Joe Biden

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent--and I will not do this again to my friend--that I have 3 more minutes.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, in response, that is Mr. Stephanopoulos, who knows about one-fiftieth of this as I do. He is not the Attorney General; he is not anyone. He makes mistakes on occasion. What he meant to say, I am sure, is 43,000 funded and being recruited, being hired. You get recruited and hired before you go into training. You are not on the street yet.

Mr. BIDEN. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BIDEN. My friend from Georgia has his facts wrong, with all due respect. What the administration said was, we have already funded, of the 100,000 cops, 43,000 to date. When the Republicans were telling us we would not get 20,000, remember Charlton Heston, ``Moses,'' was on TV saying this is only 20,000 cops from the entire 6 years of the program. We have already funded--who being recruited, being hired and being trained--43,000 cops already. Already. And because of the Biden crime bill, there are 17,000 of these 43,000 cops on the streets as we speak, with the remaining 26,000 having been funded and in the process of being recruited, hired and trained. Now, in terms of administrative costs, I challenge any of my Republican friends to pick up the phone and call any one of their local police agencies and ask them about the bureaucratic morass in cost. We insisted this get down to a one-page application. All the cops need do is send in a one-page application. It has been the most stunningly successful nonbureaucratic program that has been around in the last 20 years. No. 2, cost, administrative costs, 10-story building, whatever that was about. The 100,000 cops has administrative costs of just over 1 percent, just over 1 percent administrative cost for putting 100,000 cops on the street over the duration of the bill, which takes 6 years. My Republican friends have come along with this brilliant idea of a block grant. You know what they factor in for the block grant? Three percent overhead. The 100,000 cops program is one-third or one-half below what the Republican proposal calls for in the block grant proposal. It is actually less than the block grant. This is, with all due respect, poppycock. Folks, nobody thought a year after this program was underway we would have it going, the administration--any administration--would have it going as well as it is: 17,000 cops making arrests as we speak because of Federal funding for cops that did not exist a year and a half ago; at total of 43,000 funded being recruited, being hired and being trained as a consequence of the crime bill right now. Right now. We have not gotten to 100,000 yet. No one said that. It was always said it would take the duration of time to get to the full 100,000. The last thing, in 3 years they are going to have to pay their own way--

Mr. BIDEN. I would love to.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, few of us are ever called upon by our genes to bear a burden comparable to that which is borne by those in lifelong contention with the condition known as hemophilia. Even fewer of us, I believe, whatever physical burdens we may be obliged to bear, ever encounter a physician such as my friend and neighbor in Delaware, Dr. Philip M. Blatt, a hematologist who treats many patients suffering from hemophilia. On Wednesday, May 15, Dr. Blatt will be honored by the Delaware Valley Chapter of the National Hemophilia Foundation, not merely for applying his medical skills to helping his patients survive, but especially for the warm, human, caring manner in which he does so. Hemophilia, which affects the ability of the blood to coagulate and thus can make even a minor injury into a major threat from the uncontrollable loss of blood, tends, in a sense, to isolate its victims. They know that they must manage their lives with an uncommon degree of caution and avoidance. They know that what might be a negligible scratch for someone else can, in their case, become a life- threatening wound. And because of the fragility of their blood, they must often undergo constant treatment--and that necessity, in the years before the effect of the AIDS virus was known, placed many of them innocently at risk to that deadly disease. It would be very easy, Mr. President, for any victims of hemophilia to suffer as much from the psychic as from the physical effects of their condition--to perceive themselves as put upon through no fault of their own, to think of themselves as the outcast victims of a genetic condition totally beyond their control--but not so easy if they are Philip Blatt's patients. Dr. Blatt knows that his hemophilia patients suffer from a condition that has an almost all-consuming effect on their lives, but goes to great lengths to make sure it does not consume their spirits. He knows that their hemophilia makes them relative rarities among the general run of people, but he never forgets that they are--first, foremost, and always--people, with the same general inheritance of strengths and deficiencies we all share, with the same rights and responsibilities, with the same dreams and aspirations. Philip Blatt is not a doctor who simply treats his patients' frailties, but a physician in the classic tradition who treats them as whole persons, and who cares not only about saving their lives but also about helping them keep their lives whole and rewarding. He practices medicine in its finest sense, and it is that quality, Mr. President, for which the Delaware Chapter of the National Hemophilia Society will honor him this week, as I do today here on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, this afternoon I had the privilege of meeting with 37 seventh-grade students from Holy Cross Elementary School in Dover, DE. Talking with these bright and energetic young people on the steps of the Capitol reminded me that I was about their age when I first began to develop an interest in government and consider a career in public service. While we talked out there on this beautiful spring day, I noticed that I was not alone. A number of my colleagues were similarly engaged with young people from their own States. Today the Senate passed important legislation on immigration reform, legislation which will have a profound impact upon the communities in which these young people are growing up. And I am glad that the students from Holy Cross had the opportunity to witness some of this important debate. It provides them with the opportunity to learn that what we do here has a real-life effect upon many, many Americans. It reinforces that point that young people, whether they are old enough to vote or not, have a stake in keeping abreast of public affairs, because it is their communities', their States', and their Nation's future that is being shaped by the actions we take here in the Halls of Congress. It will not be too many years before those seventh-graders are our leading businessmen, teachers, doctors, and even Senators, and I think there are few things we as public officials can do that are as important as spending time with the young people who are the future of this country. I have always said that education is the best investment America can make, and as public servants, I believe we have a responsibility to encourage that investment whenever possible. Beyond that, I honestly believe that spending time with bright, energetic, and thoughtful young people does us a lot of good. Because I never come away from meeting them without gaining a fresh perspective on some of the important questions and issues which confront us today. My meeting with the students from Holy Cross was no exception, and I am grateful to Ms. Marylou Soltys and Ms. Marie McCann and the 13 parent chaperones for bringing their students to Washington. I hope that they all enjoyed their visit, and benefited from our conversation, as much as I did. I hope to see the day when they return to Washington as leaders in industry, education, medicine, and government.