Joe Biden

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. If I may respond, unless I misunderstand still, that is a distinction with little difference. If I understand the way the legislation reads, the President will submit a report to Congress saying, I want to stay.

Mr. BIDEN. Then the Senator is saying there is no damage or war, there is no American being killed now, but we are going to pull the Americans out; but if there is war and carnage, again we will put them back in?

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I see my distinguished colleague, Senator Byrd, on the floor. I ask Senator Byrd a question, if he is willing. Is it his understanding that if we withdraw these forces and war erupts again in Kosovo, the President needs no Congressional authorization and he is preauthorized to use whatever force is necessary to bring peace and stability back to Kosovo? Is that the Senator's understanding?

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, let me rephrase that. I ask unanimous consent that after the managers and/or either party leader I be recognized to make my statement on Kosovo.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I would be happy to do that. But would I be able to appropriately ask unanimous consent that I be recognized first, unless the managers wish to be recognized, when we reconvene after our party caucuses?

Mr. BIDEN. I will do whatever the Senator would like me to do.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. I have no objection.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allotted 10 minutes, in addition to the time that is available.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I attended the Million Mom March with my wife. I do not think anyone should misunderstand the significance and consequence of so many mothers and a number of fathers giving up Mother's Day to make an important point. These were not a bunch of wild radicals. These were a bunch of moms from rural areas, inner cities, and suburban areas. They were black, they were white, Hispanic, Asian American. They were basically making a plea. As I stood there and listened, I was reminded of a quote attributed to John Locke speaking about someone he heard. He said: He spoke words that wept and shed tears that spoke. I do not know how anyone could have attended any significant portion of that march and not felt, as John Locke felt, listening to the words these women spoke that wept and the tears they shed that spoke volumes about the insanity of our policy. Irony of all ironies; the next day, on Monday, the Supreme Court hands down a decision, not about guns but about the protection and empowerment of women in society. Yesterday, in United States v. Morrison, the Supreme Court struck down a provision of an act that I spent 8 years writing and attempting to pass--six of which were in earnest--the so-called Violence Against Women Act. There is one provision of that act they struck down and only one provision. That is the provision that empowered women to take up their cause in Federal court to make the case they were a victim of sexual abuse because, and only because, of their gender and to sue their attacker for civil damages in Federal court; empowering women to not have to rely on the prosecutorial system or anyone else to vindicate the wrong that had been done to them if they can supply the proof. As the author of that act, I must tell my colleagues that I was disappointed by the Court's decision but, quite frankly, not surprised by it. I emphasize, though, the Morrison case struck down the civil rights cause of action women have in Federal court, no other part of the act. Nothing in the Court's decision yesterday affects the validity of any other provision, any other program, or the need to reauthorize these programs through my bill, the Violence Against Women Act II, which now has 47 cosponsors. Unfortunately, I believe the Court's ruling yesterday will have a significant impact on Congress' ability to respond to public needs in a way that has not been constrained since the 1930s. The Court has been inching toward this decision and this line of reasoning in case after case over the last several years. The Court has grown bolder and bolder in stripping the Federal Government of the ability to make decisions on behalf of the American people, part of the objectives of the Honorable Chief Justice, who believes in the notion of devolution of power and thinks that the Federal Government should have significantly less power. The Court's decision--and these have all been basically 5-4 decisions--in United States v. Lopez in 1995 struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act, a decision upon which the Court heavily relied in the Morrison case in striking down the civil rights remedy. In the case of Boerne v. Flores, a 1997 case, the Court struck down the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Again, this is not mostly about what act they like and do not like; it is about Congress' power. Those who thought we should not be dealing with guns were happy with the Lopez case substantively. Those who thought we should have more religious freedom in public places, our conservative friends--and I happen to agree with them on that point--were disappointed when the Supreme Court reached in and said as to section 5 of the 14th amendment, which is the provision which says the Congress shall determine how to enforce the 14th amendment, no, no, no, Congress is not the one; we--the Court--are going to decide. There, then, was another decision, the Supreme Court's watershed decision in the Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, a 1996 decision, and the cases that followed, in which the Court limited Congress' ability to authorize private citizens to vindicate Federal rights in lawsuits against their States, and that included the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Age Discrimination Act. Putting it in simple terms, if the State of Florida discriminated against somebody in State employment because of age in violation of the Federal act, the Court said: Sorry, Florida has immunity. A Federal Government cannot protect all Americans against age discrimination because of a new and novel reading of the 11th amendment. The Court's decision today is at peace with those rulings. Fundamentally, this decision is about power. Who has the power, the Court or the Congress, to determine whether or not a local activity, such as gender-motivated violence, has a substantial impact on interstate commerce? Yesterday the Court said it: The Court has this power--echoes of 1920 and 1925 and 1928 and 1930, the so-called Lockner era. I find it particularly striking the Court acknowledged in Morrison that in contrast to the lack of congressional findings supporting the law struck down in Lopez, the civil rights remedy is supported by numerous findings regarding the serious impact of gender-motivated violence on interstate commerce. I conducted 4 years of hearings to make that record. We showed overwhelmingly that the loss of dollars to the economy of women being battered and abused and losing work is billions of dollars. We showed overwhelmingly that women make decisions about whether to engage in a business that requires them to cross State lines based in significant part upon the degree to which they think they can be safe, based upon a survey of 50 State laws, and whether or not they adequately protect women as they do men against violence. The record is overwhelming. Nonetheless, instead of applying the rule they had traditionally applied in determining whether Congress has the right to be involved in what is a local matter, they came up with a new standard. Instead of applying the old standard of: Is there a rational basis for Congress to find, as they did, the traditional ``rational basis review'' to decide whether Congress' findings in this case were rational--and I cannot conceive of how they concluded they could not be--the Court simply disagreed with the findings, marking the first occasion in more than 60 years that the Court has rejected explicit factual findings by the Congress, supported by a voluminous record. They, in fact, explicitly rejected the findings that a given activity substantially affects interstate commerce. The Court justified the abandonment of the deference to Congress by declaring that whether particular activities sufficiently affect interstate commerce ``is ultimately a judicial rather than a legislative question.'' I could not disagree more fundamentally with the Court's ruling. Quite frankly, this will affect the Violence Against Women Act less than it is going to affect a whole lot of other things. The Supreme Court precedents have long recognized that Congress has the power to legislate with regard to local activities that, in the aggregate, have a substantial impact on interstate commerce. I personally believe Justice Souter, who wrote the principal dissent in this case, had it right when he explained that: [t]he fact of such a substantial effect is not an issue for the courts in the first instance, but for the Congress, whose institutional capacity for gathering evidence and taking testimony far exceeds ours. I am left wondering, where does the Court's decision leave Congress' formerly plenary power to remove serious obstructions to interstate commerce, whatever their source? It is reminiscent of the Lockner era when they said, by the way, you have those labor standards having to do with mining--mining is not interstate commerce. Then they came along and said production is not interstate commerce. Then they said manufacturing is not interstate commerce. Until midway in the New Deal, with the end of the Lockner era, they said: Woe, woe, woe; wait a minute, wait a minute. Unfortunately, this decision yesterday reads more as a decision written in 1930 than in the year 2000. As Justice Souter documented so well in his dissent, the Court appears to be returning to a type of categorical analysis of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause that characterized the pre-New Deal era, where, as I said, manufacturing, mining, and production were all held to be off limits despite their obvious impact on interstate commerce. Now it is a new standard: ``Economic activity'' versus ``noneconomic activity.'' If Congress can regulate activity with substantial effects on interstate commerce, then I, as Justices Souter and Breyer, do not understand what difference it makes whether the causes of those substantial effects on interstate commerce are in and of themselves commercial. In any event, suffice it to say that this type of formalistic, enclave analysis--where certain spheres of activity are held off limits to Congress--did not work in the 1930s and will work no better in the 21st century. Because it is impossible to develop judicially defined subject matter categories spelling out in advance what is in Congress' Commerce Clause power and what is out, I believe the dissenting Justices are correct that Congress, not the courts, must remain primarily responsible for striking the right Federal-State balance, and that the Members of Congress are institutionally motivated to strike that balance by virtue of the fact that we represent our States and local interests as well as the Federal interest. So why has the Court revived the form of analysis that so ill-served the Nation in the years leading up to the judicial crisis of 1937? Again, I find Justice Souter's explanation convincing: In both eras, the Court adopted these formalistic distinctions in interpreting the Commerce Clause in service of broader political theories shared by a majority of the Court's members. In the pre-New Deal era, that broader political theory was laissez faire economics; now it is the new federalism. In both instances, the Court has been eager to substitute its own judgment for that of the political branches democratically elected by the people to do their business. Those of you who are conservatives in this Congress, who say that you, in fact, want the democratically elected bodies making these decisions, I suggest to you that this is one of the most activist Courts we have had in 50 years. It is supplanting its judgment for the democratically elected branches of the Government. So have at it, conservatives. This judicially active Court is supplanting their judgment for the democratically elected bodies. Justice Stevens put it bluntly in his recent dissent in the recent age discrimination case. He said: The Court's federalism decisions constitute a ``judicial activism''--that is his quote, not mine--that is ``such a radical departure from the proper role of this Court that it should be opposed whenever an opportunity arises.'' This is one Senator who plans to keep up that opposition. Stay tuned, folks, because what this upcoming election is about is the future--the future--of the power of the elected branches of the Government versus the Court which is appointed for life. This is a conservative agenda that is being forced upon the democratically elected bodies, as it was in the 1920s. The next President is going to get to pick somewhere between one and three new Justices. