Joe Biden

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.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to make a few remarks concerning the FAA reauthorization bill that is currently before the Senate. Although I will vote in support of the bill, I feel compelled to express my reservations concerning the mandatory budgetary provisions that are included in this conference agreement. It should be understood by all here today that these provisions should not be used to reduce funding for other essential transportation programs, most importantly Amtrak. I realize the importance of passing this legislation that provides necessary funding for aviation programs over the next three years. This bill has been a long time coming and I understand it has been carefully and diligently crafted between the conferees. I believe we need additional funding for the improvement of our airports and to permit us to take advantage of the best technologies to improve passenger safety. However, I don't believe that other transportation programs such as Amtrak should suffer as a result of the budgetary agreement that has been included in this bill. I have long been a supporter of Amtrak and am dedicated to making sure that the Federal Government lives up to its promise to provide Amtrak with sufficient support to preserve passenger rail service in this country and enable Amtrak to reach operating self- sufficiency. Because of this I want to make it clear that I'm voting for this FAA reauthorization bill with the understanding that the Majority Leader, Senator Lott, and the Minority Leader, Senator Daschle, have made assurances that they will protect Amtrak from budgetary threats that may follow from this legislation.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, circumstances have prevented my being able to be here for the vote this evening on Julio Fuentes's nomination to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, but I wanted to take this opportunity to make it clear that I am pleased to support his nomination. Judge Fuentes is eminently qualified for this important position. After several years in private practice, Judge Fuentes has served the New Jersey community with honor first, as a judge on the Newark Municipal Court, and now, as a judge on the New Jersey Superior Court, where he has served admirably for well over a decade. Judge Fuentes is an excellent jurist with an unblemished record and a man of integrity. He is regarded with great esteem within his community and has received the endorsement of many different organizations. In fact, I understand that Judge Fuentes was originally recommended for a seat on the District Court in New Jersey, but the White House was so impressed after meeting him that the President nominated him to the Third Circuit instead. I always monitor the nominations made to the Third Circuit with special interest because my own state of Delaware is part of that Circuit. And I can say without reservation that I am confident that Judge Fuentes will discharge his new responsibilities with distinction and will make a fine addition to that court. I commend the two Senators of New Jersey for their support of this nominee and am proud to join them.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I may not take the 10 minutes. I can assure my colleagues that in order to accommodate the number of Senators who asked about my amendment, I am not going to, at this moment, force a vote on that amendment. What I rise today for is to speak about an amendment I have submitted to this bill. What we have before us today is fundamentally a tax bill to help middle-class parents give their children the best education possible at elementary and secondary levels, as well as higher education. I, with a few on my side of the aisle, happen to support the Senator from Georgia in his effort. The proposals in this bill are not new. In fact, I have supported many of them in their various incarnations in the past. Several of these proposals were included as part of a so-called GET AHEAD Act--Growing the Economy for Tomorrow: Assuring Higher Education is Affordable and Dependable--an act which I introduced in 1997. Although this bill never came before the Congress for a vote, many of its provisions were included in the 1997 tax bill. In 1998, I was one of only a handful of Democrats who supported the legislation to expand the existing education savings accounts, more commonly referred to as educational IRAs. Currently, $500 a year may be contributed to these education IRAs, and the money in these accounts may only be used for higher education. However, under the 1998 proposal, as well as the bill we have before us today, these accounts would be expanded so the parents could contribute up to $2,000 per year, and the savings in the accounts could be used to pay for elementary and secondary education costs, as well as the costs associated with higher education. I find no principal rationale why I should be able to use a $2,000 IRA to have sent my child to Georgetown University and not use it to send my child to Archmere Academy, which is a Catholic institution as well but a high school. During my time in the Senate, I have consistently supported reasonable, appropriate, and constitutional measures to help middle- class and low-income families choose an alternative to public schools. I believe the bill achieves part of this goal. There is no tax deduction for the money put into these education IRAs. There is no tax deduction for the entire cost of a private or parochial education. This is not a voucher proposal. The thing I would most want to speak to today is the idea that we have to do more than we are now to accommodate parents sending their kids to college. As helpful as this initiative is, it does not go very far. We all know firsthand how difficult it is for American families to afford college. In 1997, we took some important steps towards making college education more affordable with the enactment of several tax credits for students and their families. So-called HOPE scholarships allow families a tax credit of up to $1,500 for tuition and fees for the first 2 years of college. The Lifetime Learning credit currently allows families a 20-percent tax credit on up to $5,000 for educational expenses through the year 2002, and up to $10,000 for educational expenses thereafter. Additionally, the 1997 tax bill allows students to deduct a portion of the interest paid on student loans during the first 60 months of repayment. The bill before us today proposes to eliminate that 60-month limit on student loan interest deductions and allow students to deduct the interest paid on their student loans for the duration of their repayment. While this is another step in the right direction, I believe there is still more we can do to help our Nation's college students. That is why I am offering an amendment today to allow an additional tax relief for millions of families who are struggling to put their kids through college. My amendment builds upon the proposal contained in the legislation introduced in 1997. My amendment would