for law enforcement officers. That sour prediction has come to pass. The National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund--which commemorates the service and sacrifice of law enforcement officers and helps promote law enforcement safety--found that officer deaths were up sharply nationwide last year. There were 194 fatalities--34 percent more than the year before. Unfortunately, with crime on the rise around the country the increase in fallen officers should be no surprise. The FBI's Uniform Crime Report for 2006--the gold standard of crime reports in our country-- must be taken seriously. Murders were up 1.9 percent on top of the previous year's increases--these were the largest increases in 15 years. What's more, violent crime rose 1.9 percent. Clearly, our Federal law enforcement officers are doing their jobs in an environment more fraught with danger than ever. Police departments around the country are scrambling in an arms race to match the firepower of the bad guys. In my view, we should give special recognition to those Federal law enforcement officers who are going above and beyond to protect us in this kind of environment. With this bill Congress can continue its support of the brave men and women law enforcement officers who risk their lives every day making sure our communities are safe. I hope this bill will be accepted by the full Senate.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the Federal Law Enforcement Congressional Badge of Bravery Act of 2007 establishes an award to honor exceptional acts of bravery in the line of duty by Federal law enforcement officers. This bipartisan bill is cosponsored by Senators Arlen Specter and John Sununu and it is supported by the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association along with other law enforcement groups. An ``ABC Nightly News'' series last November reported that 2007 may turn out to be one of the deadliest years in history for law enforcement officers. That sour prediction has come to pass. The National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund--which commemorates the service and sacrifice of law enforcement officers and helps promote law enforcement safety--found that officer deaths were up sharply nationwide last year. There were 194 fatalities--34 percent more than the year before. Unfortunately, with crime on the rise around the country the increase in fallen officers should be no surprise. The FBI's Uniform Crime Report for 2006--the gold standard of crime reports in our country-- must be taken seriously. Murders were up 1.9 percent on top of the previous year's increases--these were the largest increases in 15 years. What's more, violent crime rose 1.9 percent. Clearly, our Federal law enforcement officers are doing their jobs in an environment more fraught with danger than ever. Police departments around the country are scrambling in an arms race to match the firepower of the bad guys. In my view, we should give special recognition to those Federal law enforcement officers who are going above and beyond to protect us in this kind of environment. With this bill Congress can continue its support of the brave men and women law enforcement officers who risk their lives every day making sure our communities are safe. I hope this bill will be accepted by the full Senate.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, on December 31, the United Nations and the African Union jointly assumed control of the peacekeeping mission in Darfur. But, sadly, little has changed for the people of Darfur. The United Nations Security Council has authorized over 26,000 peacekeepers, but just over 9,000 are on the ground in Darfur. The government of Sudan had promised to abide by the United Nations resolution, but it continues to obstruct it at almost every turn. Some of the rebel leaders have begun to join in coalitions with one another, an important step for the peace process, but others continue to prey on civilians and humanitarian aid workers and to threaten peacekeepers. And the nations of the world had pledged to help end the genocide, but they are falling short where it counts. U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon reports that no one has stepped up to provide the 24 helicopters that are needed to transport and protect the peacekeepers and to give them the mobility that they need to do their jobs. That is inexcusable. We cannot allow genocide and suffering to continue because the combined nations of the world cannot find 24 helicopters to help stop it. That is why today, joined by Senator Lugar and a number of other colleagues, I have introduced a resolution expressing the Sense of the Senate that the world must not allow this peacekeeping mission to founder because we cannot find 24 suitable aircraft within our vast arsenals. I recognize that helicopters are expensive vehicles that are in short supply, with wars raging in Afghanistan and Iraq and with peacekeeping missions in the Congo and now being deployed to Chad as well. But a considerable number of nations possess aerial vehicles with the capabilities that are needed for this mission. Together, we could fill this gap. The United Nations is seeking 18 utility and 6 tactical helicopters. According to a piece in the Washington Post, the member nations of NATO alone possess over 18,000 helicopters. Not all of these 18,000 aircraft would be suitable for this mission. NATO reserves are taxed in Afghanistan and elsewhere, but the potential vehicles certainly exist. NATO is not alone in this capability. Other countries could also step up to fill this need. Secretary General Ban has stated that these vehicles are indispensable. He reports that the United Nations-African Union mission must ``be capable of rapid mobility over large distances, especially over terrain where roads are the exception.'' Ban also said that ``Without the missing helicopters, this mobility--a fundamental requirement for the implementation of the [Security Council's] mandate--will not be possible.'' Helicopters alone will not save Darfur. The needs there are immense and growing. The United Nations revealed last month that acute malnutrition in the region is rising and surpassing emergency levels in some areas. To make matters worse, the Government of Khartoum is continuing to obstruct deployment of U.N. peacekeepers. They have objected to non-African peacekeepers, such as a team of Norwegian engineers, and they are slowing deployment by denying visas and land permits and denying night flights. Most seriously of all, earlier this month, Sudanese troops opened fire on a clearly marked U.N. convoy, badly injuring a driver. The world must not allow the Khartoum government to dictate terms to the UN mission. The European Union and United Nations Security Council should, I believe, join the United States in imposing strong economic sanctions on the Sudanese government. We should also continue to pressure the rebel groups to cease all attacks on civilians and humanitarian workers and engage in a peace process to bring a real solution for the people of Darfur. We should do all these things and more, but, first and foremost, we should ensure that the United Nations and African Union have the tools that they need to carry out their mission. The United States has already provided more than $4.5 billion since 2004 in response to the Darfur crisis. That is an enormous contribution and it should not fall on our shoulders to fill this particular gap in the peacekeeping mission. That is why I have repeatedly written President Bush asking him to use the powers of persuasion of his office to personally contact other heads of state to ask them to commit the needed vehicles and crews. I have also written the Secretary General of NATO and President Hu of China, asking them to help fill this gap. Our resolution urges the members of the international community with the necessary assets to contribute the needed vehicles and crews. Preventing genocide is a global responsibility. Too often the world has failed to keep this commitment, and it has failed Darfur for too long. We cannot allow the government of Khartoum to block deployment of the 26,000 peacekeepers, but it would perhaps be even more unforgivable if the international community refuses to provide the peacekeepers with the equipment and vehicles that they need. Then we will have done Khartoum's job for them by obstructing ourselves.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the Intelligence Committee's version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendments Act of 2007. It is without question that I support giving the administration the surveillance tools it needs to keep us safe. But Congress has both a duty to keep the American people safe and uphold the Constitution. It is therefore incumbent upon us in the Senate to craft clear legislation that protects both our national security and our civil liberties. We can do that by passing the Judiciary Committee substitute, which gives the administration the tools it needs to collect foreign intelligence and protects innocent Americans by ensuring that the FISA Court, and not the Attorney General, decides whether surveillance of a U.S. person is proper. One of the defining challenges of our age is to combat international terrorism while maintaining our national values and our commitment to the rule of law and individual rights. These two obligations are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, they reinforce one another. Unfortunately, the President's national security policies have operated at the expense of our civil liberties. The examples are legion, but the issue that prompted the legislation before us today is one of the most notorious-- his secret program of eavesdropping on Americans without congressional authorization or a judge's approval. After insisting for a year that the President was not bound by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act's clear prohibition on warrantless surveillance of Americans, the administration subjected its surveillance program to FISA Court review in January of last year. Then, last August, citing operational difficulties and heightened threats that required changes to FISA, the administration passed the Protect America Act--over my objection and that of many of my colleagues. The Protect America Act, which sunsets at the end of this month, amended FISA to allow warrantless surveillance, even when that surveillance intercepts the communications of innocent American citizens inside the United States. The administration identified two problems it faced in conducting electronic surveillance under FISA. First, the administration wanted clarification that it did not need to obtain a FISA warrant in order to conduct surveillance of calls between two parties when both of those parties are overseas. Because of the way global communications are now transmitted, many communications between people all of whom are overseas are nonetheless routed through switching stations inside the United States. In other words, when someone in Islamabad, Pakistan, calls someone in London, that call is likely to be routed through communications switching stations right here in the United States. Congress did not intend FISA to apply to such calls, and I support a legislative fix to clarify that point. The second problem the administration identified is more difficult. Even assuming that the government does not need a FISA warrant to tap into switching stations here in the United States in order to intercept calls between two people who are abroad--between Pakistan and England, for example--if the target in Pakistan calls someone inside the United States, FISA requires the government to get a warrant, even though the government is ``targeting'' the caller in Pakistan. The administration wants the flexibility to begin electronic surveillance of a ``target'' abroad without having to get a FISA warrant to account for the possibility that the ``foreign target'' might contact someone in the United States. I agree with the administration's assessment of the problem, but I don't support its solution. The administration's proposal, which is reflected in the Intelligence