Joe Biden

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I have great respect for my friend from Oregon. I know he knows I think he is dead wrong on this issue. For two reasons I think he is dead wrong: On the facts and I think he is dead wrong on the approach he has taken. The fact of the matter is, the administration at the time this aide memoire--a fancy phrase for saying this agreement--was signed by Gore and Chernomyrdin, a follow-on to a verbal agreement made by Clinton and by Yeltsin in 1994--that agreement was made known to the public; it was publicly stated, and that was actually offered. The House of Representatives was briefed at the time. Here we are less than 10 days before an election and it has become a cause celebre. I don't have the time, and I am sure my friend from Oregon doesn't have the inclination, to listen to why this is a violation of the separation of powers doctrine. And this is not a binding obligation. There are distinctions between binding obligations and agreements. One requires disclosure; the other does not. The fact is, this was a good deal and it was disclosed and made available to be disclosed. Let me cut to the chase. The fact of the matter is we did have a closed meeting with members of the State Department. I was present, my friend from Oregon was present, our colleague from Kansas was present, Senator Brownback, and maybe someone else; I can't recall. I indicated at the time that although the White House and the State Department were not required to share these documents, in my view they were making a tactical political mistake not doing it. I am here to tell my friend from Oregon what I told Senator Lugar and what I told Senator Hagel, and I understand it is being communicated to the majority leader. The State Department is going to make available to the leadership of the House and the Senate--which is the way we do these things--the so-called annexes. If there is any violation of law-- which there is not, but if there is any--the only violation could flow from there being a weapons system that was transferred on the annex, that falls within the purview of the law, that covered certain weapons systems and destabilizing systems under the McCain-Gore legislation. So if there is nothing in that annex that was transferred, there can be no question there was no law broken here. This will be the test to know whether this is politics or not. This will be the test. If the administration makes that available to the majority leader, minority leader, Speaker of the House, and the minority leader of the House, the leadership of the House, then, in fact, we will find out. They will bring the document up, and they can see it. If they really want to know the answer, if they really believe a law was broken, then it is really clear; they can sit down and look at it and find out. But if the offer is made and it is refused--I will say and challenge anyone to give me a good reason why I am wrong--that is pure politics. I really mean this; I have an inordinately high regard for my friend from Oregon. That probably hurts him back home, but I like him a lot. The fact of the matter is, we have worked closely together on a whole number of items. I have never misled him and he has never misled me. I got off the phone with Strobe Talbott. The Secretary of State is intending to call the majority leader, going to make the offer tomorrow to come up and show the documents. It is interesting that the letter requesting documents says they basically want these annexes. I know we need more time to explain this to someone listening because this is kind of confusing. My friend from Oregon knows what I am talking about because he knows the area well. The annex lists all those weapons systems that would be sanctionable if transferred by the Russians to the Iranians, if that were to occur. We will find out whether anything was transferred. By the way, unlike in any other administration, it has been pointed out that 10 times as many weapons were transferred to the Iranians when Bush was President than since Clinton has been President. But we will find out whether anything was violated. I want to make it clear, the offer will be made. If the offer is rejected, I want everyone to know--and the press who may be listening-- that a big neon light should go on, ``Politics, politics, politics.'' If the offer is accepted, then, in fact--and my colleagues look at it, the majority leader of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, if they look at it and they say this looks like a duck, to use my friend's phrase, that is a different story. That is debatable; that is something that warrants concern. To reiterate: The Senators' letter says that ``the Vice President pledges to `avoid any penalties to Russia that might otherwise arise under domestic law.' '' The letter omits the words immediately preceding that quote from the leaked understanding: ``take appropriate steps'' to avoid penalties. That meant that the United States would not circumvent U.S. law. Rather, if necessary, we would sanction Russia, but waive the penalties, pursuant to the law. But in fact, there was no need to waive penalties at all, because Russia was not proposing any conventional arms transfers that would trigger sanctions under U.S. law--and the Vice President was assured of this by the Department of Defense before he signed the understanding. One relevant law was the Iran-Iraq Arms Non-Proliferation Act of 1992, the so-called ``McCain-Gore Act.'' That law requires sanctions against governments that transfer ``destabilizing numbers and types'' of ``advanced conventional weapons'' to Iran or Iraq. Thus, you must find both the sale of advanced conventional weapons to Iran, and that these are a number and type so as to tip the balance of power in the region. We have been assured--by experienced, career officials--that the Annex listing planned Russian arms transfers to Iran contains nothing that would meet all those tests. But we don't have to trust the Government on this. Anthony Cordesman, who was John McCain's national security assistant in 1992, working on the McCain-Gore bill, wrote recently: ``Iran . . . has not . . . received destabilizing transfers of advanced conventional weapons.'' The third Kilo-class submarine to be sent to Iran was specifically considered by the Pentagon, which decided that it would not be destabilizing. In any case, submarines are not listed in the 1992 law's definition of advanced conventional weapons; and even President Bush made no move to add them to the list, even though the law permits such additions. The Senators' letter quotes Secretary Albright's letter to Russian Foreign Minister Ivanov, in which she says we ``upheld our commitment not to impose sanctions'' and that ``without the Aide Memoire, Russia's conventional arms sales to Iran would have been subject to sanctions based on various provisions of our laws.'' As you said yesterday: One reasonable interpretation is that Secretary Albright is saying, ``if you hadn't obeyed the Aide Memoire, you would have gotten in trouble.'' And that's true. If Russia had signed new deals to sell ``lethal military equipment'' to Iran, or if it had sold lots of ``advanced conventional weapons'' to Iran, it would have forced us to invoke sanctions under our law. But they basically did obey the Aide Memoire, and stayed out of trouble in this regard. Another reasonable interpretation is that the Secretary was overstating her case, using U.S. law as a club with which to beat the Russians. If so, more power to her. A third reasonable interpretation is that Secretary Albright was thinking of those sanctions, based on other U.S. laws, that do not require any trigger other than a Presidential determination that the national security warrants them. The Albright letter does not show any violation or circumvention of the 1992 Iran-Iraq law, and there is no evidence of any such action. The Senators' letter rejects Vice President Gore's point that Russia's arms transfers were pursuant to previously-signed contracts, because the McCain-Gore law does not exempt such transfers. That misses the point. There are other laws that would require sanctions for any transfer of ``lethal military equipment'' to Iran. Those laws exempt transfers under pre-1996 contracts. The administration never claimed that it was cutting off all Russian arms transfers to Iran. But it did put a cap on those transfers, limiting them essentially to ones contracted for during the Bush administration. The Senators' letter says that the Congress must review all the relevant documents, renews a demand for all the previously requested documents, and threatens a subpoena if these are not produced by noon Monday. The fact is, however, that only the Annex to the Aide Memoire is cited as a really necessary document. I think the executive branch ought to find a way to let appropriate senators review the Annex and the Secretary's letter to the Russian Foreign Minister, while maintaining the confidentiality of those documents. Once that is done, I believe that there will be no good reason to seek further documents. Tony Cordesman, the expert in Middle Eastern military affairs who was Senator McCain's national security assistant, summed up this case admirably a couple of weeks ago: Political campaigns are a poor time to debate complex military issues, particularly when the debate is based on press reports that are skewed to stress the importance of the story at the expense of objective perspective and the facts. I ask unanimous consent the pertinent letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I don't know a lot about matters over which I don't have jurisdiction as a Senator. So I don't expect all Senators to know as much about sanctions as the Senator from Oregon and I because we spend probably 20 percent of our time working on that in the Foreign Relations Committee. My friend from Massachusetts forgot more about HCFA than I will ever know. It took me a while to know what HCFA was. They set the rates for everything, and it affects the American people a heck of a lot more than sanctions policy. There are discretionary sanctions available to the President of the United States. I emphasize ``discretionary.'' The comment made by the Secretary of State refers to those discretionary policies.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I ask to be able to proceed for 8 minutes in morning business.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, as everyone in this room knows all too well, I have devoted much of my career to fighting crime. And if there is one thing that I have learned over the course of the past 30 years in public service, it's this: an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I have watched as the Boys and Girls Clubs and other non-profits have worked to make certain that kids have a safe place to go after school. I have been supportive of countless crime prevention initiatives to protect our children, our parents and those unable to protect themselves. And guess what, these programs have worked to prevent crime. But even those programs whose single purpose is to do good, have seen some bad times. And that is why today, I am introducing the National Child Protection Act. Today, more than 87 million kids are involved each year in activities provided by child and youth organizations which depend heavily on volunteers to deliver their services. Millions more adults are also served by public and private voluntary organizations. Places like the Boys and Girls Clubs rely on volunteers to make these safe havens for kids a place where they can learn. But, while these non-profit organizations are doing God's work, there are some volunteers who have a different agenda--and there are abuses that occur. The National Mentoring Partnership reports that incidents of child sexual abuse in child care settings, foster homes and schools ranges from 1 to 7 percent. This is basic stuff--these organizations can not function effectively without a safe infrastructure in place. Currently most child-service organizations do background checks on volunteers, but they may have to wait weeks or months for the result of a state or national criminal background check. Conducting these checks is also costly and therefore many organizations conduct only a limited check of their volunteers. And some organizations don't have access to national fingerprint databases which means that while a volunteer may pass a name-check in one state, he may have been convicted of atrocities in another. Our children, our parents and the disadvantaged are at risk and they need help. That is why my bill authorizes $180 million over five years for the FBI to establish a national center to conduct national criminal history fingerprint checks. Their checks will be provided to volunteer organizations at no cost and to all other organizations that serve children at minimal cost. This national center would screen 10 million volunteers each year and will make these volunteer-oriented organizations a safer place for all. My bill also authorizes $5 million to provide states with funds to hire personnel and improve fingerprint technology so that they can update information in national databases. This should be an easy one for all of us. Most of us already understand the positive impact that these non-profits are having. Now, we have a duty to make these places safe for those most at-risk. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be placed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I introduce legislation which would authorize the establishment of nonprofit entities to provide grants and other assistance for international educational, cultural and arts programs through the Department of State. This is an initiative I have discussed with officials of the Department of State and introduce today to initiate discussion on how to best stimulate a vibrant exchange of international educational, cultural and arts programs. We are in a era in which cultural issues are increasingly central to international issues and diplomacy. Trade disputes, ethnic and regional conflicts and issues such as biotechnology all have cultural and intellectual underpinnings. Cultural programs are increasingly necessary to promoting international understanding and achieving U.S. national objectives. American multinational companies and other Americans doing business overseas welcome opportunities to show their support for the unique cultures of nations in which they do business, as well as their interest in telling the story of America's diversity in other countries. One way they could do this is by helping to sponsor cultural exchange programs arranged through the Department of State. The problem is that there is apparently no clear easy way to do that--no point of contact for corporations or others interested in supporting cultural diplomacy--no clear avenues to assist cultural programs supported by our government. There also are concerns about possible conflicts of interest. Moreover, many people in our own government are uncertain whether they should engage in presenting the creative, intellectual and cultural side of our nation. Under this legislation Congress would authorize the establishment of private nonprofit organizations for the support of international cultural programs, making it both easy and attractive for private organizations to support cultural programs in cooperation with the Department of State. In so doing, we would affirm support for the promotion and presentation of the nation's intellectual and creative best as part of American diplomacy. This initiative would support a broad range of cultural exchange programs--projects that send Americans abroad and that bring people from other countries to the United States. Its priority would be to support the organization and promotion of major, high-profile presentations of art exhibitions, musical and theatrical performances which represent the finest quality of creativity our nation produces. These should be presentations that reach large numbers of people, which contribute to achieving our national interests and which represent the diversity of American culture. There would be authority to solicit support for specific cultural endeavors, offering individuals, foundations, multinationals corporations and other American businesses engaged overseas the opportunity to publicly support cross-cultural understanding in countries where they do business. The nonprofit entity would work with the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs as well as the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs at the Department of State. Mr. President, that is the overall purpose of this legislation. I am sure we will be able to improve on how to encourage a vibrant exchange of cultural programs, and I welcome suggestions on how best to do that. It is for that purpose that I introduce this legislation at the end of this Congress, with the intention of reintroducing it next year with the benefit of those suggestions. I ask consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, in June of this year I expressed my displeasure with the foreign operations appropriations bill when it came to the floor of the Senate. The overall funding level was too low, security assistant accounts were unfunded, burdensome conditions were placed on contributions to international organizations and an inadequate appropriation was made for debt relief. I'm pleased to find that the conference report has corrected some of these problems in a very satisfactory way. Appropriators have done the right thing on debt relief, by fully funding the amounts requested. As the wealthiest nation in the world, there is no excuse for us ignoring the plight of the world's poorest countries which are laboring under an untenable debt burden. I'm also relieved to see that the overall funding level of the bill comes far closer to the administration's request than the bill that the Senate passed in June. That bill, to my dismay, was $1.7 billion short of what was asked for. The conference report is a vast improvement. It is still some $200 million below what the executive branch has projected that it will need to undertake foreign operations. Obviously this is quite a large sum and there is a very serious need for Congress to reverse the trend of undercutting State Department and Agency for International Development programs. However the conference report brings the money requested and the money appropriated substantially closer. The bill contains a provision for assistance to Serbia with which I am in agreement. To unilaterally lift sanctions, or to open up the aid spigot fully would be both premature and naive. The United States should adopt the more measured response reflected in this provision. The language in the conference report sends the right message that we must condition our aid to the new regime in Serbia until it has clearly demonstrated that it will cooperate with the Hague War Crimes Tribunal, respect the independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina and not undermine the Dayton Accords, and that it will unequivocally renounce the use of force in Kosovo and take steps to implement policies that reflect a respect for minorities and rule of law. Finally Mr. President, let me say that I am also relieved to see that the level of funding dedicated to the Non-proliferation, Anti- terrorism, De-mining and Related Programs (NADR) has been increased substantially. The amount is almost $100 million more than the level in the Senate passed bill, and slightly higher than the President's request. Although I would like to see more resources dedicated to the International Science and Technology Centers program, I welcome the plus up in the larger account. These programs are a crucial element in our strategy to halt the spread of nuclear weapons, and combat terrorism. One NADR account that received more than the amount requested was export control assistance, and I truly applaud that. The assistance that we give to other countries in developing export control laws, regulations, and enforcement is absolutely crucial from the non- proliferation standpoint, and it can also help combat international terrorism. As we plus up that program, however, we must remember to provide the personnel to implement it. Many of those personnel are in the Department of Commerce, and more are needed. Unless appropriators provide elsewhere the requested 7 additional personnel (which translates into 5 additional FTE in Fiscal Year 2001) for the Bureau of Export Administration, the additional funds that we make available in this bill simply will not be implemented as effectively as we would wish.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the volatile situation in Yugoslavia. Slobodan Milosevic as Yugoslav dictator is history. The long nightmare is over. The Serbian people have spoken and, although Milosevic's ultimate fate is still uncertain, Kostunica's victory marks a sea change in Serbia's current history, a clear choice for democratic change over a stagnant and morally bankrupt dictatorship. As Kostunica works hard to secure and stabilize his fledgling government, the final outcome is not yet certain. The United States must not fumble the opportunity to support the new Serbian government as it navigates a potentially treacherous transition. With Milosevic's party still controlling the Serb parliament and Milosevic himself still lurking in the political shadows, we must engage in an open and constructive dialogue with Kostunica and his allies. To this end, I welcome the recent move by the administration to lift some of the sanctions that specifically targeted the Milosevic regime, namely the flight ban and the oil embargo, while retaining the so- called ``outer wall'' of sanctions. I also commend the State Department's decision to send a delegation to Belgrade to discuss the Kostunica government's assistance needs. Mr. President, extending a helping hand does not, however, mean giving Kostunica and his new government a free pass when it comes to accounting for the terrible crimes of the Milosevic regime. To unilaterally lift all sanctions, or to open up the aid spigot fully would be both premature and naive. Instead, the United States should adopt a more measured response, recognizing as well the fact that a too forward-leaning or heavy handed policy could risk undermining Kostunica before he is able to consolidate power. The following immediate steps would, I believe, help lay the correct groundwork for future cooperation. First, the United States must maintain its insistence that Milosevic be delivered to the Hague to stand trial for war crimes. Anything less would fatally undermine the International Tribunal. Second, even as we congratulate Mr. Kostunica and recognize him as an inestimable improvement over his predecessor, we must emphasize to him that his democratic credentials alone will not be a sufficient qualification for Serbia to reenter the international community. A Kostunica government must fully respect the independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina and not undermine the Dayton Accords. Kostunica's recent meeting in Sarajevo with the three members of Bosnia's collective presidency gives some grounds for optimism. Serbia must also unequivocally renounce the use of force in Kosovo and take steps to implement policies that reflect a respect for minorities and rule of law. The foreign operations bill for fiscal year 2001 will, in fact, condition U.S. assistance to Serbia on meeting the above benchmarks. I support this section of the bill because it is the right thing to do and the right message to send. But while we should remain firm in our policy, we must also be flexible in our evaluation, recognizing what Kostunica is able to do and what he is unable to do while pro-Milosevic forces still wield considerable power in the Serbian government. Third, the Stability Pact for Southeast Europe must be given a jolt. Too much time has been wasted on conferences and working groups. Assistance must begin to flow in the next few months. A long-needed measure to help the front-line states would be a crash-effort to clear the Danube River of bombed-out bridges, thereby reopening vital trade links from Bulgaria and Romania to Western Europe. Finally, we should strongly encourage the European Union to make good on this commitment to expand its membership to candidates as soon as they meet the qualifications. In Southeastern Europe this means Hungary and Slovenia. Brussels must not squander a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Mr. President, there is another reason I wanted to take the floor today, one that touches on the future of our commitment to the Balkans and, indeed, to a