offer families the option of either a tax deduction of a 28-percent tax credit on up to $5,000 of educational expenses during 2001 and 2002 and up to $10,000 of educational expenses during 2003 and thereafter. Further, there is no limit on the number of years the family could claim this tax credit. So a student could claim a deduction or credit for every year he or she is enrolled in an institution of higher learning as either an undergraduate or a graduate student. Additionally, this educational tax deduction contains higher income thresholds. I would allow this to be taken for up to $120,000 for joint filers, thus allowing more families and more students to take advantage of the tax benefits in this proposal. Things have changed a great deal since I arrived in the Senate in 1973. In 1973, there was still the myth that all a student needed was a good high school education to have a clear shot at being able to make it. The statistics and the numbers and the story has been told over the last 28 years that a college education is essentially becoming a prerequisite for having a clear shot at the middle-class dream of being able to own a home, afford a good education for your children, and to live with some degree of financial certitude. I will not take more time today, although when I do introduce this formally to a piece of legislation, I will speak much longer and in much more detail. To summarize, I think it is the most noble of social purposes to seek to encourage families to spend money on educating their children and, particularly at this stage, on higher education. People say to me: Joe, $120,000 is an awful lot of money for you to allow someone to have a tax advantage. You can have them make up to $120,000 and they still get a benefit here. The answer is yes. My inclination is to go higher. Try sending a kid to a private institution today and college. Try sending a kid to a school that is not a State public institution. There are phenomenal State public institutions. I am not suggesting there aren't. Take my alma mater, the University of Delaware. As an in-State student, you can get it done for somewhere around $13,000 room, board, and tuition. Send that same kid to the school my son attended, the University of Pennsylvania and it is $35,000. Send them to Gettysburg College and it is $30,000 room, board, and tuition. The cost of education is astronomical. What I don't like to see happen, when you think about the incredible cost of education today and what we are developing, is basically a two- tiered education system. One of the greatest bills that ever passed was the GI bill. The GI bill meant that Irish Catholic kids and inner-city kids and farm boys could go to Harvard and Yale and Princeton and to the great ``universities'' out there. But now to go to those schools and every other school, many of which we haven't heard the names of, there is very little possibility. The only choice a student has in a middle-class family is to be able to go to the State institution. I went to the State institution. I am proud of having gone to the State institution. My wife graduated from the State institution. My whole family went to the University of Delaware. I take a back seat to no one at any other university in terms of the education I received, but I don't want to be in a position where, in fact, the only choice middle-class people have of sending their kids to college is at a State university. I don't want this two-tiered system to reemerge. If you get into one of the great universities, the prestige universities, they are endowed enough that if you have no money, you are likely to be able to get help. You will be able to get some aid packages to go. The people who get crunched are the people in the middle. I am delighted and pleased and I applaud the Georgetowns and the Dukes and the Princetons and the Stanfords and the great universities out there that are the named universities for providing for the education of moderate- and low-income people who otherwise qualify to get in. Very few get turned away because of that. The problem comes with the quintessential middle-class family who makes what appears to be a good income, has three kids going to college, and they lose that option. I don't think they should. Mr. President, rather than take the time of the Senate, I will withhold sending my amendment to the desk because I am not going to ask for a vote on it now. I will speak to this in more detail later. I thank the manager of the bill for allowing me the opportunity. I particularly thank Senator Wellstone, who was here before me, for allowing me to precede him. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, as the Senator from Pennsylvania, I have known Cardinal O'Connor for a long time. I am a cosponsor of this bill. That is not the reason I stand. I stand today to say I hope there is a lesson drawn from what is being done here. The primary cosponsor of this amendment is a man from New York of a different faith, who disagrees vehemently with the cardinal on some very important items that mean a lot to him in terms of the rights of homosexuals and the issue of choice. Yet he has come forward to acknowledge, along with his friend from Pennsylvania, that this man should be recognized for the special features he has possessed and the courage and the commitment he has shown. I hope we all take a lesson from this. I hope we all understand that in every one of us in this country there is a lot of good--those who have strong political positions that are diametrically opposed to us-- and yet we are able to see the good as well as the disagreement. I hope this is an object lesson for everyone. I thank the Senator from New York for having the good grace to understand how we should run all of our affairs in this country. You can disagree without being disagreeable. You can have strong views and still recognize, in this instance, the saintly side of a great man. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to proceed for 1 minute.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Helms, in supporting a resolution regarding Andrei Babitsky, a reporter for Radio Liberty, who has been missing in Russia since January. Mr. Babitsky is a veteran reporter for Radio Liberty, the U.S.