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, 30 years ago, President Lyndon Johnson stated, The American firefighter today must meet the challenge of fires caused by numerous new chemicals, explosives, and combustible fibers, and other dangerous materials. He must be prepared to fight fires in crowded cities and giant buildings, as well as in remote rural communities. Today, we know that these challenges to the fire services have grown considerably. The greatest example, of course, being the tragedy in Oklahoma City. That is why today, Mr. President, I am honored to pay tribute to Steven P. Austin, who last night at the National Fire and Emergency Services Dinner, was named Fire Service Person of the Year. Steve Austin serves as chairman of the National Advisory Committee for the Congressional Fire Services Institute, working countless hours to meet the challenges faced by the fire and emergency services. He works diligently helping those who help us in times of crisis. Steve Austin may remember President Johnson's words back in 1966, because 3 years prior, Steve Austin began his service as a volunteer firefighter. Today, he continues to respond to emergency calls as a member of the Aetna Hose, Hook and Ladder Company of Newark, DE. Along with his work as chairman and firefighter, Steve Austin, continues to serve as a fire claims superintendent for the State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, external affairs representative for the International Association of Arson Investigators, chairman of the NFPA Technical Committee on Fire Investigator Professional Qualifications, and as a member of the Delaware State Fire Police. In the past, he has been president of the New Castle County Volunteer Firemen's Association and also president of the Delaware Chapter International Association of Arson Investigators. During his distinguished career, Steve Austin has received the George H. Parker Distinguished Service Award, the Life Membership Award, and the Presidential Award from the International Association of Arson Investigators. Steve Austin is committed to meeting the new challenges faced by the fire services. I am confident that as long as there are dedicated people like him, the fire service will continue to serve us with the heroism, bravery and professionalism that we have all come to expect. It is an honor to pay tribute to him today as a great leader, a great Delawarean, and a great friend.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to three brothers who are pioneers in Delmarva's flourishing poultry business. Over the past 50 years, Charles C. Allen, Jr.; Warren L. Allen; and John R. ``Jack'' Allen, have built what was once a small, mom and pop family business, into one of our Nation's top poultry companies, Allen Family Foods Inc. Their contributions to the industry and to our State of Delaware are as rich and diverse as the history of the poultry business itself, and I congratulate them on their half-century of dedication and achievement. Their parents, C. Clarence and Nellie Allen, first got into the poultry business in 1919, incubating about 250 chicks. Things got off to a bit of a shaky start for the Allens. On one occasion Nellie banished Clarence to the garage after one of his chicken incubation experiments nearly burned their house down. But the Allens persisted and 4 years later in 1923, the family expanded the operation by purchasing a 38-acre farm on the outskirts of Seaford, DE. This 100- year-old farmhouse became one of the first commercial chicken houses on the Delmarva peninsula and remains the company's headquarters. Charles Jr., Warren, and Jack continued the family tradition and expanded this once-modest enterprise vigorously through the years. Today, Allen's Family Foods is a privately held, multimillion dollar, integrated poultry company. Allen's processed chicken is sold in stores from Virginia to Massachusetts. Charles C. handles the farming side of the business; Warren is vice president in charge of finance; and Jack is secretary-treasurer. The elder Allens have in turn brought their three sons: Charles C. Allen III; John R. Allen, Jr.; and Warren L. ``Wren'' Allen Jr., into the business, ensuring that Allen's Family Foods will be operating in Delaware well into the next century. In addition to this commercial success, the Allen family has made tremendous contributions to their community. Warren Allen served three 2-year terms as the Delaware State Representative for the 38th district, in addition to service as the chairman of the advisory council of the Delaware Home and Hospital for the Chronically Ill in Smyrna, and on the board of trustees of the Delaware State Hospital. Charles Allen was campaign manager for the hospital's expansion fundraising drive. Their generosity also led to the creation of the Allen Little League baseball field at Williams Pond. For their lifetimes of service, the Delmarva Poultry Industry recently honored Charles, Jr., Warren, and Jack as the 1995 distinguished citizens; the first time in history that this award has been shared by three members of one family. I can think of no more deserving individuals and I again extend my congratulations to the Allen family. The story of Allen's Family Foods encompasses all that is just and good in America: Ingenuity, perseverance, dedication, and compassion for our fellow citizens. Simply put, Delaware is a better place because of the Allen Family. Again, I extend my heartfelt congratulations to my friends Charles, Jr., Warren, and Jack, and wish them many more years of health, happiness, and prosperity.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to solemnly commemorate the tenth anniversary of the worst nuclear accident since the dawn of the nuclear age. On April 26, 1986, a flawed structural design and operator error caused a sudden power surge within reactor number four at the V.I. Lenin atomic power plant in Chernobyl, Ukraine. The resulting chemical explosion vaporized nuclear fuel, melted the reactor's substandard shell and released into the atmosphere a gigantic, 180-ton cloud of deadly radioactive iodine, cesium and other lethal isotopes--containing 200 times the amount of radioactive material emitted during the atomic blasts at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Within a 4-month period, 31 power plant employees and cleanup workers died of acute radiation poisoning. Tens of thousands of other Ukrainian and Belarusian men, women and children suffered radiation sickness. Invisible fallout--detected as far away as California--contaminated forever more than 10 million acres of nearby forests and farmland, permanently poisoning the local food chain. When the magnitude and the severity of the catastrophe became clear, close to 200,000 people were hastily and permanently evacuated from the rich, fertile land which was their home for generations. The Chernobyl area--once lush with old-growth forests rich in mushrooms, berries and other medicinal herbs--is now a 30 kilometer dead zone. Human habitation is strictly forbidden. A decaying, 24-story concrete tomb known as the sarcophagus now encases the destroyed reactor, serving as a grim reminder of this dark page in human history. A decade later, those affected continue to struggle with the lingering health effects. The incidence of adolescent thyroid cancer throughout northern Ukraine and nearby Belarus is an astounding 200 percent higher than average, due in part to the consumption of poisoned milk. Already 800 children have contracted the disease, and experts say that as many as 5,000 will develop it. The incidence of radiation-related birth defects