Committee's version of the FISA Amendments Act, would significantly expand the scope of surveillance permitted under FISA by exempting entirely any calls to or from the United States, as long as the government is ``targeting'' someone reasonably believed to be located outside the United States. The government could acquire these communications regardless of whether either party is suspected of any wrongdoing. The Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence would make the determination about whom to target on their own, and they would merely certify, after-the-fact, to the FISA Court that they had reason to believe the target was outside the United States, regardless of how many calls to innocent American citizens inside the United States were intercepted in the process. This Intelligence Committee bill authorizes surveillance that is broader than what is necessary to protect national security and that is why I oppose it. The Intelligence Committee bill offers no protection for the innocent Americans who communicate with overseas relatives, business partners, or friends. Indeed, it allows the government unfettered access to these innocent Americans' communications. And once the government collects these communications, it can share them with other agencies throughout the government. The Judiciary Committee substitute--which authorizes much broader surveillance powers than the government had under FISA before the Protect America Act became law--offers several significant protections. I will mention a few: First, the Judiciary Substitute protects against the ``bulk collection'' of communications by requiring the government to target a specific person or phone number abroad, rather than allowing the acquisition in bulk the millions of communications going into and out of the United States. Second, it requires the government to obtain an individualized warrant from the FISA Court if the government's acquisition of a person inside the United States becomes a significant purpose of its surveillance of the foreign target. Third, it provides for much more robust and meaningful congressional oversight. And fourth, it does not provide retroactive immunity for the telecommunications carriers. I oppose granting retroactive immunity because if the carriers violated clearly stated Federal law, they should be held accountable. Cases against the carriers are already making their way through the courts. Retroactive immunity would undermine the judiciary's role as an independent branch of government. Furthermore, the provision that holds carrier liable for violations of the act is an important enforcement mechanism. It is fundamental to securing the privacy rights that FISA was meant to protect. When the Senate passed FISA, after extensive hearings, 30 years ago by a strong bipartisan vote of 95 to 1, I stated that it ``was a reaffirmation of the principle that it is possible to protect national security and at the same time the Bill of Rights.'' I still believe that's possible, but not if we enact the Intelligence Committee bill. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, on Sunday, January 20, Mikhail Saakashvili was reinaugurated as President of the Republic of Georgia. He won an election that the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, OSCE, referred to as ``the first genuinely competitive presidential election in the country, enabling the Georgian people to express their political choice.'' I wish President Saakashvili and the people of Georgia well. President Saakashvili's program of reform and integration into Euro- Atlantic institutions, such as NATO, depends on the strength of Georgia's democracy. At the same time, membership in those institutions will reinforce and protect Georgia's democracy. When I spoke with President Saakashvili in November, I was confident that he understood the close connection between these two goals. In order to achieve them, reconciliation between the President and his political opponents is essential. Despite the findings of OSCE international monitors, the Georgian opposition repudiated the election's results and took to the street. In 16 years of independence there has never been a peaceful transfer of power in Georgia. Perhaps the time has come to move the debate off the street and into Parliament. In my 35 years in the Senate, I have seen just how powerful a vehicle for change a democratically elected body can be. I hope the opposition parties will focus their energies on April's parliamentary elections, reinvigorating the Parliament and promoting progress from within. On the same day that they gathered to elect a President, 73 percent of the Georgian electorate affirmed their interest in Georgia joining NATO. I support their aspirations and I am confident that the people of Georgia, united by a sense of common purpose, can and will realize their full potential and achieve great things.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise on behalf myself, Senators Arlen Specter, Lindsey Graham, and Ben Cardin to introduce the Bail Bond Fairness Act of 2007. This bill will ensure that all defendants, not just rich defendants, have access to bail and pre-trial release. The Bail Reform Act was meant to ensure the defendant's appearance in court. Over the past 2 decades, however, many judges have been forfeiting bonds for behavior outside the predictability or control of a bondsman. If bondsmen are forced to warrant behavior they can't predict or control, they will raise their rates, rendering bonds unavailable to many indigent defendants. These defendants will the go to jail pending trial, swelling our prison population and draining our budget. This bill mandates that a bail bond may be forfeited only if a defendant fails to appear in court as ordered. Professional bail agents would be able to return to the Federal court system to provide bail for defendants because bail would not be forfeited for violations of conditions that are completely out of their control such as failure to maintain employment. Let me be clear, this bill does not change a judge's authority to set or restrict bail. We're not talking about putting more criminals back into the community. A judge still has to determine a defendant's flight risk and threat to the community and make a judgment regarding pretrial release in terms of bail amount and conditions. Violent criminals will--and should--be held in custody. Please join us in ensuring that all defendants, regardless of wealth, have access to pretrial release in the Federal system.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise on behalf myself, Senators Arlen Specter, Lindsey Graham, and Ben Cardin to introduce the Bail Bond Fairness Act of 2007. This bill will ensure that all defendants, not just rich defendants, have access to bail and pre-trial release. The Bail Reform Act was meant to ensure the defendant's appearance in court. Over the past 2 decades, however, many judges have been forfeiting bonds for behavior outside the predictability or control of a bondsman. If bondsmen are forced to warrant behavior they can't predict or control, they will raise their rates, rendering bonds unavailable to many indigent defendants. These defendants will the go to jail pending trial, swelling our prison population and draining our budget. This bill mandates that a bail bond may be forfeited only if a defendant fails to appear in court as ordered. Professional bail agents would be able to return to the Federal court system to provide bail for defendants because bail would not be forfeited for violations of conditions that are completely out of their control such as failure to maintain employment. Let me be clear, this bill does not change a judge's authority to set or restrict bail. We're not talking about putting more criminals back into the community. A judge still has to determine a defendant's flight risk and threat to the community and make a judgment regarding pretrial release in terms of bail amount and conditions. Violent criminals will--and should--be held in custody. Please join us in ensuring that all defendants, regardless of wealth, have access to pretrial release in the Federal system.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I wish to commend a true leader, someone who has left an indelible impression on thousands of Delaware's college students. Dr. Scott D. Miller, after 10 years at the helm of Wesley College in Dover, is moving on to the next phase in his professional life. Dr. Miller's tenure at Wesley has been marked by previously unknown success. He took over a quiet school in our State capital and turned it into a nationally recognized institution with a burgeoning and diverse student population. Evidence of his quick influence is the fact that Wesley was named as one of just four ``amazing turnarounds'' featured in the book, ``The Small College Guide to Financial Health,'' after only 5 years of Dr. Miller at the helm. Dr. Miller's accomplishments are too numerous to name in one statement, but I would like to mention a few of the most notable: Wesley's faculty is stronger in number and diversity, which has improved the retention rate and academic profile of Wesley's student body. Enrollment has nearly tripled in the 10 years Dr. Miller has been president. He has presided over the most prolific fundraising era in Wesley's history. And he has developed community service partnerships for his students with five campus-based affiliates. In short, Wesley College has been changed permanently--and for the better--by Dr. Miller's leadership and vision. My State's oldest private college will retain its prominence for years to come, thanks to Dr. Miller's guidance in leading that institution into the 21st century. Dr. Scott Miller is moving on, being rewarded for his excellent work over the last decade, and he will surely be missed. But his efforts will not soon be forgotten in Dover, surely not among all of the lives that he touched.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, ``Robotripping,'' ingesting large amounts of cough suppressants containing a common over-the-counter ingredient called Dextromethorphan, or ``DXM,'' is a dangerous, potentially lethal, threat to our Nation's children. That is why today I am introducing the Dextromethorphan Abuse Reduction Act of 2007, which takes significant steps towards countering this alarming problem. DXM is a cough suppressing ingredient found in many over-the-counter products. While DXM is safe at the recommended dosage, it can produce a hallucinogenic effect similar to that of PCP if ingested in abnormally high doses. Because many drugs containing DXM are legal and widely available over-the-counter, too many teens have the perception that they are not dangerous regardless of the amount ingested. Nothing could be further from the truth; overdosing on DXM can cause a rapid heartbeat, high blood pressure, seizures, brain damage, elevated body temperatures, and even death. Recent studies reveal troubling rates of DXM abuse. The number of reported cases in California has increased ten-fold since 1999 and experts believe that this mirrors national trends. Moreover, the Partnership for a Drug-Free America estimates that 2.4 million teens--1 in 10--got high on over-the-counter cough medicines in 2005. Children ages 9 to 17 are the fastest growing group of DXM abusers. Indeed, the latest Monitoring the Future survey revealed that nearly 7 percent--or one in about every 14--12th graders reported abusing cough or cold medicines to get high during the past year. Mr. President, these shocking numbers speak for themselves. To be certain, this is not the first time we have seen the abuse of over-the-counter medications. As you will recall, we spent much of the 109th Congress debating how to address the dangers posed by pseudoephedrine, which can be used to manufacture methamphetamine. We passed the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005, which took the important step of moving medications containing pseudoephedrine behind the counter and closely regulating their sales. While this move was controversial at the time among those who believed it imposed an unnecessary inconvenience on law-abiding