stable and secure Europe. As we continue to work towards a Serbia that will meet the necessary criteria to rejoin the community of western democracies, it is just as important to remember why we are engaged in the Balkans in the first place. This is, after all, an election year, a time when Americans should rightly question the policies and decisions of the current administration when making their decision about the next. U.S. military engagement on the European continent since the end of World War II has provided the security umbrella under which democracy and free-market capitalism have been able to develop and flourish. The Balkans, however, are a world away from that reality, the last remaining area of instability in Europe. During the last decade several hundred thousand people have been killed in three bloody wars there. The NATO-led peacekeeping operations in Bosnia and Kosovo are designed to provide the same kind of umbrella as in post-war Western Europe to allow democracy, civil society, and capitalism to take root and develop. Without American leadership, this region would most likely still be mired in civil war, ethnic cleansing, and ultra-nationalist aggression, with Milosevic firmly ensconced at the center of it all. I remember well when in September 1992, reacting to the mass murders an ethnic cleansing that Milosevic directed in Croatia and Bosnia, I called for lifting the arms embargo against Bosnia and, six months later, for hitting the Bosnian Serbs with air strikes. I was joined by Bob Dole and Joe Lieberman, but for three years ours was a lonely fight. Finally, after hundreds of thousands killed and massacres in Srebrenica and Sarajevo that galvanized public opinion, our government undertook a bombing campaign that led to the Dayton Accords. Just as that American military action in 1995 served as the catalyst for change in Bosnia, so did Operation Allied Force in 1999 dash the myth in Serbia of Milosevic's invincibility. If he had gotten away with purging Kosovo of most of its ethnic Albanians, those in Serbia who found Milosevic to be odious would have had no reason to believe that anything could be done to stop his immoral and ruinous policies. American leadership has been indispensable for successful military action in the Balkans. The bombing campaign our government undertook in 1995 led to the Dayton Accords for Bosnia. Operation Allied Force in 1999 forced Milosevic to withdraw his military and paramilitary units from Serbia, destroying the myth in Serbia of his invincibility. This leadership goes beyond the purely technical military assets that only the U.S. can deploy; it also involves intangibles. SFOR in Bosnia and KFOR in Kosovo contain thousands of highly qualified soldiers from many countries, but the American troop presence on the ground gave the mission its ultimate credibility with the Balkan peoples. This fact I have witnessed firsthand from my many trips to the region. I am, therefore, alarmed by the recent calls for a unilateral withdrawal of U.S. forces from the Balkans. Such a radical shift in our policy, I believe, would have a catastrophic effect not only on the very real progress we have made in stabilizing both Bosnia and Kosovo, but on U.S. leadership in Europe and on the Atlantic Alliance as a whole. U.S. participation on the ground in the Balkans is essential to our overall leadership in NATO, which is an alliance not only of shared values, but also of shared risk and responsibility. To begin a disengagement from the Balkans would not only guarantee the loss of American leadership in NATO, but also, I fear, lead to the premature end of Western Europe's commitment to stabilizing the Balkans. As my colleagues surely know, the vast majority of the troops in SFOR and KFOR--approximately eighty percent--are European. Yet despite this minority participation, the United States retains the command of both Balkan operations in the person of U.S. General Joseph Ralston, the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR). Let me be blunt: it is naive to believe that we could retain command of these operations--or, more importantly, leadership of NATO itself-- if we would cavalierly inform our allies that we were unilaterally pulling out of the Balkans. It just won't work. If the U.S. withdrew, like it or not, the future of SFOR and KFOR would be in jeopardy, and the likelihood of renewed hostilities and instability beyond the borders of Bosnia and Kosovo would greatly increase. We are entering into a very sensitive period for the Balkans, one that could either strengthen or tear apart the fragile peace that KFOR and SFOR have helped secure. Local elections will take place in Kosovo later this month, in Bosnia in November, and in Serbia in December. The anti-democratic, ultra nationalist forces in the region are now no doubt biding their time and hoping for a new administration that has already laid its withdrawal cards on the table. The assertion that our Balkan operations are a heavy drain on our resources is also completely off base. Our Bosnia and Kosovo operations together amount to little more than one percent of our total defense budget. This hardly constitutes a ``hollowing out'' of the military. The argument that our commitment to the Balkans is open-ended is equally misleading. There are detailed military, political, economic, and social benchmarks set in place. Our ``exit strategy'' is crystal clear: a secure, stable, democratic Balkans with a free-market economy that can join the rest of the continent, a Europe ``whole and free.'' These are the ideals for which the greatest generation fought and died. We dare not embark upon a policy that fails to recognize the most important international lesson of the twentieth century: America's national security is inextricably linked to the maintenance of a stable and peaceful Europe. To pull the plug on a Balkans policy that has finally begun to yield real dividends and at the same time to put NATO, the most successful alliance in history, at risk would jeopardize America's national security. It would also betray the brave crowds in Serbia, who have struggled to open up great possibilities for their country, the Balkans, and all of Europe. This is no time for Americans to retreat from the struggle out of ill-conceived, artificially narrow definitions of national security. The American people have shown time and again that they lack neither vision nor patience when they are convinced of the importance of a cause. A Europe unified by democracy is such a cause.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, on October 18 the Voice of America broadcast an editorial entitled ``Terrorism Will Fail,'' strongly condemning the terrorist bomb attack on the U.S.S. Cole in Aden harbor, which took the lives of 17 U.S. sailors. The editorial concluded: ``U.S. policy remains unchanged. The U.S. will make no concessions to terrorists. The U.S. will bring to justice those who attack its citizens and interests. The U.S. will hold state sponsors of terrorism fully accountable.'' This is unambiguous language, which reflects not only United States government policy but also the feelings of all Americans. Unfortunately, however, the bureaucratic road from writing, to approval, to broadcasting this editorial was anything but unambiguous. In fact, it revealed both initial bad judgment by the State Department, and the need for better vetting procedures of VOA editorials by the appropriate authorities. VOA editorials are statements of American policy, so they are rightly cleared by the State Department for consistency with official U.S. Government policy. Regrettably, in this case the State Department initially vetoed the editorial's language. The reason for stopping the editorial was totally unjustified. It was dead wrong to stop the editorial because of fighting and casualties that were occurring elsewhere in the Middle East. American service men and women were tragically killed in this terrorist attack and a clear statement by Voice of America condemning the action should have gone out immediately. Subsequently, the State Department fortunately disavowed the earlier veto of the editorial memo, saying that the initial veto memorandum ``in no way reflects the views of the Secretary of State, the Department or the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs.'' Moreover, it stated that the initial veto memorandum had not been vetted or approved through appropriate channels. It is inconceivable to me how anyone could advocate deleting an editorial condemning the cruel, cowardly, terrorist murder of American service men and women. I hope and trust this occurred because of the understandable stress officials at the Department of State were under due to the tragic deaths from this dastardly act of terrorism in Yemen occurring at the same time the crises in the Middle East was also absorbing the attention of the Department. Fortunately, as I mentioned earlier, the Voice of America did broadcast the editorial in its entirety.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I rise to discuss the momentous changes underway on the Korean Peninsula and to take note of the contributions of one extraordinary American public servant to the cause of peace there. Former Secretary of Defense Bill Perry stepped down this month as special adviser to the President on Korea policy, a role he assumed when our relations with North Korea were in crisis and when congressional faith in our approach to the Korean challenge was at a nadir. It was a job no one coveted. North Korea ranks as one of the most difficult foreign policy challenges we face. It was a job fraught with risk. Err too far towards confrontation, and you might send North Korea over the brink and start another war. Err too far towards conciliation, and your initiative might be mistaken for appeasement, emboldening the North and undermining political support at home. Under Bill Perry's leadership, the U.S. launched a hard-headed initiative designed to test North Korea's willingness to abandon the path of confrontation in favor of the road to peace. From its inception, the Perry initiative was predicated on maintenance of a strong military deterrent. But Dr. Perry recognized that deterrence alone was not likely to lure North Korea out of its shell and reduce the threat of war. The Perry initiative was designed and implemented in concert with our South Korean and Japanese allies, and it continues to enjoy their full support. The results of this comprehensive and integrated engagement strategy have stunned even the most optimistic observers. The year began with a mysterious and unprecedented visit by Kim Jong- il to the Chinese Embassy in Pyongyang. Over the course of a four-hour dinner, Kim made it plain that the year 2000 would see a shift in the North's approach to reviving its moribund economy and ending its diplomatic isolation. In quick succession, Kim hosted Russian President Putin and then South Korean President Kim Dae-jung. The historic Korean summit meeting in Pyongyang was a tremendous victory for South Korean President Kim Dae-jung's ``Sunshine Policy'' and a validation of Perry's engagement strategy. It is fitting that President Kim Dae-jung was just awarded the Nobel Peace prize for his life-long efforts on behalf of peace and democracy on the Korean peninsula. With the rapid emergence of Kim Jong-il from what he admitted was a ``hermit's'' existence in North Korea, the prospects for a lasting peace on the peninsula are better today than at any time since the Korean War began more than 50 years ago. Time will tell. If fully implemented, the agreement reached in Pyongyang by President Kim Dae-jung and Kim Jong-il promises to reduce tensions in this former war zone and enhance economic, cultural, environmental, and humanitarian cooperation. There are encouraging signs that the summit meeting was not a fluke: Family reunification visits are proceeding, albeit at a pace that is slower than the families divided for 50 years desire or deserve. Ground will be broken soon to restore rail connections across the DMZ, restoring trade and communication links severed for 50 years. A follow-on meeting of the North and South Korean Defense Ministers in September led to an agreement to resume military contacts and to explore confidence building measures along the DMZ, including notification of exercises and creation of a North-South hot-line. Planning is proceeding smoothly for next year's North-South summit meeting in Seoul. There has also been progress in U.S.