in the region has doubled. A team of British and Russian scientists recently concluded that genetic DNA mutations caused by radiation poisoning are being passed along to a generation of children who did not even exist at the time of the accident. Whether these malformations will affect the future health of these children is a mystery. Many surviving Chernobyl victims also suffer from a myriad of psychological disorders, more difficult to identify and treat but every bit as harmful as the physiological effects of radiation. Sadly, a recent study comparing mortality rates before and after the disaster places the total number of fatalities at roughly 32,000. Despite these disturbing findings, we really know very little. Information on radiation exposure is incomplete and unreliable, and many of those affected have moved or relocated hampering study efforts. Others may suffer from yet-to-be diagnosed diseases caused by prolonged exposure to unsafe levels of background radiation. It is unlikely that we will ever know the true scope of this tragedy. Though two of Chernobyl's four nuclear units remain operational, I am pleased that President Clinton and Ukrainian President Lenoid Kuchma agreed to an accord earlier this year to close the facility completely by the year 2000. I am also pleased that the United States is committed to improving international nuclear reactor safety. I am hopeful that more can be done for the afflicted region, and was heartened by the serious dialog at last week's G-7 nuclear safety summit in Moscow. These are all important steps toward putting this devastating tragedy behind the Ukrainian people. I also want to pay tribute to the compassion of the Ukrainian- Americans who have remained steadfast in their support for Chernobyl's victims. Mr. President, the legacy of the Chernobyl disaster extends beyond nationalistic and ethnic boundaries and reaches all humanity. Indeed, fallout from the accident affected 5 million people and set off monitors throughout the Northern Hemisphere. Radiation knows no borders. Here in the United States, I am comforted by the knowledge that because of our superior design and safety standards a Chernobyl-type event is, for all practicable purposes, an impossibility. The Chernobyl facility never would have been permitted to open under our regulations. Nonetheless, we can never be too vigilant in our efforts to ensure that nuclear power plants are operated in the safest possible manner. As my colleagues in this body know, I have long believed that there exists an inherent conflict of interest in our nuclear regulatory system that requires the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to sit in judgment of itself. NRC's two functions--providing day-to-day oversight and investigating serious events--are incompatible in my view. For this reason, I have asked the General Accounting Office to look into the extent to which this conflict is responsible for events and accidents at nuclear plants. I also propose that we remove the investigatory functions from the NRC, and give these functions to an impartial, truly independent nuclear safety board. This watchdog would have broad authority to look into all circumstances surrounding any accident and to lay blame where it rightfully belongs--whether it is the utility, the reactor manufacturer, or the NRC. By removing the structural conflict which currently exists within the NRC, it is my hope that we can regain the public's confidence and provide the utmost degree of safety to all Americans. I look forward to working with my colleagues as we strive to restore needed objectivity to the oversight process. Mr. President, the 10th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster is more than just a reminder of the potential cost of nuclear energy. It is a call to us, our Nation's elective representatives, to work together to ensure the safe operation of nuclear power, both domestically and internationally, for our children and our grandchildren. Let us not watch this day pass without thoroughly and carefully examining our current nuclear regulatory system. All of humanity is depending on us.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, it is sometimes argued these days that we Americans place too high a premium on the value of individual, yet our experience over more than 200 years as a Nation has taught us that it's almost impossible to overestimate the value of some individual citizens to our community and our country. James I. Williamson of Harrington, DE, who died on Monday of this week at the age of 66, was one of those invaluable individuals without whom the character and history of America would be very different. During his distinguished 21-year career in the U.S. Army, from which he retired in 1969 as a staff sergeant, James Williamson won many decorations, including the Purple Heart, the Bronze Star and the Silver Star. In 1968, during the last of his three tours of duty in Vietnam, he won the rarely awarded Congressional Medal of Honor for extraordinary, individual valor in combat. Of the millions of men and women who have served in our military since the award was first conferred during the Civil War, Mr. President, fewer than 3,500 have received the Congressional Medal for voluntary action above and beyond the call of duty, at the risk of the recipient's own life--and the high standard of admission to that elite group of heroes is indicated by the fact that the majority of Congressional Medals have been awarded posthumously. Sergeant Williamson survived the action that earned him our highest military decoration, but it was his willingness to risk his own life that saved the lives of comrades in arms engaged in that action with him. Alone and armed with a machinegun, he rescued the crew of a mechanized weapons carrier that had taken a disabling direct hit. Remaining exposed to enemy fire, he attached a towing cable so the vehicle and its crew could be pulled to safety. Despite the controversy that surrounded our involvement in the Vietnamese war, Mr. President, it was a proud nation which presented Mr. Williamson with the Congressional Medal of Honor, because of his enormous personal courage, because of his willingness to risk sacrificing his own life in the service of others, and because neither our military nor our Nation can afford to allow such outstanding individual contributions to go unrecognized. James I. Williamson was not ``the one-in-a-million'' exception we sometimes refer to; he was the truly exceptional ``one-in-fewer-than- 3,500'' who displayed the American character at its best and whose actions made clear why our most precious decoration is dedicated to honor--his own and his country's. His family, his community of Harrington, and his State of Delaware will remember him with pride for his extraordinary individual achievement and with humility in the face of his unselfish bravery.