Americans, it has worked: domestic manufacture of methamphetamine has been reduced dramatically and there is no indication that people who legitimately need medicines containing pseudoephedrine are not receiving them. My bill takes two key steps to combat the abuse of medicines containing DXM. First, it regulates bulk DXM--the powder that has not been combined with any other ingredients--by placing it in Schedule V of the Controlled Substances Act. Cough medicine with codeine is also a Schedule V substance. This gives DEA the authority to monitor and control DXM in its unfinished form. While DXM-containing commercial end-products like Robitussin and Coricidin Cough and Cold will not be scheduled, the bill requires that any would-be purchaser of a DXM- containing product be 18 years of age, a move that many grocery stores and pharmacies have already voluntarily taken. Second, and equally important in my view, the bill infuses substantial funding into efforts to raise public awareness about the problem of prescription and over-the-counter drug abuse, and it establishes coordinated efforts to educate teens and parents about medicine abuse. I have always said that tough enforcement efforts must be coupled with equally tough prevention and treatment measures. Prevention is a key component to solving the problem of rising medicine abuse, and my bill provides robust funding for educational television advertisements, community awareness and prevention programs, and targeted grants made available to local community coalitions to develop comprehensive strategies to reverse the rise in medicine abuse in a particular community. Senators Grassley, Durbin, and Feinstein are original cosponsors of the legislation. The bill is also supported by a number of retail organizations including the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, NACDS, the Consumer Healthcare Products Association, CHPA, and the Food Marketing Institute, FMI. The Community Anti-Drug Coalition of America, CADCA, and the Partnership for a Drug-Free America also support the bill. I would like to thank Senators Grassley, Feinstein, and Durbin for their support on this and many other important drug issues facing our country, and I hope all members of this body will join us in this effort and support this bill.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, one in three women worldwide will experience gender-based violence in her lifetime. In some countries, that's true for 70 percent of women. No country is immune. From trafficking of women in Eastern Europe to ``honor'' killings in Jordan to rape being used as a brutal weapon of war in Darfur and the Congo, violence against women and girls crosses all borders and affects women in all social groups, religions and socio-economic classes. Around the globe, women and girls face domestic violence, rape, forced or child marriage, so-called ``honor'' killings, dowry-related murder, human trafficking, and female genital mutilation. The United Nations estimates that at least 5,000 ``honor'' killings take place each year around the world and more than 130,000,000 girls and young women worldwide have been subjected to genital mutilation. A 2006 United Nations Report found that at least 102 member states had no specific laws on domestic violence. The statistics are staggering. Not surprisingly, violence against women and girls has a profound impact on the health and development of countries worldwide. Violence breeds poverty. It impedes economic development because it can prevent girls from going to school, or stop women from holding jobs or inheriting property, or shut down access to critical health care for themselves and their children. We can't eradicate poverty and disease unless we prevent and respond to the violence women face in their own homes and communities. We cannot truly empower women to become active in civic life and promote peace, prosperity and democracy unless they personally are free from fear of violence. Violence against women is a global health crisis, not just because so many women and girls are injured and die as a result, but also because inequality and violence interfere with current efforts to combat the HIV/AIDS pandemic. Forced sex increases vulnerability to HIV/AIDS transmission, in part, because condoms are not likely to be used. In sub-Saharan Africa alone, women account for close to three-quarters of those living with HIV/AIDS between the ages 18 and 24. The picture is grim, and can be discouraging. But the good news is that local and international organizations are working in communities around the world with courage, sensitivity and great success to help women overcome violence at home, in school and at work. But they need our help. We've made tremendous progress in reducing violence against women here in the United States since we passed the Violence Against Women Act, VAWA, in 1994. That important work continues. But we cannot ignore the devastation wrought by violence in every corner of the globe. Now is the time to turn our attention to women in other parts of the world--women whose lives are devastated by poverty, political and civic exclusion, disease, and violence. Gender-based violence contributes to the poverty, inequality and instability that threaten peace. Addressing it isn't just moral; it is also smart. So today, during this final week of Domestic Violence Awareness Month, I am introducing with my good friend from Indiana, Senator Lugar, the International Violence Against Women Act. This groundbreaking, bipartisan legislation would integrate efforts to end gender-based violence into all existing, appropriate U.S. foreign assistance programs. The International Violence Against Women Act has three main components. First, the bill reorganizes and rejuvenates the gender- related efforts of the State Department by creating one central office--the ``Office for Women's Global Initiatives'', directed by a Senate-confirmed Ambassador who reports directly to the Secretary. The Coordinator of the Office or Women's Global Initiatives, the ``Coordinator'', will be charged with monitoring, coordinating, and organizing all U.S. resources, programs and aid abroad that deals with women's issues, including gender-based violence. Additionally, my bill creates a new Office of Women's Global Development at the United States Agency for International Development, also to be directed by a Senate-confirmed nominee. The Director will be responsible for addressing gender-based violence and integrating gender into U.S. government assistance programs. The Director will work closely with the Coordinator and the Secretary of State to implement the provisions of the IVAWA legislation. Under the current organizational scheme, projects addressing violence against women, either primarily or tangentially, are spread throughout the State Department and USAID without a central inventory, game plan or leader. My bill will raise the profile of women's issues generally at the State Department, and ensure that gender-based violence programs are building on past successes, leveraging core competencies and working in conjunction with other initiatives. Second, the International Violence Against Women Act mandates creation of a 5-year, comprehensive strategy, with coordinated programming, to prevent and respond to violence against women in 10 to 20 targeted countries. The act creates a dedicated funding stream of $175 million a year to support programs dealing with violence against women in five areas: the criminal and civil justice system--everything from drafting laws on domestic violence, to enhancing women's access to property and inheritance rights, to reforming police practices--health care, girls' access to education and school safety, women's access to employment and financial resources, and public awareness campaigns that change social norms. I know from my experience in Delaware that coordinating community responses in towns and cities has made all the difference in fighting domestic violence and rape. I applied those same principles of coordination and joint programming to the International Violence Against Women Act. International experts agree on the necessity of a multi-disciplinary approach that brings governments and nongovernmental organizations to the table to create sustainable infrastructure. To be clear, the International Violence Against Women Act is not asking countries to reinvent the wheel. At every step our strategy will lead to coordination of efforts to have the greatest possible impact. This type of effective, cost-efficient, gender-based violence programming already exists and is taking place in pockets all around the globe. We have the blueprints; my Act would provide the momentum and support for a full-scale international priority. Finally, as the recent reports from the Congo make tragically clear, in situations of humanitarian crises, conflict and post-conflict operations, women and girls are vulnerable to horrific acts of violence. Reports of refugee women being raped while collecting firewood, soldiers sexually abusing girls in exchange for token food items, or women subjected to unimaginable brutality and torture as a tactic of war are shocking in number and inhumanity. The Act requires training, reporting mechanisms and other measures for those who are working directly with or protecting refugees and other vulnerable populations. The act also requires that the State Department identify ``critical outbreaks'' in which violence against women and girls is being used as a weapon of intimidation and abuse in armed conflict or war, or is escalating in an environment of impunity, and to take emergency measures to respond to the outbreaks. The issue of violence against women and girls is complex and our legislation is a bold and ambitious plan. There are limitations on the United States' power to ``fix'' a problem that is so widespread. We are mindful that no country has a perfect record or all the answers. Yet Congress has a long and proud history of tackling complex international problems, most recently the devastating epidemic of HIV/AIDS and the insidious crime of human trafficking. I did not approach this legislation lightly. Over the past months, I've solicited information from every relevant office in the State Department, USAID and the Department of Justice that works on the issues of women's rights and gender-based violence abroad. I asked for input and information from the United Nations secretariat, and many of its subsidiary agencies who are working to prevent and respond to gender-based violence internationally in various capacities. And most importantly, the International Violence Against Women Act was drafted with the insight and expertise of over 100 nongovernmental organizations and 40 women's groups around the globe, including American Refugee Committee, Amnesty International, CARE, Christian Children's Fund, Family Violence Prevention Fund, Global AIDS Alliance, Human Rights Watch, Inter-Agency Gender Working Group, IGWAG, International Rescue Committee, International Justice Mission, Women's Edge Coalition, Vital Voices Global Partnership and many others. I thank all of them for their invaluable assistance and perseverance as this bill came together. Former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said ``Violence against women is perhaps the most shameful human rights violation. And it is perhaps the most pervasive. It knows no boundaries of geography, culture or wealth. As long as it continues, we cannot claim to be making real progress towards equity, development and peace.'' I could not agree more. My International Violence Against Women Act marshals together, for the first time, coordinated American resources, good will and leadership to address this global issue. I believe the time is now for the U.S. to get actively engaged in the fight for women's lives and girls' futures. Over the past 30 years, the understanding of human rights and violence against women has metamorphosed. A State's responsibility to protect women from violence has evolved--what was once seen largely as a private, family or cultural matter is now understood by the international community as a violation of basic human rights. Violence against women is a legal wrong. It cannot be excused or justified or ignored. It is an engrained social norm but one that we can dismantle over time--one woman at a time--with patience, creativity and sustained political will. The International Violence Against Women Act is the first step. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a section-by-section analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, one in three women worldwide will experience gender-based violence in her lifetime. In some countries, that's true for 70 percent of women. No country is immune. From trafficking of women in Eastern Europe to ``honor'' killings in Jordan to rape being used as a brutal weapon of war in Darfur and the Congo, violence against women and girls crosses all borders and affects women in all social groups, religions and socio-economic classes. Around the globe, women and girls face domestic violence, rape, forced or child marriage, so-called ``honor'' killings, dowry-related murder, human trafficking, and female genital mutilation. The United Nations estimates that at least 5,000 ``honor'' killings take place each year around the world and more than 130,000,000 girls and young women worldwide have been subjected to genital mutilation. A 2006 United Nations Report found that at least 102 member states had no specific laws on domestic violence. The statistics are staggering. Not surprisingly, violence against women and girls has a profound impact on the health and development of countries worldwide. Violence breeds poverty. It impedes economic development because it can prevent girls from going to school, or stop women from holding jobs or inheriting property, or shut down access to critical health care for themselves and their children. We can't eradicate poverty and disease unless we prevent and respond to the violence women face in their own homes and communities. We cannot truly empower women to become active in civic life and promote peace, prosperity and democracy unless they personally are free from fear of violence. Violence against women is a global health crisis, not just because so many women and girls are injured and die as a result, but also because inequality and violence interfere with current efforts to combat the HIV/AIDS pandemic. Forced sex increases vulnerability to HIV/AIDS transmission, in part, because condoms are not likely to be used. In sub-Saharan Africa alone, women account for close to three-quarters of those living with HIV/AIDS between the ages 18 and 24. The picture is grim, and can be discouraging. But the good news is that local and international organizations are working in communities around the world with courage, sensitivity and great success to help women overcome violence at home, in school and at work. But they need our help. We've made tremendous progress in reducing violence against women here in the United States since we passed the Violence Against Women Act, VAWA, in 1994. That important work continues. But we cannot ignore the devastation wrought by violence in every corner of the globe. Now is the time to turn our attention to women in other parts of the world--women whose lives are devastated by poverty, political and civic exclusion, disease, and violence. Gender-based violence contributes to the poverty, inequality and instability that threaten peace. Addressing it isn't just moral; it is also smart. So today, during this final week of Domestic Violence Awareness Month, I am introducing with my good friend from Indiana, Senator Lugar, the International Violence Against Women Act. This groundbreaking, bipartisan legislation would integrate efforts to end gender-based violence into all existing, appropriate U.S. foreign assistance programs. The International Violence Against Women Act has three main components. First, the bill reorganizes and rejuvenates the gender- related efforts of the State Department by creating one central office--the ``Office for Women's Global Initiatives'', directed by a Senate-confirmed Ambassador who reports directly to the Secretary. The Coordinator of the Office or Women's Global Initiatives, the ``Coordinator'', will be charged with monitoring, coordinating, and organizing all U.S. resources, programs and aid abroad that deals with women's issues, including gender-based violence. Additionally, my bill creates a new Office of Women's Global Development at the United States Agency for International Development, also to be directed by a Senate-confirmed nominee. The Director will be responsible for addressing gender-based violence and integrating gender into U.S. government assistance programs. The Director will work closely with the Coordinator and the Secretary of State to implement the provisions of the IVAWA legislation. Under the current organizational scheme, projects addressing violence against women, either primarily or tangentially, are spread throughout the State Department and USAID without a central inventory, game plan or leader. My bill will raise the profile of women's issues generally at the State Department, and ensure that gender-based violence programs are building on past successes, leveraging core competencies and working in conjunction with other initiatives. Second, the International Violence Against Women Act mandates creation of a 5-year, comprehensive strategy, with coordinated programming, to prevent and respond to violence against women in 10 to 20 targeted countries. The act creates a dedicated funding stream of $175 million a year to support programs dealing with violence against women in five areas: the criminal and civil justice system--everything from drafting laws on domestic violence, to enhancing women's access to property and inheritance rights, to reforming police practices--health care, girls' access to education and school safety, women's access to employment and financial resources, and public awareness campaigns that change social norms. I know from my experience in Delaware that coordinating community responses in towns and cities has made all the difference in fighting domestic violence and rape. I applied those same principles of coordination and joint programming to the International Violence Against Women Act. International experts agree on the necessity of a multi-disciplinary approach that brings governments and nongovernmental organizations to the table to create sustainable infrastructure. To be clear, the International Violence Against Women Act is not asking countries to reinvent the wheel. At every step our strategy will lead to coordination of efforts to have the greatest possible impact. This type of effective, cost-efficient, gender-based violence programming already exists and is taking place in pockets all around the globe. We have the blueprints; my Act would provide the momentum and support for a full-scale international priority. Finally, as the recent reports from the Congo make tragically clear, in situations of humanitarian crises, conflict and post-conflict operations, women and girls are vulnerable to horrific acts of violence. Reports of refugee women being raped while collecting firewood, soldiers sexually abusing girls in exchange for token food items, or women subjected to unimaginable brutality and torture as a tactic of war are shocking in number and inhumanity. The Act requires training, reporting mechanisms and other measures for those who are working directly with or protecting refugees and other vulnerable populations. The act also requires that the State Department identify ``critical outbreaks'' in which violence against women and girls is being used as a weapon of intimidation and abuse in armed conflict or war, or is escalating in an environment of impunity, and to take emergency measures to respond to the outbreaks. The issue of violence against women and girls is complex and our legislation is a bold and ambitious plan. There are limitations on the United States' power to ``fix'' a problem that is so widespread. We are mindful that no country has a perfect record or all the answers. Yet Congress has a long and proud history of tackling complex international problems, most recently the devastating epidemic of HIV/AIDS and the insidious crime of human trafficking. I did not approach this legislation lightly. Over the past months, I've solicited information from every relevant office in the State Department, USAID and the Department of Justice that works on the issues of women's rights and gender-based violence abroad. I asked for input and information from the United Nations secretariat, and many of its subsidiary agencies who are working to prevent and respond to gender-based violence internationally in various capacities. And most importantly, the International Violence Against Women Act was drafted with the insight and expertise of over 100 nongovernmental organizations and 40 women's groups around the globe, including American Refugee Committee, Amnesty International, CARE, Christian Children's Fund, Family Violence Prevention Fund, Global AIDS Alliance, Human Rights Watch, Inter-Agency Gender Working Group, IGWAG, International Rescue Committee, International Justice Mission, Women's Edge Coalition, Vital Voices Global Partnership and many others. I thank all of them for their invaluable assistance and perseverance as this bill came together. Former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said ``Violence against women is perhaps the most shameful human rights violation. And it is perhaps the most pervasive. It knows no boundaries of geography, culture or wealth. As long as it continues, we cannot claim to be making real progress towards equity, development and peace.'' I could not agree more. My International Violence Against Women Act marshals together, for the first time, coordinated American resources, good will and leadership to address this global issue. I believe the time is now for the U.S. to get actively engaged in the fight for women's lives and girls' futures. Over the past 30 years, the understanding of human rights and violence against women has metamorphosed. A State's responsibility to protect women from violence has evolved--what was once seen largely as a private, family or cultural matter is now understood by the international community as a violation of basic human rights. Violence against women is a legal wrong. It cannot be excused or justified or ignored. It is an engrained social norm but one that we can dismantle over time--one woman at a time--with patience, creativity and sustained political will. The International Violence Against Women Act is the first step. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a section-by-section analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, ``Robotripping,'' ingesting large amounts of cough suppressants containing a common over-the-counter ingredient called Dextromethorphan, or ``DXM,'' is a dangerous, potentially lethal, threat to our Nation's children. That is why today I am introducing the Dextromethorphan Abuse Reduction Act of 2007, which takes significant steps towards countering this alarming problem. DXM is a cough suppressing ingredient found in many over-the-counter products. While DXM is safe at the recommended dosage, it can produce a hallucinogenic effect similar to that of PCP if ingested in abnormally high doses. Because many drugs containing DXM are legal and widely available over-the-counter, too many teens have the perception that they are not dangerous regardless of the amount ingested. Nothing could be further from the truth; overdosing on DXM can cause a rapid heartbeat, high blood pressure, seizures, brain damage, elevated body temperatures, and even death. Recent studies reveal troubling rates of DXM abuse. The number of reported cases in California has increased ten-fold since 1999 and experts believe that this mirrors national trends. Moreover, the Partnership for a Drug-Free America estimates that 2.4 million teens--1 in 10--got high on over-the-counter cough medicines in 2005. Children ages 9 to 17 are the fastest growing group of DXM abusers. Indeed, the latest Monitoring the Future survey revealed that nearly 7 percent--or one in about every 14--12th graders reported abusing cough or cold medicines to get high during the past year. Mr. President, these shocking numbers speak for themselves. To be certain, this is not the first time we have seen the abuse of over-the-counter medications. As you will recall, we spent much of the 109th Congress debating how to address the dangers posed by pseudoephedrine, which can be used to manufacture methamphetamine. We passed the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005, which took the important step of moving medications containing pseudoephedrine behind the counter and closely regulating their sales. While this move was controversial at the time among those who believed it imposed an unnecessary inconvenience on law-abiding Americans, it has worked: domestic manufacture of methamphetamine has been reduced dramatically and there is no indication that people who legitimately need medicines containing pseudoephedrine are not receiving them. My bill takes two key steps to combat the abuse of medicines containing DXM. First, it regulates bulk DXM--the powder that has not been combined with any other ingredients--by placing it in Schedule V of the Controlled Substances Act. Cough medicine with codeine is also a Schedule V substance. This gives DEA the authority to monitor and control DXM in its unfinished form. While DXM-containing commercial end-products like Robitussin and Coricidin Cough and Cold will not be scheduled, the bill requires that any would-be purchaser of a DXM- containing product be 18 years of age, a move that many grocery stores and pharmacies have already voluntarily taken. Second, and equally important in my view, the bill infuses substantial funding into efforts to raise public awareness about the problem of prescription and over-the-counter drug abuse, and it establishes coordinated efforts to educate teens and parents about medicine abuse. I have always said that tough enforcement efforts must be coupled with equally tough prevention and treatment measures. Prevention is a key component to solving the problem of rising medicine abuse, and my bill provides robust funding for educational television advertisements, community awareness and prevention programs, and targeted grants made available to local community coalitions to develop comprehensive strategies to reverse the rise in medicine abuse in a particular community. Senators Grassley, Durbin, and Feinstein are original cosponsors of the legislation. The bill is also supported by a number of retail organizations including the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, NACDS, the Consumer Healthcare Products Association, CHPA, and the Food Marketing Institute, FMI. The Community Anti-Drug Coalition of America, CADCA, and the Partnership for a Drug-Free America also support the bill. I would like to thank Senators Grassley, Feinstein, and Durbin for their support on this and many other important drug issues facing our country, and I hope all members of this body will join us in this effort and support this bill.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today, I rise to introduce a bipartisan bill to promote the restoration of civilian, democratic rule to the troubled state of Burma. The goal of the Burma Democracy Promotion Act is to help create the right conditions for the peaceful, negotiated transfer of power from the generals who have ruled Burma for almost 2 decades to a newly- constituted civilian, democratic government. In order to do this, we need to bring pressure to bear on the Burmese generals directly responsible for the bloody crackdown on peaceful protestors last month. This bill imposes new financial sanctions and travel restrictions on the leaders of the junta and their associates and tightens the economic sanctions imposed by the Congress in 2003 by outlawing the importation of Burmese gems and timber to the U.S. Carefully targeted sanctions can support our diplomacy. In this case, the sanctions are designed to provide leverage on the generals, who seem largely indifferent to the suffering of ordinary people. Until now, the generals have managed largely to avoid the bite of existing economic sanctions, enjoying their shopping trips abroad and stashing their riches outside of Burma. We hope to change that. But unilateral pressure alone will not get the job done. We need a diplomatic offensive. Importantly, this bill creates a new position of Special Representative and Policy Coordinator for Burma. The Special Representative will work with Burma's neighbors and other interested countries, including the members of the EU and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, to develop a comprehensive approach to the problem, including sanctions, dialogue, and support for non- governmental organizations providing humanitarian relief to the Burmese people. We need China, India, and Thailand, among others, to join with us to convince the generals that it is time for change. While we work for a negotiated solution to the current crisis, we must not forget the Burmese people. This bill authorizes new assistance for the hundreds of thousands of Burmese who have been forced from their homes and are now refugees or who continue to suffer inside the country because of the mismanagement and brutality of the military regime. It is time for Burma to begin a new day in which all of the people, including Burma's many minority groups, work together to rebuild what nearly 20 years of disastrous military rule have destroyed. With the support of the international community, a new government can build a more prosperous and democratic state, one that is at peace with its neighbors and that respects the human rights of all of its people. The Burmese Army should be, and can be, a part of this new Burma. The sanctions called for in this measure will be lifted provided only that the generals release all of their political prisoners, engage in a substantive dialogue with the advocates of democracy in Burma, and afford non-governmental organizations access to address the humanitarian needs of the Burmese people. These are reasonable, modest, objectives, and if met, would brighten the prospects for Burma's future. Mr. President, others in this body have a long record of leadership on Burma policy, including the Minority Leader, Senator McConnell, who I am proud to have as a cosponsor on this bill, and Senator McCain. This bill was drafted in consultation with the staff of Senator McCain, and includes some portions of a bill he introduced earlier this month. I want to thank Senator McCain for his initiative and commend him for his strong voice on this issue. I have also relied on the wisdom of my old friend Congressman Lantos, who has already introduced legislation on Burma in the House. Finally, I want to thank the Senator from California, Senator Boxer, for cosponsoring this legislation and for chairing an important Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Burma that helped to shape this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no ojection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today, I rise to introduce a bipartisan bill to promote the restoration of civilian, democratic rule to the troubled state of Burma. The goal of the Burma Democracy Promotion Act is to help create the right conditions for the peaceful, negotiated transfer of power from the generals who have ruled Burma for almost 2 decades to a newly- constituted civilian, democratic government. In order to do this, we need to bring pressure to bear on the Burmese generals directly responsible for the bloody crackdown on peaceful protestors last month. This bill imposes new financial sanctions and travel restrictions on the leaders of the junta and their associates and tightens the economic sanctions imposed by the Congress in 2003 by outlawing the importation of Burmese gems and timber to the U.S. Carefully targeted sanctions can support our diplomacy. In this case, the sanctions are designed to provide leverage on the generals, who seem largely indifferent to the suffering of ordinary people. Until now, the generals have managed largely to avoid the bite of existing economic sanctions, enjoying their shopping trips abroad and stashing their riches outside of Burma. We hope to change that. But unilateral pressure alone will not get the job done. We need a diplomatic offensive. Importantly, this bill creates a new position of Special Representative and Policy Coordinator for Burma. The Special Representative will work with Burma's neighbors and other interested countries, including the members of the EU and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, to develop a comprehensive approach to the problem, including sanctions, dialogue, and support for non- governmental organizations providing humanitarian relief to the Burmese people. We need China, India, and Thailand, among others, to join with us to convince the generals that it is time for change. While we work for a negotiated solution to the current crisis, we must not forget the Burmese people. This bill authorizes new assistance for the hundreds of thousands of Burmese who have been forced from their homes and are now refugees or who continue to suffer inside the country because of the mismanagement and brutality of the military regime. It is time for Burma to begin a new day in which all of the people, including Burma's many minority groups, work together to rebuild what nearly 20 years of disastrous military rule have destroyed. With the support of the international community, a new government can build a more prosperous and democratic state, one that is at peace with its neighbors and that respects the human rights of all of its people. The Burmese Army should be, and can be, a part of this new Burma. The sanctions called for in this measure will be lifted provided only that the generals release all of their political prisoners, engage in a substantive dialogue with the advocates of democracy in Burma, and afford non-governmental organizations access to address the humanitarian needs of the Burmese people. These are reasonable, modest, objectives, and if met, would brighten the prospects for Burma's future. Mr. President, others in this body have a long record of leadership on Burma policy, including the Minority Leader, Senator McConnell, who I am proud to have as a cosponsor on this bill, and Senator McCain. This bill was drafted in consultation with the staff of Senator McCain, and includes some portions of a bill he introduced earlier this month. I want to thank Senator McCain for his initiative and commend him for his strong voice on this issue. I have also relied on the wisdom of my old friend Congressman Lantos, who has already introduced legislation on Burma in the House. Finally, I want to thank the Senator from California, Senator Boxer, for cosponsoring this legislation and for chairing an important Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Burma that helped to shape this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no ojection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I am submitting a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that the week that includes Veterans Day, corresponding this year to November 11-17, 2007, be designated as ``National Veterans Awareness Week''. This marks the eighth year in a row that I have introduced such a resolution, which has been adopted unanimously by the Senate on all previous occasions. The purpose of National Veterans Awareness Week is to serve as a focus for educational programs designed to make students in elementary and secondary schools aware of the contributions of veterans and their importance in preserving American peace and prosperity. This goal takes on particular importance and immediacy this year as we find ourselves again with uniformed men and women in harm's way in foreign lands. 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 15 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. Even though the Iraqi war has been prominently discussed on television and in the newspapers, many of our children are much more preoccupied with the usual concerns of young people than with keeping up with the events of the day. They just don't ``feel'' the war like many earlier generations did through both World Wars and the Korean and Vietnam conflicts. As a consequence, many of our youth still 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 regarding our military involvement that may 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. 