Joe Biden

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. My second concern is that section 303 not be used as a justification for investigations of journalists. Our republic depends upon a free press to inform the American people of significant issues, including issues relating to foreign policy and the national security. If a leak statute were to become a back door for bringing the investigate apparatus of the federal government to bear on the press, we would be sacrificing our democratic institutions for the sake of protecting a few secrets. Much as we are dedicated to the protection of classified information, that would be a terribly bad bargain.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, section 303 of S. 2507, the Intelligence Authorization bill, as amended by the managers' amendment, establishes a new criminal offense for the unauthorized disclosure of properly classified information. Existing criminal statues generally require an intent to benefit a foreign power or are limited to disclosures of only some types of classified information. Administrative sanctions have constituted the penalty for most other leaks. While I support the basic objective of this provision, we must ensure that it will not be used in a capricious manner or in a manner that harms our democratic institutions. I see two respects in which some caution is merited. First, it could be applied to trivial cases. I believe that former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger once said that he told everything to his wife. If his discussions with his wife included classified information, he surely would have violated the letter of this bill. But so-called ``pillow talk'' to one's spouse is common, and I don't think we mean to throw people in jail for incidental talk to a person who has no intent either to use the classified information, to pass it on to others, or to publish it.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. another question is how to tell that a U.S. intelligence activity ``is authorized by an appropriate official of the United States Government, acting within the scope of the official duties of that official and in compliance with Federal law and any applicable Presidential directive.'' I am concerned that this could be misinterpreted to mean that some intelligence bureaucrat could authorize some otherwise illegal activity with a wink and a nod. It is not the intent of the Select Committee on Intelligence that there be written authorization for a U.S. intelligence activity?

Mr. BIDEN. Section 305 of S. 32507, the Intelligence Authorization bill, provides, in brief, that no future ``Federal law . . . that implements a treaty or other international agreement shall be construed as making unlawful an otherwise lawful and authorized intelligence activity of the United States Government . . . unless such Federal law specifically addresses such intelligence activity.'' This provision is necessary, the Committee report explains, because ``[t]here has been a concern that future legislation implementing international agreements could be interpreted, absent the enactment of section 305, as restricting intelligence activities that are otherwise entirely consistent with U.S. law and policy.'' The concern arises from an opinion issued in 1994 by the Office of Legal Council (OLC) of the Department of Justice. In that opinion, the Office interpreted the Aircraft Sabotage Act of 1984--a law implementing an international treaty on civil aviation safety--as applying to government personnel. Although the OLC opinion emphasized that its conclusions should ``not be exaggerated'' and also warned that its opinion ``should not be understood to mean that other domestic criminal statutes apply to U[nited S[tates] G[overnment] personnel acting officially,'' the Central Intelligence Agency, out of an abundance of caution, wants to avoid cases in which legislation implementing a treaty might criminalize an authorized intelligence activity even though Congress did not so expressly provide. I understand the Agency's concern that clarity for its agents is important. At the same time, however, we should take care to specify how section 305 is intended to work. One question is this: how do we tell when a Federal law actually ``implements a treaty or other international agreement?'' My working assumption, in supporting section 305, is that we will be able to tell whether a future law ``implements a treaty or other international agreement'' by reading the law and the committee reports that accompany its passage. If the text of that future law or of the committee reports accompanying that bill states that the statute is intended to implement a treaty or other international agreement, then section 305 is pertinent to that statute. If there is no mention of such intent in that future law or in its accompanying reports, however, then we may safely infer that section 305 does not apply. Is that the understanding of the Select Committee on Intelligence, as well?

Mr. BIDEN. My final question to the chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence relates to how other countries may view section 305. I interpret section 305 as governing only the interpretation of a certain set of U.S. criminal laws enacted in the future and whether those laws apply to government officials. Is that also the understanding of the chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence?

Mr. BIDEN. I thank the distinguished chairman.

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, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to proceed as in morning business for up to 7 minutes to discuss digital mammography.