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the city of Washington, DC, is blessed this week with the presence of some of the most dedicated people in America--its teachers. Each state's Teacher of the Year is visiting Washington to be honored for their top notch work in educating our children. As a husband of a teacher, I know how some people view the teaching profession. I have heard all of the jokes. And, I have read the articles--including some recent ones--deriding the Nation's teaching force and claiming that teachers are the root of our educational problems. Well, Mr. President, the Teachers of the Year that are here this week should dispel those myths. These teachers are simply among the best and the brightest our Nation has to offer. For most of us, there was at least one teacher along the way who touched us, who motivated us, who inspired us. A teacher who was more than just a body at the blackboard. For students in the Indian River School District in my State of Delaware, one of those teachers is Darryl Hudson. He is Delaware's Teacher of the Year, and I want to congratulate him and take just few minutes to honor him. Mr. Hudson--named the top teacher among over 6,000 public school teachers in Delaware--teaches seventh grade science at Sussex Central Middle School in Millsboro, DE. And, although I have never experienced his teaching first hand, I think the biggest testament about what he does in the classroom comes from what his fellow teachers say about him. They talk admiringly of the energy he brings to school each day, of his dedication to educating all children, and of the uplifting inspiration he provides to staff, parents, and most importantly, the students. But, as is the case with many teachers, Mr. Hudson's involvement in and dedication to education go beyond the classroom. He is a cooperative teacher for Salisbury State University students, a member of the New Directions Educator Corps, and a Mentor for a Wilmington College student. I should also note that we in Delaware are proud that Mr. Hudson is a product of our own higher education system. In fact, he and I are both Fightin' Blue Hens. For my colleagues who do not know, that means we are both graduates of the University of Delaware. He received his masters degree from Wilmington College. And, at the same time he is teaching seventh graders--a daunting task in and of itself, in my view--he continues to pursue his own education at Salisbury State University just across the Delaware border in Maryland. Mr. President, a moment ago, I mentioned the way in which a teacher has inspired almost every one of us. And, to give you a perfect illustration of the power of a teacher to mold a mind and build a citizen, Mr. Hudson--a teacher--was himself inspired by a teacher. He says that his sixth grade teacher had more influence on him than anyone else outside his immediate family. And, now, he is having that same influence on countless others. Again, I want to congratulate Darryl Hudson on his selection as Delaware Teacher of the Year.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to the victims of the Armenian genocide, the first such crime against a people in the 20th century. On April 24, 1915, 81 years ago today, the Ottoman Turkish Empire began the systematic rounding up and slaughter of Armenian intellectuals, clergy, businessmen, and other leaders of the community. Ultimately the horror claimed 1\1/2\ million lives and resulted in the exile of Armenians from much of their historic homeland in Asia Minor. I like to think that some good can come from even the most horrifying evil. In this case a large segment of the Armenian diaspora, banished from its ancestral home, reached these shores. They and their descendents have immeasurably enriched the United States of America. In remembering the martyrdom of their fellow Armenians eight decades ago, we are also paying tribute to Armenian-Americans--to their patriotism, and to their many contributions to this land of freedom. Mr. President, unfortunately there are some who would trivialize the Armenian genocide or even attempt to deny that it ever took place, just as there remain a twisted few who continue to deny the Holocaust that claimed 6 million Jews. But, Mr. President, there is no denying the undeniable. The Armenians in the Ottoman Empire were not murdered because they were talented businessmen. They were not butchered because their community produced outstanding intellectuals. They were not slaughtered for any socioeconomic reason, however perverted. No, the Armenians were murdered because they were Armenians. This Mr. President, was genocide. Unfortunately, genocide is a recurring fact of the 20th century. Fifteen years after the Armenian genocide occurred, Stalin began his insane collectivization that decimated the Ukrainian people. I have already mentioned the Nazis' extermination of 6 million Jews in the Holocaust. The 1970's witnessed Cambodia's killing fields where a significant proportion of the Khmer people perished. The 1990's have seen the mass murder of Tutsis in Rwanda and the unspeakable horrors perpetrated upon Bosnian Muslims, cynically given the euphemism, ethnic cleansing. Mr. President, we must endeavor to ensure that these vile deeds are never repeated yet another time. The first step in that process is to ensure that the memory of genocide is kept alive so that the truth will prevail over the purveyors of historical lies. The Holocaust memorial Museum here in Washington is serving a vital function in that regard. Similarly, the proposed Armenian Genocide Memorial Museum of America promises to be an important vehicle for preserving and disseminating the truth. On this solemn day of remembrance, I join millions of other Americans in commemorating the martyrdom of the Armenians and praying that their eternal sacrifice shall not have been in vain.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, when comprehensive health care reform went down to defeat in 1994, many of us in the Senate were frustrated because we had let yet another opportunity for reforming the health care system slip away. At that time, there was wide agreement on some elements of health care reform. I, for one, wanted to go forward with those items--even if they fell short of addressing all of the problems in the health care system. Unfortunately, political considerations on both sides of the aisle and at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue prevented us from passing even those things we all agreed on. Today, it appears that cooler heads will prevail. Today, it appears that the Senate will pass--and I will proudly vote for--the Kassebaum- Kennedy health insurance reform bill. Who would have believed less than 2 years ago that we would be on the verge of passing a bipartisan health care bill. And, who would have believed that the bill would provide real reform by addressing the most pressing problem faced by middle-class Americans--the possibility that they will lose their health insurance just because they change jobs or get sick. Four years ago, a national survey showed that nearly one-third of all Americans had at some time in their lives been the victim of ``job lock.'' Fearing the loss of health insurance, they stayed in a job they did not want and did not like. Two years ago, I asked Delawareans that same question--and in responding to my questionnaire, 21 percent of Delawareans said they had experienced job lock. Addressing this problem is long overdue. But, it may finally happen. With the bipartisan Kassebaum-Kennedy bill, no longer will insurance companies be able to deny coverage for most pre-existing conditions. No longer will Americans be locked in jobs they do not want because changing jobs means losing health insurance. And, no longer will insurance companies be able to cancel a person's policy just because they get sick. Last year, a General Accounting Office study showed that nearly 25 million Americans could benefit from legislation similar to what we are considering today. It will provide security and peace-of-mind to millions of middle-class Americans and their families. Mr. President, the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill also provides some important help to small businesses--those who have been most devastated by the rapidly rising costs of health care. First, the bill would increase the self-employed health insurance tax deduction to 80 percent. I am a cosponsor of legislation to increase the deduction to a full 100 percent. This bill falls short of that goal, but it continues to move us in the right direction. Second, the bill would make it easier for small businesses to join together to purchase health insurance. By pooling their employees, small businesses can spread the health risks among a large number of people