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a speech I made on the Supreme Court and its changing direction be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Bennett Lowenthal, a State Department Pearson fellow on the staff of the Foreign Relations Committee, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of the consideration of S. 2521, the military construction appropriations bill.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, it is with mixed feelings that I will vote for passage of the Trade and Development Act of 2000. No one can look upon the scenes of human suffering in Africa today without recognizing the need for action. Whether it is the AIDS epidemic or the violence in Sierra Leone, the floods in Mozambique or the unacceptably slow progress toward democratization, Africa challenges the conscience--and threatens the health and security--of the rest of the world. We must respond. The bill before us today offers an initial response to the many interconnected problems on the African continent. I agree with the basic premise of the bill, that promoting sustainable economic growth, led by more open access to American markets, must be a key element in any strategy for Africa. And I must add here, Mr. President, that it is time for us to provide similar market openings to the nations of the Caribbean, who have faced a real disadvantage since the passage of NAFTA. But I will focus my brief remarks today on Africa, because when the legislation before us today was initially proposed, it offered us the opportunity to formulate a comprehensive policy for Africa. At the end of the day, I am afraid that what remains is only a first step. Mr. President, compared to the crushing problems facing the peoples of Africa, this bill is really very modest in terms of what it offers African countries in terms of duty free exports to the United States. While opening our markets must be part of any program of economic assistance for Africa, we should not mistake this bill for a complete policy. It may be that this bill has more symbolic value, as evidence of renewed interest in Africa, than any material impact on the many difficult and interconnected problems facing economic development there. Certainly, we should not let this bill become an excuse for self-congratulation or complacency. Some provisions, however, I hope will enable the United States government to enhance its trade and investment relationship with countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. The conference report directs the Administration to convene an annual trade and economic forum with the trade ministers of African countries. The key here is that in order to expand trade and investment, there must be a climate within African countries which create investor confidence. I believe that open, face to face dialogue with African Trade Ministers is vital if the United States is going to get its message across about issues such as the importance of transparency, and the guarantee of timely remedy to disputes through a judicial process that is open and fair. In addition, the report increases the number of foreign commercial service officers. Currently, we have fewer than 10 such officers for the more than forty countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Clearly this is inadequate. These officers are responsible for identifying opportunities for small to medium U.S. businesses to export their goods and services to African countries, as well as providing information on economic conditions and investment climate factors which enable them to make better decisions on where and when to invest. One of the most glaring weaknesses of this legislation, Mr. President, is that it does not adequately address the HIV/AIDS crisis in Sub-Saharan Africa, so eloquently described by Senator Feinstein and Senator Feingold yesterday in their moving statements. Some of my colleagues do not believe that a trade bill should attempt to speak to the issue of HIV/AIDS. I believe that we are talking about a disease that is so virulent, so deadly and so pernicious that any plan for economic development in Africa will inevitably fail if this epidemic is not contained. If only because of the very real threat that this epidemic carries for our own health and security, Congress must take any and all opportunity we have to provide help to this region in fighting this dreaded disease. That is why, Mr. President, I was extremely disappointed that the Feinstein-Feingold amendment to the Senate bill was dropped without any provision put in its place which would offer effective assistance to Africans as they fight this deadly disease. In March, the Foreign Relations Committee unanimously passed an authorization bill which provided $300 million dollars for a program-- based on work by Senators Frist and Kerry--of vaccines to fight the spread of HIV/AIDS. Although the conference on the bill before us today was conducted under the jurisdiction of the Finance and Ways and Means Committees, it declined to take action on the tax credits for vaccine research, production, and distribution that would have complemented those steps we took in the Foreign Relations Committee. That was another opportunity lost, Mr. President, and another reason why the celebration over passage of this bill should be muted, at best. I see some hope in today's Wall Street Journal, which reports that several major drug companies have announced plans to cut the cost of AIDS drugs in the developing world. I hope we will see some real results following from this announcement. Voluntary action of this sort can and should be part of any comprehensive plan to address this crisis of historic proportions. This conference report also states that it is the sense of the Congress that the nations of Sub-Saharan Africa should receive substantial debt relief. I must point out that the Foreign Relations Committee has passed authorizations for the use of the proceeds of gold revaluations at the IMF as well as the U.S. share of the trust fund that will be set up for the new, enhanced debt relief program for the poorest nations of the world. The nations of Sub-Saharan Africa will be among the chief beneficiaries of that program. I am glad to see that, with passage of this legislation, that Congress stands behind this debt relief program. I hope that the Appropriations Committee will soon provide the funds for us to put some money behind those sentiments, and that the Banking Committee will quickly conclude its work on the remaining authorization needed to put the debt relief program into motion. In the end, while I understand and sympathize with some of the complaints raised by those who will vote against the bill, I prefer to see this glass as half full. But this is still a pretty small glass, Mr. President.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join Senator Daschle and 31 of my colleagues in introducing the Medicare Expansion for Needed Drugs Act. This important legislation would expand the Medicare program to provide outpatient prescription drug coverage for seniors and other Medicare beneficiaries. This bill is long overdue, one might say 35 years overdue. When Medicare was first crafted in the mid 1960's, life-saving medicine tended to be focused on surgical procedures: appendectomy, mastectomy, and so forth. Medications were being increasingly used to treat serious medical conditions, such as antibiotics to treat infections. However, for most illnesses, the medicine cabinet contained few options. The advances that have been made in the past 4 decades in the use of pharmaceuticals are nothing short of phenomenal. Diseases that were incurable by any means are now cured by drugs alone. For example, in 1965, childhood leukemia was inevitably fatal. Now, thanks to new medicines, it is almost always curable. In addition, in many instances new medications have enabled us to avoid the need for surgical treatment altogether. In 1965, intractable pain from stomach ulcers was a common indication for surgery. In 2000, we have highly effective medications to cut down on stomach acid, which have virtually eliminated the need for that kind of surgery. Not only that, but since we have discovered that most stomach ulcers are really due to a bacterium, we can cure the condition entirely with antibiotics. However, all too often, the elderly and disabled cannot take advantage of these major advances in drug treatment because the Medicare program does not pay for outpatient prescription drugs. How ridiculous is that?: that the group in our society that is the sickest, that could benefit most from these medications, is the one group that is denied access to them. You would be hard pressed to name another health program in this country that doesn't pay for outpatient prescription drugs. Virtually all private health plans do. Even looking at the Federal government: Medicaid, Tricare, the VA, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, they all pay for prescription drugs. Only Medicare, the medical program for the elderly and disabled, is singled out for special limitations. What is the consequence of this Medicare limitation? Just two weeks ago, the New York Times had a cover story on the plight of Albert Russell, a retiree who lives on an $832 Social Security check. Mr. Russell is nearly blind from glaucoma, a condition in which the pressure inside the eye is too high. When the new drug Xalatan was released in 1996, Mr. Russell's eye doctor tried it and found that it was just what Mr. Russell needed; it reduced the pressure in his eyes better than the alternatives. The problem was the cost of the drug: $1 per day. After several years on the medicine, Mr. Russell could no longer afford the cost, so he had to stop taking the medicine. Of course, Medicare would not pay for such an outpatient prescription drug. In an attempt to save Mr. Russell's vision, his eye doctor recommended an alternative: an expensive eye surgery. For Mr. Russell, the surgery would not be as effective as the medication, but there was one big factor in its favor: Medicare would have no reluctance about paying for the surgery. So, as compared to surgery, the medication would be better and easier for Mr. Russell, and probably cheaper in the long run for the taxpayer, but under the current Medicare situation, this common sense solution is out-of-bounds. This situation must be changed. So what's in this bill for consumers? The bill makes prescription drug coverage voluntary and available to all Medicare beneficiaries. There is no deductible required, and there is an out-of-pocket cap that puts an absolute maximum limit on how much one person will have to pay for drugs in any given year. Participants pay a monthly premium, and the government splits the cost of drugs 50/50 with the beneficiary (up to a gradually increasing limit). There is absolutely no question that this bill is an important improvement for the health of our seniors. I think it is important to keep in mind what this bill is not. First, it is not perfect. The coverage for prescription drugs is not in parity with coverage for alternative medical treatments, such as surgery. This difference reflects cost constraints, but I am optimistic that this aspect can be addressed in future legislation. Second, this bill is not for everyone. Individuals who have better coverage of prescription drugs than is afforded in this bill, perhaps through an employer-sponsored retiree health plan, can keep that coverage. In fact, employers will be offered subsidies to encourage them to maintain prescription drug coverage for their retirees. Third, this bill is not a prelude to price controls on drugs. The legislation makes no mention of or need for price controls, and it is not our intention to propose or implement price controls. This bill deals primarily with access to pharmaceuticals, not their cost. The high cost of medications is a concern to many of us in this country, but that is a very complex problem that is not, and should not be, addressed in this bill. Finally, this bill is not the comprehensive overhaul of the Medicare program that we all agree is needed. The 1965 program needs to be brought up to new millennium standards to make it easier for the program to keep up with rapid future advances in medical technology. The benefit package (including enhanced preventive measures), the financing of graduate medical education, the provider payment mechanisms; these are all items that must be addressed. But not in this bill. Seniors need help now with prescription drugs, and they cannot wait the months or years that it will take to complete the needed comprehensive revision of Medicare. Mr. President, I encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to work together to enact this legislation and to make sure that our Medicare beneficiaries aren't relegated to a second class health care system.