Joe Biden

Mr. BIDEN

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. 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 have too much of it, unfortunately.

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

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

Mr. BIDEN. In fairness, 5 of those 14 judges were not confirmed. We laid out why, and there was a great controversy about it. We debated it and we laid out why. Again, I never question the right of the Senate or an individual Senator to say, I do not want so-and-so on the bench and I will tell you why and I will fight it. I got that. I got that. I understand that. That is what the advise and consent clause is about. But what I don't get is: Hey, you know, she is a Democrat, we are Republicans. We may win so we will not confirm anybody until we determine whether we win.

Mr. BIDEN. That is right.

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

Mr. BIDEN. Best of my knowledge. I don't do it day to day as I did before. Coincidentally, he was from Delaware.

Mr. BIDEN. In response to my friend, the answer is absolutely yes. I will tell him that because I was the one who authored that act. The President was very gracious in calling me and asking me who I would like to see be the one to oversee that office. I recommended one, and only one person, the former attorney general of the State of Iowa who helped me write the act in the first instance, Bonnie Campbell. I cannot tell you how disappointed, dismayed, and angry, quite frankly, I have been, as a member of the Judiciary Committee, about the fact that--I will be blunt about it--our Republican colleagues in the committee and here will not allow this woman to have a vote on the floor of the Senate. The ABA rates her highly. As you said, everyone I know in the Midwest who knows her, everyone, Republican and Democrat, likes her. I see my friend Slade Gorton on the floor. He knows a little bit about the process of picking judges. I am confident he and others, as my other colleagues in this room, would agree that qualified judges should not be kept from being on the bench for politics. People say: Well, this is the usual thing. We hold up these judges all the time near the end of a session when there is going to be a Presidential election. That is flat malarkey. Ask the Senator from Texas, Mr. Gramm, who is a good friend of mine. He and I are on opposite ends of the political spectrum. I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee. My friend from Iowa may remember this. We went into a caucus in the last 2 days when President Bush was the President of the United States. We were about to go out of session, as we say in the Senate, and adjourn sine die. What happened? We walked out onto the floor of the Senate. The Senator from Texas said he had several qualified judges in Texas, Republicans, and why were we holding them up. I went to our caucus and said: We should pass those judges. Several in our caucus, two who are no longer here, said they opposed this. I said: Well, you are going to have to oppose me to do it. On the floor of the Senate, the last day, the last hour, the last session, we passed those Texas judges. I will never forget, the reason I love him so much, the Senator from Texas, Mr. Gramm--who I kiddingly call ``Barbwire'' Gramm; we kid each other--he walked up on the floor and put his hand out to me and he said: Joe, I want to thank you. You are one of the nicest guys here-- that is not true--but he said: You are one of the nicest guys here. I want you to know one thing: I would never do it for you. That is literally a true story, and he will repeat that story for you. The truth is, it is not good politics. It is not good justice. It is not good anything, just to hold up somebody. By the way, it has been held up for a year. It is not as if they have held up this woman for the last 10 minutes, the last 10 days.

Mr. BIDEN. Look at Norm Stahl. Norm Stahl is in the first circuit, a New Hampshire judge. Norm Stahl was nominated in March. I held the hearing in June, and in June of that year, 1992, election year, we confirmed him. Justin Wilson didn't make it. There were reasons that that occurred, by the way. I can understand a political party saying: Hey, look, this nominee you have sent up is just not palatable to us. We in the majority will not vote for that person. We are flat not going to. I got that. I understand that. The deal I made honestly, straight up with President Bush--if he were here, he would acknowledge it, and my Republican colleagues on the committee will tell you--I said: Here is what I will do. If there is someone who is absolutely, positively going to be a fire storm, if they are brought up, I will flag that person as soon as you name him, tell you what the problem is, and tell you there is going to be a fight. And you can decide whether you want to go forward or not go forward. That is not the case with Bonnie Campbell. I ask the Senator a question: Has anyone come to him and said, the reason I am against Bonnie Campbell is she is incompetent, or the reason I am against Bonnie Campbell is because she doesn't have a judicial temperament, or the reason I am against Bonnie Campbell is she is just not a mainstream person? I mean, I haven't heard anybody tell me why they are against Bonnie Campbell. Have you?

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. 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. Yes.