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 several years ago by Samuel I. Cashdollar, who was then a 13-year-old seventh grader at Lewes Middle School in Lewes, DE. Samuel won the Delaware VFW's Youth Essay Contest that year with a powerful presentation titled ``How Should We Honor America's Veterans''? Samuel's essay pointed out that we have Nurses' Week, Secretaries' Week, and Teachers' Week, to rightly emphasize the importance of these occupations, but the contributions of those in uniform tend to be overlooked. We don't want our children growing up to think that Veterans Day has simply become a synonym for a department store sale, and we don't want to become a nation where more high school seniors recognize the name Britney Spears than the name Dwight Eisenhower. National Veterans Awareness Week complements Veterans Day by focusing on education as well as commemoration, on the contributions of the many in addition to the heroism and service of the individual. National Veterans Awareness Week also presents an opportunity to remind ourselves of the contributions and sacrifices of those who have served in peacetime as well as in conflict; both groups work unending hours and spend long periods away from their families under conditions of great discomfort so that we all can live in a land of freedom and plenty. It can also remind us of the importance of our country keeping its promises to our veterans and providing them with the proper support services. Last year, my resolution designating National Veterans Awareness Week was approved in the Senate by unanimous consent. Responding to that resolution, President Bush issued a proclamation urging our citizenry to observe National Veterans Awareness Week. I ask my colleagues to continue this trend of support for our veterans by endorsing this resolution again this year. Our children and our children's children will need to be well informed about what veterans have accomplished in order to make appropriate decisions as they confront the numerous worldwide challenges that they are sure to face in the future.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I am honored to introduce the Nursing Education Opportunities Act. This bill seeks to help alleviate both the nursing shortage faced in hospitals and clinics throughout the country, as well as the faculty shortage in nursing schools that constrains the number of new nurses who can be trained to fill the vacancies in our health facilities. As most people who have heard me talk about health care know, nurses have a soft spot in my heart. In 1987, I was stricken with a brain aneurysm and spent months recovering at Walter Reed Hospital. The surgeons who operated on me were spectacular and I can never thank them enough. But the nurses who took care of me during my stay at Walter Reed were the embodiment of absolute comfort and unquestioning kindness. Along with the top notch medical care they provided me, the nurses at Walter Reed literally breathed life back into my lungs, washed me, brushed my teeth and went on search missions for the most comfortable pillows available. As I often say, if there are any angels in heaven, they must be nurses. Unfortunately, right now our country is facing a nursing shortage. The American Hospital Association reported in July 2007 that United States hospitals had an estimated 116,000 registered nurse vacancies as of December 2006. Despite the nurse shortage and efforts to increase the pool of qualified nurses, schools of nursing struggle to increase student capacity. According to the American Association of Colleges of Nursing, AACN, the U.S. nursing schools turned away nearly 43,000 qualified applicants in 2006 primarily due to an insufficient number of faculty. AACN reported in July 2006, a total of 637 faculty vacancies at 329 nursing schools with baccalaureate or graduate programs, or both, across the Nation. Besides the vacancies, schools cited the need to create an additional 55 faculty positions to accommodate student demand. Most of the vacancies, approximately 53.7 percent, were faculty positions requiring a doctoral degree. The average ages of doctorally prepared nurse faculty holding the ranks of professor, associate professor and assistant professor are 58.6, 55.8, and 51.6 years, respectively. Considering the average age of nurse faculty at retirement is 62.5 years, a wave of nurse faculty retirements is expected in the next decade. In fact, in 2007 the Association of Academic Health Centers surveyed chief executive officers from academic health centers regarding faculty shortages across various health professions. The CEOs rated the nursing faculty shortage as the most severe of all health professions with 81 percent noting the nursing faculty shortage as a problem. To address this nurse faculty shortage and to get more nurses trained, this bill provides three mechanisms to increase the number of and access to nurse faculty. First, the bill establishes a grant program to help schools establish doctoral nursing programs. Right now, there are 8 States, including my home State of Delaware, which do not have a doctoral nursing program in their State. This bill allows eligible schools to receive a grant up to $2,000,000 to be used to establish a doctoral degree program. The funds can be used to hire administrators, faculty and staff; retain current faculty; develop doctoral curriculum; repair and expand infrastructures; purchase additional equipment; develop and enhance clinical laboratories; recruit students; establish technology infrastructures; and other investments deemed necessary. Second, this bill establishes a doctoral nursing consortia pilot project to provide grants to partnerships of schools to allow them to share doctoral faculty and programmatic resources. This would allow schools with a shortage of faculty at the doctoral level to partner with other schools to provide proper education for their students. These grants can be awarded up to $500,000 and can be used to establish technology infrastructures; develop shared doctoral curriculum; hire faculty and staff; retain current faculty; provide travel stipends for nursing faculty who agree to teach nursing courses at consortium schools; provide scholarships for post-doctoral fellows who agree to teach a nursing course within the nursing doctoral curriculum; provide collaborative networks for nursing research; and other investments determined necessary. Third, I am pleased to include a nurse faculty pilot project that was part of the Nurse Faculty Higher Education Act introduced in the House of Representatives by Representative Carolyn McCarthy. This pilot project would provide grants to partnerships between accredited schools of nursing and hospitals or health facilities to fund release time for qualified nurse employees so they can earn a salary while obtaining an advanced degree in nursing with the goal of becoming nurse faculty. In short, this will make it easier for nurses to pursue an advanced degree by allowing them to work part time and retain some of their salary. Many nurses currently cannot afford to leave their jobs to go back to school because they would lose their salaries. In addition to these three provisions, the bill also amends the Public Health Service Act to provide that, in the case of a nurse faculty shortage, the Secretary of Health and Human Services may obligate more than 10 percent of traineeships through the Advanced Education Nursing Grants for individuals in doctoral degree nursing programs. This is important to help advance nursing education and allow greater funding opportunities for doctoral students. But while this bill focuses heavily on increasing the number of nurse faculty to allow nursing schools to train more nurses, it also seeks to help nursing students as well. First, the bill explicitly includes accelerated degree nursing students as eligible for financial assistance through nursing programs in the Public Health Service Act, including the Nursing Student Loan Program. To address the shortage of qualified nurses, schools of nursing have developed accelerated, second-baccalaureate degree programs in nursing. Students in accelerated degree programs are those with a baccalaureate degree in another field who have decided to return to school to get a degree in nursing. The students in these programs have difficulty securing federal funding as this program category is not easily defined. Accelerated nursing degree programs are not typical 4-year baccalaureate degree programs, as they take between 1 and 2 years to complete. However, they are becoming increasingly popular. In 2005, these programs graduated 3,769 students. In 2006 they graduated 5,236--an additional 1,467 nursing graduates in a single year. Hospitals and other health facilities like hiring graduates from accelerated nursing degree programs because they often have demonstrated a record of success and work-ethic that facilitates a more rapid and smooth transition in to the highly complex health care environment. Accelerated nursing degree students are a critical element to meeting this country's nursing needs. Additionally, it is time to raise the yearly loan amounts available to all nursing students through the Nursing Student Loan Program. This important program, which provides long-term, low interest-rate loans to full-time and half-time financially needy students pursuing a course of study leading to a diploma, associate, baccalaureate or graduate degree in nursing, has not adjusted the maximum yearly loan amounts available for over a decade. Currently, a student can receive a maximum yearly loan of $2,500 for their first 2 years in a nursing school and $4,000 per year during their second 2 years. This bill would adjust these totals to $4,400 in the first 2 years and $7,000 in the second 2 years, respectively. It is time to raise the yearly loan amounts, as the cost of tuition at nursing schools has increased substantially over the past decade. It is imperative that we in Congress act to help alleviate the nursing shortage and the nurse faculty shortage in this country. Nurses comprise the largest segment of health care providers in this country and they are crucial in ensuring the quality of care that Americans receive. I believe the initiatives contained in the Nursing Education Opportunities Act can help reduce these shortages. The American Academy of Nursing, American Association of Colleges of Nursing, American Nephrology Nurses' Association, American Nurses Association, American Organization of Nurse Executives, Association of Women's Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses and the National League for Nursing all support this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President. I rise to mark the introduction of the 2007 Biden Crime Bill because a perfect storm is gathering with respect to crime in America, and we need bold action to get us back on track. Before I discuss the specifics of my legislation, I want to talk to you about what is feeding this perfect storm. Since 2001, Federal funding for local law enforcement has been slashed by billions of dollars--from about $2,1 billion per year in the nineties to a proposed level of $32 million in 2007. The COPS hiring program has been eliminated completely. At the same time, President Bush has reassigned more than 1,000 FBI agents from fighting crime to combating terrorism. Certainly, this was necessary, but he has not replaced them. A bitter irony results--we have improved our ability to fight international terrorism, but left our communities here at home less safe from the threat of murderers, rapists, and drug kingpins. This is the perfect storm: asking local law enforcement to do much more for a growing population while giving them much less--less Federal funding and fewer Federal agents with whom to partner. As a result, local law