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join Senator Daschle and 31 of my colleagues in introducing the Medicare Expansion for Needed Drugs Act. This important legislation would expand the Medicare program to provide outpatient prescription drug coverage for seniors and other Medicare beneficiaries. This bill is long overdue, one might say 35 years overdue. When Medicare was first crafted in the mid 1960's, life-saving medicine tended to be focused on surgical procedures: appendectomy, mastectomy, and so forth. Medications were being increasingly used to treat serious medical conditions, such as antibiotics to treat infections. However, for most illnesses, the medicine cabinet contained few options. The advances that have been made in the past 4 decades in the use of pharmaceuticals are nothing short of phenomenal. Diseases that were incurable by any means are now cured by drugs alone. For example, in 1965, childhood leukemia was inevitably fatal. Now, thanks to new medicines, it is almost always curable. In addition, in many instances new medications have enabled us to avoid the need for surgical treatment altogether. In 1965, intractable pain from stomach ulcers was a common indication for surgery. In 2000, we have highly effective medications to cut down on stomach acid, which have virtually eliminated the need for that kind of surgery. Not only that, but since we have discovered that most stomach ulcers are really due to a bacterium, we can cure the condition entirely with antibiotics. However, all too often, the elderly and disabled cannot take advantage of these major advances in drug treatment because the Medicare program does not pay for outpatient prescription drugs. How ridiculous is that?: that the group in our society that is the sickest, that could benefit most from these medications, is the one group that is denied access to them. You would be hard pressed to name another health program in this country that doesn't pay for outpatient prescription drugs. Virtually all private health plans do. Even looking at the Federal government: Medicaid, Tricare, the VA, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, they all pay for prescription drugs. Only Medicare, the medical program for the elderly and disabled, is singled out for special limitations. What is the consequence of this Medicare limitation? Just two weeks ago, the New York Times had a cover story on the plight of Albert Russell, a retiree who lives on an $832 Social Security check. Mr. Russell is nearly blind from glaucoma, a condition in which the pressure inside the eye is too high. When the new drug Xalatan was released in 1996, Mr. Russell's eye doctor tried it and found that it was just what Mr. Russell needed; it reduced the pressure in his eyes better than the alternatives. The problem was the cost of the drug: $1 per day. After several years on the medicine, Mr. Russell could no longer afford the cost, so he had to stop taking the medicine. Of course, Medicare would not pay for such an outpatient prescription drug. In an attempt to save Mr. Russell's vision, his eye doctor recommended an alternative: an expensive eye surgery. For Mr. Russell, the surgery would not be as effective as the medication, but there was one big factor in its favor: Medicare would have no reluctance about paying for the surgery. So, as compared to surgery, the medication would be better and easier for Mr. Russell, and probably cheaper in the long run for the taxpayer, but under the current Medicare situation, this common sense solution is out-of-bounds. This situation must be changed. So what's in this bill for consumers? The bill makes prescription drug coverage voluntary and available to all Medicare beneficiaries. There is no deductible required, and there is an out-of-pocket cap that puts an absolute maximum limit on how much one person will have to pay for drugs in any given year. Participants pay a monthly premium, and the government splits the cost of drugs 50/50 with the beneficiary (up to a gradually increasing limit). There is absolutely no question that this bill is an important improvement for the health of our seniors. I think it is important to keep in mind what this bill is not. First, it is not perfect. The coverage for prescription drugs is not in parity with coverage for alternative medical treatments, such as surgery. This difference reflects cost constraints, but I am optimistic that this aspect can be addressed in future legislation. Second, this bill is not for everyone. Individuals who have better coverage of prescription drugs than is afforded in this bill, perhaps through an employer-sponsored retiree health plan, can keep that coverage. In fact, employers will be offered subsidies to encourage them to maintain prescription drug coverage for their retirees. Third, this bill is not a prelude to price controls on drugs. The legislation makes no mention of or need for price controls, and it is not our intention to propose or implement price controls. This bill deals primarily with access to pharmaceuticals, not their cost. The high cost of medications is a concern to many of us in this country, but that is a very complex problem that is not, and should not be, addressed in this bill. Finally, this bill is not the comprehensive overhaul of the Medicare program that we all agree is needed. The 1965 program needs to be brought up to new millennium standards to make it easier for the program to keep up with rapid future advances in medical technology. The benefit package (including enhanced preventive measures), the financing of graduate medical education, the provider payment mechanisms; these are all items that must be addressed. But not in this bill. Seniors need help now with prescription drugs, and they cannot wait the months or years that it will take to complete the needed comprehensive revision of Medicare. Mr. President, I encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to work together to enact this legislation and to make sure that our Medicare beneficiaries aren't relegated to a second class health care system.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I have the honor of submitting a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that the Department of Education develop and disseminate educational materials and programs designed to make students in elementary and secondary schools aware of the contributions of veterans and their importance in preserving American peace and prosperity. The resolution also designates the week that includes Veterans Day as ``National Veterans Awareness Week'' to serve as a focus for these educational activities. Why do we need such an educational effort? In a sense, this action has become necessary because we are victims of our own success with regard to the superior performance of our Armed Forces. The plain fact is that there are just fewer people around now who have had any connection with military service. For example, as a result of tremendous advances in military technology and the resultant productivity increases, our current Armed Forces now operate effectively with a personnel roster that is one-third less in size than just 10 years ago. In addition, the success of the all-volunteer career-oriented force has led to much lower turnover of personnel in today's military than in previous eras when conscription was a place. Finally, the number of veterans who served during previous conflicts, such as World War II, when our military was many times larger than today, is inevitably declining. The net result of these changes is that the percentage of the entire population that has served in the Armed Forces is dropping rapidly, a change that can be seen in all segments of society. Whereas during World War II it was extremely uncommon to find a family in America that did not have one of its members on active duty, now there are numerous families that include no military veterans at all. As a consequence of this lack of opportunity for contacts with veterans, many of our young people have little or no connection with or knowledge about the important historical and ongoing role of men and women who have served in the military. This omission seems to have persisted despite ongoing educational efforts by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the veterans service organizations. This lack of understanding about military veterans' important role in our society can have potentially serious repercussions. In our country, civilian control of the Armed Forces is the key tenet of military governance. A citizenry that is oblivious to the capabilities and limitations of the Armed Forces, and to its critical role throughout our history, can make decisions that have unexpected and unwanted consequences. Even more important, general recognition of the importance of those individual character traits that are essential for military success, such as patriotism, selflessness, sacrifice, and heroism, is vital to maintaining these key aspects of citizenship in the Armed Forces and even throughout the population at large. Among today's young people, a generation that has grown up largely during times of peace and extraordinary prosperity and has embraced a ``me first'' attitude, it is perhaps even more important to make sure that there is solid understanding of what it has taken to attain this level of comfort and freedom. The failure of our children to understand why a military is important, why our society continues to depend on it for ultimate survival, and why a successful military requires integrity and sacrifice, will have predictable consequences as these youngsters become of voting age. Even though military service is a responsibility that is no longer shared by a large segment of the population, as it has been in the past, knowledge of the contribution of those who have served in the Armed Forces is as important as it has ever been. To the extent that many of us will not have the opportunity to serve our country in uniform, we must still remain cognizant of our responsibility as citizens to fulfill the obligations we owe, both tangible and intangible, to those who do serve and who do sacrifice on our behalf. The importance of this issue was recently brought home to me by Samuel I. Cashdollar, a 13-year-old seventh grader at Lewes Middle School in Lewes, Delaware, who recently won the Delaware VFW's Youth Essay Contest with a powerful presentation titled ``How Should We Honor America's Veterans?'' Samuel's essay points out that we have Nurses' Week, Secretaries' Week, and Teachers' Week, to rightly emphasize the importance of these occupations, but the contributions of those in uniform tend to be overlooked and many businesses remain open on Veterans Day. In a time when, for some, Veterans Day has simply become an excuse for another department store sale, we need to make sure that we don't become a nation where more high school seniors recognize the name Britney Spears than the name Dwight Eisenhower. Now, it is appropriate to ask, ``We already have Veterans Day, why do we need National Veterans Awareness Week?'' Historically Veterans Day was established to honor those who served in uniform during wartime. Although we now customarily honor all veterans on Veterans Day, I see it as a holiday that is focused on honoring individuals, the courageous and selfless men and women without whose actions our country would not exist as it does. National Veterans Awareness Week would complement Veterans Day by focusing on education as well as commemoration, on the contributions of the many in addition to the heroism and service of the individual. National Veterans Awareness Week would also present an opportunity to remind ourselves of the contributions and sacrifices of those who have served in peacetime as well as in conflict; both groups work unending hours and spend long periods away from their families under conditions of great discomfort so that we all can live in a land of freedom and plenty. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to support this resolution; our children and our childrens' children will need to be well informed about what veterans have accomplished in order to make appropriate decisions as they confront the numerous worldwide challenges that they are sure to face in the future. I ask unanimous consent that the text of Samuel Cashdollar's essay be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, next week the Appropriations Committee is expected to mark up several bills that will incorporate the Administration's supplemental request for this fiscal year. Included in this request is two point six billion dollars for peacekeeping and reconstruction in Kosovo and the surrounding region. In that context, I rise to examine the rapidly changing conditions in the Balkans and to argue for continued vigorous American involvement in the region, including meeting the Administration's supplemental request. Mr. President, since the end of the Cold War few, if any other parts of the world have commanded as much of our attention as the Balkans, particularly the area of the former Yugoslavia. This is no accident. The Balkans were the crucible for the First World War, played a pivotal role in the outcome of the Second World War, and persist as the only remaining major area of instability in Europe. As every thoughtful political leader in London, Paris, Berlin, Rome, Madrid or other capitals will attest, if the movements in the countries of the Balkans toward political democracy, ethnic and religious coexistence, and free market capitalism do not succeed, the resulting turmoil will endanger the remarkable peace and prosperity laboriously created over the past half-century in the countries of the European Union and in other Western democracies. Moreover, Mr. President, for Americans warning of this possibility is not merely an academic exercise. In political, security, and economic terms, the United States is a European power. We are tied to the continent through a web of trade, investment, human contacts, and culture to a degree unequaled by relations with any other part of the world. Instability that spread to Western Europe would directly and adversely affect the United States of America in a major way. In other words, Mr. President, we do not have the luxury of being able to distance ourselves from the Balkans, no matter how emotionally appealing such a policy may appear at times. As someone who visits Southeastern Europe on a regular basis, I fully understand how frustrating dealing with Balkan issues can be. Much of this stunningly beautiful area, with its jumble of ancient peoples, has seemingly intractable problems. Americans accustomed to quick solutions naturally become frustrated, especially since we have built up a large presence on the ground in several Balkan countries in the last few years and, therefore, know first-hand the complexities involved. But the very diversity of the Balkans means that even if human history moved in a linear fashion--which it certainly does not-- progress toward democracy, human rights, and free markets in Southeastern Europe would necessarily be uneven, moving forward in some countries, stagnating in some, and even regressing in a few. Mr. President, this is precisely what has been happening; the region is experiencing ``ups and downs.'' Contrary to popular belief, undoubtedly influenced by the proclivity of the mass media to emphasize the negative, there have been several positive developments in the Balkans. Slovenia, the northernmost country of the Balkans, is the region's success story. It has already established a solid democracy, and its transition to a free-market economy has been so successful that its per capita gross domestic product now exceeds that of a few members of the European Union. Slovenia seems certain to be in the next round of NATO enlargement, and it is one of the strongest candidates for EU membership. Croatia, which suffered for a decade under the authoritarian rule of Franjo Tudjman, elected a new parliament this past January with a moderate, democratic coalition gaining a solid majority. The winner of the February presidential election, Mr. Mesic, is also a democratic reformer. Already there has been signs of positive movement from the new regime in Zagreb, both domestically and in foreign policy. For example, the government has begun investigating corruption from the Tudjman era in the banking and communications sectors. In the international realm, the Croatian government has signed an agreement on cooperation with the International War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague. Moreover, the new government has closed down illegal television transmission towers in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which had spread ultra-nationalist programming from Croatia. In fact, the hard-line obstructionist nationalist Croat leadership in Bosnia and Herzegovina is running scared, knowing that it has lost its patron, the former HDZ regime, in Croatia. It appears that the new government in Zagreb has pledged itself to full Dayton implementation, including a commitment to the integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina as a state. It is debatable whether the ``good example'' set by Zagreb will soon influence the situation in Serbia; but it is already clear that the change of government in Zagreb is causing Bosnian Croat leaders to re- think their strategy. The local elections in Bosnia last month provided mixed results. In the Republika Srpska, Prime Minister Dodik's coalition lost ground, but there is still hope that the new government being formed will accelerate the pace of implementation of the Dayton Accords. In the Federation, reformist Bosnian Croats did not have sufficient time to organize strong opposition to the entrenched HDZ nationalists. As the withdrawal of subsidies from Zagreb to the Bosnian Croat HDZ takes effect, however, the moderate Bosnian Croats may be able to increase their strength in the upcoming national elections. The most heartening developments concern the Bosnian Muslims, the largest of the three major communities in the country. The Muslims have demonstrated an accelerating move away from the nationalist SDA party to non-nationalist alternatives, as demonstrated by their electoral victories in several of Bosnia's largest cities. Mr. President, the southern Balkans also show several positive trends, some of them quite remarkable. At the Helsinki Summit of the European Union in December 1999, Turkey for the first time was granted the status of candidate for membership. To be sure, any realistic analysis of Turkey's chances would make them long-term, but the development in Helsinki is nonetheless a real breakthrough and is being received as such by the majority of Turkey's population. Moreover, the devastating earthquakes that rocked both Turkey and Greece last summer elicited mutual expressions of popular sympathy from both peoples and have led to a significant warming of relations between these two long-time rivals. Both Bulgaria and Romania are governed by Western-looking, democratic free-marketeers. The closing of the Danube by the NATO bombing in the air war last year has had an extremely damaging effect on their already shaky economies. Both countries, though, have embarked upon painful, but necessary reforms. The reformers will be sorely tested in upcoming national elections. Macedonia, perhaps the most fragile country in the region, has survived the trauma of the Kosovo war, with its massive influx of hundreds of thousands of refugees, without the violent destabilization expected by many observers, and certainly intended by Milosevic. A newly elected conservative government includes an ethnic Albanian party, but the raw material for an ethnic conflagration persists. The ``downs'' in the Balkan picture, which have been getting the lion's share of the publicity, are Serbia proper, Montenegro, and Kosovo. Certainly the principal negative fact of life in the region is the continuing presence in power in Serbia of Slobodan Milosevic. My colleagues know well my feelings about this man. In 1993, six years before the Hague Tribunal made public its indictment, I called Milosevic a war criminal to his face at a meeting in his office in Belgrade. Milosevic, quite simply, has been a disaster for the Serbian people. He has destroyed Serbia's economy, eviscerated its body politic, and debased its reputation internationally. It is not easy to start--and lose--four wars in eight years, but Milosevic has managed to do it. He is a man of only one ideological conviction: that he must hold onto power in Serbia. To retain power he is ready to use any means, including ruining the lives of the people he theoretically represents. Unfortunately, Milosevic clings to power through a combination of ruthlessness, tactical cunning, and the inability until now of the Serbian opposition to forge a permanent anti-Milosevic coalition that could be compelling for the Serbian electorate. There is some basis for cautious optimism that the political opposition in Serbia may be unifying in its opposition to Milosevic. Last month the opposition was able to bring out to the streets of Belgrade a massive crowd of more than two hundred thousand demonstrators against Milosevic. The gangland quality of life in contemporary Serbia is demonstrated by the recent public machine-gun slayings of ``Arkan,'' the Yugoslav defense minister, and other ultra-nationalist figures. Most recently independent journalists in Serbia have been given implicit death threats--from no less a personage than Mr. Seselj, the deputy prime minister! These moves, however, bespeak the increasing weakness and fear of the Milosevic regime, not any strength. I should add that another reason that Milosevic has been able to survive this cold winter is assistance from like-minded dictators. Over the past few months, China made a gift of three hundred million dollars, and Iraq contributed much needed oil. It is also extremely likely that Russia and Belarus have funneled assistance to Milosevic. The United States Government is actively supporting the creation of a civil society in Serbia through targeted grants to a variety of independent media, citizens' groups, independent trade unions, and towns controlled by the democratic opposition. Despite Milosevic's malevolent and unscrupulous behavior, I remain convinced that ultimately the pressure from below--and from within his government, party, and armed forces--will result in his fall from power. What is key is that we not lose our patience or our nerve. I will not put a date on Milosevic's fall, but fall he will, and the long-suffering Serbian people will begin to regain their dignity. Montenegro, the junior partner in the Yugoslav Federation, is governed by a multi-ethnic, democratic coalition led by President Milo Djukanovic. The reformist government of this little republic of less than seven hundred thousand citizens is struggling to avoid being overthrown by Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic, who is currently scheming about how to undermine Montenegro's democratically elected government. His tools are the Yugoslav army and shadowy paramilitary forces loyal to him, plus economic pressures applied