and get cheaper insurance rates as a result. And, third, the bill guarantees that all small businesses will have health insurance available to them. It prohibits insurance companies from cherry picking the businesses with the healthiest employees and refusing to sell to all other businesses. It says, if an insurance company sells to small businesses, it must sell to all small businesses. This sounds simple--even unnecessary. But, in the real world, it is crucial. When just one employee in a small business has a problem pregnancy, or has a disabled child, or suffers from some other medical condition, it often means that no one that works in that small business can get health insurance. Finally, Mr. President, I want to address the provisions in the bill regarding health care fraud. This is something I have worked on for 4 years now. In 1992, I introduced legislation to crack down on the small number of health care providers who engage in fraud against their patients, insurance companies, and the American taxpayers. Those who perpetrate fraud are few in number, but their crimes are large in dollars. During a hearing I held in the Judiciary Committee in 1992, it was reported that up to 10 percent of total health care spending in this country is fraudulent. That is over $100 billion in health care fraud this year alone. My bill would have cracked down on these cynical manipulators of the system by increasing the number of Federal investigators and prosecutors going after health care fraud; doubling the penalties for those found guilty; providing rewards for patients and health care workers who come forward with information about fraud; and making sure that the guilty make restitution to the victims. My legislation passed the Senate in 1992 but was never taken up in the House. A year later, with the leadership of Senator Cohen, health care fraud provisions were included in the Biden crime bill. But, again, the House would not go along, and they were dropped during the conference. Now, they are back again. And, the fraud provisions in the Kassebaum- Kennedy bill are very similar to the legislation I first introduced in 1992. I want to commend Senator Cohen for his diligence in this area. But, I wish to note that while the House health care bill also contains fraud provisions, some of those provisions would actually weaken the anti-fraud laws. I urge the Senate to insist that they be stripped during the conference. Mr. President, despite all of the good about this bill--protecting Americans from losing their health insurance, helping small businesses, and cracking down on health care fraud--it will not solve all of America's health care problems. And, it is not intended to. The fact that it does not address a whole host of problems--including comprehensive cost control and the nearly 40 million uninsured Americans, including 100,000 in Delaware--does not mean these problems do not exist and should not be addressed. Failing to deal with these matters may be a weakness of the legislation. But, ironically, it is also the bill's strength. Precisely because the bill deals only with the most pressing health care problems, we have a very real chance of passing a health care reform bill for the first time in my nearly 24 years in the Senate. We are on the verge of breaking the gridlock on health care reform. The fact that it is an incremental--not comprehensive--bill is not a reason to vote against it. In fact, Mr. President, I would argue that it is a reason to vote for the bill. By passing the Kassebaum-Kennedy legislation, we will have made a downpayment on health care reform-- addressing some important problems and helping meet real needs of the American people. If we show that responsible Government action can work--and work well--we will have opened the door to possible future bipartisan agreements to solve other health care issues. I hope that we will be back to address those issues. But, in the meantime, I hope that we will not let another opportunity slip away. I hope that we will pass the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader. I was not going to take the occasion today, but in light of the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island speaking on this issue, I do not take issue with what he said but emphasize a very important point, from my point of view: this issue of sovereignty in Lebanon and whether or not there was a tragic mistake made in this particular raid. I do not deny there was a tragic mistake that was made. I know we all know and heard that the Israeli military had no intention of striking the target they, in fact, struck. That happens in war. But the full responsibility, in my view, falls on the Lebanese Government and the Syrian Government. How can we talk about sovereignty, how can we talk about the notion that you cannot violate a nation's borders when, in fact, one nation--and the nation in this case, Lebanon--has within its borders Hezbollah that is, in fact, not under its control but within its mandate, and take no action to stop the action they are taking, firing Katyusha rockets into civilian populations into Israel and Syria, which has control of much of that area, refusing to do anything to stop it, and then criticize Israel for acting. I just ask you all, what would happen if across the Mexican border Katyusha rockets were being fired into El Paso, TX, on a regular basis and the Mexican Government did nothing whatsoever to stop the terrorists from that action? Is there any American who would say we should withhold taking action on the grounds that we are crossing an international border? I think we would not even think twice about it. I regret deeply the mistaken target that was, in fact, hit. I am confident the Israelis do as well. But we should be putting international pressure on Syria and Lebanon to act and deal with the Hezbollah operating almost in plain view across the Israeli border terrorizing Israeli citizens. I yield the floor and thank my colleagues.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to call attention to the single greatest security threat to Americans in the post-cold war ERA-- the possibility that weapons of mass destruction could be acquired by rogue states, criminal organizations, or terrorists, and used against American targets. In the coming weeks, I hope that this body will have the opportunity to act on the Chemical Weapons Convention and reduce one portion of this threat. Today, however, as President Clinton prepares to join President Yeltsin and the G-7 leaders in Moscow for a nuclear safety and security summit over the next 2 days, I would like to focus my remarks on the nuclear threat. President Clinton has placed nuclear nonproliferation at the top of the U.S. national security agenda--he is clearly committed and willing to lead on this issue. Vice President Gore's regular meetings with Russian Prime Minister Chernomyrdin also have advanced nuclear security. Indeed, in the last 3 years we have seen important agreements and cooperative projects between U.S. officials and their counterparts in Russia and other Republics of the former Soviet Union. Despite these positive steps, however, the threat before us remains immense, and the path to nuclear security remains long and difficult. We need to understand the potential magnitude of the threat, and muster the resolve and resources to address it effectively. the nature of the threat Mr. President, Soviet nuclear missiles no longer point at American cities. With the START process, we have also seen and hopefully will continue to see significant reductions in strategic nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union. But these arms control successes should not give us a false sense of security. Over 100,000 weapons or weapons equivalent material remain strewn-- literally