Mr. BIDEN

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.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, on another matter which relates to another form of human rights, I wish to speak to the legislation we are going to bring up tomorrow, the Serbian Democratization Act of 2000. I am an original cosponsor of this legislation. I am told that tomorrow we are going to get a chance to deal with this issue. As everyone knows, Slobodan Milosevic is on the ropes. Despite Milosevic's massive systematic effort to steal Sunday's Yugoslav Presidential election, his state election commission had to admit that the opposition candidate Vojislav Kostunica won at least the plurality of the votes already counted; 48.22 percent to be exact. According to opposition poll watchers, Kostunica in all probability actually won about 55 percent of the vote, which would have obviated the need for a two-candidate second-round runoff with Milosevic, which now seems likely. It is still unclear whether the democratic opposition will go along with this semi-rigged, desperation plan of Milosevic's to hang on by rigging the runoff. Even if Milosevic loses the runoff and is forced to recognize the results of the election, he may still attempt to hold on to the levers of power through his control of the federal parliament and of the Socialist Party with its network of political cronies and corrupt businessmen. He may use the classic tactic of provoking a foreign crisis by trying to unseat the democratically elected, pro-Western government in Montenegro, a move I warned against on this floor several months ago. We will have to wait and see for a few days before knowing exactly how the situation in Yugoslavia is going to develop, but there is no doubt whatsoever as to who the primary villain in this drama is. It was, it is, and it continues to be Slobodan Milosevic, one of the most despicable men I have personally met, and, as everyone in this Chamber knows, a man who has been indicted by The Hague Tribunal for war crimes and is the chief obstacle to peace and stability in the Balkans. Therefore, it should be--and has been--a primary goal of U.S. foreign policy to isolate Milosevic and his cronies, and to assist the Serbian democratic opposition in toppling him. Earlier this year, with this goal in mind, the Serbian Democratization Act of 2000 was drafted in a bipartisan effort. It is particularly timely that the Senate consider this legislation tomorrow, precisely at the moment when the Serbian people have courageously voted against Milosevic's tyranny that has so thoroughly ruined their country during the last decade. I would like to review the main provisions of the legislation we will be voting on tomorrow and then propose alternative strategies for our relations with Serbia, depending upon the outcome of the elections. The act supports the democratic opposition by authorizing $50 million for fiscal year 2001 to promote democracy and civil society in Serbia and $55 million to assist the Government of Montenegro in its ongoing political and economic reform efforts. It also authorizes increasing Voice of America and Radio Free Europe broadcasting to Yugoslavia in both the Serbo-Croatian and Albanian languages. Second, the act prescribes assistance to the victims of Serbian oppression by authorizing the President of the United States to use authorities in the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to provide humanitarian assistance to individuals living in Kosovo for relief, rehabilitation, and reconstruction, and to refugees and persons displaced by the conflict. Third, the act we will vote on tomorrow codifies the so-called ``outer wall'' of sanctions by multilateral organizations, including the international financial institutions. I talked about this with Senator Voinovich of Ohio, and we agreed that we have to give the President more flexibility in this area. Fourth, it authorizes other measures against Yugoslavia, including blocking Yugoslavia's assets in the United States; prohibits the issuance of visas and admission into the United States of any alien who holds a position in the senior leadership of the Government of Yugoslavia of Slobodan Milosevic or the Government of Serbia and to members of their families; and prohibits strategic exports to Yugoslavia, on private loans and investments and on military-to- military cooperation. The act also grants exceptions on export restrictions for humanitarian assistance to Kosovo and on visa prohibitions to senior officials of the Government of Montenegro, unless that Government changes its current policy of respect for international norms. The act contains a national interest waiver for the President. The President may also waive the act's provision if he certifies that ``significant progress has been made in Yugoslavia in establishing a government based upon democratic principles and the rule of law, and that respects internationally recognized human rights.'' Clearly, if the democratic opposition triumphs in the current elections, the chances will increase dramatically that the President will exercise this waiver option. We, the Congress, are saying to the people of Serbia that they are our friends, not our enemies. It is their Government, it is Slobodan Milosevic that is the problem, not the Serbian people. Today in the Committee on Foreign Relations, we discussed at length with Madeleine Albright what we should be doing about Serbia. I have discussed it as well with Senator Voinovich. I see the Senator from Iowa is on the floor. He may be here for other reasons, but I know his keen interest in Serbia, the Serbian people, and the need for us to render assistance if they, in fact, move in the direction of democracy. The act calls for Serbia to cooperate with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. It also contains two important Sense of the Congress provisions. The first is that the President should condemn the harassment, threats, and intimidation against any ethnic group in Yugoslavia, but in particular against such persecution of the ethnic Hungarian minority in the Serbian province of Vojvodina. The second voices support for a fair and equitable disposition of the ownership and use of the former Yugoslavia's diplomatic and consular properties in the United States. Finally, in a move to facilitate the transition to