to its vastly smaller neighbor. We have seen Milosevic starring in this movie before--- in Slovenia, in Croatia, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and in Kosovo. Milosevic lost each time, in the process sacrificing hundreds of thousands of lives and causing untold material damage. I can only hope that he has learned his lesson. Kosovo is another ongoing challenge for American policy and fortitude. Eleven months after the withdrawal of Yugoslav troops, Serbian police, and paramilitaries, the province is still struggling to regain a semblance of normalcy. The task is enormous: by the estimate of the U.N., some eight hundred ten thousand residents who fled during last year's war have returned to a province in which approximately two- thirds of the housing stock was destroyed or damaged beyond repair. Not an appealing base on which to rebuild a traumatized society. In that context, the herculean efforts of the international civilian and military authorities have had a good measure of success. Despite the understandable headlines detailing revenge killings of Serbs and Roma by ethnic Albanians, and of Kosovar Albanians by other Kosovar Albanians, the fact is that the incidence of homicide has dropped dramatically over the last several months. The serious upsurge in ethnic violence in the town of Mitrovica earlier this year shows that universal security in the province has yet to be achieved. The response of KFOR to Mitrovica was to send in additional troops, from different sectors. Also a special prosecutor was appointed by the United Nations to handle Mitrovica. Things boiled over there; now the flame has been doused and the lid is back on. We will have to keep an eye on Mitrovica and northern Kosovo. Similarly, the Presevo Valley in southeastern corner of Serbia proper, which has a strong ethnic Albanian majority population, is a potential flashpoint. Radical elements have been training in the demilitarized zone between Kosovo and Serbia proper, occasionally staging hit-and-run raids on Serbian police. Their motive is clearly to provoke a larger conflict, and then to appeal to KFOR to bail them out. We should not fall for this trap. I am pleased that the Administration has made clear to the radicals that they are on their own, and has enlisted the help of responsible Kosovar Albanians to rein them in. With respect to security in Kosovo, however, the overall trend is in the right direction. The drop in the murder rate is due largely to the excellent work of the forty-two thousand, five hundred KFOR troops in Kosovo, and increasingly to the more than three thousand, one hundred international police deployed by the U.N. Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo--known as UNMIK. Eventually four thousand, four hundred UNMIK police are to be deployed. Our government must be sure to make its pledged payments to UNMIK on time and to pressure other donor countries to do the same. Cooperation between UNMIK's chief, Dr. Bernard Kouchner, and KFOR's commander has been superb. If Dr. Kouchner is given all the tools the way KFOR has been, then I believe he will be able to do his job successfully. Incidentally, Mr. President, KFOR's commanders have been, in order, an Englishman, a German, and now a Spaniard--all under NATO's Supreme Commander in Europe, an American. While profound mistrust of KFOR and UNMIK exists among much of the Serbian community in Kosovo, a hopeful sign is that observers from the Serb community recently joined the power-sharing system UNMIK has set up with a broad spectrum of Kosovar Albanian leaders. Much of the Serbs' mistrust--and of widespread unease among the Kosovar Albanians--stems from the fact that although the homicide rate in the province has dropped, other forms of criminality are increasing. Particularly worrisome is the influx of organized crime elements from Albania across the porous, mountainous border into Kosovo. We must not allow Kosovo to descend into gang-infested semi-anarchy. This is the principal reason that the promised international funding for UNMIK simply must be delivered promptly. I cannot stress this requirement enough. Our government must pressure the Europeans--who have assumed the primary responsibility for KFOR, UNMIK, and the Stability Pact for Southeast Europe--immediately to live up to their pledges. Because of excellent work by the U.S. Agency for International Development and other national and international organizations, there are high expectations all over Kosovo that this spring and summer there will be reconstruction on a mass scale all over the province. We must be certain that the international funding is delivered in time, so as not to deflate the Kosovars' and the Kosovo Serbs' hopes and damage our credibility and that of our allies and other cooperating nations. Mr. President, the more I delve into the details of the American and other international efforts to rebuild the Balkans--in Kosovo, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, in Albania, and elsewhere--the more respect I have for our outstanding men and women serving in often difficult and dangerous circumstances in our diplomatic service, our armed forces, and our aid missions. They are bright, they are dedicated, and they are getting tangible results. This is a side of the story that the American public should hear more about. It is also important that the American public understands that the overwhelming majority of KFOR troops, the overwhelming majority of UNMIK personnel, and the overwhelming majority of development assistance are all being provided by our European allies and other friendly governments. Mr. President, one bright spot of the Kosovo story is that it shows that burdensharing not only can work, but is working. In Kosovo, perhaps more than anywhere else in the Balkans, however, even as we analyze serious current problems, we must never lose sight of what the situation would be if we had not acted militarily last year. Milosevic would have gotten away with vile ethnic cleansing on a scale unprecedented in Europe for decades, causing untold human misery, destabilizing Macedonia and Albania, irreparably harming the credibility of NATO, and possibly even fracturing the alliance. No, the situation in Kosovo is far from good, but it is incalculably better than it would have been, had NATO, under President Clinton's leadership, not intervened. In early February, at the Munich Conference on Security Policy, the U.S. Congressional delegation had breakfast with Lord Robertson, the Secretary General of NATO. As he so aptly put it, ``no one should expect a Balkan Switzerland to be created in a few short years.'' But that should not blind us, either to the significant progress already achieved, or to the continuing importance to the United States and to the rest of Europe of the struggle for lasting security in the Balkans. We must keep our eye on the prize and redouble our efforts to rebuild and stabilize Southeastern Europe. So, once again, I urge my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee to fully fund, without conditions, the Administration's supplemental request for peacekeeping and reconstruction in Kosovo. The stakes are simply too high to do otherwise. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment being offered by the Senator from Washington. A recent study by the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee confirms what common sense should have been telling us all along--our children learn better when they are taught in smaller classes. With enrollment at the nation's schools continuing to increase, and many of those currently in the teaching profession nearing retirement age, the fact of the matter is simple--we need more teachers. Under Senator Murray's leadership, we in the Senate began the class size reduction initiative a little over two years ago with the goal of hiring 100,000 teachers over a seven-year period and reducing class sizes in the early grades to a nationwide average of 18 students. Yet here we are today, faced with a bill which abandons this goal. In 1998, my home state of Delaware recognized the need for more teachers and smaller class sizes. In July of that year, our governor, Tom Carper, signed legislation requiring all school districts in the state of Delaware to cap class sizes in kindergarten through third grades at no more than 22 students. That same legislation included a provision which increased state funding to help pay for one teacher for every 18 students. And with the help of the federal funding provided under the class size reduction initiative, Delaware was able to hire over 100 new teachers in 1999. These teachers are in the classroom today. That means roughly 1,800 children are likely to get far more out of the hours they spend in school, and that they will move into the higher grades far better prepared. For these children in Delaware, and all the other children who are in smaller classrooms because of this initiative, this is literally a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to get started on the right path. Yet this bill, without the Murray amendment, makes no promise of small classrooms. We can fund all the education programs we want, but without enough quality teachers in every classroom to teach our children the basic skills necessary to succeed, these programs means nothing. We need to continue to promote smaller classrooms in grade school by continuing to help schools hire up to 100,000 additional qualified teachers to reduce class sizes. The more individual contact our children have with their teachers, the more they are able to learn, and the better they perform on tests. Those are the facts. At a time when we are just beginning to make progress, now is not the time to abandon our children's future.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to congratulate 15 students and their teacher, Ms. Barbara Hudson, from Woodbridge High School in Bridgeville, DE, for their outstanding achievement in qualifying as finalists of the ``We the People . . . The Citizen and the Consitiution'' program. This program is administered by the Center for Civic Education which provides curricular materials at upper elementary, middle, and high school levels for more than 26.5 million students nationwide. These materials assist students in obtaining a working knowledge of our Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the principles of democratic government. Next, ``We the People'' conducts a 3-day competition which tests a student's knowledge of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. A mock Congressional committee hearing is conducted in which the students testify and then respond to questions on Constitutional issues before a panel of judges. This demanding competition takes hard work and diligence to reach the national finals, which are being held in Washington, D.C. from May 6 to May 8, 2000. I am pleased to congratulate those students from Woodbridge High School who will be participating in the final stage of this competition: Jennifer Blackwell, Steve Breeding, Jarelle Bruso, John Conner, Rachel Dawson, Shawnita Dorman, Chelsea Ferrell, Adam Hickman, Jerome Holder, Nick LaRusso, Kat Leiter, Jennifer Sheets, Latoya Thompson, Robert Tribbett, and Jessica Umstetter. Together with the help of their teacher, Ms. Hudson, they successfully learned and applied a deep knowledge and understanding of the fundamental principles and values of our constitutional democracy. Their knowledge will be tested yet again during the national finals, where they will compete with more than 1,200 students from throughout the United States. It is exciting to see these young people from Delaware and so many other students from across the Nation expressing interest in our country's Government. Programs such as ``We the People'' help to inspire new generations of leaders. These students from Woodbridge High School are shining examples of the promise bright young people offer the future of this country. It is my honor to recognize these students who represent excellence in Delaware scholastics, and I am sure that my fellow Delawareans join me in wishing these young ``Constitutional experts'' the best of luck during the upcoming competition.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, is the Senator from Delaware under a time constraint?