-funded radio broadcasting organization based in Prague. He has reported on Russia for over a decade, and reported on the Russo-Chechen war from 1994 to 1996 and over the past several months. In mid-January, Mr. Babitsky disappeared in Chechnya. Since then, Russian officials have issued contradictory statements about Mr. Babitsky's whereabouts and well-being. On January 26, a Russian presidential spokesman stated that Babitsky ``left Grozny and then disappeared,'' and that Russian officials had no knowledge of his whereabouts. Two days later, Russian authorities acknowledged to officials from Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty that Mr. Babitsky had been detained, but that he would soon be released. Just a few days after that, Russian officials stated that, instead of being released, Mr. Babitsky had been handed to Chechen rebels in exchange for three Russian prisoners of war. It is now late February. Mr. Babitsky still has not been heard from, and the Russian government has yet to provide a credible accounting of his whereabouts. The actions and statements of the Government of the Russian Federation are deeply troubling, not only because of what they may mean for Mr. Babitsky's well-being, but for what they may portend about the freedom of the press in Russia today. Mr. Babitsky is a journalist, working for an American-supported news organization. His detention by the Russian authorities, and his reported exchange with the Chechens, violates fundamental norms embodied in the Geneva Conventions and applicable protocols. Equally troubling, the detention and mistreatment of a working journalist is a chilling indication that the Government of the Russian Federation is not committed to a fundamental human right: freedom of the press. These are not just the words of one United States Senator. In Russia itself, a leading journalists' union has stated that the Babitsky case is ``not an isolated episode, but almost a turning point in the struggle for a press that serves society and not the authorities.'' Several weeks ago, the chairman and I wrote to Acting President Putin and urged Mr. Babitsky's release. Several other senators and members of the other body have expressed similar views. Additionally, the Secretary of State has raised this matter with senior Russian officials. In Russia, Europe and the United States, there has been universal condemnation of the Russian Government for its actions in this matter. Today we have decided to call additional attention to Mr. Babitsky's plight by introducing this sense of the Senate resolution, which criticizes the Government of the Russian Federation for its actions in the Babitsky matter and calls on Moscow to provide a full accounting of his detention. I hope it will get the attention of the Russian Government. I hope it will help lead to the truth about the whereabouts of Mr. Babitsky. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, is a very vital part of our arsenal to combat terrorism and espionage. For 20 years, it has enabled the FBI to keep track of major threats to our security while preserving the constitutional rights of Americans. Basically, it provides for a sort of super search warrant, allowing the FBI, under certain unique circumstances, to eavesdrop upon activities, after showing a probable cause to a Federal judge, without having to disclose this eavesdropping in ways that they would have to under a normal warrant for a wiretap or a physical search. FISA has been very useful to deal with terrorism, and also with espionage cases. Senator Specter has undertaken an effort to look into what may or may not have transpired at our National Laboratories in the celebrated case of Wen Ho Lee and others. This has been the subject of some very legitimate discussion, and occasionally some partisan discussion. But knowing Senator Specter as long as I have, I do not doubt his desire to look into these cases that have transpired, and the consequences of any leakage of classified information from any of our National Laboratories, for the primary purpose of seeing to it that it does not happen again, if in fact it did happen, as well as to determine what did happen. Senator Specter and Senator Torricelli have been looking into these recent cases, especially, as I said, the case of Wen Ho Lee at Los Alamos National Laboratory. As a result of that inquiry, Senator Specter is proposing what I think is a very important series of sensible amendments to this act we call FISA. I am pleased to cosponsor this bill, having been an original author of that legislation in 1978, along with Birch Bayh and others. The initial bill with which Senator Specter approached me and others had a few areas where I thought it could be improved. I wish to publicly thank Senator Specter for agreeing to the changes I suggested in his proposed legislation. One of the dilemmas that exists, in the debate about whether the Attorney General and the Justice Department and/or the FBI were reading from the same page in the hymnal on how to investigate the Wen Ho Lee case, is the issue of whether the FBI communicated enough information to the Attorney General so that, under the reading of the FISA law, the Attorney General could conclude that there was sufficient reason to get a search or electronic surveillance court order. There has been a little bit of disagreement, at a minimum, between the FBI and the Justice Department as to who said what, when, and what request was made when. It has led to a serious political controversy. I think it has also led, as a consequence, on both sides of the aisle, to some posturing and partisanship about a significant national security issue. One of Senator Specter's most important ideas in this bill, one which is going to seem commonsensical to most Americans, is to make it clear that if something is of such consequence that the Director of the FBI believes there should be a FISA hearing and authority granted to allow the FBI to use invasive measures to eavesdrop upon conversations and/or get records, for example, from computer data and the like, if it is that important, the FBI Director can, under this new amendment to FISA, put that request in writing to the Attorney General and the Attorney General, whoever that may be, then has to personally sign off or not sign off, so we avoid this debate that is taking place now about whether second level people or third level people made the right judgment or wrong judgment, and whether or not there was any malfeasance. So this is a very practical solution. If this legislation had been in place 3 years ago, 5 years ago, there would be no doubt as to what happened. Had the FBI said this is critical and this is national security, the Attorney General personally would have had to say yes or no. That is where the record is unclear in the Wen Ho Lee case. This bill would eliminate such doubt in future similar cases if and when they arise, and they surely will arise. Section 2 of this bill permits the judge to consider the past activities of the target of an investigation--that is, the person upon whom they want to eavesdrop and/or whose records they want to secretly examine. So, for example, the Attorney General would be able to say, in a closed FISA hearing: Your Honor, not only do we think this is justified because of some current activity, but we can show you evidence that in 1991 they were engaged in this suspicious activity, in 1993 they were engaged in that, in 1995 they were engaged in this, therefore lending greater credibility to the argument that a FISA court order should be issued by the judge. Again, in this Wen Ho Lee case, and other cases that Senator Specter has examined, there has been discussion of the fact that sometimes these folks had been under investigation before. Would that not lend greater weight to the need for this FISA request to be granted? So we clear that up in this legislation, rather than only allowing the target's current activity