democracy in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Congress authorizes the President to furnish assistance to Yugoslavia if he determines and certifies to the appropriate congressional committees that a post-Milosevic Government of Yugoslavia is ``committed to democratic principles and the rule of law, and that respects internationally recognized human rights.'' Mr. President, the Serbia Democratization Act offers the President ample flexibility in dealing with Serbia. If Milosevic should succeed in frustrating the will of the Serbian people by stealing this election, the act will give the President of the United States a complete kit of peaceful tools to continue to try to undermine his oppressive regime. If, on the other hand, the democratic opposition led by Mr. Kostunica manages to make its electoral victory stick, then the final provision of the act becomes the operative one in which we open up the spigot of increased assistance to a democratic Serbia. Obviously, this would be the preferred option. Unfortunately, however, foreign policy is rarely so black and white. The apparent winner of the election, Mr. Kostunica, is vastly preferable to Milosevic, but this may be a case of damning by faint praise. As many of my colleagues have heard me say on other occasions, I met Milosevic in Belgrade during the Bosnian war and called him a war criminal to his face. Not only is he a war criminal, but he is thoroughly corrupt and anti-democratic. Mr. Kostunica, by all accounts, is honest and democratic, a dissident in Communist times and a man with a reputation for probity. He seems, however, to represent a democratic, honest variant of a rather extreme Serbian nationalism. His language describing NATO's Operation Allied Force has been strident. Like Milosevic--and most other Serbian politicians--he calls for the return of Kosovo to Belgrade's rule. But I am prepared to have an open mind on what he said. I can understand why, in running for President, being labeled by Mr. Milosevic as the ``dupe of the West'' and ``a puppet of the United States,'' he would feel the need to openly condemn the United States. I also do not have a problem with the fact that he may have used tough language with regard to Kosovo. There is a difference between words and his actions. So I will have great problems with him if, in fact, he tries to again suppress the Kosovars, who, if he comes to power will probably increase their agitation for independence. Moreover, Kostunica has repeatedly said that if he is elected he would refuse to hand over The Hague those Serbs indicted by the International War Crimes Tribunal. To a large extent Kostunica's criticism of Milosevic's policies toward non-Serbs in the old Yugoslavia--Slovenes, Croats, Bosniaks, and Kosovars--is that those policies resulted in four failed wars. There is no indication, for example, that Kostunica would cut off Belgrade's support for the radical Bosnian Serbs who on a daily basis are trying to undermine the Dayton Agreement. Of course, as I have indicated earlier, Kostunica's policies must be seen in the context of an electoral campaign. Nonetheless, they do reflect what the traffic will bear. In other words, they reflect his view of contemporary Serbian society. During the Bosnian war and after it, I often stated publicly that in my opinion Croatian President Franjo Tudjman was cut from the same cloth as Milosevic--an aggressive, anti-democratic leader. The only reason I advocated helping to rebuild his army was because, unlike Serbia, Croatia did not represent a major threat to the region. In fact, in the summer of 1995 the reorganized Croatian Army provided the Bosnian Army and the Bosnian Croat militia the support necessary to rout the Bosnian Serbs and bring all parties to the negotiating table. Since Tudjman's death, Croatia has proven that beneath the surface of Tudjman's authoritarianism a genuine, Western-style democratic body politic survived. The newly elected government of President Stipe Mesic and Prime Minister Ivica Racan has utilized this mandate not only to enact domestic democratic reforms, but also to cut off support for the radical Herzegovina Croats who have done everything in their power to undo Dayton. The government has also taken the much less popular step of handing over to The Hague Tribunal several high-ranking Croats who were indicted for alleged war crimes. The United States has a great deal invested in a democratic, multiethnic Bosnia, and if Serbia and the rest of the world is lucky enough to be rid of Slobodan Milosevic, we should not give him an ex post facto victory by applying a looser standard of behavior on his successor than we have to Tudjman's successors in Croatia. To be blunt: respect for Dayton and cooperation with The Hague Tribunal must be litmus tests for any democratic government in Serbia. I fervently hope that Mr. Kostunica emerges victorious in the Yugoslav elections. If he does, the United States should immediately extend to him a sincere hand of friendship, with the assistance outlined in the pending legislation. We should make clear to him that if he chooses to cooperate with us, a ``win-win'' situation would result, with tangible benefits for the long-suffering and isolated Serbian people who, we should never forget, were this country's allies in two world wars during the twentieth century. If, on the other hand, Mr. Kostunica comes to power and thinks that his undeniable and praiseworthy democratic credentials will enable him to pursue an aggressive Serbian nationalist policy with a kinder face, then we must disabuse him of this notion. Should our West European allies choose to embrace a post-Milosevic, democratically elected, but ultra-nationalistic Serbia, then I would say to them ``good luck; we'll concentrate our policy in the former Yugoslavia on preparing democratic and prosperous Slovenia for the next round of NATO enlargement, on continuing to help reconstruct Bosnia and Kosovo, and on supporting the democratic governments in Macedonia, Croatia, and Montenegro.'' Mr. President, the long-frozen, icy situation in Serbia appears finally to be breaking up. I genuinely hope that Serbia is on the verge of democracy. I urge my colleagues to support the Serbia Democratization Act of 2000 in order to enable our government peacefully to deal with any eventuality in that country.