-North Korean relations. An historic meeting between President Clinton and senior North Korean military officer Cho Myong-nok occurred this month in Washington, setting the stage for next week's first ever visit to the North by an American Secretary of State. Mr. President, this flurry of diplomatic activity has been dismissed by some critics as all form, and no substance. They marvel at our willingness--and that of our South Korean ally--to provide food aid to a despotic regime that continues to spend precious resources on weapons and military training rather than tractors and agricultural production. No one condones the North Korean Government's callous disregard for the suffering of its own people. And obviously, much work remains to be done--especially in the security realm--to realize the hope generated by the summits. The North has not withdrawn any of its heavy artillery poised along the Demilitarized Zone. It has not halted provocative military exercises. It has not yet ended all of its support for terrorist organizations. And, although the North did reaffirm its moratorium on long-range missile testing this month in Washington, it has not stopped its development or export of long-range ballistic missile technology. North Korea's missile program continues to pose a serious threat not only to our allies South Korea and Japan, but also to other nations confronting the odious clients of North Korea's arms merchants. All of these issues must be addressed if we are to forge a lasting peace on the Korean peninsula. Our efforts to engage North Korea must ultimately be matched by reciprocal steps by the North. Engagement is not a one-way street. But the question is not whether North Korea is a desirable partner for peace. Kim Jong-il has all the appeal of Saddam Hussein. The question is how we manage the North Korean threat. I can't imagine how the situation would be improved if we did not offer North Korea a chance to choose peace over truculence. I can't imagine how the situation would be improved in any way if North Korean children were dying in droves from malnutrition and disease as they were prior to the launch of the U.S.-funded World Food Program relief efforts. Mr. President, we should not discount the importance of the recent diplomatic developments on the peninsula. How soon we forget that it was a process called glasnost--openness--combined with maintenance of a strong NATO alliance, which ultimately brought about the demise of the Soviet Union and the reunification of East and West Germany. Information about the outside world is hard to come by in North Korea, just as it was hard to get in the Soviet Union before detente opened the window and let the Soviet people catch the scent of the fresh air of freedom. Perhaps dialog with North Korea and greater openness there will bring about a similar result. If so, we will have Secretary Perry to thank for his role in getting that dialog jump-started after it had stalled amidst mutual suspicions and acrimony during the mid-1990s. Mr. President, in closing I would like to extend my profound thanks to Bill Perry for the way he carried out his responsibilities. He answered the call to public service two years ago, trading the comfort of northern California for the landmine-strewn terrain of Washington and North Korea. He has conducted himself with honor and a strong sense of duty. He will be missed. The stakes on the peninsula are high. Events there will not only shape the security environment of Northeast Asia, but also affect our decision whether to deploy a limited national missile defense, and if so, what kind of defense. From my perspective, it would be a great accomplishment if we could neutralize the North Korean missile threat through diplomacy rather than spend billions of dollars to construct a missile defense system which might do more harm to our national security than good. I wish Secretary Albright and her new Korea policy adviser Wendy Sherman well as they strive to build on the momentum generated over the past few months. It is a tough job, but it is incumbent on us to test North Korea's commitment to peace.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, in the last days of this Congress, as we scramble to compete our work, I am worried that one of the most important issues before us may slip through the cracks. Last week, I attended an extraordinary meeting at the White House, where President Clinton called together religious and political leaders to discuss the urgent need to provide debt relief for the poorest countries of the world. Looking around the table, it was clear that this was no ordinary issue, no ordinary meeting. Just a partial list of the people in that room speaks volumes about this issue. There were bishops of several denominations, and a rabbi. The Reverend Pat Robertson was there, as was the Reverend Andrew Young. Democratic Congresswoman Maxine Waters was at the table, not far from Republican Congressman Spencer Bachus. A few seats from the President himself sat near the rock star Bono, who has become one of the most prominent spokesmen for the cause of debt relief. President Clinton called us together because the need for debt relief is great, the logic of debt relief is compelling, and time left for us to pass debt relief legislation is alarmingly short. Failure to act now would be nothing less than a failure of the United States to lead what could be the most important international effort to bring the poorest nations of the world into a more positive, constructive role in the world economy. Here are the facts, Mr. President. Around the world today, many poor nations actually pay more in interest payments to advanced industrial nations, and to international development banks, than they do on childhood immunizations, primary education, and other essential services. Tragically, Mr. President, many of these countries are suffering through an AIDS epidemic that dwarfs any public health crisis the world has ever seen. No responsible person can argue that we have no interest in helping such countries fight against communicable diseases that are just a jet flight away from our cities. No moral person can argue that we should sit idly by while a continent loses a generation to disease. The debts these countries owe are often the legacy of earlier governments, propped up by lending that suited the purposes of Cold War geopolitics, but that did precious little for the poorest of the poor in those countries. Today, the prospects of repayment by these countries is so small that the loans are now carried on our books at just a few cents on the dollar. A sensible business decision--made every day in this country and around the world--is to simply write off bad debts, and let both borrower and lender move on. Following that sound economic logic, with the leadership and commitment of the United States, the major creditor nations of the world agreed several years ago to forgive some of the debt owed by the poorest of these countries. That program, known as the HIPC Initiative--for the ``Highly Indebted Poor Countries''--requires significant commitments by the poor countries if they are to qualify. They must commit to market-oriented economic reforms, reduce corruption, and use the savings from debt relief for essential poverty reduction programs. Already under way in several countries, the HIPC program has achieved tangible results--the kind of results we all want to see, and the kind of results that will be put at risk if we fail to fully fund our participation. In Uganda, money saved by debt relief under the HIPC program has allowed the government to end the fees for primary school students, fees that had kept enrollment down. Over the last four years, primary school enrollment there virtually doubled. That is what a well- designed debt relief program can do. Because those debts are such a large part of the poor countries' income--often as high as thirty or forty percent--and because those same debts are realistically worth so little to us, a relatively small financial commitment on our part buys important economic assistance many times over. And because we are the leading economy in the world, Mr. President, our leverage is even greater. Other nations are waiting for us to act--the only prudent course for creditors working out this kind of deal--and that means that our relatively small contribution will trigger a major international initiative. But that leverage works both ways. Without us, the viability of the whole initiative remains in doubt. Our inaction has stalled any further action on debt relief in Latin America, and will prevent all but a few eligible African countries from participating. Something more than sensible, effective foreign policy is at stake here, Mr. President, which brings me back to that extraordinary meeting at the White House. The world's religious leaders, from the Pope to Billy Graham, in an interfaith, ecumenical unanimity rarely seen on any issue, have joined to challenge our nation's conscience. They have asked us to face the embarrassing fact that while we talk about providing assistance to the poorest nations--while in fact we do send a tiny fraction of our own record income and wealth abroad--at the same time we continue to collect interest payments on those nations' old debts. They have challenged us to follow the Biblical injunction to lift the burden of debt, in effect to put our money where we say our values are. They call on us to deal with the least fortunate in the way all of the world's great religions command. Now, when we are enjoying the best economic times in our history, as we stand as the most fortunate of nations, surely we can underwrite less than four percent of the overall cost of debt relief. That's right, Mr. President: our share is less than four percent of the total cost of the whole HIPC program. For that contribution, we will assure the full implementation of nearly 30 billion dollars of debt relief for the poorest 33 countries of the world. This program presents us with a powerful combination of economic logic and moral imperative. Here, in the last days and hours of this session of Congress, we must not let this opportunity slip away. Earlier this year, the Foreign Relations Committee passed full authorization of two key funding mechanisms for our participation in the HIPC program. First, we authorized use of the balance of the funds made available through a revaluation of the IMF's gold holdings, to provide them with the resources to finance their share of the debt forgiveness--an action that will have no budgetary impact, that will not cost us a dime. The Foreign Relations Committee also authorized the appropriation of $600 million for our share, between 2000 and 2003, of the HIPC initiative. Senator Helms, Senator Hagel, and Senator Sarbanes and I agreed on a set of conditions that would hold the Administration accountable for policies that will promote more focused, better monitored international financial institutions. But we agreed, in the end, that the program was too important to impose unworkable conditions or to require the kind of delay that could be fatal. It took compromise and good faith to achieve that agreement, which was reported out of our committee unanimously. Mr. President, I am here today to say that those principles must guide any final agreement. That means there must be no new, unworkable demands for overhauling international financial institutions like the IMF and the World Bank before debt relief can go forward. That will require the spirit of bipartisan accommodation that we achieved in our committee. So far the Senate has only appropriated $75 million for debt relief. This is only a place holder for a final amount, now under negotiation. The House has done somewhat better, but is still far short of the mark. One of the problems is that full authorization has not reached the Senate floor, where I am confident it would receive overwhelming bipartisan support. Right now, as I speak, there is still hope that we can reach an accommodation on authorizing language that the Appropriations Committee is seeking before it provides the full amount of debt relief needed to make the HIPC program a reality. But time is running out, Mr. President, and we are dangerously close to forfeiting our international leadership on this issue. That means forfeiting not just our leadership in international financial affairs, Mr. President. If we fail to provide full funding for our participation in the international debt relief effort, we will forfeit something even more valuable: our moral leadership.