enforcement has had to give up crime prevention practices, like community policing, in order to stay on top of rising demand. They are doing their level best, but they need more help. Early stages of the storm are upon us. The FBI's Uniform Crime Reports show a rise in violent crime and murder for the second straight year. This hasn't happened since 1994. Last year, crime rose at the highest rate it had in 15 years and this year we add another 1.9 percent increase. The Police Executive Research Forum reports that the homicide rate rose more than 10 percent in metropolitan areas around the country, like Baltimore, Boston, Charlotte, Cincinnati, Kansas City, and Philadphia. Don't believe the statistics? Just ask your local cops. They will tell you they are seeing more crimes with a higher level of violence. Back in the nineties we faced a similar crime crisis. In 1994, Congress passed the Crime Bill, and it transformed the Federal approach to fighting crime. It used a three-part system: invest in prevention programs, dedicate Federal support to community-oriented policing, and ensure that offenders serve tough-but-fair prison sentences. It worked. Crime dropped for eight consecutive years. Violent crime and murder rates dropped more than 30 percent The bill I introduced today is the most comprehensive crime bill in more than a decade and it builds on the successful approach of the 1994 Crime Bill. It invests more than $6 billion in tried and true prevention programs that recognize that the first step to fighting crime is protecting kids from neglect and abuse and providing them with a stable family, positive early education, and someplace safe and constructive to spend the critical after-school hours. My bill reauthorizes the COPS program and provides $1.15 billion per year to hire, equip, and train 50,000 new police officers, and hire additional local prosecutors. Study after study has demonstrated the effectiveness of the COPS program, and every major law enforcement agency in the country supports it. It is high time we started funding it again. In addition, the bill provides funds to hire an additional 1,000 FBI agents dedicated to fighting crime and an additional 500 DEA agents dedicated to dismantling drug trafficking organizations. The Federal Government cannot make the trade-off between fighting crime and terrorism--we owe it to our citizens to do both. The bill invests more than $1 billion in preventing recidivism by ensuring that when prisoners are released into society, they have the vocational training, the drug treatment, and the housing they need to reintegrate as law-abiding, productive members. Currently, over 650,000 ex-offenders are released from Federal and State prisons each year. Within 3 years of release, two thirds will commit another crime. That is hundreds of thousands of crimes each year, and we need to bring that number down. Finally, the bill addresses developments in crime fighting and in criminal trade craft. Mr. President, 13 years ago, online sexual predators, Internet copyright infringement, and computer hacking were virtually unknown. Today they are common crimes with real victims. This bill ensures that law enforcement has the resources and legal tools it needs to prevent, investigate, and prosecute such crimes. The bottom line is that fighting crime is like cutting grass--you stop mowing the lawn and one day you'll look outside and see a real mess. We can't ignore crime and hope it goes away. We've made that mistake over the last 6 years, and our communities are paying the price. We have to get back to cutting the grass. This legislation takes a comprehensive approach once again to fighting crime. It renews our financial commitment to rebuilding law enforcement capabilities at the Federal, State, and local level. It is a significant step toward making good on one of Congress's most sacred duties to our citizens protecting them from crime and fostering safe communities. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I am honored to introduce the Nursing Education Opportunities Act. This bill seeks to help alleviate both the nursing shortage faced in hospitals and clinics throughout the country, as well as the faculty shortage in nursing schools that constrains the number of new nurses who can be trained to fill the vacancies in our health facilities. As most people who have heard me talk about health care know, nurses have a soft spot in my heart. In 1987, I was stricken with a brain aneurysm and spent months recovering at Walter Reed Hospital. The surgeons who operated on me were spectacular and I can never thank them enough. But the nurses who took care of me during my stay at Walter Reed were the embodiment of absolute comfort and unquestioning kindness. Along with the top notch medical care they provided me, the nurses at Walter Reed literally breathed life back into my lungs, washed me, brushed my teeth and went on search missions for the most comfortable pillows available. As I often say, if there are any angels in heaven, they must be nurses. Unfortunately, right now our country is facing a nursing shortage. The American Hospital Association reported in July 2007 that United States hospitals had an estimated 116,000 registered nurse vacancies as of December 2006. Despite the nurse shortage and efforts to increase the pool of qualified nurses, schools of nursing struggle to increase student capacity. According to the American Association of Colleges of Nursing, AACN, the U.S. nursing schools turned away nearly 43,000 qualified applicants in 2006 primarily due to an insufficient number of faculty. AACN reported in July 2006, a total of 637 faculty vacancies at 329 nursing schools with baccalaureate or graduate programs, or both, across the Nation. Besides the vacancies, schools cited the need to create an additional 55 faculty positions to accommodate student demand. Most of the vacancies, approximately 53.7 percent, were faculty positions requiring a doctoral degree. The average ages of doctorally prepared nurse faculty holding the ranks of professor, associate professor and assistant professor are 58.6, 55.8, and 51.6 years, respectively. Considering the average age of nurse faculty at retirement is 62.5 years, a wave of nurse faculty retirements is expected in the next decade. In fact, in 2007 the Association of Academic Health Centers surveyed chief executive officers from academic health centers regarding faculty shortages across various health professions. The CEOs rated the nursing faculty shortage as the most severe of all health professions with 81 percent noting the nursing faculty shortage as a problem. To address this nurse faculty shortage and to get more nurses trained, this bill provides three mechanisms to increase the number of and access to nurse faculty. First, the bill establishes a grant program to help schools establish doctoral nursing programs. Right now, there are 8 States, including my home State of Delaware, which do not have a doctoral nursing program in their State. This bill allows eligible schools to receive a grant up to $2,000,000 to be used to establish a doctoral degree program. The funds can be used to hire administrators, faculty and staff; retain current faculty; develop doctoral curriculum; repair and expand infrastructures; purchase additional equipment; develop and enhance clinical laboratories; recruit students; establish technology infrastructures; and other investments deemed necessary. Second, this bill establishes a doctoral nursing consortia pilot project to provide grants to partnerships of schools to allow them to share doctoral faculty and programmatic resources. This would allow schools with a shortage of faculty at the doctoral level to partner with other schools to provide proper education for their students. These grants can be awarded up to $500,000 and can be used to establish technology infrastructures; develop shared doctoral curriculum; hire faculty and staff; retain current faculty; provide travel stipends for nursing faculty who agree to teach nursing courses at consortium schools; provide scholarships for post-doctoral fellows who agree to teach a nursing course within the nursing doctoral curriculum; provide collaborative networks for nursing research; and other investments determined necessary. Third, I am pleased to include a nurse faculty pilot project that was part of the Nurse Faculty Higher Education Act introduced in the House of Representatives by Representative Carolyn McCarthy. This pilot project would provide grants to partnerships between accredited schools of nursing and hospitals or health facilities to fund release time for qualified nurse employees so they can earn a salary while obtaining an advanced degree in nursing with the goal of becoming nurse faculty. In short, this will make it easier for nurses to pursue an advanced degree by allowing them to work part time and retain some of their salary. Many nurses currently cannot afford to leave their jobs to go back to school because they would lose their salaries. In addition to these three provisions, the bill also amends the Public Health Service Act to provide that, in the case of a nurse faculty shortage, the Secretary of Health and Human Services may obligate more than 10 percent of traineeships through the Advanced Education Nursing Grants for individuals in doctoral degree nursing programs. This is important to help advance nursing education and allow greater funding opportunities for doctoral students. But while this bill focuses heavily on increasing the number of nurse faculty to allow nursing schools to train more nurses, it also seeks to help nursing students as well. First, the bill explicitly includes accelerated degree nursing students as eligible for financial assistance through nursing programs in the Public Health Service Act, including the Nursing Student Loan Program. To address the shortage of qualified nurses, schools of nursing have developed accelerated, second-baccalaureate degree programs in nursing. Students in accelerated degree programs are those with a baccalaureate degree in another field who have decided to return to school to get a degree in nursing. The students in these programs have difficulty securing federal funding as this program category is not easily defined. Accelerated nursing degree programs are not typical 4-year baccalaureate degree programs, as they take between 1 and 2 years to complete. However, they are becoming increasingly popular. In 2005, these programs graduated 3,769 students. In 2006 they graduated 5,236--an additional 1,467 nursing graduates in a single year. Hospitals and other health facilities like hiring graduates from accelerated nursing degree programs because they often have demonstrated a record of success and work-ethic that facilitates a more rapid and smooth transition in to the highly complex health care environment. Accelerated nursing degree students are a critical element to meeting this country's nursing needs. Additionally, it is time to raise the yearly loan amounts available to all nursing students through the Nursing Student Loan Program. This important program, which provides long-term, low interest-rate loans to full-time and half-time financially needy students pursuing a course of study leading to a diploma, associate, baccalaureate or graduate degree in nursing, has not adjusted the maximum yearly loan amounts available for over a decade. Currently, a student can receive a maximum yearly loan of $2,500 for their first 2 years in a nursing school and $4,000 per year during their second 2 years. This bill would adjust these totals to $4,400 in the first 2 years and $7,000 in the second 2 years, respectively. It is time to raise the yearly loan amounts, as the cost of tuition at nursing schools has increased substantially over the past decade. It is imperative that we in Congress act to help alleviate the nursing shortage and the nurse faculty shortage in this country. Nurses comprise the largest segment of health care providers in this country and they are crucial in ensuring the quality of care that Americans receive. I believe the initiatives contained in the Nursing Education Opportunities Act can help