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

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor for the Older Americans Act Amendments of 1999, which would authorize and expand the programs first set up under the Older Americans Act of 1965. The Older Americans Act authorizes a series of absolutely essential services for our country's seniors. Among others, the Act provides nutrition services, legal assistance, disease promotion, elder abuse prevention, employment assistance, and numerous informational programs, including the long-term care ombudsmen. There is hardly a senior in this country that is not touched, directly or indirectly, by one or more of the provisions of the Older Americans Act. These programs have become an integral part of the infrastructure that helps keep our most experienced citizens vital and constructive members of society. I am particularly pleased that this bill includes a much-needed new service, the National Family Caregivers Program. The major medical advances of the past 50 years have led not only to an overall aging of the population but also to an increasing proportion of the elderly who are living with chronic diseases and disabilities. Many of these infirm elderly are cared for at home, putting a severe financial and emotional strain on family caregivers. This new program will provide such caregivers with a panoply of assistive services, including provision of information, assistance with access, counseling and training, respite care, and other supplemental services (home care, personal care, adult day care). It is absolutely essential to assist caregivers as much as possible in order to allow our infirm seniors to maintain their autonomy and sense of self-worth, to permit them to live in the company of their loved ones and in the least restrictive environment compatible with their needs. This is what our seniors fervently desire and it is the right thing to do; the likelihood that such programs will save the government money in the long run is an added bonus. There is little time left in this session of Congress, and there are many things that must be finished before adjournment. Yet as we struggle with our workload, I hope we can take a few minutes to find a way to pass the Older Americans Act Amendments this year, on behalf of all of our older loved ones.