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Dangerous Biological Agent and Toxin Control Act of 2000. Similar legislation was originally submitted by the Administration in 1999 as part of a larger anti-crime proposal. Today a terrorist attack in the United States using chemical or biological weapons is one of the most significant terrorist threats we face. In recent years, through the ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention and the enactment of the related implementing legislation, we have provided several statutory safeguards designed to prevent and deter against an attack using chemical weapons. But gaps remain in our laws regulating biological pathogens. It is essential not only that America be fully prepared to respond to such an attack, but also that we take steps to prevent them from happening in the first place. Currently, federal law bans only the development and possession of biological agents for use as a weapon. But there are sensible things that we can do in the near term to give federal law enforcement the tools that they need to protect our country from these threats--before they materialize into unspeakable scenarios. Earlier this year, the National Commission on Terrorism reported to Congress. Among its conclusions was that the federal laws regarding the possession of dangerous pathogens are currently insufficient. The Commission specifically recommended, among other things, that Congress make it illegal for anyone not properly certified to possess certain critical pathogens. And they were right. The bill I introduce today fill several gaps in the law. First, the bill will make it unlawful for anyone to possess biological agent, toxin or delivery system of a type or in a quantity that under the circumstances is not reasonably justified by a prophylactic, protective or other peaceful purpose. Second, the bill makes it unlawful to handle a biological agent with conscious disregard of an unreasonable risk to public health and safety. Third, the legislation makes it unlawful to knowingly communicate false, but believable information, concerning an activity which would constitute a violation of this statute. Finally, the bill requires people to report to the federal government their possession of listed biological agents, prohibits the transfer of a listed biological agent to a person who is not registered and makes possession by certain restricted persons--such as convicted felons--unlawful. Closing these gaps in the law would be a modest but important step to prevent and deter a terrorist act involving biological agents. This should not be a partisan issue. This is an issue of governance, not politics. From Wilmington to Washington State, our constituents need protection and expect and deserve nothing less. Mr. President, I recognize that the Congressional session is about to end, and therefore it is too late for the bill to be considered this year. But I wanted to introduce the bill now so that it would be available for review by my colleagues and other interested parties inside and outside of government. In particular, I invite comment by interested parties in the scientific community, the business community, and the civil liberties community. I regard the bill I introduce today as an initial draft that is a work in progress, and I welcome constructive comments and suggestions for improvement. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Committee on the Judiciary early in the next session of Congress. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Dangerous Biological Agent and Toxin Control Act of 2000. Similar legislation was originally submitted by the Administration in 1999 as part of a larger anti-crime proposal. Today a terrorist attack in the United States using chemical or biological weapons is one of the most significant terrorist threats we face. In recent years, through the ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention and the enactment of the related implementing legislation, we have provided several statutory safeguards designed to prevent and deter against an attack using chemical weapons. But gaps remain in our laws regulating biological pathogens. It is essential not only that America be fully prepared to respond to such an attack, but also that we take steps to prevent them from happening in the first place. Currently, federal law bans only the development and possession of biological agents for use as a weapon. But there are sensible things that we can do in the near term to give federal law enforcement the tools that they need to protect our country from these threats--before they materialize into unspeakable scenarios. Earlier this year, the National Commission on Terrorism reported to Congress. Among its conclusions was that the federal laws regarding the possession of dangerous pathogens are currently insufficient. The Commission specifically recommended, among other things, that Congress make it illegal for anyone not properly certified to possess certain critical pathogens. And they were right. The bill I introduce today fill several gaps in the law. First, the bill will make it unlawful for anyone to possess biological agent, toxin or delivery system of a type or in a quantity that under the circumstances is not reasonably justified by a prophylactic, protective or other peaceful purpose. Second, the bill makes it unlawful to handle a biological agent with conscious disregard of an unreasonable risk to public health and safety. Third, the legislation makes it unlawful to knowingly communicate false, but believable information, concerning an activity which would constitute a violation of this statute. Finally, the bill requires people to report to the federal government their possession of listed biological agents, prohibits the transfer of a listed biological agent to a person who is not registered and makes possession by certain restricted persons--such as convicted felons--unlawful. Closing these gaps in the law would be a modest but important step to prevent and deter a terrorist act involving biological agents. This should not be a partisan issue. This is an issue of governance, not politics. From Wilmington to Washington State, our constituents need protection and expect and deserve nothing less. Mr. President, I recognize that the Congressional session is about to end, and therefore it is too late for the bill to be considered this year. But I wanted to introduce the bill now so that it would be available for review by my colleagues and other interested parties inside and outside of government. In particular, I invite comment by interested parties in the scientific community, the business community, and the civil liberties community. I regard the bill I introduce today as an initial draft that is a work in progress, and I welcome constructive comments and suggestions for improvement. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Committee on the Judiciary early in the next session of Congress. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

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

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for that. The beginning of my comments was a polite way of apologizing for my being so persistent. I have been here 28 years. I have never threatened a filibuster. I have never threatened to hold up legislation. I have never once stopped the business on the floor--not that that is not every Senator's right. I have never done that. I care so much about this legislation that I was prepared to do whatever it would take. I apologize for being so pushy about it. But there is nothing I have done in 28 years that I feel more strongly about than this. I apologize to my friends for my being so persistent.

Mr. BIDEN. Yes.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, what a difference a year makes. Last year, I came to the floor and indicated I thought in light of the resistance taking place regarding the Violence Against Women Act and its reauthorization and the Violence Against Women II Act, it would be a tough fight to renew and strengthen the Violence Against Women Act. Thanks to the help and support of a number of folks in and out of this Senate-- from attorneys general in the various States, to police, to victims advocates, doctors, nurses, Governors, women's groups--I am proud to say we finally arrived at a point where the Violence Against Women Act 2000 is on the verge of passing the Senate as part of the sex trafficking conference report. I thank particularly my good friend from Minnesota. Since he has arrived in the Senate, he has been the single strongest supporter I have had. Along with his wife, who is incredible, she has been the single most significant outside advocate for the Violence Against Women Act in everything that surrounds and involves it. I dealt him a bit of advice. When I went to a conference on a bill he was working very mightily for, along with our friend and Republican colleague, the sex trafficking bill, which is a very important bill in and of itself--by itself it is important--if we were doing nothing else but passing that legislation that he and Senator Brownback have worked so hard on, it would be a worthy day, a worthy endeavor for the Senate and the U.S. Government. I realize people watching this on C-SPAN get confused when we use the ``Senate speak.'' We talk of conferences and conference reports and various types of legislation. The bottom line is, I was part of that agreement where we sat down with House Members and Senate Members to talk about the sex trafficking legislation. I didn't surprise him--I told him ahead of time, but I am sure I created some concern--by attempting to add the Violence Against Women Act to that legislation. We ultimately did. It is the first time in the 28 years I have been in the Senate that I have gone to a conference and added a major piece of legislation in that conference, knowing that it might very well jeopardize the passage of the legislation we were discussing. And it is worthy legislation. I am a cosponsor. I can think of nothing--obviously, you would expect me to say that, being the author of this legislation--I can think of nothing of more consequence to the women of America and the children of America than our continuing the fight--and I am sure my friend from Minnesota agrees with me--regarding violence against women. I thank Senator Hatch for working so hard with me to pass this legislation. This legislation was not a very popular idea on the other side of the aisle 8 years ago when we wrote this, and 6 years ago when we got close to passing it, and 5 years ago when we passed it. Senator Hatch stood up and led the way on the Republican side. And I thank my Republican colleagues, about 25 of whom--maybe more now--cosponsored it. I attribute that to Senator Hatch's leadership, and I thank him for that. This legislation is very important. I will try as briefly as I can to state why it is important. First of all, it reauthorizes the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, referred to as landmark legislation. I believe it is landmark legislation. It is the beginning of the end of the attitude in America that a woman is the possession of a man, that a woman is, in fact, subject to a man's control even if that requires ``physical force.'' This clearly states, and we stated it for the first time on record in 1994, that no man has a right under any circumstance other than self- defense to raise his hand to or to use any physical force against a woman for any reason at all other than self-defense. One might think: Big deal; we all knew that. No, we didn't all know that. It has begun to shape societal attitudes. What has happened is that we have seen a decline of 21 percent in the violent acts committed by significant others against their spouses and/or girlfriends and/or mate. That is a big deal. What happens if we don't pass this today? The Violence Against Women Act goes out of existence. It is no longer authorized. So this is a big deal, a big, big deal. No. 2, I promised when I wrote this legislation