to be brought up. Section 3 of this proposal requires the FISA court to be told if the target of a proposed search or surveillance has a relationship with a Federal law enforcement or intelligence agency. This came up in this case as well. The case is being investigated. It turns out at some point one of the persons in the past had been also a source for the FBI. The FBI had gone to this person and said: Will you be a source for us, looking into the possibility of some illegal activity? Then that very person becomes the target, and that very person is never able to tell, nor does the FBI or the CIA say: By the way, Your Honor, we were working with them. That is why they went ahead and did the following. Up to now, when the Federal Government has asked for a FISA court judge to give this surveillance authority, it has not been required to say: By the way, Your Honor, this person in the past had worked with us as a source, as a person cooperating with us. This is a new and useful protection for Americans, because the conduct that might seem suspicious could be a result of what the law enforcement agency had actually asked them to do. It seems only fair to the target to be able to have that information known to the judge. This is typical of the Senator from Pennsylvania, that he looks out for individual rights as well as the interests of law enforcement. There are several other interesting provisions in this bill, including some to improve relations between the FBI and other agencies, and I am sure there will be further refinements in this bill when it is considered by the Judiciary Committee. The important thing is that Senator Specter is working, I think effectively and in a bipartisan manner, to ensure that his inquiry into the Wen Ho Lee case leads to useful changes and not just to partisan recriminations. I compliment him on that, because the purpose of oversight is not only to find out who struck John but, in the national interest, to find the best way to prevent something such as this from happening again. So I compliment him and again thank him for acceding to the more than several changes I asked for in this legislation. I think the amendments to existing law that this bill will enact are good amendments. I think America will be well served, and I would argue that the individual rights of Americans will be in no greater jeopardy after this passes than they ever were. They are protected; they will continue to be protected; and some of these changes will even help to further protect the rights of individual Americans. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent Mike Daly, a fellow in the office of Senator Abraham, be granted the privilege of the floor for the period of the consideration of H.R. 1883, the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, before the Senator from Connecticut leaves the floor, I wish to thank him and acknowledge all the work he has done over the past year or more on this issue. He has, in a sense, exercised some forbearance in the past when he thought it might have been more appropriate to make a stronger move, but because of circumstances within Russia and our bilateral relations and the hope--not expectation--that there may be a way to get this done, he has cooperated. I think everybody should understand the reason this issue has stayed so much on the forefront is because of his vigilance and his effort. I thank him for that. I thank him as well, along with other colleagues, for entertaining some of the changes that Senator Levin proposed. I think this is a much better bill. I agree with him; I think enough time has passed to demonstrate that this may be the only course left open, and hopefully it will work. In a strange sense, the Senator and I have had occasion separately and individually, as the Presiding Officer has, to meet with members of the Russian Duma, members of the Russian Government, and members of the leadership of the various Arab states. I find it counterintuitive that they don't understand, quite frankly, that what is happening in Iran and their quest for this missile technology is literally a greater threat to them than it is to us. It is no greater threat to anyone than Israel; nonetheless, it is an incredibly significant threat to our friends in Europe, as well as our Arab friends. What is going on in North Korea is a threat to China and Russia in the long term, not only Japan and South Korea. What is going on in Iraq is a greater threat to our French friends--who seem to support Iraq against their own interests--than it is to us. I am wondering when reason will take hold. I am a little bit dismayed, and more than a little bit miffed, by the ability of our friends, as well as those who are not viewed as our close friends, to dismiss reality. What do they think? If Russia is worried about the radicalization of the Moslem populations within the former Soviet Union, the Trans-Caucasus, and other places, why in the devil do they not understand that what is going on in Iraq, as well as in Iran--if it does not take a drastic change in course--is inimical to their interests? Ironically, the second largest former Communist state--the former Soviet Union--seems to be the ultimate capitalist in this regard; but they can't add very well. This is, I think, more about money than anything else. Hopefully, as I will lay out in my statement--and I don't want to delay the Senator any longer--they will see the virtues of looking to the West and not to Iran and Iraq for the source of their economic survival. At any rate, I thank the Senator very much for his leadership.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BIDEN. I wish the driver of that express a lot of luck. Maybe what Mr. Putin, who is the Acting President and likely soon to be elected President, it appears--maybe we should send my mom over to see him. My mom had an expression, from the time we were kids, when you would do something against your own interest out of anger, or out of pique, or misunderstanding. My mother would say, ``Don't bite your nose off to spite your face.'' Well, we have a whole lot of Russians seeming to bite their noses off to spite their faces. I find it absolutely astounding what they appear to continue to do. The bill before us is called the Iran Nonproliferation Act. That is the context in which we should talk about this, and I think we should understand this. The purpose of this bill is not to punish, but rather to restrain. The goal that we pursue is not to invoke sanctions, but rather to make this a safer world for all of us, including the Russians. The means to that end is to make this a world with fewer weapons of mass destruction and with fewer delivery systems able to deliver weapons of mass destruction, notably long-range ballistic missiles. Long-range ballistic missiles are a curious invention. They are awesome, frankly, but they don't amount to much as a military weapon unless they are armed with a powerful warhead. Now, the sort of long- range missile that Third World countries might build --and that the countries I have mentioned are attempting to build, or have