Mr. BIDEN. I yield to the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I understand that S. 3107, introduced earlier today by Senator Graham of Florida, is at the desk. I ask for its first reading.

Mr. BIDEN. I now ask for its second reading and object to my own request.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today the United States Senate has passed the Children's Health Act of 2000, an Act which will have a far-ranging impact on the health of America's youth. This legislation not only addresses juvenile arthritis, diabetes, asthma and other childhood diseases, but it also takes important steps to address what I would argue is a public health epidemic for both children and adults-- substance abuse and addiction. The Children's Health Act reauthorizes the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), the federal agency devoted to substance abuse prevention and treatment services as well as a wide range of mental health programs. The bill also includes three important drug bills which I have cosponsored: the Methamphetamine Anti- Proliferation Act, the Ecstasy Anti-Proliferation Act and the Drug Addiction Treatment Act. The result is a comprehensive piece of legislation which includes the law enforcement, treatment and prevention services necessary to address substance abuse in the United States today. Mr. President, in 1996 I joined with my distinguished friend and colleague, Senator Hatch, to introduce the ``Hatch-Biden Methamphetamine Control Act'' to address the growing threat of methamphetamine use in our country before it was too late. Our failure to foresee and prevent the crack cocaine epidemic is one of the most significant public policy mistakes in recent history. We were determined not to repeat that mistake with methamphetamine. That 1996 Act provided crucial tools that we needed to stay ahead of the methamphetamine epidemic--increased penalties for possessing and trafficking in methamphetamine and the precursor chemicals and equipment used to manufacture the drug; tighter reporting requirements and restrictions on the legitimate sales of products containing precursor chemicals to prevent their diversion; increased reporting requirements for firms that sell those products by mail; and enhanced prison sentences for meth manufacturers who endanger the life of any individual or endanger the environment while making this drug. We also created a national working group of law enforcement and public health officials to monitor any growth in the methamphetamine epidemic. I have no doubt that our 1996 legislation slowed this epidemic significantly. But we are up against a powerful and highly addictive drug. The Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act--which I have cosponsored--builds on the 1996 Act. First and foremost, it closes the ``amphetamine loophole'' in current law by making the penalties for manufacturing, distributing, importing and exporting amphetamine the same as those for meth. After all, the two drugs differ by only one chemical and are sold interchangeably on the street. If users can't tell the difference between the two substances, there is no reason why the penalties should be different. The bill also addresses the growing problem of meth labs by establishing penalties for manufacturing the drug with an enhanced penalty for those who would put a child's life at risk in the process. We provide $20 million for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to reimburse states for cleaning up toxic meth labs and $5.5 million for the DEA to certify state and local officials to handle the hazardous byproducts at the lab sites. We also provide $15 million for additional law enforcement personnel--including agents, investigators, prosecutors, lab technicians, chemists, investigative assistants and drug prevention specialists--in High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas where meth is a problem. Also included in the bill is $6.5 million for new agents to assist State and local law enforcement in small and mid-sized communities in all phases of drug investigations and assist state and local law enforcement in rural areas. The bill also provides $3 million to monitor List I chemicals, including those used in manufacturing methamphetamine, and prevent their diversion to illicit use. Further, the legislation provides $10 million in prevention funds and $10 million for treating methamphetamine addiction, as well as much needed money for researching new treatment modalities, including clinical trials. It asks the Institute of Medicine to issue a report on the status of the development of pharmacotherapies for treatment of amphetamine and methamphetamine addiction, such as the good work that the scientists at the National Institute on Drug Abuse have done to isolate amino acids and develop medications to deal with meth overdose and addiction. The Children's Health Act also includes the ``Ecstasy Anti- Proliferation Act,'' a bill which Senators Graham, Grassley and Thomas and I introduced in May to address the new drug on the scene--Ecstasy, a synthetic stimulant and hallucinogen. The legislation takes the steps--both in terms of law enforcement and prevention--to address this problem in a serious way before it gets any worse. Ecstasy belongs to a group of drugs referred to as ``club drugs'' because they are associated with all-night dance parties known as ``raves.'' There is a widespread misconception that it is not a dangerous drug--that it is ``no big deal.'' I believe that Ecstasy is a very big deal. The drug depletes the brain of serotonin, the chemical responsible for mood, thought, and memory. If that isn't a big deal, I don't know what is. A few months ago we got a significant warning sign that Ecstasy use is becoming a real problem. The University of Michigan's Monitoring the Future survey, a national survey measuring drug use among students, reported that while overall levels of drug use had not increased, past month use of Ecstasy among high school seniors increased more than 66 percent. The survey showed that nearly six percent of high school seniors have used Ecstasy in the past year. This may sound like a small number, but put in perspective it is deeply alarming--it is five times the number of seniors who used heroin and it is just slightly less than the percentage of seniors who used cocaine. And with the supply of Ecstasy increasing as rapidly as it is, the number of kids using this drug is only likely to increase. So far this year, the Customs Service has already seized 9 million Ecstasy pills-- three times the total amount seized in all of 1999 and twelve times the amount seized in all of 1998. Though New York is the East Coast hub for this drug, it is spreading quickly throughout the country. In my home state of Delaware, law enforcement officials have seized Ecstasy pills in Rehoboth Beach and are noticing the emergence of an Ecstasy problem in Newark among students at the University of Delaware. The legislation directs the United States Sentencing Commission to increase the recommended penalties for manufacturing, importing, exporting or trafficking Ecstasy. The legislation also authorizes a $10 million prevention campaign in schools and communities to make sure that everyone--kids, adults, parents, teachers, cops, coaches, clergy, etc.