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.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my good friend Senator Hagel in introducing the Famine Prevention and Freedom from Hunger Improvement Act of 2000. The challenge facing developing nations whose people live in hunger today is no longer just how to increase food production. As we enter the new millennium, those countries must also confront the problems of inadequate income, lack of access to markets for both producers and consumers, and unsustainable natural resource management practices. One of the keys to all these issues must be a new, more productive relationship between educational institutions--here in the U.S. and in the affected countries--and their private partners involved in agricultural development. In short, they must become part of the new, higher-tech, international agricultural economy. This bill, an amendment to the Foreign Assistance Authorization Act, is designed to move us in that direction. Mr. President, when delegates from around the world gathered in Rome in 1996 for the World Food Summit, they pledged to reduce by half the number of people suffering from hunger by the year 2015. At that time the number of hungry people was estimated to be between 830 and 840 million. Now, four years later, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations estimates that there are 790 million people in the developing world who do not get enough the eat each day. This is positive news, but it is painfully evident that more needs to be done. Title XII of the FAA, Famine Prevention and Freedom from Hunger, was written in 1975, at a time when there was a significant level of famine and hunger in the world. Its aim was to involve U.S. universities in the fight to increase food production. Mr. President, that mission has achieved a large degree of success. It is time to go beyond the basic issue of production, to take on the further challenges of increasing access to markets, improving shipping and storage, promoting environmentally sustainable agriculture, and turning farming in developing nations from a subsistence activity into a source of income. The U.S. Action Plan on Food Security was developed to fulfill America's part of the 1996 commitment to cut in half the number of hungry persons by 2015. This plan includes several key priority areas, including strengthened research and educational capacity, increased liberalization of trade and investment, and greater attention to natural resource management and environmental degradation. This legislation furthers U.S. efforts by amending title XII of the Foreign Assistance Act to reflect these priorities. As a donor country, our task is to channel assistance into the areas in which it is most needed, and to use the most effective means to do so. American land and sea grant colleges have been engaged in agricultural research for years and, increasingly in the past decade, have partnered with private research institutions. In my own state of Delaware, Mr. President, both the University of Delaware and Delaware State University are engaged in just the kind of research that could benefit from the support this legislation will provide. I would wager, Mr. President, that most Americans are not aware of the many direct benefits that our country's foreign assistance programs can provide for us right here at home. Our commitment to reduce hunger in developing countries not only benefits those in need: with the changes this bill proposes, we will increase the existing benefits to U.S. universities and research institutions, and our private organizations involved in agricultural development. Our assistance programs, while primarily aimed at helping those abroad, can and should reflect our commitment to involve U.S. universities and businesses, with all of their expertise and experience, in making the world a healthier, more productive, and a safer place. Mr. President, here in the United States, we are experiencing a period of unprecedented growth. At a time in which we have so much, I believe that we have a moral obligation to share our blessings. This bill helps us to shift our priorities to reflect changing realities so that the generosity of the American people is as effective and targeted as possible.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my good friend Senator Hagel in introducing the Famine Prevention and Freedom from Hunger Improvement Act of 2000. The challenge facing developing nations whose people live in hunger today is no longer just how to increase food production. As we enter the new millennium, those countries must also confront the problems of inadequate income, lack of access to markets for both producers and consumers, and unsustainable natural resource management practices. One of the keys to all these issues must be a new, more productive relationship between educational institutions--here in the U.S. and in the affected countries--and their private partners involved in agricultural development. In short, they must become part of the new, higher-tech, international agricultural economy. This bill, an amendment to the Foreign Assistance Authorization Act, is designed to move us in that direction. Mr. President, when delegates from around the world gathered in Rome in 1996 for the World Food Summit, they pledged to reduce by half the number of people suffering from hunger by the year 2015. At that time the number of hungry people was estimated to be between 830 and 840 million. Now, four years later, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations estimates that there are 790 million people in the developing world who do not get enough the eat each day. This is positive news, but it is painfully evident that more needs to be done. Title XII of the FAA, Famine Prevention and Freedom from Hunger, was written in 1975, at a time when there was a significant level of famine and hunger in the world. Its aim was to involve U.S. universities in the fight to increase food production. Mr. President, that mission has achieved a large degree of success. It is time to go beyond the basic issue of production, to take on the further challenges of increasing access to markets, improving shipping and storage, promoting environmentally sustainable agriculture, and turning farming in developing nations from a subsistence activity into a source of income. The U.S. Action Plan on Food Security was developed to fulfill America's part of the 1996 commitment to cut in half the number of hungry persons by 2015. This plan includes several key priority areas, including strengthened research and educational capacity, increased liberalization of trade and investment, and greater attention to natural resource management and environmental degradation. This legislation furthers U.S. efforts by amending title XII of the Foreign Assistance Act to reflect these priorities. As a donor country, our task is to channel assistance into the areas in which it is most needed, and to use the most effective means to do so. American land and sea grant colleges have been engaged in agricultural research for years and, increasingly in the past decade, have partnered with private research institutions. In my own state of Delaware, Mr. President, both the University of Delaware and Delaware State University are engaged in just the kind of research that could benefit from the support this legislation will provide. I would wager, Mr. President, that most Americans are not aware of the many direct benefits that our country's foreign assistance programs can provide for us right here at home. Our commitment to reduce hunger in developing countries not only benefits those in need: with the changes this bill proposes, we will increase the existing benefits to U.S. universities and research institutions, and our private organizations involved in agricultural development. Our assistance programs, while primarily aimed at helping those abroad, can and should reflect our commitment to involve U.S. universities and businesses, with all of their expertise and experience, in making the world a healthier, more productive, and a safer place. Mr. President, here in the United States, we are experiencing a period of unprecedented growth. At a time in which we have so much, I believe that we have a moral obligation to share our blessings. This bill helps us to shift our priorities to reflect changing realities so that the generosity of the American people is as effective and targeted as possible.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. When she was attorney general, she helped write it.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I understand the passion the Senator feels. It is particularly difficult to go through this kind of thing when it is someone from your home State being so shabbily treated. I empathize with him. I might say parenthetically, Bonnie Campbell--and we are not being colloquial calling her Bonnie. People might be listening and saying, well, if this were a male, would they call him Johnny Campbell? Bonnie Campbell is what she is known as. So we are not making up pet names here. This is Bonnie Campbell. This is a woman who has been an incredible lawyer, a first-rate attorney general in one of the States of the United States. She has run an office that, at its inception, didn't have a single employee, didn't have a single guideline, didn't have a single penny when she came in. She has done it in a fashion, as the Senator said, that the ABA thinks she is first rate. Coincidentally, this will cause controversy, but we seem to hold up people of color and women for the circuit court. They tend to get slowed up more than others around here. It simply is not right. This is a woman who is as mainstream as they come, who is well educated. If anybody has a judicial temperament, this person has it.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I will join the Senator in whatever way he wants, as many times as he wants. I can't say enough good about Attorney General Campbell, and I have known her for a long time.