built-- those missiles cannot carry big enough warheads to do much damage with a conventional high explosive, a plain old bomb; they are too heavy. The missile is not big enough, powerful enough, does not have enough throw weight to carry conventional weapons. So the irony is that a country which develops or buys long-range ballistic missiles is all too likely, therefore, to seek weapons of mass destruction, such as nuclear warheads that are lighter and have much more--no pun intended --bang for the buck than a conventional weapon, or even potentially a lighter payload, with chemical weapons or biological weapons on top of these missiles. The irony is that as they develop a long-range ballistic missile capacity, they are led inextricably--if they are going to be of any ``value'' militarily--they move toward weapons of mass destruction with which to arm the missiles. North Korea has been trying to build a nuclear weapon. Iraq has built chemical and biological weapons and is seeking a nuclear capability. They were close to building a nuclear weapon a decade ago. Similarly, Iran has a covert nuclear weapons program. Even the Government of Russia admits that. Iran has also developed and used chemical weapons. Now, again, that is chemical weapons that, based on the missile technology they may have acquired, even if they have a range of 2,000 miles, as my friend from Connecticut indicated, doesn't get them to Washington, DC. It doesn't get them to any U.S. territory. But it does get them to a lot of areas of the world where our friends--in this case, the Russians-- can be affected. We have to stop this as best we can. The world must move toward fewer weapons of mass destruction, not more of them. We have to reduce the number of long-range ballistic missiles in the world, not increase them. Unfortunately, some foreign persons--and I say ``persons'' because that is the legal word in this legislation for officials or entities; by ``entities'' we mean the Russian agency comparable to our space agency, NASA, or the agency in Russia comparable to our Defense Department, or institutes, or companies. In Russia, institutes or companies cannot be separated very clearly from the Government. Unfortunately, some of these foreign ``persons''--in Russia, China, and North Korea--are deaf to the world's call for nonproliferation and apparently tone deaf to their own interests. The countries or entities are so desperate for cash or so angry at the West that they will risk Armageddon by helping Iran build long-range ballistic missiles or even nuclear weapons. As ironic as this sounds, this legislation is designed in part to save them from their own destructive impulses. The United States has imposed sanctions at times on entities from all three of these supplier countries. Again, by the ``supplier'' countries I mean North Korea, China, and Russia. The United States has imposed sanctions on entities from these countries and is continuing negotiations with all of these countries to secure an end to their assistance to Iran. While we may hope for success in the months or years to come, however, there has been little success so far. Today the Senate will vote to make the President list the offending ``persons;'' to increase his powers to impose sanctions against them; and to limit United States support for Russian work on the international space station if any entities under the Russian Aviation and Space Agency continue to assist Iran, which we have reason to believe they have. It is important to understand that H.R. 1883, which we will shortly pass, is not an anti-Russian bill. Rather, it is simply and overwhelmingly a nonproliferation bill. Both I and the Senate sponsors of this bill would like nothing better than to have this bill result in no sanctions whatever against Russia. While we try to crack down on entities that assist Iran's long-range ballistic missile programs, we also support nonproliferation of assistance to Russia. We continue to help Russia reduce its unneeded strategic weapons through the Nunn-Lugar program, protect its sensitive nuclear materials, help it find new careers for excess weapon scientists, and improve its export control laws. Those are the laws that are on the books, and should be enforced, which would prevent any agency or company within Russia from transferring usable information to aid and abet Iran in their long-range missile programs. We are helping Russia in other ways, as well, so this should not be taken in isolation. This is part of a continuum of efforts on our part to deal with the interests of our country as well as Russia. The United States Government, with the support of many in this body, also continues to work with Russia on many other vital issues. We seek continued strategic arms reductions, through the so-called START process. We support the sharing of missile warning data. We are working to preserve the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the ABM Treaty, with an amendment that allows for--again, in Russia's interests--a limited ballistic missile defense. Again, we pointed out that North Korea and Iran present a greater danger to them than they do to the United States. The United States and other Western countries also offer the investment on which Russia's economic development depends. United States companies even buy ballistic missile engines from Russia's top design bureaus. Our American companies are purchasing directly from Russian design entities. We are buying engines that they are producing, from which they are making substantial money. Iran cannot begin to match the power of the United States to sustain and transform Russian industry. In other words, they will make a heck of a lot more money doing the right thing, dealing with the United States and with the Western Europeans and Japan, than they will ever make from selling technology to Iran. I urge Russian leaders to think about that. I wonder, with all the chaos that is in place in Russia, whether anybody at the top has ever really focused on this. In pure unadulterated dollars and cents, what is in Russia's economic interest is to sell to the West rather than to sell to Iran. If the choice is starkly made, which we are about to do, I hope they will focus more logically on their alternatives. This bill and the Senate are not anti-Russian, but we are manifestly anti-proliferation. We will not tolerate vicious and venal persons plunging the world into a new cold war, let alone a hot one in which weapons of mass destruction would be a freely traded currency of death. If Russia or China or North Korea should choose the path of proliferation--and they have to some degree already done that--we will show that there are better paths to power and prestige than proliferating ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction to Third World countries with unstable regimes. There is still time to stamp out proliferation and to put the world on a more peaceful path, but we must not and we will not collaborate in sowing the seeds of global destruction through proliferation. It is unfortunate that the Senate action occurs only