Mr. BIDEN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Vermont for his kind comments. It is rare on matters of constitutional law and matters of civil rights and civil liberties that the distinguished Senator from Vermont and I end up on opposite sides of the issue. We are on opposite sides of this issue. I, as the Senator from Vermont, have been very reluctant over my 28 years in the Senate to support constitutional amendments. I think they are a matter of significant concern and should not be undertaken without significant need and only after it is concluded that the same result could not be accomplished statutorily. So it is after some considerable thought-- and, I might add, a considerable amount of work with the two primary sponsors of this amendment--that I have arrived at the point where I support this amendment. Before I begin to discuss the details of the amendment, let me suggest to the Senator from Vermont that I came in at the tail end of his initial comments regarding public prosecution as opposed to privately going out and hiring a prosecutor to redress a criminal wrong that had been done to you, and his discussion about whether or not it was an established principle that the founders thought public prosecution was appropriate at the time of the Constitution. He is dead right on the facts. But I suggest to him, and others, that I suspect the points being made--and I have been in Colombia spending a good deal of time with President Pastrana on the drug and narcotrafficking problem he faces, so I missed a day of debate on this. So I may be mistaken in what I am about to say. But I expect that those who talked about public prosecution versus private prosecution were trying to make the generic point--I hope they were--that at one point in our English jurisprudential history, and for a number of centuries early on, the issue of moving forward to prosecute a wrong against you was totally in the hands of the victim. The victim made that judgment. Early on, to overstate it, in the 14th, the 15th, the 16th and 17th century, if I were mugged in the stable, it would be Biden v. Jones. It would not be the Crown v. Jones. I was not represented by anyone but myself. This process evolved. The only good part of that process was that the victim controlled his or her own fate to a significant degree. All of the years and years that I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the ranking member, we held hearing after hearing about how victims feel disenfranchised. One of the things that victims of violent crime need to be able to come to closure with is the dilemma and the horrible position in which they were placed. They have to see it come to fruition. They have to be able to know that they had some hand in the idea that the person who did bad things to them was pursued, and they got their day in court--``they,'' the victim. Also, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that began to pile up in the 1960s, 1970s, and then in the 1980s it reached a high pitch. In the 1990s it pertained as well. That is where people lost respect for the government and lost respect for the law because they believed they were not treated with respect--where victims found themselves, in their view, victimized not only by the criminal but victimized by the system. That is why, I note parenthetically, when I wrote the Violence Against Women Act I provided for a means by which a woman who was a victim of violent crime could, if the prosecutor chose not to go after her assailant, after the person who did those bad things to her, she could at least go into the civil court and sue that individual. Again, there was overwhelming testimony from psychiatrists and psychologists that there is a need for healing. Part of the catharsis in healing is to be able to go through the process and believe you are getting fair and decent treatment. There are two things at stake when this cause of victims' rights begins to arise. The public prosecutors, not because they were no longer caring, but because of the overwhelming burden, found themselves becoming increasingly callous about the plight of the victims. I used to be a public defender. When I was a young lawyer, I would be assigned three or four or five cases to be tried in 1 day. The prosecutor would be assigned five, six, seven, or eight cases to be tried in 1 day. Everyone knew that plea bargaining process was necessary. Often, looking back on it, the victim, or the alleged victim of the crime, found himself or herself showing up for court and learning from some prosecutor that they had dismissed the case. We didn't think there was sufficient evidence, or we decided to allow them to plead to petty larceny rather than robbery or burglar, or we decided so on and so on. The impact upon victims and their faith in the system and their notion of whether or not government worked was always damning--always impacting upon them in a negative way. To make a long story not quite so long, the Senator from Vermont is correct. Public prosecution did take place when our Republic became a republic. There were not, for example, in the city of Philadelphia, 25,000 felonies tried a year in one little city. There were not 68,000 habeas corpus out there. There was not the need for a prosecutor to find himself or herself in the position where they dismissed a large number of cases just because they didn't have time to get to them. There were not circumstances where the victims of crime who were so callously treated that they weren't even informed, and the person against whom they had sworn out the warrant they found sitting in the trolley car with them on the way home. They were not in that position. What are constitutional amendments about? Constitutional amendments are about dealing with serious concerns of the public that come about as a consequence of changed circumstances. One of the circumstances changed--and I suspect what previous speakers have been speaking to when they talked about how the system used to work--is that there is a feeling on the part of the vast majority of the victims of crimes that they have no control over the situation. They have no control. Not only were they victimized by the criminal, but they go in and either find themselves in the circumstance where there has been a deal made which they were no part of, or there was a sentencing that took place and they didn't get a chance to tell the judge how badly this guy beat them up, or that money that was stolen from them was the last money they had in the whole world, and they lost their home. Just the need to cry out and say: Listen to me, listen to me. Just listen to me. That is all I am asking you to do. It is not that the prosecutors are bad guys or bad women. They are incredibly overloaded. As the Presiding Officer knows, we have an incredible amount of time, notwithstanding the fact it has dropped the last 7 years in a row. This is about going back to a time when public prosecutors had the time and exercised judgment to make a decision relative to moving forward against a defendant in conjunction with the concerns of the needs of and the desires of the victims. That is what is missing. We are here today to discuss two matters that I have cared about for many years. The first is crime--more specifically, the victims of violent crime. The second is the Constitution of the United States of America. As the Presiding Officer knows, we came at the same time, and both of us dedicated a significant portion of our life in the Senate to various issues. We developed different interests, expertise, and/or assignments. In my case, it has been both the plight of crime victims and the preservation of our constitutional liberties. That is why I have thought long and hard about amending the Constitution to guarantee the victims of crime the elemental rights that they deserve, but too often are denied. Time and again, I wrote and supported many statutory protections for victims. To cite just a few examples: The 1990 Victims Bill of Rights gave victims a number of important procedural rights, including the right to notice of court proceedings, the right to confer with the prosecutor, and the right to information about the conviction, sentencing, imprisonment, and release of the offender. The 1994 Biden crime law: Gave federal victims of sexual and child abuse the right to mandatory restitution; Gave victims of violent crimes and sexual abuse the right to be heard at the sentencing of their assailants; Provided special court-appointed advocates for child victims of crime; And it also included the piece of legislation closest to my heart: the Violence Against Women Act, which provided ground-breaking and sweeping assistance to victims of family violence and sexual assault-- and which, I might add, needs to be re-authorized this year through my Violence Against Women Act II bill, which has 46 cosponsors. The 1996 Anti-Terrorism Act included Hatch-Biden provisions guaranteeing mandatory restitution to all victims of violent federal crimes; And, now, I am pleased to support--and urge all of you to support--a constitutional amendment to protect victims' rights. I am proud of my track record on victims' rights. But I am convinced that federal statutory guarantees are not enough. Judges are simply too quick to conclude, almost reflexively, that the defendant's constitutional rights trump the victim's mere statutory rights, even when conflict is illusory or could readily be resolved. You heard about the difficulties we had after the Oklahoma City bombing with a federal statutory approach to help the victims and their families. Senator Feinstein outlined in detail the chronology of events there, and so I will not repeat them. But equally important, because more than 95 percent of all crimes are handled at the state level, our federal statutory rights simply do not reach the great majority of crime victims. Regrettably, the hodge-podge of protections for victims in place at the state level is spotty and inadequate. There is no common denominator of rights that victims are guaranteed in every state of the union. As a December 1998 report by the National Institute of Justice found: Enactment of state laws and state constitutional amendments alone appears to be insufficient to guarantee the full provisions of victims' rights in practice. This report found numerous instances in which victims were not afforded the rights to which they were entitled. For example, even in states identified as providing ``strong protection'' to victims' rights, more than 40 percent of victims were not notified in advance of the defendant's sentencing hearing. And more than 60 percent of victims in these strong-protection states did not receive notice of a defendant's pre-trial release. And so, I have come to the conclusion that it is time to write a basic charter of victims' rights into our Constitution setting a national, uniform baseline of rights for all victims of violent crimes. Now, one of reasons there were more than 60 drafts of this constitutional amendment is because I insisted on a number of basic changes before I would agree to support it. And with the help of Professor Larry Tribe, I proposed these changes, and the sponsors accepted them. My three key specific ``principles'' for drafting the language of the amendment were as follows: Principle No. 1: The amendment must set out the specific rights to be accorded constitutional status--the core of which should be rights of participation. Victims should be entitled to the following rights of participation: The right to be informed about, and not excluded from, any public proceedings involving the crime; The right to make a statement to the court about bail, the acceptance of a plea, and sentencing; The right to be informed about, and to participate in, parole proceedings to the same extent as the convicted offender; and The right to be informed of an escape or release from custody. Principle No. 2: The amendment must not unintentionally hamstring criminal prosecutions. We cannot forget: the best thing for victims is to catch and convict the bad guys; we have to make sure that nothing in the amendment would make that job more difficult. Principle No. 3: The amendment must not abridge the rights of the accused. The protections in our Constitution for the accused--such as the right to counsel, the right to a jury of one's peers, and the right against self-incrimination--are there, above all, so that our system does not convict an innocent person. Locking up an innocent person benefits no one--except the guilty. Let me describe for you a few of the changes on which I insisted, and which I believe makes this an amendment everyone can and should support: Originally, the constitutional amendment would have covered the victims of all crimes. But prosecutors worried that the extension of rights to non-violent crimes--particularly those crimes affecting massive numbers of victims, such as may be the case with mail fraud or environmental crimes--would backfire, making it too difficult, too burdensome, to bring these cases. I insisted that the amendment be limited to the victims of violent crimes, and that change was made. Earlier drafts of the amendment gave victims the right to ``a final disposition of the trial proceedings free from unreasonable delay.'' Prosecutors believed that this could allow victims to force them to proceed to trial before they are prepared. Defense lawyers believed that the language created the risk that