--know just how dangerous this drug really is. We need to dispel the myth that Ecstasy is not a dangerous drug because, as I stated earlier, this is a substance that can cause brain damage and can even result in death. We need to spread the message so that kids know the risk involved with taking Ecstasy, what it can do to their bodies, their brains, their futures. Adults also need to be taught about this drug--what it looks like, what someone high on Ecstasy looks like, and what to do if they discover that someone they know is using it. Mr. President, I have come to the floor of the United States Senate on numerous occasions to state what I view as the most effective way to prevent a drug epidemic. My philosophy is simple: the best time to crack down on a drug with uncompromising enforcement pressure is before the abuse of the drug has become rampant. The advantages of doing so are clear--there are fewer pushers trafficking in the drug and, most important, fewer lives and fewer families will have suffered from the abuse of the drug. It is clear that Ecstasy use is on the rise and I am pleased that the Senate has acted today to address the escalating problem of this drug before it gets any worse. In addition to stopping the proliferation of new drugs, we also need to invest in treating those who are already addicted. More than ten years ago, in December 1989, I released a Senate Judiciary Committee Report entitled ``Pharmacotherapy: A Strategy for the 1990s.'' In this report I argued that there was scientific promise for medicines that might lessen an addict's craving for cocaine and heroin, as well as to reduce their enjoyment of those drugs. This report asked the question: ``If drug abuse is an epidemic, are we doing enough to find a medical `cure'?'' At the time, despite the efforts of myself and other members of Congress, the answer to that question was as clear as it was distressing: the nation was doing far too little to find medicines that treat the disease of drug addiction. To address this shortfall, I authored, along with Senator Kennedy, the Pharmacotherapy Development Act--which passed into law in 1992. The cornerstone of this Act was its call for a ten year, $1 billion effort to research and develop anti-addiction medications. I cannot think of a more worthwhile investment. There is no other disease that effects so many, directly and indirectly. We have 14 million drug users in this country, four million of whom are hard-core addicts. We all have a family member, neighbor, colleague or friend who has become addicted. We are all impacted by the undeniable correlation between drugs and crime--an overwhelming 80 percent of the men and women behind bars today have a history of drug and alcohol abuse or addiction or were arrested for a drug-related crime. It only makes sense to unleash the full powers of medical science to find a ``cure'' for this social and human ill. Ten years ago, the question was: ``Are we doing enough to find a `cure'?'' Unfortunately that question is still with us. But today we also have another question: ``Are we doing enough to get the `cures' we have to those who need them?'' We have an enormous ``treatment gap'' in this country. Only two million of the estimated 4.4 to 5.3 million people who need drug treatment are receiving it. That is why I have worked with Senators Hatch, Levin and Moynihan and Representative Biley to craft the ``Drug Addiction Treatment Act,'' a bill which creates a new system for delivering anti-addiction medications to patients who need them. Under the bill qualified doctors can be granted a waiver to prescribe certain Schedule III, IV and V medications from their offices. This is a significant step toward bridging the treatment gap. Right now we have some highly effective pharmacotherapies to treat heroin addiction and we are still working on developing similar medications for cocaine addiction. Access to currently available medications such as methadone and LAAM (Levo-Alpha Acetylmethadol) has been strangled by layers of bureaucracy and regulation. As a result, only 22 percent of opiate addicts are now receiving pharmacotherapy treatment. General McCaffrey and Secretary Shalala are leading the charge to fix that problem and I applaud their efforts. Under the legislation passed today, patients will be able to get new medications such a buprenorphine and a buprenorphine-naloxone combination product--which are now under review by the Food and Drug Administration--much like they can get other medications: a doctor prescribes them and the patient can get the medication from the local pharmacy. This new system helps to move drug treatment into the mainstream of medicine. The difficulties of distributing treatment medications to addicts not only hurts those who are not getting the treatment they need, but it also stifles private research. I have often bemoaned the fact that private industry has not aggressively developed pharmacotherapies. As we increase access to these drugs, we increase incentives for private investment in this valuable research. I am proud that the Senate has acted today to pass ``The Drug Addiction Treatment Act'' because it helps get new, promising anti- addiction medications get to those who need them. By allowing certain doctors to dispense Schedule III, IV and V drugs from their offices, the bill expands treatment flexibility and access and encourages others to develop similar medications. Mr. President, in passing the Children's Health Act today, the Senate has taken an important step to addressing the problem of substance abuse and all of the social ills that go along with it. I congratulate all of my colleagues who have worked on this legislation which will make an important contribution to public health and public safety in this country.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am extremely pleased that today the Senate is giving advice and consent to the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption, and approval to the related implementing legislation. The Senate's approval of these measures will send both of them to the President for his signature. This is good news for American parents looking to adopt overseas, and good news for the thousands of orphaned children overseas looking for loving homes. This treaty is important for a very simple reason--it will help facilitate international adoptions and provide important safeguards for children and adoptive parents. It is a good thing when the government can make things easier for its citizens--in this case, adoptive parents. An adoption is a joyous occasion, but the current system can be confusing and present uncertainties. The Hague Convention establishes a uniform system for adopting children from other countries--so that both adoptive parents and biological parents have the assurance that an adoption is being done right. The Hague Convention and the implementing bill also establish mechanisms for improved governmental oversight for international adoptions--in order to guard against fraud and other problems associated with such adoptions. The implementing legislation is the product of compromise between a number of people--the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Helms, Senator Landrieu, Senator Brownback, and myself, and several people in the other body, including Chairman Ben Gilman, and Representative Sam Gejdenson, Bill Delahunt, and Dave Camp. None of us got all that we wanted. But I believe we have a good product here. I want to express my appreciation to them and their staffs for the hard work that went into the drafting of this bill. Several people in the executive branch, too numerous to mention, also contributed greatly to this bill. Now the hard work of putting the promise of the Hague Convention into reality begins. The executive branch will have much to do in implementing this treaty, and Congress will have a duty to oversee this work closely. But today we are taking an important step for parents and children--a step about which we can all be proud.