weeks before next month's Presidential elections in Russia. The need to pass this legislation is not our fault, that is Russia's fault. Some in that country between now and those elections may try to use our action to stir up a nationalistic reaction for their own political purposes in the upcoming Russian election. That would be both unwise and ill founded. It is also unfortunate that the House authors of this bill insisted upon triggering Presidential reporting and possible sanctions based upon a very low standard of evidence. In practice, however, no President will impose sanctions unless he is convinced that wrongdoing has occurred, notwithstanding the fact that the House standard of evidence is too low a threshold. Finally, I regret that this bill does not permit the President to authorize extraordinary payments for work on the international space station, if those payments should be needed, to protect sensitive intelligence information. Neither does it permit payments to a sanctioned entity if such payments are needed to prevent significant dangers to the crew of the space station. I do not think either of those are wise restrictions, and I hope these concerns can be addressed in conference between the House and Senate. The important fact is, however, that the Senate action today is a measure not of anti-Russian sentiment, nor of any impulse to bully. Rather, it reflects the depth of our concern and also our frustration over the increasing risk that Russian and other entities will recklessly open Pandora's box, against their own interest as well as ours. I earnestly hope that in the coming weeks, our President and the newly elected President of Russia can put us back on the track of peaceful cooperation to make this a safer and more prosperous world. That is a real prospect for both countries, if Russia would only accept that its profit and its destiny lies in the West, not in the East. Perhaps passage of this bill will help to bring about such a reevaluation. If so, then prospects for the new century on which we have just embarked would truly be improved. If not, it puts us on a perilous slope to more proliferation and colder, not warmer, relations. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, there has been incredible prosperity that the vast majority of our country is benefiting from--and that prosperity was built on a combination of communication and computers. This technology has opened a whole new world for America. This new technology has driven our economic growth. And, the future lies with those who can master the tools of this new economic age. It wasn't too long ago that it looked like our time in the sun was behind us. Behind us was the idea of prosperity in our country. But times have changed over the past few years. And we stand here today with the prospect of a new era of prosperity. With flexible financial markets, a historic wave of entrepreneurial activity, and the convergence of new technologies from the personal computer to the Internet, we are transforming ourselves into what is now called the ``new economy.'' Look at the numbers: In recent years, Information Technology industries contributed 35% to Gross Domestic Product growth. The Information Technology sector is growing at twice the rate of the rest of the economy. And by 2006, more than half of the U.S. workforce will be employed by industries that are either major producers, or intensive users, of Information Technology. A lot of what we do--manufacturing, shipping, marketing, are basically the same old functions. But we do virtually all of them in new and better ways thanks to the explosion of information technology. This has increased our productivity in ways that the best economists still don't completely understand. But, there is one thing that we do understand: those who can master technology will be able to benefit from this great expansion--and that is why we are here today. So no one is left behind. That is why today I am proud to be introducing legislation, aptly titled Kids 2000, that will be one step in our mission to provide all children with access to technology. It is my hope, that through a public/private partnership, led by members of Congress and Steve and Jean Case, state-of-the-art computer centers will be placed in Boys & Girls Clubs nationwide. Located in largely under-served communities, Club computer centers will reach precisely the kids who need these resources the most. And none of these kids will be left behind. One goal of Kids 2000 is to help close the digital divide by providing kids with computers, internet access, and fully comprehensive technical training. As the wonders of computers become increasingly evident and celebrated, certain segments of society still lack access to these resources. Some segments are not participating in this technological revolution that is sweeping across our country. And the disparities are alarming. Look at the figures: Of households making over $75,000, 80% own computers and 60% use the Internet. Yet, for households making between $10,000-$15,000, only 16% own a computer and only 7% use the Internet. And it's not just income levels. There are disparities amongst races, education levels and geography. In addition, at all income levels, households with two parents are far more likely than one-parent households to own computers and have Internet access. The digital divide is also significant because the new digital economy can't run on computers alone. Businesses need workers with computer know-how and Internet literacy. Those who are not competent with the tools of technology will be left behind. Some of them are our kids. They are our responsibility and we cannot let this happen. And we know what happens to our kids when they are left behind. Their opportunities are vastly reduced, there is despair, and even criminal behavior. But there is something that we can do. And we are here today to begin a significant effort to do just that--to close the digital divide. Addressing the problems associated with the digital divide is not all this initiative seeks to do. Another goal is to reduce juvenile crime by providing kids with substantive after-school programs. Everyone has heard me say this time and time again, but let me say this one more time--prevention works. While kids are learning in these computer centers, they will be off the street and out of harm's way. They will be occupied with constructive activities. School dropout rates will be reduced because kids will realize that they have great potential. Kids 2000 is the ultimate after-school program. That is precisely why I have asked the Boys and Girls Clubs to host my computer initiative. For decades, the Boys & Girls Clubs of America have provided young people all across the United States with the support and inspiration they need to make it in a world full of peer pressure and crime. Kids 2000 also makes sense economically. It is estimated that allowing a single youth to drop out of high school and enter a life of drug abuse and crime costs society between $1.7 and $2.3 million. In comparison, Kids 2000 will cost the government a mere $40 per child. Because I believe that there is a role for the private sector, I have asked my good friends Jean and Steve Case and PowerUp to be an integral part of this initiative. That means computers, America On-Line accounts, educational curriculum, and fully comprehensive technical training in Boys and Girls Clubs nationwide. And PowerUp is not alone. 