strewn--about Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus. The centralized system that prevented the possible theft or diversion of this immense quantity of fissile material during the cold war no longer exists. I should also note that each year as more nuclear warheads are dismantled, additional tons of weapons-grade material move from relatively more secure military facilities to less secure nuclear storage facilities. The 3,000 warheads that are dismantled each year yield 15 tons of plutonium and 45 tons of highly-enriched uranium. Of this veritable cornucopia of dangerous fissile material spread across the territory of the former Soviet Union, only a small fraction would be required to wreak unspeakable damage. It takes only 25 kilograms of highly enriched uranium or 8 kilograms of plutonium to create a weapon capable of massive destruction. We are talking about an amount of uranium the size of a softball--or a baseball in the case of plutonium. That small amount of material could be easily concealed and transported in a sturdy briefcase or a backpack. As my colleagues know, the greatest barrier to overcome in manufacturing a nuclear weapon is acquiring the appropriate grade and quantity of fissile material. After that, it just takes a little time, money, and technical know-how. A determined terrorist or rogue state does not even need to build a perfectly designed atomic bomb with the highest grade fissile material to create unimaginable terror. A weapon built of crude, low-grade nuclear material such as a nuclear radiological device would be sufficient to generate widespread panic. This is not just doomsday rhetoric. Does anyone actually deny that there exists a great demand today for nuclear material? Those who are not yet convinced need only consider the chilling incidents that have occurred over the last few years. As my colleagues are well aware, gram and kilogram quantities of weapons-grade uranium--almost surely leaked from the former Soviet Union--have been seized in Moscow, Munich, and Prague. In addition, dismantled parts of Soviet nuclear missiles have made their way to Iraq. We know that the demand exists. We also know that the supply exists. Elementary economics tells us that without intervention, a supply curve and a demand curve will intersect--and you will have a transaction. It is incumbent upon us to intervene and prevent even one of these potentially deadly transactions from occurring. These are the key challenges we face in doing so: How do we develop a comprehensive accounting system for all nuclear material in the former Soviet Union? How do we gather and physically protect nuclear material in a limited number of secure sites? How do we safely dispose of excess nuclear material? How do we prevent the theft and smuggling of nuclear material? And, how do we prevent former Soviet nuclear experts from selling their knowhow to rogue states or terrorists? The answers to these questions are not exclusively of concern to the United States. They are vitally important to Western Europe, Japan, and even to Russia. the situation in the former soviet union Perhaps it would be useful if I briefly walked through what we know about the situation in Russia today to demonstrate the difficulties we face in meeting these challenges. First, the collapse of the Soviet command and control security system has been replaced by chaos and the absence of many controls at sites where nuclear materials are stored. In the context of Russia's current tumultuous social and economic conditions, we are talking about an environment conducive to theft and extortion. Second, the Soviet Union had no comprehensive accounting system for nuclear weapons and fissile material--certainly no computerized inventory. In other words, we--including the Russians--do not even know exactly where all of the Soviet Nuclear material is stored or how much of it exists. We think most nuclear material is located in 80 to 100 sites. But there may be another 40 sites. We think the Soviet Union produced some 1,200 metric tons of highly enriched uranium and some 200 metric tons of plutonium. Needless to say, it would be difficult to determine if a few kilograms of this material were misplaced here and there. Third, the lack of physical protection of nuclear material in the former Soviet Union is shocking. Nuclear material is stored in containers without seals to prevent tampering. Many of the labs, research centers, and power plants with nuclear material do not have perimeter fences, electronic sensors, or monitoring cameras to deter and detect intruders. Instead, U.S. officials have seen nuclear rods stored in metal lockers secured with padlocks. According to the Russian Government, 80 percent of its nuclear facilities--80 percent--do not have radiation detectors to prevent those on the inside from walking out the door with nuclear material. Fourth, there are nuclear technicians and guards at these facilities who have not been paid in months. I have heard that the senior staff of one nuclear facility abandon their posts a few hours a day to tend to their potato gardens, so that they will have food to eat. It seems to me that these conditions are so ripe for corruption that the threat of an inside job is much greater than the threat of an outside thief entering a nuclear facility--as easy as that may be. Fifth, current border controls throughout the former Soviet Union are notoriously weak. If smuggled nuclear material passes through Europe, we have some chance that intelligence officials and law enforcement can interdict it. However, trafficking routes through the Caucasus or Central Asia are another story--the chances of successful interdiction are slim to none. Finally, we have the problem of the thousands of nuclear scientists and technicians in the former Soviet Union with knowledge about nuclear weapons who are looking for ways to make a living in the new world order. Their expertise would certainly be welcome in some aspiring nuclear states that immediately come to mind. the u.s response After a slow start 4 years ago, many of these problems are now being addressed by our Departments of Defense and Energy. The Energy Department, for example, has equipped a number of nuclear facilities in the former Soviet Union with fences, monitors, and sensors. The United States Enrichment Corporation has arranged for the purchase of 500 metric tons of highly enriched uranium to be converted into commercial reactor fuel. Newly created international research institutes have employed hundreds of Russian nuclear scientists. Such cooperative efforts need to be evaluated and duplicated on a much larger scale. I commend my distinguished colleagues Senator Nunn and Senator Lugar for bringing attention to global proliferation threats through Senator Nunn's recent hearings of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations and Senator Lugar's hearings last august on the issue of Loose Nukes. I might add that Senator Lugar's hearings are the only hearings that have been held on this critical issue in the Foreign Relations Committee in the 104th Congress. Mr. President, I think that it is worth asking: are we directing America's limited resources proportionately to meet a clear and present threat which I and many of my colleagues regard as our greatest national security challenge? In 1991, my colleagues Senators Nunn and Lugar had the foresight to devise the cooperative threat reduction program to assist the states of the former Soviet Union in dismantling nuclear warheads and protecting nuclear materials. Over the last 5 years funding for the Nunn-Lugar program has totaled $1.5 billion--an average of $300 million per year, or about one-tenth of 1 percent of our annual defense budget. In addition, this year's funding level was cut 25 percent from last year's level. In contrast, consider how much time, money, and energy we