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Finally, I would like to point out that my support for permanent normal trade relations with China is based not just on an assessment of the economic benefits to the U.S., not just on the prospects for political reform in China, but also on the impact on our national security. As I discussed during the debate on the Thompson amendment at some length, improving our trade relations with China will help put the overall relationship on a sounder footing. We need to cooperate with China to rein in North Korea's nuclear missile ambitions, to prevent a destabilizing nuclear arms race in South Asia, and to combat the threats of international terrorism and narcotics trafficking. We cannot work effectively with China in these areas if we are treating them as an enemy in our trade relations. Let me quote General Colin Powell, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: ``I think from every standpoint--from the strategic standpoint, from the standpoint of our national interests, from the standpoint of our trading interests and our economic interests--it serves all of our purposes to grant permanent normal trading relations.'' So, with all due respect to my colleagues who have brought before us the images of the worst in China today, we must keep the full picture before us and keep our eye on the ball. China is changing. We must do what we can to encourage those changes. Can we control that change? Of course not. We know that not even those who currently hold the reins of power in China are confident that they can control the process that is now underway. What little we know of internal debate in China tells us that support for China's entry into the world Trade Organization is far from unanimous there. It is those who are most closely tied to the repressive, reactionary aspects of the current China who are most opposed to this profound step away from China's Communist past. I urge my colleagues who so rightly and so passionately seek change in China to pause and reflect on that. While we cannot dictate the future of China, we can--we must-- encourage China to follow a course that will make it a more responsible, constructive member of the community of nations. That is why I am proud of my sponsorship of legislation which created Radio Free Asia, and am pleased that the bill before the Senate includes increased support for the broadcast of independent news and analysis to the people of China. The opening of China--to investment, to trade, to travel, and yes, to foreign news sources--is a necessary ingredient to the process of economic reform and political liberalization. Some of my colleagues have argued that we must not cast our vote on PNTR simply on the promise of increased commercial opportunities for American corporations. I agree, Indeed, unlike some of my colleagues-- on both sides of this question, pro and con--I do not see the question of China's trade status simply in terms of the economic implications for the United States. I do not anticipate a dramatic explosion in American jobs, suddenly created to fuel a flood of exports to China. Nor do I see the collapse of the American manufacturing economy, as China, a nation with the impact on the world economy about the size of the Netherlands', suddenly becomes our major economic competitor. Both the opponents and proponents of PNTR, I believe, have vastly oversold the economic impact of this legislation. For the record, let me say a few things about that aspect of this issue. First and foremost, this vote will not determine China's entry into the WTO. With or without our vote of support here, China will become a member of the only international institution--created by and, yes, strongly influenced by, the advanced industrial economies of the world--in a position to formulate and enforce rules of fairness and openness in international trade. The issue for us is what role will we play in that process--will we put the United States on record in support of change in China's economic relations with the rest of the world? Will we put the United States on record in support of China's participation in a rules-based system whose basic bylaws will require fundamental changes in the state-owned enterprises, in the People's Liberation Army conglomerates that are the last bastions of the failed Chinese system? Or will we put ourselves on the sidelines, and on record in favor of the status quo? Will we accept the deal negotiated between the United States and China last year, in which China made every concession and we made none? Will we accept the deal which opens China's market to products such as Delaware's chemical and poultry exports, to Chrysler and General Motors exports? Or will we consign ourselves to the sidelines while other nations cherry-pick Chinese markets and are first out of the gate in building distribution and sales relationships there? Our course is clear. China's growing participation in the international community over the past quarter century has been marked by growing adherence to international norms in the areas of trade, security, and human rights. If you want to know what China looks like when it is isolated, take a look at the so-called Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. During those periods of modern Chinese history perhaps 20 million Chinese died of starvation, religious practice was almost stamped out entirely, and China supported Communist insurgents in half a dozen African and East Asian countries. I will cast my vote today in favor of change, in favor of closing that sad chapter in China's long history. Mr. President, I will cast my vote with Wang Dan, Dia Qing, Martin Lee, Chen Shui-bian, and the other courageous advocates for political and economic reform in China. Let us continue to seek change in China, to play our role in the search for a truly modern China.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the issue before the Senate today is not a mundane redefinition of China's status under our trade laws. Nor does it mark a profound shift in our policy toward the most populous nation on earth. The question before us--neither mundane, nor profound--is nonetheless of vital importance to the future or our relationship with China. Granting China PNTR and bringing China into the global trading regime continues a process of careful engagement designed to encourage China's development as a productive, responsible member of the world community. It is a process which has no guarantees, but which is far superior to the alternatives available to us. Our decision on normalizing trade with China is best understood in its historical context. The search for a truly modern China is now more than a 100 years old. It arguably began at the turn of the last century with the collapse of the Qing Dynasty and the birth of the Republic of China under Sun Yat-sen. The search has continued through Japanese invasion, a bloody civil war, the unmitigated disaster of the Great Leap Backwards), the social and political upheaval of the Cultural Revolution, and now through two decades of economic opening to the outside world. Viewed in this context, a vote for permanent normal trade relations says that we welcome the emergence of a prosperous, independent, China on the world stage. It also says we want China to be subject to stronger, multilateral rules of economic behavior--rules about international trade that will influence the structure of their internal social, economic, and political systems. Granting permanent normal trade status to China is not a new direction in our relationship with China, Mr. President, but it is an important change in the means we choose to pursue it. We have the opportunity to move some, but not all, of our dealings with China into a new forum; the forum of established, enforceable international trade rules. This will take our economic relationship to a new level; a level commensurate with the importance of our two economies to the world. As important as this legislation is to our overall relationship with China and to our aspirations for China, we must keep our expectations in check. The reality is that extending permanent normal trade relations to China will not magically cause China's leaders to protect religious freedom, respect labor rights, or adhere to the terms of every international nonproliferation regime. No single piece of legislation could accomplish those objectives: indeed, these changes ultimately must come from within China, with such encouragement as we can provide from outside. Some of our colleagues disagree on this point. They would have preferred that the China trade bill be turned into an omnibus China Policy Act. I understand their objectives and their frustration with the slow pace of reform in China. But amendments offered by Senator Smith of New Hampshire--covering such diverse issues as POW/MIA cooperation, forced labor, organ harvesting, etc.