3-Com has committed to donating $1 million in networking equipment, MCI Worldcom will be donating educational software and training, American Airlines has agreed to donate free airline travel to train teachers, Ripple Effects Software will donate educational software, and Sabre Inc. will be donating computers. I want to thank all the corporations that have stepped forward and I hope that there will be many more in the coming months. We can't do this project without the private sector's help. I want to say thanks to Steve and Jean Case who have been in the forefront of this issue since the beginning and who are participating in this initiative in a very significant way. You know we could not do this without you and I appreciate your generosity and commitment to the cause. This initiative has brought together so many integral sectors of society. Business, government, the non-profit world. Together, we can make this program a success. Together we can make a difference in the lives of kids and provide our children with the tools they need to live and learn in a world that has become so dependent on technology. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, there has been incredible prosperity that the vast majority of our country is benefiting from--and that prosperity was built on a combination of communication and computers. This technology has opened a whole new world for America. This new technology has driven our economic growth. And, the future lies with those who can master the tools of this new economic age. It wasn't too long ago that it looked like our time in the sun was behind us. Behind us was the idea of prosperity in our country. But times have changed over the past few years. And we stand here today with the prospect of a new era of prosperity. With flexible financial markets, a historic wave of entrepreneurial activity, and the convergence of new technologies from the personal computer to the Internet, we are transforming ourselves into what is now called the ``new economy.'' Look at the numbers: In recent years, Information Technology industries contributed 35% to Gross Domestic Product growth. The Information Technology sector is growing at twice the rate of the rest of the economy. And by 2006, more than half of the U.S. workforce will be employed by industries that are either major producers, or intensive users, of Information Technology. A lot of what we do--manufacturing, shipping, marketing, are basically the same old functions. But we do virtually all of them in new and better ways thanks to the explosion of information technology. This has increased our productivity in ways that the best economists still don't completely understand. But, there is one thing that we do understand: those who can master technology will be able to benefit from this great expansion--and that is why we are here today. So no one is left behind. That is why today I am proud to be introducing legislation, aptly titled Kids 2000, that will be one step in our mission to provide all children with access to technology. It is my hope, that through a public/private partnership, led by members of Congress and Steve and Jean Case, state-of-the-art computer centers will be placed in Boys & Girls Clubs nationwide. Located in largely under-served communities, Club computer centers will reach precisely the kids who need these resources the most. And none of these kids will be left behind. One goal of Kids 2000 is to help close the digital divide by providing kids with computers, internet access, and fully comprehensive technical training. As the wonders of computers become increasingly evident and celebrated, certain segments of society still lack access to these resources. Some segments are not participating in this technological revolution that is sweeping across our country. And the disparities are alarming. Look at the figures: Of households making over $75,000, 80% own computers and 60% use the Internet. Yet, for households making between $10,000-$15,000, only 16% own a computer and only 7% use the Internet. And it's not just income levels. There are disparities amongst races, education levels and geography. In addition, at all income levels, households with two parents are far more likely than one-parent households to own computers and have Internet access. The digital divide is also significant because the new digital economy can't run on computers alone. Businesses need workers with computer know-how and Internet literacy. Those who are not competent with the tools of technology will be left behind. Some of them are our kids. They are our responsibility and we cannot let this happen. And we know what happens to our kids when they are left behind. Their opportunities are vastly reduced, there is despair, and even criminal behavior. But there is something that we can do. And we are here today to begin a significant effort to do just that--to close the digital divide. Addressing the problems associated with the digital divide is not all this initiative seeks to do. Another goal is to reduce juvenile crime by providing kids with substantive after-school programs. Everyone has heard me say this time and time again, but let me say this one more time--prevention works. While kids are learning in these computer centers, they will be off the street and out of harm's way. They will be occupied with constructive activities. School dropout rates will be reduced because kids will realize that they have great potential. Kids 2000 is the ultimate after-school program. That is precisely why I have asked the Boys and Girls Clubs to host my computer initiative. For decades, the Boys & Girls Clubs of America have provided young people all across the United States with the support and inspiration they need to make it in a world full of peer pressure and crime. Kids 2000 also makes sense economically. It is estimated that allowing a single youth to drop out of high school and enter a life of drug abuse and crime costs society between $1.7 and $2.3 million. In comparison, Kids 2000 will cost the government a mere $40 per child. Because I believe that there is a role for the private sector, I have asked my good friends Jean and Steve Case and PowerUp to be an integral part of this initiative. That means computers, America On-Line accounts, educational curriculum, and fully comprehensive technical training in Boys and Girls Clubs nationwide. And PowerUp is not alone. 