Mr. BIDEN. This is in the waning hours. This last one, we were literally going out of session. I mean, we could have shut this place down easily and walked away and pretended to have a clear conscience and said: We have done the Nation's work. To be fair about it, there were three members of our caucus who ripped me a new ear in the caucus for doing this, three of them. Two are gone; one is still around. No, we shouldn't do this. But this is an example of what happens. I have been here since 1972. It started in October of the 1972 election. I wasn't here in the 1972 election. Then in the 1976 election, they started to hold up judges. They started holding up judges somewhere around September. And then it moved; by the 1980 election, they were being held up in July. This year, our Republican friends started 18 months ago to hold these folks up. This is what I am worried is going to happen, and I will end with this. I am worried if we take back this place, we are going to have a lot of new women and men in this place say: Hey, the Republicans did that. Mark my words. You will have a bunch of Democratic Senators who have no institutional memory out here--if we have a Republican President and a Democratic Senate--holding up Republican judges a year out. This is bad, bad, bad precedent. This is not a good thing to do.

Mr. BIDEN. Isn't that amazing--415 votes? You only get that on resolutions, say, for motherhood and the flag.

Mr. BIDEN. I have too much of it, unfortunately.

Mr. BIDEN. The point that is important to make for people who may be listening is that we Democrats controlled the committee. I remember this case explicitly because I got walloped. I ran for the Senate because of civil rights, and I got walloped because I held a hearing. Every liberal group in the country castigated me for holding the hearing. And then we referred Judge Carnes to the Senate--get this--in September of the election year; we confirmed a very controversial judge. So, again, I understand the point the Senator is making. I just think this is a terrible precedent that we are continuing to pile on here. I think there is going to be a day when the nature of this place--as my Republican friends told me: What goes around comes around. That is a nice political axiom, but it is not good for the courts. We have a fiduciary responsibility under the Constitution to deal with the third coequal branch of the Government. We are not doing it responsibly. What the Senator hasn't mentioned and won't go into because the floor staff wants me to make a request here--but that doesn't even count. The District Court judges, where there are serious emergencies that exist because they cannot try the civil cases because the criminal cases are so backed up, we have held up for over a year.

Mr. BIDEN. I was chairman for every one of these people. I can probably give you the names of all nine of these people.

Mr. BIDEN. That is right.

Mr. BIDEN. I think the long answer to a very short question is, this is an outrage. It is an outrage that she is not on the bench now. And I would hope that sanity would prevail.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Absolutely.