the defendant might be forced to proceed to trial without sufficient time to prepare a defense. In other words, this language would have made it both more difficult for prosecutors to get convictions and easier for those defendants who are convicted to overturn their convictions on appeal. We want to make sure--above all--that we get the right criminal, and that we don't convict an innocent person. And we also want to make sure that the great police power of the government is not exercised in heavy-handed, over-reaching ways that threaten the constitutional liberties of all of us. And so I insisted on modifying that language so that victims have the right ``to consideration of the interest of the victim that any trial be free from unreasonable delay.'' This is an important change. This means--in plain English--that before granting a third, fourth, or fifth continuance, judges in every state--from Delaware to Utah to California--must take into account the inconvenience and hardship to a victim and must proceed with the trial unless there is a good reason to wait. What this does not mean is that judges must push lawyers to try cases before they're ready. Next change: prosecutors and others worried that with the old drafts, a defendant could withdraw his plea or a judge could be forced to throw out a sentence after it had been accepted, jeopardizing the government's ability to get a conviction of guilty defendants. I insisted on new language that makes it clear that nothing in the amendment provides grounds to overturn a sentence or negotiated plea. Finally, I was concerned with earlier drafts that the amendment could be perceived as giving a victim's rights a higher constitutional standing than those of the criminal defendant--in other words, that victims' rights would be perceived as trumping defendants' rights. Section 2 of an earlier draft stated that nothing in the amendment would ``provide grounds for the accused or convicted offender to obtain any form of relief.'' I insisted that we change that language, and with the help of Professor Tribe, we redrafted Section 2 and removed that restriction on the rights of the defendant. While the language is clear that nothing in the amendment itself gives rise to a claim of damages against the United States, a State, a political subdivision, or a public officer or employee, at the same time, it does nothing to bar defendants from obtaining relief for violations of their own constitutional rights. And let me comment further about the rights of the accused--an issue that I know gives some of you pause about this amendment. I have spent my entire career in the U.S. Senate looking out for the rights of the criminal defendant. There is an obvious and natural tension in the system between protecting the rights of the criminal defendant and ensuring that law enforcement is effective, and I have always worked to achieve a balance between these competing interests. I say to you that this constitutional amendment, with the changes upon which I have insisted, strikes that balance. Judges will have the power under this amendment to strike a balance. I keep hearing critics of the amendment say that defendants' rights will not be adequately protected if this amendment becomes part of the fabric of our Constitution. For example, we heard testimony before the Judiciary Committee and statements on the Senate floor giving examples of how judges routinely--almost reflexively--exclude victims from the courtroom when they are potential witnesses in the case. Critics of the amendment contend that maybe that is how it should be, and they complain that the amendment would change that presumption of exclusion. These critics argue that the presence of victim-witnesses at trial will undermine the defendant's right to a fair trial by giving the victims the opportunity to observe the other witnesses testify and tailor their testimony accordingly. I submit to you that that is not as it should be. That is not how it needs to be. The witness sequestration rule is a prophylactic measure rather than a constitutional imperative. The purpose of the rule can be accomplished through defense cross-examination of fact witnesses, defense argument about the opportunity to tailor, and jury instructions, without categorically excluding victims from the trial. There is nothing that remarkable about the scenario of one witness having the opportunity to listen to the testimony of others: the defendant who is a witness has that opportunity. And the defendant who is a witness is also open to cross-examination and argument by the prosecutor that he had the opportunity to tailor his testimony. Just last month, the Supreme Court ruled in a case called Portuondo v. Agard, that despite the fact that a defendant has the constitutional right to be present at his trial, the prosecutor was entitled to comment in her closing argument on the fact that the defendant had the opportunity to hear all other witnesses testify and to tailor his testimony. This same type of argument would be available in cases where the victim-witness is present during the trial. The constitutional amendment takes away nothing from the rights of the defendant. If the defendant's constitutional rights actually conflict with the participatory rights the amendment would guarantee the victim--and I submit to you that these conflicts would be few and far between--the judge is permitted under this amendment to balance these competing interests and grant exceptions where necessary. Let me repeat: a constitutional amendment for victims does not mean that victims' rights will take precedence over defendants' rights. Both the criminal defendant and the victim can and should have the chance to participate at trial and at other related public proceedings. There should be a balance. This amendment permits courts to balance. A constitutional amendment is needed to set a national floor of rights for all victims of violent crimes. In every state--as well as in the federal system--the doors of the criminal justice system must be opened to victims--to make sure that they are meaningful participants, and not just spectators, in a system that has for too long kept them on the outside looking in. With a victims' constitutional amendment, we will be telling prosecutors and judges, loud and clear: victims must be respected and included. They have rights--constitutional rights--that must be taken into account during the entire case. I believe that the contradiction that many people see between the rights of defendants and the rights of victims is a false one. Our Constitution is not a zero-sum game. We do not diminish the rights of defendants by recognizing the rights of victims. That is why I cosponsored this amendment. This amendment will give the victims of crime a voice and a measure of dignity and respect in the criminal justice process.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Mrs. Mary Jane DeMatteis, Delaware's Mother of the Year 2000. The story of Mrs. DeMatteis is one of strength and devotion. After her loving husband of twenty years passed away, she was left to raise their six children alone. Mrs. DeMatteis used her faith and her love for her children to persevere through the most difficult of times. While maintaining a job in the Delaware court system, she was able to find the time and energy to care for her children and teach them the importance of family and love. I have had the opportunity to witness the product of Mrs. DeMatteis' many years of commitment to her children. Claire, her daughter, is one of my most senior advisors and her intellect and strength of character is certainly a reflection of the profound influence her mother has had on her life. Today the legacy of Mary Jane DeMatteis continues as her ten grandchildren are graced with the success and love that Mrs. DeMatteis infused into the lives of her children. I am sure that her impact will be felt for countless generations to come. We all know that being a parent is the most important job in the world. I am extremely proud to recognize this wonderful honor that Mrs. DeMatteis so well deserves.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am disappointed in this budget resolution, because it endangers our national security. The budget resolution does so by reducing the President's request for international affairs by over 10 percent. This reduction may appear to be a politically easy way to keep spending down. But mark my words: the reductions assumed by this budget resolution will end up costing us more elsewhere in future budgets. Literally speaking, our diplomats are on the front lines of our national defense. They are out in force around the capitals of the world, defending and protecting our national interests every day-- preventing and mitigating conflicts, fighting drug trafficking, promoting U.S. exports, reducing environmental degradation, and advancing American values and ideals. Most of them live and work under less than ideal circumstances. Many of them live in very dangerous places like Lebanon or Colombia. This budget breaks faith with those people because it will not provide enough money for secure embassies to protect them, and it does provide enough money for critical tools of diplomacy--exchange and assistance programs--that will enable them to adequately perform their missions. We are deluding ourselves as a nation into thinking that we can remain a great power while continuing to skimp on spending to maintain a robust international presence. We have made important progress in the past several years in restoring funding for international affairs. Unfortunately, we haven't made enough progress, and the budget remains below historical levels. According to a recent study by the Congressional Research Service prepared at my request, the discretionary budget authority for Function 150 in Fiscal 2000, $22.264 billion in FY 2000 dollars, is 9.3 percent below the average of the past two decades, $24.56 billion. As a percentage of total budget authority, Function 150 funding in FY 2000 is 1.24 percent, nearly one-fifth below the annual average, 1.571 percent, for the past two decades. Mr. President, I hope that as the budget process moves forward, the leadership on the other side will find a way to accommodate the legitimate needs of our foreign policy and increase the allocations to these accounts. I urge the Chairman to do everything possible in the coming months to work toward to that objective.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. On March 31st, hundreds of people gathered in a lobby of the courthouse in Wilmington, Delaware. The focal point of the dignified but unassuming room is an information desk, with a big board behind it that's used to post the daily schedule for Delaware's Superior Court. It is, quite literally, where the Court meets the public, and it was the ideal--and perhaps the only--place for this particular occasion, a reception honoring Judge Vincent A. Bifferato as he retired following 32 years on Superior Court, a total of 36 years of public service. ``Biff,'' as Judge Bifferato is universally known outside of the courtroom, is not the type for a country-club send-off. Part of it is roots. His father, born in Italy and never having had an education himself, always said he knew his son would go to college, and got to see his son sworn in as a member of the Delaware Bar. Biff remembers his father on that day, sitting in the front row, crying; ``To him,'' Biff says, ``it was the American dream.'' And Biff knew, as his life since he became a lawyer has proved, that there is a second chapter to any true American dream story. It's the chapter written after you get there, the story of what you do with power and status once you've got them. And the truth is, it's the part of the story that matters most. What Biff has done in his position as a judge is to combine the forceful exercise of authority and the vigorous application of the law with an uncommon sense of compassion for and responsibility to the people he was there to serve. He had never forgotten what drew him to public service in the first place--the opportunity to help people who need government, people who need someone on their side in order to have a chance. And he has never let those of us around him forget it either, always reminding colleagues and students--and anyone else who might need to be reminded--of our particular obligation to the least powerful of our fellow citizens. Biff's concern for how people treat each other is, in fact, the hallmark of his character. In his courtroom, small-town lawyers from one-person firms knew they stood on equal footing with heavy-hitters from the big city. Litigants and witnesses were treated with fairness and respect. Decorum and civility were not ideals but practiced standards. Biff initiated a monthly forum for lawyers because he saw that solo practitioners and young attorneys from small firms were not getting the mentoring they needed, and also, as he said, that ``[t]here was a need for people to be nice to each other.'' That effort to promote professionalism and ethics--one lawyer described it as a ``blue-collar Inn of Court''--is now called the Judge Bifferato Superior Court Trial Practice Forum. And for his leadership in that undertaking and in countless others, formal and informal, Biff received the inaugural Distinguished Mentoring Award from the Delaware State Bar Association. As Resident Judge for New Castle County, Biff also made it his mission to ensure that the courthouse staff was appreciated as it should be. His emphasis was never on hierarchy but always on the common effort, never on the power or prestige of his office but on the contribution of each person who helped make the justice system work. It was the Court's staff Biff talked about most at his retirement reception, concluding simply, ``I love them all.'' ``Love'' is a word heard often in relation to Vincent A. Bifferato. It was striking how often it was used at his retirement. Alongside words more expected at such occasions, like respect and esteem, ``love'' for Judge Biff was expressed by almost every speaker, including the Governor, the Mayor and the President Judge of the Court. No amount of ability, no standard of professionalism earns that kind of affection; it is, rather, a response to this man's grace of spirit, to the warmth and sincerity he brings to relationships, to the openness of his heart. That heart was on generous loan to the Superior Court and to the people of Delaware, but it belongs, first and always, to Biff's family--to his wife, Marie, to his children and grandchildren, to his sister and to his mother, who was there, sitting in the front row, 37 years after that first swearing-in ceremony. She had always been proud of him, she said, long before any of his public accomplishments and contributions, because he was always ``a nice, young boy.'' Biff remarked at his send-off that it was ``a hell of a tribute for just doing your job.'' But it was, of course, much more a tribute to who he is, a ``nice, young boy'' who made the most of his opportunities and then sought relentlessly to open opportunity for others; a leader who not only recognizes but genuinely feels his common humanity with those in need of help; a man who fulfilled and enriched his father's dream--for his family and for all of us. Biff will have a successor but never a replacement. As he begins to write the next chapter of his life, he has our immeasurable thanks and, indeed, our love.