have spent on the proposed missile defense system to meet the improbable long- range ballistic missile threat, which we are told is at least 15 years away. We have spent some $35 billion over the years on missile defenses. I find it hard to believe that this disparity in spending corresponds to the threats we face. As I have repeatedly stated on this floor, a long-range ballistic missile will not be the most likely means of delivery of a weapon of mass destruction to the United States. No. A much more likely scenario is that a terrorist group will smuggle material and parts for a nuclear, chemical, or biological device onto our shores--perhaps by any of the many routes used by narcotics traffickers--and then reconstruct a weapon of mass destruction, put it in a van, and detonate it in near an important American landmark. That is the more likely threat, and that is where we should be focusing the bulk of our energies, not on reviving star wars. the nuclear summit Mr. President, I hope that my colleagues recognize that we are engaged in a race against time. Either we will help secure this material and provide our citizens with the safety to which they are entitled, or rogue elements will procure this material and use it to blackmail civilization. The danger of uncontrolled nuclear material is a first level national security threat to the United States of America and a first level national security threat to our friends and allies. We cannot simply ignore the problem and leave if for Russia to solve on her own. Likewise, Russia cannot simply downplay the potential threat and delay implementing concrete measures. Indeed, Russia itself is a target--just last November Chechen separatists placed radioactive material in a Moscow park. To be successful, the nuclear safety and security summit must build a global consensus on the nature of the threat before us and generate wider cooperation for swift action. The critical first step must be to improve the physical protection of nuclear material at the source--secure the material at a limited number of sites and institute a comprehensive accounting system. That, in my opinion, is the most important agenda item for the leaders of the G-7 and Russia at the nuclear summit. World leaders at the summit will also discuss ways to improve cooperation in countering nuclear material smuggling. Given the limited success we have had in interdicting narcotics traffickers, I am not optimistic about the prospects of interdiction alone to prevent the proliferation of nuclear material. Nonetheless, much more can and should be done to improve border controls and intelligence cooperation. Mr. President, it is my hope that the nuclear safety and security summit in Moscow this week will help propel the world's leaders to take immediate preventative and rational steps toward nuclear security. The alternative is to delay action until after our first nuclear terrorist incident--whether in a Moscow park, a Tokyo subway, or a New York office building. Mr. President, no other nation can match the expertise and resources of the United States. We must be the leader in promoting cooperative efforts to reduce the nuclear threat. Investments we make in this area today will reap a future return in the form of enhanced security for all Americans.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I offer a motion to recommit the conference report with instructions to add provisions on wiretap authority for terrorism crimes. I send the motion to the desk.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, so that the majority gets to go last, I have 2 minutes remaining. What the Senator from Oklahoma just read was moving and significant. I am going to vote for this bill, but I am dumbfounded why, after reading what he just read and us knowing that, that we all voted in this Chamber to allow someone to teach somebody how to build another fertilizer bomb, even if the person teaching knew or had reason to believe it would be used for a purpose like that. Hear what I just said? ``Intended.'' If a person teaches someone how to build a fertilizer bomb intending that that be able to be done, a crime to be able to be committed with it, we just voted not to put that prohibition into the law. And now that you all are here and did not have a chance to listen to this before, I hope you know, after we pass this bill, you will join me tomorrow, or the next day, to pass a law that says you cannot do that, because you inadvertently voted, when I tried to put it back in the law, to let someone now, legally, over the Internet or any other way, teach someone how to build a fertilizer bomb, give them the details and intend that it be used that way, and it is not prohibited. So I hope tomorrow when I am here, or the next day, listening to what the Senator from Oklahoma accurately stated and believes deeply that we should never let this happen again; we will correct the mistake that we made here today.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I appreciate the indulgence of my colleagues today in voting on these motions to recommit and the strong support of 40 to 48 Senators we have gotten on each of these votes. I appreciate that. In the 6 minutes that I have to close, let me just suggest two things. There is a good deal of change that has been made in the habeas corpus provisions of the law, which, in my view--a broken record--will do nothing to prevent terrorism. The habeas provision in this bill deals primarily with State crimes, and the terrorism crimes we are concerned about--Oklahoma City, the World Trade Center bombing, et cetera--are Federal crimes. It will not affect it at all. But there is a provision in the bill that I would like to say something about. There's a section that says: An application for writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody, pursuant to the judgment of a State court, shall be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings, unless the adjudication of the claim, one, resulted in a decision that was contrary to or involved in unreasonable application of a clearly established Federal law as determined by the Supreme Court, or resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented. I would like to make this brief observation. As things now stand, Federal courts take State court decisions very seriously. They are not writing on a blank page and ignoring State court decisions right and left. In fact, court watchers who pay close attention to the cases tell me that Federal courts grant relief only when it is pretty clear that someone's constitutional rights have been violated. So it seems to me that even under this provision of the law we are now changing, which I think is inadvisable to change, but even under this provision, if Federal courts think that State courts are right on the Constitution, they will uphold it. And if they are wrong, they will not. So if a State court makes an unconstitutional determination, the Federal courts will, and should, continue to say so. Therefore, I think this is much less onerous--unnecessary but much less onerous--than, in fact, it may appear on its face. If a Federal court concludes the State court violated the Federal Constitution, that, to me, is by definition--by definition--an unreasonable application of the Federal law, and, therefore, Federal habeas corpus would be able to be granted. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, my colleagues will know this is the last motion I have. I offer a motion to recommit the conference report with instructions to delete the section relating to the study of Federal law enforcement. Senator Kohl of Wisconsin wishes to be added as a cosponsor as does, I believe, although I am not certain, Senator Nunn. I will check that. But Senator Kohl for certain. I send a motion to recommit the conference report to the desk.