reduce these shortages. The American Academy of Nursing, American Association of Colleges of Nursing, American Nephrology Nurses' Association, American Nurses Association, American Organization of Nurse Executives, Association of Women's Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses and the National League for Nursing all support this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President. I rise to mark the introduction of the 2007 Biden Crime Bill because a perfect storm is gathering with respect to crime in America, and we need bold action to get us back on track. Before I discuss the specifics of my legislation, I want to talk to you about what is feeding this perfect storm. Since 2001, Federal funding for local law enforcement has been slashed by billions of dollars--from about $2,1 billion per year in the nineties to a proposed level of $32 million in 2007. The COPS hiring program has been eliminated completely. At the same time, President Bush has reassigned more than 1,000 FBI agents from fighting crime to combating terrorism. Certainly, this was necessary, but he has not replaced them. A bitter irony results--we have improved our ability to fight international terrorism, but left our communities here at home less safe from the threat of murderers, rapists, and drug kingpins. This is the perfect storm: asking local law enforcement to do much more for a growing population while giving them much less--less Federal funding and fewer Federal agents with whom to partner. As a result, local law enforcement has had to give up crime prevention practices, like community policing, in order to stay on top of rising demand. They are doing their level best, but they need more help. Early stages of the storm are upon us. The FBI's Uniform Crime Reports show a rise in violent crime and murder for the second straight year. This hasn't happened since 1994. Last year, crime rose at the highest rate it had in 15 years and this year we add another 1.9 percent increase. The Police Executive Research Forum reports that the homicide rate rose more than 10 percent in metropolitan areas around the country, like Baltimore, Boston, Charlotte, Cincinnati, Kansas City, and Philadphia. Don't believe the statistics? Just ask your local cops. They will tell you they are seeing more crimes with a higher level of violence. Back in the nineties we faced a similar crime crisis. In 1994, Congress passed the Crime Bill, and it transformed the Federal approach to fighting crime. It used a three-part system: invest in prevention programs, dedicate Federal support to community-oriented policing, and ensure that offenders serve tough-but-fair prison sentences. It worked. Crime dropped for eight consecutive years. Violent crime and murder rates dropped more than 30 percent The bill I introduced today is the most comprehensive crime bill in more than a decade and it builds on the successful approach of the 1994 Crime Bill. It invests more than $6 billion in tried and true prevention programs that recognize that the first step to fighting crime is protecting kids from neglect and abuse and providing them with a stable family, positive early education, and someplace safe and constructive to spend the critical after-school hours. My bill reauthorizes the COPS program and provides $1.15 billion per year to hire, equip, and train 50,000 new police officers, and hire additional local prosecutors. Study after study has demonstrated the effectiveness of the COPS program, and every major law enforcement agency in the country supports it. It is high time we started funding it again. In addition, the bill provides funds to hire an additional 1,000 FBI agents dedicated to fighting crime and an additional 500 DEA agents dedicated to dismantling drug trafficking organizations. The Federal Government cannot make the trade-off between fighting crime and terrorism--we owe it to our citizens to do both. The bill invests more than $1 billion in preventing recidivism by ensuring that when prisoners are released into society, they have the vocational training, the drug treatment, and the housing they need to reintegrate as law-abiding, productive members. Currently, over 650,000 ex-offenders are released from Federal and State prisons each year. Within 3 years of release, two thirds will commit another crime. That is hundreds of thousands of crimes each year, and we need to bring that number down. Finally, the bill addresses developments in crime fighting and in criminal trade craft. Mr. President, 13 years ago, online sexual predators, Internet copyright infringement, and computer hacking were virtually unknown. Today they are common crimes with real victims. This bill ensures that law enforcement has the resources and legal tools it needs to prevent, investigate, and prosecute such crimes. The bottom line is that fighting crime is like cutting grass--you stop mowing the lawn and one day you'll look outside and see a real mess. We can't ignore crime and hope it goes away. We've made that mistake over the last 6 years, and our communities are paying the price. We have to get back to cutting the grass. This legislation takes a comprehensive approach once again to fighting crime. It renews our financial commitment to rebuilding law enforcement capabilities at the Federal, State, and local level. It is a significant step toward making good on one of Congress's most sacred duties to our citizens protecting them from crime and fostering safe communities. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, at the end of this year, Dr. Eileen Schmitt, a friend and fixture in our Wilmington community, is retiring, and I want to share her inspirational story because there is much all of us can learn from her. As we debate health care, again, and again, and again in this Chamber, Dr. Schmitt has lived the life Mother Teresa called for when she said: Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person. A talented medical doctor who rose to become president and chief executive officer of St. Francis Hospital, she walked away from her fancy title and big desk in 2001 to do her true calling, healing the poorest in our community. She became the medical director for the St. Clare Medical Van, making her rounds in a mobile van to provide free health care to those who have no insurance. The van pulls up, and there may be 20 people waiting--some earn minimum wage, some don't have a job, some are homeless, many are children--and she asks for no money, no insurance. She just sees to their medical needs. As part of her work, she arranges for doctors to donate their time, and launched drives to create a pharmaceutical fund for prescription medicines for her patients. If funds are low or a patient needs something right away, she buys it herself. That is the type of person she is. And in her spare time, you can find her teaching her patients English, and bringing clothes to the families she visits. When someone asked her why she does it, she explained: When I first went into medicine, I wanted to do missionary work. I think getting back to taking care of people-- especially people who don't have the means to get medical care--helps to fulfill my initial calling. The acts of love and compassion she provides every day may seem small in our prosperous country of 300 million people, but America would be much less of a Nation were it not for Dr. Schmitt. Her patients call her their angel, and indeed she has been one to them. But she also is an inspiration to all Americans, reminding us that small acts, one person at a time, touch and change our neighborhoods. I know Senator Carper, Congressman Castle, and all my colleagues thank Dr. Schmitt and wish her happiness and health as she retires.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, earlier this month James T. Vaughn, a long-time State Senator who was a legend in Delaware, passed away, and I want to pay tribute to him. Jim spent a lifetime in public service, enlisting in the Marine Corps during World War II; serving as a Delaware State Police trooper for two decades and as the State Corrections Commissioner; and entering our State Senate 27 years ago. His seniority put him in powerful positions either as the chairman or member of the committees that oversaw budgets, revenues, taxation, judiciary, and corrections matters. In other words, he had his hand in everything, and most recently that meant establishing a veterans' home at Milford. Jim had this tough image, always set in his way, and always an honest man, who scrutinized every matter and paid incredible attention to the taxpayers' dollars. Throughout his career no one worked harder for the people of Delaware than Jim Vaughan. His constituents were his No. 1 priority, and last year when he became ill and was unable to campaign during his re-election, the voters still handily put him in office, recognizing a lifetime of responsiveness to their needs. It set a standard we can all admire. Like this Senator, Jim was a lifetime Yankees fan. And he had a special place in his heart for Little League baseball. Babe Ruth once said: I won't be happy until we have every boy in America between the ages of six and sixteen wearing a glove and swinging a bat. Babe Ruth would have appreciated Jim. For four decades he volunteered with the Smyrna-Clayton Little League, a group he originally helped organize. He served as its director, treasurer, equipment manager, and grass cutter--in fact, his wife Sylvia would joke that he loved to cut the grass there, but not at the family home in Clayton. A few times I had the high honor of throwing the first pitch to start the season, and today the Smyrna-Clayton Little League Park is named for Jim. The people of Delaware will miss Jim, and I extend my prayers and thoughts to his loving family.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I thank the Chair for the nice comment. I will be necessarily brief here. By depriving major cities around the country of COPS funds, the Vitter amendment undercuts the efforts of law enforcement and contributes to the growing crime rate in three ways. First, it takes much needed funds away from State and local law enforcement agencies that are now struggling to protect their communities against a rising tide of crime. The FBI's Uniform Crime Report statistics indicate that for a second year in a row, crime is increasing. In the first 6 months of 2006, murders rose by 1.8 percent and violent crime by 1.9 percent. In 2005, the Police Executive Research Forum found that many of the same cities to which the Vitter amendment would deny COPS funding have recently experienced double-digit increases in murder and violent crime, and the COPS Program has proven to be effective in fighting crime. As a recent Brookings Institute study shows, for every $1.4 billion spent on COPS, society saves between $6 and 12 billion. That is their report. In 2005, the General Accounting Office report found between 1993 and 2001 the COPS Program contributed to a steady decrease in the crime rates. This amendment is going to have a very chilling effect on victims and witnesses in the immigrant community, who would otherwise report crimes. Finally, the amendment would reverse successful Federal crime policies that recognize that State and local law enforcement know what is best in their community to drive down the crime rate. It would disregard the judgment of 70 law enforcement jurisdictions that found immigration status confidentiality policies are an effective part of community-oriented policing in their States, counties, and cities. To vote for the Vitter amendment, to stay with the Vitter amendment, is to vote, I believe, against effective law enforcement. A vote for the amendment is a vote against safer communities, and I believe a vote for this amendment would perpetuate the rise in crime rates all across the country. I understand there is a tabling motion that is going to take place. I may be mistaken. But vote against the Vitter amendment or vote to table it. I thank Senator Mikulski for the incredible job she has been doing on this, and for the additional funding for the COPS bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, what is the pending business?