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, on March 18 the people of Taiwan went to the polls and chose their next president through a free and fair multiparty election. The winner of a close three-way race, Chen Shui- bian of the Democratic Progressive Party, will be inaugurated in May. I had the pleasure of meeting with Mr. Chen in Washington in 1997 when he was the mayor of Taipei. I was impressed by his political smarts and his commitment to building a more democratic and prosperous Taiwan. I also found him to be genuinely committed to improving relations with the mainland. I believe that Taiwan's election provides a fresh opportunity for the people of Taiwan and the people of China to reach out and resolve their differences peacefully through dialog on the basis of mutual respect. I hope that leaders on both sides of the Strait will seize this opportunity and begin to lay the foundation of trust, goodwill, and understanding which must precede true reconciliation. The inauguration of Chen will end the virtual monopoly of power the Nationalist Party has exercised for most of the past 50 years. This peaceful transition of power at the top of Taiwan's political system will mark the maturation of their democracy, and it is an event worthy of our profound respect and hearty congratulations. It was only 13 years ago that Taiwan lifted martial law and ushered in a new period of open political discourse and expanded civil liberty. Prior to that, Taiwan's leaders did not tolerate dissent and moved swiftly and sometimes ruthlessly to silence their critics. Taiwan's president-elect knows this well, because he got his start in politics as a young crusading lawyer working to promote transparency, freedom of speech, and freedom of assembly. Taiwan's emergence as a genuine multiparty democracy is a significant development in the long history of China. It is all the more remarkable given the fact that China's leaders in Beijing have done their level best to intimidate Taiwan's voters and prevent them from exercising this fundamental right. I cannot help but wonder how average Chinese on the mainland must view Taiwan's remarkable transformation. On the one hand, the people of China have a deep devotion to national unity and apparently are prepared to use force against Taiwan if it were to declare its independence. As Zhang Yunling of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing explained to New York Times correspondent Elisabeth Rosenthal on March 20, ``China was divided when it was weak, and now that it is getting strong again, people's nationalist feeling rises and they feel strongly it is time to reunite the country.'' On the other hand, the people of China are beginning to form their own impressions of Taiwan, no longer content only to listen to the government's official propaganda demonizing the island. Some even admit publicly to a certain grudging admiration for Taiwan's accomplishments and hope their own government will do nothing to precipitate a crisis. As one 22-year-old Beijing University physics major told Rosenthal, ``I think both sides will have to make adjustments to their policies. After all Taiwan is democratic now, and the people have exercised their right to choose a president.'' Let me read the words of that university student again, ``. . . the people have exercised their right to choose a president.'' In America, we take democratic transitions of power for granted. But in China, and until recently on Taiwan, it was a revolutionary concept. And yet that is precisely what the people of Taiwan did on March 18. They changed their leadership through a peaceful, orderly, democratic process. They did so, by all accounts, because they were frustrated with corruption, cronyism, campaign finance abuses, and bureaucratic inefficiency. These are all faults that China's communist government has in spades. And with Internet use exploding in China, and with cross-straits commercial ties now in the tens of billions of dollars, there is no way that the people of China will not discover what is happening on Taiwan. And they may become inspired not only by the island's prosperity, but also by its peaceful democratic revolution. I predict they will begin to ask themselves, ``How come we don't enjoy the same standard of living and the same political rights here on the mainland?'' Taiwan's people are responsible for the island's miraculous transformation from authoritarian rule and poverty to democracy and prosperity. They deserve all of the credit. But the people of the United States have reason to feel a little bit of pride as well. If Taiwan wins the Oscar for Best Actor, then we at least get a nomination for Best Supporting Actor. The United States commitment to Taiwan's security under the terms of the Taiwan Relations Act helped create the stable environment in which Taiwan has thrived. The other critical component of cross-Strait stability has been our adherence to a ``One-China'' policy, in which we maintain that disputes between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait must be settled peacefully, and that the future relationship between the People's Republic of China and Taiwan must be determined in accordance with the wishes of the people of China and the people of Taiwan. Maintaining a peaceful, stable environment in the Taiwan Strait has fostered economic growth throughout East Asia. It has also aided the emergence of democratic societies in the Philippines, Thailand, South Korea, Indonesia, and Taiwan. In the past decade, more people have come under democratic rule in East Asia than were liberated in Europe by the end of the cold war and the collapse of the Soviet Union. This remarkable accomplishment would not have been possible without United States leadership. Given all that Taiwan has accomplished in such a short span, I look forward to the future with renewed hope that someday all people of China will enjoy the rights and standard of living enjoyed by those fortunate few who live on Taiwan.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise in support of Richard Paez' nomination to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. And I must say, this vote is long, long overdue. I have heard a lot of talk here on the floor along the lines of hey--this is politics as usual. ``Oh when Senator Biden was chairman of the Judiciary Committee, we held nominees up all the time.'' Let me say this: forget my tenure as chairman of the Judiciary Committee. As far as I know, no judicial nominee in the history of this nation has waited as long as Judge Paez has for a vote. Four years is not even within the ballpark of a reasonable delay. Judge Paez is a well-respected, experienced jurist. We already confirmed his nomination to the federal district court bench. He has served with distinction for 6 years on the federal district court and for 13 years before that as a municipal court judge in Los Angeles. The American Bar Association has given Judge Paez its highest rating, pronouncing him ``well qualified.'' Judge Paez enjoys broad bipartisan support in his own community, including from law enforcement officials. Judge Paez is an honorable man, a man of integrity, and a man who has devoted his entire career to service--first, to service to the poor as a committed poverty lawyer, and then to service to the public at large as a state and then federal judge. His record does the President and his supporters proud. From what I can tell, listening to the debate on the floor, the opposition to Judge Paez boils down to a few main points. First, to some off-hand remarks that he made about the California initiatives that maybe were ill-advised, but I believe may have been misconstrued-- but we have already heard this discussed at length on the floor. I think it is a real shame to judge a man's distinguished 19-year record on the bench on the basis of any single remark. More importantly, though, opponents cite concerns about the allegedly out-of-whack ninth circuit, which detractors like to call a ``rogue'' court. Aside from the fact that several circuits are reversed as or more often than the ninth circuit, I say this: If you have a problem with the ninth circuit, let's consider whether we should change the ninth circuit. I'm not saying whether we should or that we shouldn't, but there are several proposals out there to restructure the court. Let's debate them. Why should we punish the millions of people who live in the ninth circuit by depriving them of the judges they need to mete out timely and fair justice? There are six vacancies on the ninth circuit--that is more than 20 percent of the 28 positions authorized for the court. And even more judges are needed to handle that court's heavy case load. All of these vacancies, by the way, are characterized by the Judicial Conference as judicial emergencies. Let's not take out our differences on the ninth circuit on the people who live there and more importantly for today, let's not take out our differences on this nominee or--for that matter, on Marsha Berzon, another outstanding nominee who we are also voting on today. The Los Angeles Daily Journal did an in-depth study of the criticisms leveled against Judge Paez and found that they were unfounded. What they concluded was this: The portrait that emerged is of a thoughtful, unbiased and even-tempered judge, propelled into the political spotlight, only to be trapped in a seemingly never-ending and bitterly polarized nominations process. Let us end that nominations process for Judge Paez here and now, and let it end with a vote of support.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to make special note of the national honor bestowed upon one of the leading citizens in the central part of my State, in historic Kent County, Delaware. At the very heart of this national recognition for his business excellence is the story of a strong, close family, which makes this award all the more special. TIME Magazine has named John W. Whitby, Jr., President of Kent County Motor Sales Company, as its recipient of the 2000 Quality Dealer Award. The competition was formidable--Whitby won over 63 other dealers nominated for the 31st annual award, from more than 20,500 auto dealers nationwide. And make no mistake--this is a coveted award for auto dealers. It's the equivalent of TIME's ``Man of the Year'' award for automobile dealers. John operates Kent County Motor Sales in Dover, building on the successful business his dad, Jack Whitby founded. Upon accepting the award at the National Auto Dealers Association Convention, John readily gave credit to his father for the extensive training he received and to his employees and colleagues for their dedication and commitment to excellence. American philosopher and poet, George Santayana, wrote that: ``The family is one of nature's masterpieces.'' To extend that metaphor: The Whitby family is one of Kent County's masterpieces. Not only is John a top business owner, he is a community leader as well. John is a member of the Delaware Business Roundtable Greater Dover Committee; the Central Delaware Chamber of Commerce; the Quarterback Club of Kent County; and, Friends of Capitol Theatre among many other civic contributions. John is continuing the strong Whitby family tradition. He lives in his native Dover, with his wife Diane and two children, Emily and Jay. Mr. President, it is with great pride that I commend John Whitby, Jr. and his family for this outstanding national award.