in 1994 that, after seeing it in operation, I would not be wedded to its continuation if it wasn't working, and that I would propose, along with others, things that would enhance the legislation. That is, places where there were deficiencies we would change the law and places where the law in place was useless or counterproductive, we would eliminate that provision of the law. We have kept that promise. This legislation does a number of things. It makes improvements in what we call full faith and credit of enforcement orders. Simply stated, that means if a woman in the State of Maryland goes to court and says, ``This man is harassing me,'' or ``He has beaten me,'' or ``He has hurt me,'' and the court says that man must stay away from that woman and cannot get within a quarter mile--or whatever the restriction is--and if he does, he will go to jail, that is a protection order, a stay away order. What happens in many cases when that woman crosses the line into the State of Delaware or into the State of Pennsylvania or into the District of Columbia and that man follows her, the court in that district does not enforce the stay away order from the other State for a number of reasons: One, they don't have computers that they can access and find out whether there is such an order; two, they are blase about it; or three, they will not give full faith and credit to it. This creates a development and enhancement of data collection and sharing system to promote tracking and enforcement of these orders. Big deal. Second, transition housing. This is a change. We have found that we have provided housing for thousands and thousands and thousands of women who have gotten themselves into a dilemma where they are victimized but have no place to go. So we, all of us in the Congress, have provided moneys for building credible and decent and clean shelters, homes for women where they can bring their children. I might note parenthetically the majority of children who are homeless, on the street, are there because their mothers are the victim of abuse and have no place to go. So they end up on the street. We are rectifying that. We found out there is a problem. There is a problem because there are more people trying to get into this emergency housing and there is no place for some of these women to go between the emergency housing--and they can't go back to their homes--and having decent housing. So we provide for a transition, some money for transition housing. In the interest of time, I will not go into detail about it. Third, we change what we call incorporating dating violence into the purposes that this act covers, where there is a pro-arrest policy, where there are child abuse enforcement grants, et cetera. The way the law was written the first time, an unintended consequence of what I did when I wrote the law is, a woman ended up having to have an extended relationship with the man who was victimizing her in order to qualify for these services. That is an oversimplification, but that is the essence. If a woman was a victim of date rape, the first or second time she went out with a man of whom she was a victim, she did not qualify under the law for those purposes. Now that person would qualify. We also provide legal assistance for victims of domestic violence and sexual harassment. We set aside some of the money in the Violence Against Women Act, hopefully through the trust fund which, hopefully, the Presiding Officer will insist on being part of this. We provide for women getting help through that system. We provide for safe havens for children, pilot programs. As my friend from Minnesota knows, most of the time when a woman gets shot or killed in a domestic exchange, it is when she is literally dropping off a child at the end of the weekend. That is when the violence occurs. So we provide the ability for the child to be dropped off in a safe place, under supervised care--the father leaves, and then the mother comes and picks the child up and regains custody--because we find simple, little things make big, giant differences in safety for women. This also provides pilot programs relating to visitation and exchange. We put in protective orders for the protection of disabled women from domestic violence. Also, the role of the court in combating violence against women engages State courts in fighting violence by setting aside funds in one of the grant programs. And we provided a domestic violence task force. We also provide standards, practices, and training for sexual forensic examinations which we have been doing in my State, and other States have done, but nationwide they are not being done. So much loss of potential evidence is found when the woman comes back into court because they did not collect the necessary evidence at the time the abuse took place. Also, maybe the single most important provision we add to the Violence Against Women Act is the battered immigrant women provision. This strengthens and refines the protections for battered immigrant women in the original act and eliminates the unintended consequence of subsequent charges in immigration law to ensure that abused women living in the United States with immigrant victims are brought to justice and the battered immigrants also escape abuse without being subject to other penalties. There is much more to say. We have worked hard together over the past year to produce a strong, bipartisan bill that has gained the overwhelming support of the Senate--with a total of 74 cosponsors. All of my Democratic colleagues are cosponsors, along with 28 of my Republican friends. Passage of this bill today would not have been possible without the effort and commitment of the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, my friend Orrin Hatch, who has dedicated years to addressing the scourge of violence against women. I also want to take this opportunity to thank our committee's ranking member, Senator Leahy, for his constant support of my efforts to bring this bill to a vote, and my friends in the House, Representatives John Conyers, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, and Connie Morella, for their leadership on this important legislation. The need for this law is as clear today as it was more than a decade ago when I first focused on the problem of domestic violence and sexual assault. Consider this: In my state of Delaware, I regret to report that more than 30 women and children have been killed in domestic violence- related homicides in the past three years. No area or income-bracket has escaped this violence. To stop domestic violence beatings from escalating into violent deaths, more than one thousand police officers throughout Delaware--in large cities and small, rural towns alike--have received specialized training to deal with such cases. Every State in this country now has similar police training, and the Violence Against Women Act is providing the necessary funding. To ensure these officers collect evidence that will stand up in court, they are being armed with state-of-the-art instant cameras and video cameras. The Violence Against Women Act is providing the necessary funding for these cameras--nationwide. The National Domestic Violence Hotline handles 13,000 calls from victims per month and has fielded over half a million calls since its inception. The Violence Against Women Act is providing the necessary funding. We are also working hard to create an army of attorneys nationwide who have volunteered to provide free legal services to victims--from filing a protection order, to divorce and custody matters. But many, many more women need legal assistance. The Violence Against Women Act of 2000, which is before us today, authorizes and provides the necessary funding to help victims of domestic violence, stalking, and sexual assault obtain legal assistance at little to no cost. Don't take my word for the need for this legislation. You have heard from folks in your states. Listen to their stories and the programs they've put into place over the past five years since we passed the Violence Against Women Act in 1994--with overwhelming bipartisan support. Unless we act now--and renew our commitment to stopping violence against women and children--our efforts and successes over the past five years will come to a screeching halt. The Violence Against Women Act expired September 30. If the funding dries up--make no mistake--the number of domestic violence cases and the number of women killed by their husbands or boyfriends who profess to ``love'' them--will increase. Domestic violence has been on a steady decline in recent years. U.S. Department of Justice statistics show a 21 percent drop since 1993. Why? From Alabama to Alaska--New Hampshire to New Mexico--Michigan to Maine--California to Kentucky--Delaware to Utah--police, prosecutors, judges, victims' advocates, hospitals, corporations, and attorneys are providing a seamless network of ``coordinated response teams'' to provide victims and their children the services they need to escape the violence--and stay alive. In National City, California, family violence response team counselors go directly to the scenes of domestic violence cases with police. Violence Against Women Act funds have facilitated changes from simple, common sense reforms--such as standardized police reporting forms to document the abuse . . . to more innovative programs, such as the Tri-State Domestic Violence Project involving North Dakota, Montana, and Wyoming. This project includes getting the word out to everyone from clergy to hairdressers to teachers--anyone who is likely to come into contact with a domestic violence victims--so that they can direct victims to needed housing, legal, and medical services. And the services and protections are offered across State lines. Such coordinated projects have different names in different States-- in Oregon, they have domestic violence intervention teams. In Vermont they have ``PAVE.'' The Project Against Violent Encounters. Washington State has developed ``Project SAFER''--which links attorneys with victims at battered women shelters to ``Stop Abuse and Fear by Exercising Rights.'' In Washington, D.C. they formed Women Empowered Against Violence-- known as WEAVE--which provides a total package for victims, from legal assistance to counseling to case management through the courts. Utah has developed the ``CAUSE'' project, or the Coalition of Advocates for Utah Survivors' Empowerment. It is a statewide, nonprofit organization that has created a system of community support for sexual assault survivors. In Kansas, they've funded a program called ``Circuit Riders,'' who are advocates and attorneys who travel to rural parts of the State to fill the gaps in service. Different names for these programs but the same funding source and inspiration--the Violence Against Women Act. Experience with the act has also shown us that we need to strengthen enforcement of protection from abuse orders across state lines. Candidly, a protection from abuse order is just one part of the solution. A piece of paper will not stop a determined abuser with a fist, knife, or gun. But look at what states like New York and Georgia are doing to make it easier--and less intimidating--for women to file for a protection from abuse order. They have implemented a completely confidential system for a victim to file for a protection from abuse order without ever having to walk into a courtroom. It is all on-line over the internet. After the victim answers a series of questions and describes the abuse, the information is deleted once transmitted to the court--with no information stored electronically. This project is part of specialized domestic violence courts established in many states--where one judge handles the entire case-- from protection orders, to divorce, custody, and probation issues. The Center for Court Innovation is working with the New York courts to develop customized computer technology that will link the courts, police, probation officers, and social service agencies--so that everyone is on the same page, and knows exactly what's happening with a domestic violence case. We need to take this technology nationwide. And the Violence Against Women Act of 2000 before us today will provide funding to states for such technology. and not all our solutions are high-tech. To help victims enforce protection orders, states and cities across this country have teamed up with the cellular phone industry to arm victims with cell phones. In my state of Delaware, I spearheaded a drive to collect two thousand used cell phones, so that every person with a protection from abuse order can get a cell phone programmed to automatically dial 9-1-1 if the abuser shows up at her house, place of work, at the school yard when she picks up her child, the bus stop or the grocery store. Commonsense solutions--all sparked by the Violence Against Women Act this body passed overwhelmingly in 1994. Again, listen to the voices of victims we have helped. Phyllis Lee from Tennessee says she is alive today thanks to the battered women shelter in Dayton. Without it, she is certain her abusive husband would have killed her with his violent beatings. After enduring 17 years of torturous abuse, including severe beatings to her head and body, rape, and the withholding of needed medical care, Phyllis finally escaped. After a particularly severe beating, she hid in the woods for 20 hours, paralyzed with fear that her husband would find her. She crawled to a nearby farmhouse and asked for help. With the help of the woman who lived there, she contacted Battered Women, Inc.