Mr. BIDEN. I thank my colleague. Mr. President, I will not go through the whole of my statement. Let me just make a few other points. I must say I compliment the Chair for his work and his, not only intellectual dedication but, it seems to me, passionate commitment to do something about the international sex trafficking occurs. This is a women's issue internationally. I suspect he feels the same way I feel about this legislation. I suspect he believes there is probably not much more that he has done that is as tangible and might affect the lives of people, that you could look to, you could count, you could touch, you could see. When I said there are a lot of calls, literally over half a million women, over 500,000 women have picked up the phone and called, probably huddled in the dark in the corner of their closet or their room, hoping their husband or significant other is not around, and said in a whisper, ``Help me, help me''--given their name and address and said, ``Help me.'' Think of that. Think of that. A half a million women have picked up the phone. How many more have not picked up the phone? The thing we should be aware of--and I know the Chair knows this--it is counterintuitive to think a child who watches his mother being beaten to a pulp would then beat his wife or girlfriend later. That is counterintuitive. Wouldn't you think that would be the last thing a child would do? But the psychologists tell us it is the first thing. They learn violence is a readily available and acceptable means of resolving power disputes. You know, as the Chair I am sure knows--I am not being solicitous because of his work in this generic field--about 60 percent of the people in prison today have been abused or were in families where they witnessed abuse. This is not rocket science. I hope we get on with it. There are a few things I want to mention. This bill does not merely reauthorize what we have done. I made a commitment, when I wrote this bill and we finally got it passed as part of the Biden crime bill, that I would go back and look at it--and others have, too, but personally since I was so involved in it--and the parts that were working I would try to beef up; the parts that were weak and did not make sense, I would jettison. In the reauthorization, I would get rid of them. I hope my colleagues will see we have kept that commitment. We take the parts we found were lacking in our first bill and we, in fact, beefed them up. We kept the police training, the court training, and all those issues. We kept the violent crime reduction trust fund which, by the way, gets about $6.1 billion a year from paychecks that are not going to Federal employees anymore and go into this trust fund. It trains attorneys general and the rest. What it does beyond all it has already been doing is it provides for transitional housing for women. We have over 300,000, in large part thanks to Senator Specter from Pennsylvania, who has been so dedicated in his appropriations subcommittee to this. We have built all these new shelters. We do not send women to shantytowns. This is decent housing with anonymity, giving them an opportunity to get out from under the male fist abusing them, and they can bring their children with them. Seventy percent of children on the street are homeless because their mothers are on the street, a victim of domestic violence. We realized there is a gap here because there are so many women knocking down the door to get into these shelters to get out of abusive circumstances. We can only keep them there for 30 days, 60 days, sometimes longer. They cannot go back home because their husband has either trashed the home or tried to sell the home or they have to move back in with the husband. We tried to find some transitional housing that takes them down the road for the next couple of years and gives them some hope. We also beef up cross-State protection orders. For example: God forbid there is a woman staffer in ear shot and she lives in Virginia or Maryland or a nearby State and she went to the court and said: Look, my husband or my boyfriend or this man has harassed me or beaten me, and I want him to stay away from me. The court issues what they call stay-away orders, victim protection orders. That woman may work in the District of Columbia. Now she crosses the line from Virginia or Maryland into D.C., and she gets harassed. The man violates the order, and she goes to a D.C. cop or D.C. court. They do not have any record of it. There is no record or they do not honor it. I am not talking about D.C. particularly. One State does not honor another State. What we have done is beefed up the requirement that States honor these stay-away orders when women cross the line, literally cross a State line, cross a jurisdictional line. There is a very well-known reporter at the Washington Post--although he has written about this, I am not going to take the liberty of using his name without his permission. His daughter was in a similar situation in Massachusetts. She was abused by someone. A stay-away order was issued. She was in Massachusetts. She was in a different county. The man, in fact, violated the order. They went into a local court. The local court, because there were not computerized records, did not know there was a State stay-away order. By the way, the stay-away order says if you violate the order, you go to jail. If a man follows a woman into a different jurisdiction and the jurisdiction knows that order exists and he violates the order, they can arrest him and send him to jail on the spot because it is part of the probation, in effect, to stay away. It is part of the sentence, if you will; not literally a sentence. They can put him in jail. George's daughter said: This guy has an order. He is not supposed to be near me. The judge said: We have no record of that order because they are not computerized for interchange of these records. They walked outside the courtroom, and this man shot her dead. He shot dead on the spot the daughter of this famous Washington reporter because there was not the honoring, even within the State, of these orders. We beefed that up. By the way, in my State of Delaware, which has a relatively low murder rate, 60 percent of all the people murdered in the last 2 years were women murdered by their husband or their boyfriend. Did my colleagues hear what I just said? Murdered by their husband or boyfriend. The vast majority of women who are murdered in America are murdered by a significant other or their husband. This is not a game. We are now in a position where there is, in fact, no authorization for the continuation of this law for which we worked so hard. Come October 1, which is what, how many days? Today is the 26th. The point is, in less than a week, this law is out of business. I have much more to say about this, but I will not take the time of the Senate now. I am encouraged, I am heartened by what the House did. I am encouraged by what Senator Lott said to me today on the floor, and I look forward to the opportunity to convince the leader to bring this up in whatever form that will allow us to pass it because, again, this is not a Republican or Democratic issue. This literally affects the lives of thousands and thousands of women.