--and Senator Wellstone of Minnesota--conditioning PNTR on substantial progress toward the release of all political prisoners in China--pile too much onto this legislation. Moreover, those amendments would effectively hold the trade legislation hostage to changes in China which passing the trade bill would promote. This seems backwards to me. Other colleagues have such a deep reservations about trading with China that they proposed amendments which would essentially have taken the ``Permanent'' and the ``normal'' out of permanent normal trade relations. Amendments offered by the junior Senator from South Carolina, Senator Hollings, and the senior Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, reflect a deep ambivalence about the benefits to the United States of trading with China. As I will discuss later, I share the Senators' skepticism about the grandiose claims some have made about the economic benefits which will flow to the United States from this trade agreement. But we are not voting on whether to trade with China. We are voting on whether to lock in concessions by China to open its market to the United States. That is why I opposed their amendments. My opposition to efforts to turn this trade bill into an omnibus China Policy Act, and my opposition to efforts to take the ``P'' and the ``N'' out of PNTR, does not mean that I found all the amendments offered during the previous two weeks of debate without merit. Indeed, on their own merits, I would have supported a number of the amendments offered by my colleagues. If we had considered this legislation in May, June, or July, there might have been a realistic possibility of resolving differences between the House and the Senate versions of this bill. Under those circumstances, some amendments offered here in the Senate might well have been appropriate. For instance, Senator Feingold offered an amendment to improve the Congressional Executive Commission on China to be established under the terms of H.R. 4444. The modest changes in the commission suggested by the Senator from Wisconsin are reasonable, and include making sure that the commission produces concrete recommendations for action and that it reports equally to both the House and the Senate. I hope that we might revisit this issue to ensure that the special commission on China is as effective as it can be. Another Foreign Relations Committee colleague, Senator Wellstone, offered several meritorious amendments, including one endorsing the recommendations of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom with respect to China policy, and another requiring the President to certify that China is in compliance with certain memoranda of understanding regarding prohibition on import and export of prison labor products. We should seriously consider the input of the religious freedom commission and we should hold China accountable for its failure to implement agreements with the United States, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on these issues in the future. Finally, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee offered several amendments, including one expressing the sense of Congress condemning forced abortions in China. No member of Congress condones the practice of coerced abortion in China or anyplace else. Senator Helms, who opposes normalizing our trade with China, knows that, which is why he offered his amendment. Now I share the revulsion of the senior Senator from North Carolina toward forced abortion. It is beyond the pale. But I'm concerned--as I believe the Senator well knows--that his amendment would imperil the entire bill and risk a major setback in our efforts to achieve the very goals we both seek. Sadly, that is the predicament we find ourselves in now. By delaying consideration of this historic legislation until the last days of this Congress, the Republican leadership has effectively denied the Senate the opportunity to debate the merits of various amendments without also considering the impact that any amendment, no matter how reasonable, would have on the prospects of passing the trade bill during this session of Congress. So, I approach the pending vote on final passage with some frustration at the process, but which considerable confidence that extending permanent normal trade relations to China is in the best interests of both the United States and the people of China. I have listened carefully and respectfully to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and on both sides of this question. I share with many of my colleagues a feeling of deep dissatisfaction with the many deplorable aspects of China's domestic and foreign policies. But, for reasons I want to make clear today, I do not share the belief that by preserving the status quo in our relations with China we will see progress. This, in a nutshell, is the question before the Senate: shall we stick with the status quo? Or shall we join with virtually every other advanced economy in the world, and endorse the membership of China in a rule-based organization that will help to encourage many of the changes in Chinese behavior that the opponents of permanent normal trade relations say they want to see? While there are few simple answers to the many questions raised by China, one thing seems clear: If we don't like Chinese behavior now, why vote to preserve the status quo? The answer, say some of my colleagues, is that we must preserve the annual review of China's trade status to keep the spotlight turned on China. There are two problems with this answer, in my view. First, we have never, not once in the two decades of annual reviews of China's trade status, voted against renewal of normal trade relations. Not after the tragedy of Tiananmen Square, not after missile launches against Taiwan, not after so many other provocations, broken promises, and disappointments. Annual review of China's trade status is an empty threat--an excuse for a ritual that at one time may have served a purpose, but that no one can seriously argue today has an affect on China's behavior. The second problem with this argument lies in the premise that extending permanent normal trade relations to China means taking China out of the limelight. I submit to you that anyone who thinks China is going to escape scrutiny by the U.S. Congress and the American people just because it enjoys normal trading privileges with us doesn't know beans about politics. As I understand their arguments, those who will vote against normalizing our trade relationship with China believe China's foreign and domestic policies remain so objectionable under the system of annual review that we should not, as they put it ``reward'' China with permanent normal trade relations. But if there has been no improvement in China's human rights record over the past two decades, why should we persist in the fiction of annual review, repeating the empty threat that we might withdraw normal trade relations? What has the annual review gained us? I see the situation differently, Mr. President, I believe China is changing. China is far from the kind of country that we want it to be, or that its own long-suffering citizens are now working to build. But no single snapshot of unsafe working conditions, of religious and political repression, of bellicose pronouncements about Taiwan, will do justice to the fundamental shifts that are underway in China. An objective assessment of China over the past two decades reveals sweeping changes in almost every aspect of life--changes facilitated and accelerated by China's opening to the world. These changes are not the result of our annual