--an organization that assists victims of domestic violence. This program, which includes a hotline, counselors, and a shelter, is heavily funded by the Violence Against Women Act. It provided a way out for Phyllis and her children, whose lives were in grave danger. Battered Women, Inc. also helped Phyllis get her GED and she is now working as an advocate for other battered women. She says that without this program, she never would have known that the option to live without abuse existed. States with large Indian reservations--such as California and Nevada--have formed Inter-Tribal Councils so that Native American women no longer have to suffer in silence at the hands of their violent abusers. One victim in California writes: If it were not for the Inter-Tribal Council's efforts, I would be dead, homeless or living in my car, with my children hungry. In California, the Inter-Tribal Council has reached out to Native American communities to establish the ``Stop and Take Responsibility'' program. First, and foremost, this program is about education--educating Native American men that hitting your spouse is a serious crime, and educating mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters--that no man has a right to lay a hand on them. This past May, the shooting of Barry Grunnow, an English teacher in Lake Worth, Florida--by a seventh grade honor roll student named Nathaniel Brazil--shocked the nation. Recently, Lake Worth police released reports showing a history of domestic violence in the Brazil home. As the Palm Beach Post wrote recently in an editorial-- While violence in the home can hardly be directly blamed for the tragic shooting . . . this case does demonstrate the way in which domestic violence affects society at large, how violence in the home increased the likelihood for violence in the surrounding community. It is about time that we push for bipartisan Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization in Congress to combat domestic violence and its horrible consequences. And if any of you doubt the link between children growing up in a home watching their mother get the living hell beat out of her--and that child growing up to be violent as well, consider this recent case two months ago in San Diego. A prosecutor was in her office, interviewing a mother who was pressing charges against her husband after suffering years of abuse. As the questioning stretched on, the woman's 8-year-old son grew restless. Just as little kids do--the boy tugged at his mother's sleeve, saying, ``Let's go. I'm hungry . . . can we leave yet.'' He became even more agitated and said: ``Come on, Mom, I want to go.'' Finally, the 8-year-old boy shouted: ``I'm talking to you?'' Then, he curled up his fist and punched her. Now, where did he learn that? That prosecutor not only had a victim in her office. She had a future domestic violence abuser. But states are not giving up on these kids. For example, in Pasco County, Florida the Sheriff's Office has developed a special program just to focus on the children in homes with domestic violence. It's called KIDS, which stands for Kids in Domestic Situations. The sheriff hired four new detectives, a supervisor, and a clerk. They review every domestic violence call to see if a child lives in the home. They are specially trained to interview that child and get him or her the needed counseling--to break the cycle of violence. Unfortunately, the abuse does not stop for women once they are divorced--particularly when the father uses the children to continue the harassment. All too often, Kids caught in the crossfire of a divorce and custody battle need safe havens. One woman in Colorado had to confront her former husband and abuser at her son's soccer games--to exchange custody for the weekend. She had to endure continued mental and emotional abuse, putting herself in physical harms-way. Finally a visitation center opened. Now she drops off her son into the hands of trained staff in a secure environment. In Hawaii, Violence Against Women Act funding has allowed officials to open three new visitation centers in the island's most rural counties. The Violence Against Women Act of 2000 adds new funding for safe havens for children to provide supervised visitation and safe visitation exchange in situations involving domestic violence, child abuse, sexual assault, or stalking. Of course, there are also the battered women's shelters. Over the past five years, every State in this country has received funding to open new and expand existing shelters. Two thousand shelters in this country now benefit from this funding. In my State of Delaware we have increased the number of shelters from two to five, including one solely for Hispanic women. For as much as we've done, so much more is needed. Our bipartisan Biden-Hatch bill increases funding for tens of thousands of more shelter beds. It also establishes transitional housing services to help victims move from shelters back into the community. And let's not forget the plight of battered immigrant women, caught between their desperate desire to flee their abusers and their desperate desire to remain in the United States. A young Mexican woman who married her husband at the age of 16 and moved to the United States suffered years of physical abuse and rape--she was literally locked in her own home like a prisoner. Her husband threatened deportation if she ever told police or left the house. When she finally escaped to the Houston Area Women's Center in Texas, she was near death. That shelter gave her a safe place to live, and provided her the legal services she needed to become a citizens and get a divorce. Our bipartisan bill expands upon the protections for battered immigrant women. Thanks to nurses and emergency room doctors across this country--we have made great strides in helping victims who show up at the emergency room, claiming they ran into a door or fell down the stairs. The Kentucky General Assembly has made it mandatory for health professionals in emergency rooms to receive three hours of domestic violence training. The National Hospital Accreditation Board is encouraging all hospitals to follow Kentucky's lead. The SANE program, sexual assault nurse examiners, are truly angels to victims. They are specially trained to work with police to collect needed evidence in a way that is sensitive and comforting to victims. The Violence Against Women Act of 2000 facilitates these efforts by ensuring that STOP grants can be used for training on how to conduct rape exams and how to collect, preserve, and analyze the evidence for trial. Finally, I am very pleased to report, this legislation expands grants under the Violence Against Women Act to states, local governments, tribal governments, and universities to cover violence that arises in dating relationships. Hopefully, this important change will help prevent tragedies like the death of Cassie Diehl, a 17-year-old high school senior from Idaho, killed by a boyfriend who left her for dead after the truck he was driving plunged 400 feet of a mountain road. What is especially tragic about this story is the great lengths to which Cassie's parents went, before her death, to seek help from local law enforcement agencies and local prosecutors in putting an end to the boyfriend's constant abuse of their child, even seeking a protection order from a judge. All of these efforts failed because Cassie was a teenager involved in an abusive dating relationship. Law enforcement officials believed that because Cassie was a 17-year-old high school student living at home she could not be abused by a boyfriend, that she was not entitled to protection under the law. The legislation we will vote on today will help avoid future horror stories like Cassie's by providing training for law enforcement officers and prosecutors to better identify and respond to violence that arises in dating relationships and by expanding victim services programs to reach these frequently young victims. Thanks in part to the landmark law we passed in 1994, violence against women is no longer regarded as a private misfortune, but is recognized as the serious crime and public disgrace that it is. We have made great strides to putting an end to the days when victims are victimized twice--first by their abuser, then by the emergency response and criminal justice systems. We are making headway. I have given you plenty of examples, but there are hundreds more. In addition to the battered women's shelters, the STOP grants, the National Domestic Violence Hotline, and other grant programs I have mentioned, the Biden-Hatch Violence Against Women Act of 2000 reauthorizes for five years the Pro-Arrest grants, Rural Domestic Violence and Child Abuse Enforcement grants, campus grants, the rape prevention and education grant program, and three victims of child abuse programs, including the court-appointed special advocate program (CASA). So, let us act now to pass the Biden-Hatch bill. There is one thing missing, I must point out, from this legislation. Unfortunately, the conference report does not extend the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund that would guarantee the funding for another five years--so that these innovative, effective projects can continue. I believe that extending the trust fund is critical. Remember, none of this costs a single dime in new taxes. It's all paid for by reducing the federal government by some 300,000 employees. The paycheck that was going to a bureaucrat is now going into the trust fund. So I will continue to work to extend the trust fund to ensure that these programs actually receive the funding we have authorized. Let me just close by saying that it has been a tough fight over the past 22 months to get my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to focus on the need to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. But we have finally done it. I greatly appreciate the support, daily phone calls, letters, and e- mails of so many groups--who are the real reason we have been able to get this done this year. The National Association of Attorneys General, every law enforcement organization, all the many women's groups, the National and 50 individual State Coalitions Against Domestic Violence, the American Medical Association, the National Governors Association, nurses, the list goes on and on--more than 150 groups total. If you'll allow me one more point of personal privilege, this act-- the Violence Against Women Act--is my single greatest legislative accomplishment in my nearly 28 years in the United States Senate. Why? Because just from the few examples provided above--it's having a real impact in the lives of tens of thousands of women and children. You see it and hear the stories when you're back home. So let us today pass the bipartisan Biden-Hatch Violence Against Women Act now, and renew our national commitment to end domestic violence. Mr. President, I am happy now to yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN. I ask the ranking member whether or not he is willing to yield additional time if I need it?

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: How much time, if any, is under the control of the Senator from Delaware?