Mr. BIDEN. I am prepared to yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I do not plan on taking the entire allotted time on this side with this motion. Let me be real clear about this. This provision was not in the Senate bill. It was offered by Senator Lieberman, and it was strongly supported by many in this body. But it was not in the original Senate bill. This provision incorporates the President's proposal to expand emergency wiretap authority. Today, emergency wiretap authority is available for organized crime cases. This proposal simply makes it available for terrorism cases. This proposal says that what is fair for the mob is fair for Hamas. What is good for John Gotti is good for any terrorist from abroad. What is good for those involved in organized crime is good for terrorists. If the justification exists for organized crime in and the mob, why does it not exist for crimes of terrorism? Let me first explain what an emergency wiretap is, because understandably a lot of people--I know many, like the Senator from Utah and the Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, and the Senator from Vermont, Senator Leahy, all former prosecutors understand these wiretap requirements, but many do not. An emergency wiretap--I will explain more precisely not only what it is but how it is limited. First of all, in all cases--or in most cases--the Government must go to a judge to get a court order before it can initiate a wiretap. But at the same time, Congress recognized there are emergency situations where time is of the essence and that completing the necessary paperwork and getting the judge's order will simply take longer than the situation allows. I have gone through today probably a half hour's worth laying out precisely the safeguards built into getting a wiretap for a crime that is listed in the Criminal Code as being able to get a wiretap for, and how long and difficult the process is and should be. But the Congress in the past has recognized that there are situations under current law which allow the Government to initiate a wiretap without a court order. Here are the circumstances: where immediate danger, death, or serious physical injury exists; where conspiratorial activities threaten the national security, or a conspiratorial activity characteristic of organized crime activities exist. Only the top three Justice Department officials--the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, and the Associate Attorney General--have the authority under the present law to issue or to authorize any emergency wiretap. If the law stopped there, I would agree with those who object to this amendment. I would agree that it does not go far enough to protect our civil liberties if all it said was one of the three top the Justice Department officials can initiate a wiretap. But the law does not stop there now. It does not allow Federal officials to operate on their own for long. Indeed, it requires that if the Attorney General authorizes an emergency wiretap for any one of those three circumstances I mentioned, they must nonetheless go before a Federal judge within 48 hours and make a case that probable cause exists for this wiretap prior to the authorization of the wiretap, prior to the time the tap started. Prior to that time, they have to prove there is probable cause that the subject was committing a specific crime. The officials also must convince the judge that they could not have completed the necessary application prior to beginning the wiretap. And, of course, if the judge concludes that either they could have completed the application in the necessary time or that there was no probable cause at the outset, then none of the evidence, no matter how incriminating, that is acquired as a consequence of the emergency tap can be used in court against the target. If the judge does not buy it, enforcement will have blown their case. Not only must the wiretap stop, but none of the evidence obtained by the tap can be used against the target. This is a powerful check on the Government's power. You can bet that they are not just going to go around willy-nilly exercising--the top three officials of the Justice Department--emergency authority because, if they do, they will lose their evidence if they turn out to be wrong, which means they will lose their case, which means the bad guys go free and all the time investigating up to that point will have been wasted and blown. That is not what law enforcement wants. I want to repeat. Why, if we give this authority, this very limited and proscribed emergency authority to the Government, to the prosecutors, to the Attorney General of the United States, to deal with organized crime, why does it not make sense to allow them to deal with Hamas or deal with a terrorist organization? The last time I looked, the Mafia had not blown up a Federal building. The last time I looked, the Mafia had not blown up the World Trade tower. They are real bad guys, and I have spent the bulk of my career as a U.S. Senator on both the Intelligence Committee and the Judiciary Committee passing laws and working to nail the Mafia. But if an emergency wiretap is good enough for John Gotti, why is it not good enough for the Unabomber? If the emergency wiretap is good enough for John Gotti, why is it not good enough for some wacko who blows up or is about to blow up a Federal building in Wilmington, DE, or Washington, DC? I want to repeat. To give this authority to the Government when it comes to organized crime, why not for terrorists? Of course, wiretapping is a powerful and intrusive tool. That is why the current wiretap statute contains a number of restrictions to prevent the abuse of emergency wiretaps, none of which would be changed by this amendment. Let me repeat. Only the top officials at Justice--the top three, those who have the most at stake in an investigation being blown by bad evidence--can authorize such a tap. Even then, they have to go to the court within 48 hours and must adhere to all the strict guidelines for getting a court order in the first instance. If they do not get the court order, none of the evidence is able to be used. Let me emphasize. This amendment does not in any way weaken what the Government must show to get a wiretap order. Law enforcement still must show that some particular person has or is about to commit some particular crime. And this provision only applies to cases of international domestic terrorism, which is further defined as--let me define what this would apply to and only what it would apply to: activities that involve violent acts, or acts dangerous to human life, and which appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce the civilian population, or to influence the policy of the Government by intimidation or coercion, or to affect the conduct of a Government by assassination or kidnapping. Why, if in fact they believe that any one of those circumstances exist, should they not, with all the safeguards built in, be able to get an emergency wiretap? Let me say, although I have no illusions that this will pass, that I hope we will continue to demonstrate by the votes we have heretofore-- over 45 and as many as 48 of our 100 colleagues felt strongly about these issues. These are not frivolous undertakings. These are not frivolous motions. All but one of the amendments I have offered, I believe, has gotten over 40 votes. I think they have all gotten over 45 votes, so we are pretty evenly divided on this. I just want to make sure that before final vote on this conference report, that I do everything in my power to make this a much more useful tool in fighting terrorism. Again, I know my colleague--and I respect him--is going to say if this passes it will kill the bill. I cannot believe that this will kill the bill. If we cannot put 35, or whatever number that is the number quoted by the House, Members of the House in the position where they have to yield on what would be an incredibly strong bill only because they are worried that we now allow terrorists to be treated the same way as John Gotti and the mob, then I think--I doubt whether they will vote that way because I doubt whether many of their constituents will keep them around if they vote that way. And quite frankly, if they vote that way, it is best for all to see. If they vote that way and defeat the conference report, we could come back with an amended report and pass what we have. So this will not kill the bill, but I am sure that is going to be stated. I reserve the remainder of my time. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the motion be dispensed with.

Mr. BIDEN. I yield myself 15 more seconds on the bill. That is the very thing we do not want to happen. We want prosecutors to operate under the law. We do not want to further ignite the imagination of those folks over in the House. We want them to do it by the numbers, not with imagination.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I yield myself 60 seconds on the bill. I have two responses. My distinguished and able colleague has mixed up apples and oranges here. The section he read from the wiretap statute related to emergency wiretaps that do not require a court order at the front end. What we are talking about are wiretaps where they want to go in and we want to prove they have probable cause to get the wiretap in the first case. Second, I agree with everything that he says about the good parts of the bill. They were in the same bill I introduced, most of those things. I am for them. But the problem is, he mentioned there are 1,500 terrorists out there, or whatever the number. Under the bill now we create a new crime relating to providing material support for terrorists, if you send money to Hamas and provide material support or an automobile or a train ticket or whatever it is, and it is not a crime. It is a Federal crime now, but one for which you cannot get a wiretap. That seems to make no sense to me and that is why I have introduced this amendment. I yield the floor to my friend from Massachusetts.