review of China's trade status. The roots of change reach much deeper than that. China's leaders have consciously undertaken--for their own reasons, not ours--a fundamental transformation of the communist system that so long condemned their great people to isolation, poverty, and misery. They have been forced to acknowledge the failure of communism, and have conceded the irrefutable superiority of an open market economy. The result has been a marked improvement in living standards for hundreds of million of Chinese citizens. This growing prosperity for the Chinese people, in turn, has put China on a path toward ever greater political and economic freedom. The Chinese people, taking responsibility for their own economic livelihood, are demanding a greater voice in the governance of China. This is not just my analysis. This is also the view of people inside and outside of China who are struggling to deepen China's reforms and to extend them into the political arena. Dai Qing, a former Chinese rocket scientist turned political dissident and environmentalist, testified passionately in support of permanent normal trade relations before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in July. She said, ``PNTR will help reduce governmental control over the economy and society; it will help to promote the rule of law; and it will help to nourish independent political and social forces in China.'' Wang Dan, the Beijing University student who helped lead the Tiananmen Square protests and now lives in exile, says, ``Economic change does influence political change. China's economic development will be good for the East, as well as for the Chinese people.'' And Xie Wanjun, the Director of the Overseas Office of the China Democratic Party--a party banned within China--says, We support unconditional PNTR with China by the U.S. government. . . . We believe the closer the economic relationship between the United States and China, the more chance for the U.S. to politically influence China, the more chances to monitor human rights conditions in China, and the more effective the U.S. will be to push China to launch political reforms. Martin Lee, Chairman of Hong Kong's Democratic Party, supports China's entry into the World Trade Organization and the granting of permanent normal trade relations. ``The participation of China in WTO would not only have economic and political benefits, but would also serve to bolster those in China who understand that the country must embrace the rule of law. . . .'' And Chen Shui-Bian, Taiwan's democratically elected President, said last spring, We feel that a democratic China will contribute to permanent peace in this region. Therefore, we support U.S. efforts to improve relations with China. While we seek to normalize the cross-strait relationship, especially in the area of business and trade, we are happy to see the United States and China improve their economic relations. Therefore, I am willing to support the U.S. normalization of trade relations with the PRC. It's not must dissidents and leading Chinese democracy advocates who support PNTR. At this time, I ask unanimous consent to introduce into the Record recent statements by former Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and James Baker, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Christian Broadcasting Network Pat Robertson, former National Security Advisory Brent Scowcroft, and yes, even former President of the United Auto Workers and former U.S. Ambassador to China Leonard Woodcock, all of whom support extension of permanent normal trade relations to China.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, it has become increasingly apparent in today's society that a college education is no longer a luxury. In order for one to succeed in an ever-changing, high-tech world, a college education has become a near necessity. However, just as a college degree becomes increasingly vital in today's global economy, the costs associated with obtaining this degree continue to soar out of control. At the same time, the annual income of the average American family is not keeping pace with these soaring costs. Since 1980, college costs have been rising at an average of 2 to 3 times the Consumer Price Index. Now, in the most prosperous time in our history, it is simply unacceptable that the key to our children's future success has become a crippling burden for middle-class families. According to the United States Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, the average annual costs associated with attending a public 4-year college during the 1998-1999 school year, including tuition, fees, room, and board, were $8,018. For a private 4-year school these costs rose to an astonishing $19,970. and these are only the average costs, Mr. President. The price tag for just one year at some of the nations most prestigious universities is fast approaching the $35,000 range. In 1996, and again in 1997, I introduced the ``GET AHEAD'' Act (Growing the Economy for Tomorrow: Assuring Higher Education is Affordable and Dependable). My main goal in introducing this legislation was to help the average American family afford to send their children to college. Although this legislation never came before the full Senate for a vote, I was extremely pleased that a number of the provisions of the GET AHEAD Act--including the student loan interest deduction and the establishment of education savings accounts--were included as part of the 1997 tax bill. Additionally, two other provisions of that bill--the Hope Scholarship and the Lifetime Learning Credit--were based upon the core proposal of my GET AHEAD ACT--a $10,000 tuition deduction. The $10,000 tuition deduction is a proposal I have been advocating since I first announced my candidacy for the Senate 28 years ago. Today, I am building upon a proposal the President made in his State of the Union address earlier this year and am introducing legislation which would finally fully enact this proposal. The legislation I am introducing today will provide America's middle class families with up to $2,800 in annual tax relief for the costs associated with a higher education. This plan will give families the option of taking either an expanded Lifetime Learning Credit or a tax education of up to $10,000. Thanks to the 1997 tax bill, current law allows many American families to claim the Lifetime Learning Credit, currently a tax credit of up to 20 percent on the first $5,000 of higher education expenses-- meaning a tax credit of up to $1,000 per family per year. For 2003 and after, this will increase to a credit of up to 20 percent of the first $10,000 of higher education expenses--meaning a credit of up to $2,000 per family per year. The bill I am introducing today will expand this important tax credit to 28 percent on the first $5,000 of higher education expenses through 2002--amounting to a credit of up to $1,400. For the year 2003 and after, this will increase to a credit of up to 28 percent on the first $10,000 of higher education expenses--amounting to a credit of up to $2,000 per family per year. To give families the flexibility to choose the best approach for their own circumstances, my plan will give families the option of deducting these higher education expenses instead of taking the tax credit. My legislation will continue to ensure that these important educational tax breaks help support middle class families while increasing the income thresholds to $60,000 per year for individuals and $120,000 for couples. Mr. President, the dream of every American is to provide for their child a better life than they themselves had. A key component in attaining that dream is ensuring that their children have the education necessary to successfully complete in the expanding global economy. It is my hope that this legislation will help many American families move a step closer in achieving this dream and being able to better afford to send their children to college.