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, we will not have the opportunity to vote today on the merits of Aimee's Law, but instead, on a jurisdictional issue regarding whether the bill was properly included in the Sex Trafficking Conference Report. Because I believe the jurisdictional objection is unfounded and I am unwilling to jeopardize the passage of the other significant pieces of legislation included in the Conference Report--most importantly, the Biden-Hatch Violence Against Women Act of 2000--I will vote against Senator Thompson's point of order. I supported a similar version of Aimee's Law in the form of an amendment to the Juvenile Justice bill last year. Upon reflection, however, I believe that my support was misplaced. I am troubled by this legislation from both a practical and a constitutional perspective. Aimee's Law requires the Attorney General, in any case in which a State convicts an individual of murder, rape, or a dangerous sexual offense, when that individual has a prior conviction for any one or more of those offenses in another State, to transfer federal law enforcement assistance funds that have been allocated to the first State in an amount equal to the costs of incarceration, prosecution, and apprehension of that individual, to the second State. The bill contains a ``safe harbor'' exempting from this substantial penalty those States in which No. 1 the individual offender at issue has served 85 percent or more of his term of imprisonment, and No. 2 the average term of imprisonment imposed by the State for the prior offense at issue is at or above the average term of imprisonment imposed for that offense in all States. As a practical matter, this bill can only promote a ``race to the top,'' as States feel compelled to ratchet up their sentences--not necessarily because they view such a shift as desirable public policy-- but in order to avoid losing crucial federal law enforcement funds. Ironically, those States that are apt to benefit most from federal law enforcement assistance may well be those with the poorest record of keeping dangerous offenders behind bars, the same States likely to lose these valuable crime-fighting funds. Nor can States readily assess where they stand relative to other States since they are always striving to hit a moving target and maintain sentences at or above an elusive average of all state sentences for various qualifying offenses. The law also will spawn an administrative nightmare for the Attorney General, who is charged under the legislation with the responsibility of constantly tabulating and retabulating the average sentences across the nation for a host of different serious offenses, as well as with the responsibility of keeping track of which State's federal funds should be reallocated to which other States every time a released offender commits another qualifying crime. The law even requires the Attorney General to consult with the governors of those States with federal funds at risk to establish a payment schedule. It's no wonder that the nation's governors so strongly oppose this law. As a constitutional matter, I have grave concerns about Aimee's Law's seeming disregard of basic principles of federalism. Congress's spending authority is undeniably broad. But I have serious reservations about the wisdom and constitutionality of a law that, instead of clearly conditioning a federal grant upon a State's performance of a specific and clearly stated task, penalizes a State for conduct that occurs after the fact and that is not entirely within the State's control--the offender's commission of another serious crime in another State. In this sense, Aimee's Law is far more onerous and far less respectful of fundamental principles of federal-state comity than a straightforward law conditioning federal spending upon the States' adoption of more stringent sentencing laws--the likely result of this legislation. In a climate in which the U.S. Supreme Court is quick to strike down Acts of Congress that, in the Court's view, infringe upon the States' prerogatives, Aimee's Law, I fear, presents an all too inviting target and needlessly risks creating bad precedent regarding the scope of Congress's spending authority. It is my hope that Congress and the President will monitor the operation of this law and revisit it if necessary.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, we have had many debates on the floor of the Senate, genuinely heartfelt debates about the role of the United States of America in the world and the use of American force in the world. We have had a split in this body between the parties, and within the parties, about whether or not it is appropriate for the United States to take a leadership role in Europe, including, on occasion, the use of force to promote our national interest and that of our allies. There are several political cancers that exist in various parts of the world. And the one remaining cancer on the continent of Europe--the primary one--is Slobodan Milosevic. I suggest that we all take a lesson from what is going on now in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia--in Serbia. Many of us, Democrat and Republican, have argued--myself; Senator McCain; Senator Lieberman; Senator Dole, when he was here--that the United States had an obligation, in its own self-interest and in the interest of our allies, and in the interest of humanity, to intervene, to stop the genocide and the ethnic cleansing that was being perpetrated by Slobodan Milosevic's vile nationalism. I have been arguing for some time now that, absent our involvement in that region of the world, there would be chaos in, if not the heart, then the belly of Europe, and that if we acted with dispatch--swiftly and with resolve, and a willingness not to back away--Slobodan Milosevic, as with most thugs, would be stopped and would be eliminated. Some have said on this floor, and some will say in the various Presidential and Senatorial and House campaigns that are going on, that we did not have an exit strategy when we committed American forces in Kosovo or American forces in Bosnia. Some will say that we have not succeeded because all is not tranquil, and if we were to withdraw American forces, things would revert to the chaos that existed before, and that this serves as proof that what we had done had not worked. The press and others declared early on in the bombing campaign in Kosovo--3 days into the 70-some day campaign--that it was a failure. I am told, time and again, by some of my colleagues on the floor and I have read some pundits who state that, in fact, the American people are not patient, that they want instant results. I say this. The end of Slobodan Milosevic is evidence of a number of things. One, our involvement was not only positive and good and successful, it was absolutely necessary. Without the leadership of the United States of America, I respectfully suggest our European allies would not have been as aggressive, they would not have been as united, and they would not have been as resolved. Second, I hope we take a lesson from this as well to demonstrate that the American people have a great deal more patience and wisdom than we give them credit for. I have not heard, nor have I heard anyone else tell me that, while they have been home in the last 4 years, they have been told, as they walked from the grocery store, or to the drugstore, or home, that it is urgent we withdraw American forces from the Balkans. Quite frankly, the opposite has occurred. The American people intuitively knew this was a place where wars have started before, this was a place where if chaos reigned it could not be contained, this was a place where a man such as Slobodan Milosevic could do nothing but ultimately harm the interest of Europe and the United States. They were resolved, and they are resolved, to keep American forces in that area to maintain the peace and security of the region, along with our allies. I might add, parenthetically, that we make up only, roughly, 7,000 of the nearly 41,000 troops that are in Kosovo, and that, in fact, we are doing the Lord's work there. It is kind of interesting that, in the six or seven trips I have made to the region--the last one being a trip to Kosovo--after I came back I remember having discussions here on the floor, and I would hear about how down the morale was of the American forces and how circumspect they were about whether we should be involved. That is not what I found, whether it was at Camp McGovern in Bosnia several years ago or at Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo last year. What I found was that these young women and men knew exactly why they were there. They knew why they were there. They did not have to be told. And they felt good about it. They knew they were doing the Lord's work. They understood. They understood there was a purpose and meaning for being there. All they had to do was ride through the streets and they understood it. It is interesting that the retention rate and reenlistment rate is higher for those who have been in Kosovo or Bosnia than for any other segment of the military. So I would argue that what is happening in Yugoslavia now is making a lie of some of the assertions that were taken for granted around this place by a majority of the people on the floor, as well as a majority of the press, as well as a majority of the people who are so-called pundits. This is the point I want to make. We should not now, at this moment, change policy. Slobodan Milosevic is a war criminal. We should not, as former Secretary Eagleburger--a man for whom I have great respect--said yesterday on television, accommodate his departure from Serbia by winking and nodding and essentially letting him off the hook on the War Crimes Tribunal. We should not do that. The newly elected President of Serbia, Vojislav Kostunica, is a lot of things that are good. But his record shows that he is also a fierce nationalist. We should lift sanctions, but only when Milosevic goes. But again, just a word of caution, we should not lift all sanctions until we are clear that the new leadership in Serbia, in Belgrade, will honor the Dayton accords and will not use force in Kosovo. This is no time to relent. None--none--of us should relent now. We have been right so far. A steady course, firm hand, U.S. power, U.S. leadership, and U.S. resolve have brought us this far. Without it, none of what has happened would be, in fact, what the history books will write about 2, 5, 10, and 20 years from now. History will record that what we did was the right thing to do from a moral standpoint, and, even more importantly, in a Machiavellian sense, right for the national interests of the United States, and essential for any prospect of long-term peace and security in Europe. I said a week ago that Milosevic could not be sustained, no matter what he did from this point on. The tides of history have moved. We saw it some years ago in Bulgaria. We saw it in Romania. We saw it occur again in Croatia. We saw it again in Bosnia. And we now see it in Serbia. For the first time in modern European history, there is a prospect--a serious prospect--that the Balkans will be integrated into Europe as a whole. I can think of no more significant foreign policy initiative that this Government has taken since the Berlin Wall came down that has been so clearly vindicated--so clearly vindicated. So now is not the time to take an easy road out. Lift sanctions partially, make it clear to the Serbian people that we love them--our fight was never with them; they are a noble people--but I think we should have a steady hand. We are prevailing. The West is prevailing. Yugoslavia, in particular--most people refer to it as Serbia--is about to come into the light of day. We must not now send the wrong signal and let people in Serbia conclude that there is not a price to pay for those who violate, in a massive way, the human rights of their fellow citizens and that we expect the new government to behave in a way consistent with international norms. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed in morning business to speak about Yugoslavia for up to 10 minutes. If that causes problems for anyone, I will withhold.

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

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, to assure everyone, if the conference report comes over, I will immediately cease and desist so we can proceed with the regular business of the Senate.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, we are now in the midst of National Breast Cancer Awareness Month, and the air has been filled with new and sometimes confusing statistics, new treatment, new research advances, and ever-present warnings about the seriousness of this dreaded disease. One aspect of this issue that is close to my heart is National Mammography Day--a day to increase awareness of how routine periodic mammography and early diagnosis of breast cancer are responsible for huge increases in the numbers of long-term survivors of this disease. I note parenthetically that my wife started an organization in my State to increase awareness--it is named after her, not me--called the Biden Breast Health Initiative, where she and her group of advisers bring oncology nurses and oncologists into the local high schools throughout the State to make young women in high school aware of breast health examinations and self-examination because the key to survival is early detection. Breast cancer is now an illness not to be feared as a death sentence but to be conquered commonly and routinely. This year, National Mammography Day, which I sponsored years ago, will occur on Friday, October 20. As in previous years, the Senate has adopted a resolution that I introduced affirming this designation. This year's National Mammography Day will see the beginning of a tremendous new advance in early detection of breast cancer--digital mammography. This new technique offers many advantages over standard film-based mammography. From the patient's point of view, the usual 40- minute examination time can be cut in half, and the exposure to radiation can be reduced in almost all instances. For many women, the mammogram images with digital technology are considerably more precise. The digital technology makes it possible for the radiologist to manipulate the images and to zoom in on questionable areas, thus providing more accurate diagnosis in reducing the need for repeat examinations. The digital technology does away with the cost and the disposal problems as well of x-ray film. In addition, the retrieval of prior film for comparison with current images no longer require the time-consuming manual search through an x- ray room. Finally, by switching to the digital approach, this new technique allows all future advances in digital computer technology to be applied directly to saving women from breast cancer. It is impossible, in my view, to overstate the importance of this digital technique's adaptability to new technological advances. Those of us old enough to remember how the first personal computers were a huge advance over the slide rule are also aware of how the incredible subsequent advances in computer technology meant that those first PCs were now useful only as doorstops. I look forward to a similarly rapid advance in the new digital technology as it moves into the field of breast cancer diagnosis. Digital mammography is a revolutionary technology that must be offered to seniors and disabled who obtain their medical care through Medicare. And it should be done as soon as possible. I strongly encourage the Health Care Financing Administration to evaluate this product expeditiously and to set appropriate payment rates under the Medicare program. What I don't want to see happen--I realize this may seem somewhat premature--is that digital mammography is only available for those who are able to pay, while all those on Medicare or Medicaid, because the reimbursement cost is not sufficient to cover a digital mammography, will have to settle for what will prove to be an inferior test. The lives of many women who have yet to discover they have breast cancer may hang in the balance. Therefore, I look forward to HCFA establishing a reasonable price at which reimbursement can be made under Medicare for those women on Medicare or Medicaid who seek a breast examination by use of digital mammography, the new emerging science, rather than one that is film based. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.