3-Com has committed to donating $1 million in networking equipment, MCI Worldcom will be donating educational software and training, American Airlines has agreed to donate free airline travel to train teachers, Ripple Effects Software will donate educational software, and Sabre Inc. will be donating computers. I want to thank all the corporations that have stepped forward and I hope that there will be many more in the coming months. We can't do this project without the private sector's help. I want to say thanks to Steve and Jean Case who have been in the forefront of this issue since the beginning and who are participating in this initiative in a very significant way. You know we could not do this without you and I appreciate your generosity and commitment to the cause. This initiative has brought together so many integral sectors of society. Business, government, the non-profit world. Together, we can make this program a success. Together we can make a difference in the lives of kids and provide our children with the tools they need to live and learn in a world that has become so dependent on technology. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today, I introduce a bill which will re- authorize the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund for an additional five years. I firmly believe that re-authorization of the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund for another five years is the single most significant thing that we can do to continue the war on crime. In 1994 when we introduced the Biden Crime Bill, which eventually became the crime bill of 1994, some people disagreed with certain aspects of the bill. But, we all agreed that crime control is a place where the federal government can and should play a key role. We can all argue about how much we should be involved in education or welfare, but no one can argue about the requirement of the government to make our streets safe. That is the starting point for all ordered society. So, I, along with the Senior Senator from Texas, Mr. Gramm, and the Senior Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, worked to set up a Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund. The way we did that was not to raise taxes--it was to cut the size of the federal government and use the money to fight crime. And so we agreed to let 250,000 Federal employees go. Then we took the paycheck that would have been used to pay John Jones and Sue Smith and we put it into a trust fund to do nothing but deal with violent crime in America. And guess what--it worked. Since the Fund was established in the Biden Crime Bill, The Office of Management and Budget tells us that Congress had appropriated $16,648,000,000 from the fund through 1998, and $10,300,000,000 was estimated for 1999 and 2000 combined. What has this money done you ask? Just look at the numbers: To date, the money has funded more than 103,000 police officers under the COPS program to make our streets safer. As of 1999, over 17,000 new prison, jail or alternative beds had been added under the Violent Offender Incarceration/Truth-in-Sentencing Grants Program. Under the drug court program nationwide, more than 140,000 offenders have participated in drug courts, receiving the supervision and treatment they need to stop abusing drugs and committing crimes. Under the National Criminal History Improvement Program, enhancements to the FBI's National Criminal History Background Check System have helped block more than 400,000 gun sales to ineligible persons. And, program improvements now allow 35 states and the District of Columbia to submit data to the FBI's National Sex Offender Registry, which became operational in July 1999. The fund has provided money to states and localities to help offset the costs of incarcerating criminal illegal aliens under the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. Under the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment for State Prisoners program, all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the five territories, have implemented drug testing and treatment programs that address 80 percent of offenders who have drug or alcohol problems. Through the largest Violence Against Women Act program, funding for the STOP Violence Against Women Formula Grants Program is changing the way communities work together to respond to domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. And there are other Violence Against Women Act grant programs which have had an impact on many communities. The Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies program encourages jurisdictions to implement mandatory or pro-arrest policies in domestic violence cases. The Rural Domestic Violence and Child Victimization Enforcement Grant Program has recognized the special needs of victims in rural locations. The Civil Legal Assistance Grant Program is designed to strengthen civil legal assistance for domestic abuse victims through innovative, collaborative programs that increase victim access to services. And, the Grants to Combat Violent Crimes Against Women on Campuses Program was first funded in FY 1999 to promote comprehensive, coordinated responses to violent crimes against women on campuses. The results of these efforts have taken hold. Crime is down--way down. And we didn't add 1 cent to the deficit. The significance of the Trust Fund, why it was so important, is because it funds the initiatives contained in the Biden Crime Bill. The money has to be used for new cops and crime prevention. It can't be spent on anything else but crime reduction. It is the one place that no one can compete. it is set aside. It is a savings account to fight crime. This fund works. It ensures that the crime reduction programs that we pass be funded. It ensures that the crime rate will continue to go down instead of up. It ensures that our kids will have a place to go after school instead of hanging out on the street corners. It ensures that violent crimes against women get the individualized attention that they need and deserve. It gives states money to hire more cops and get better technology. Today our challenge is to keep our focus and to stay vigilant against violent crime. This is one modest step toward meeting that challenge. This Act shares bipartisan support. No one wants crime and no one wants to raise taxes. Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike-- this should be an easy one for all of us. In July of last year, during debate on the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill, my friend from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, declared his commitment to get the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund re-authorized. Senator Gramm has always stepped up to the plate on this issue as well, and I commend them for their commitment to this program. As Senator Byrd aptly stated back in 1994 when we were first debating this, ``the war on crime is of such an overriding concern that, as in the past, the Committee on Appropriations must take extraordinary actions to confront the issue.'' That still rings true today. Although crime is down, we can not become complacent. We must continue the fight. We need this Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund more than any other single piece of legislation. Every member of the Senate is against violent crime--we all say it in speech after speech. Now, I urge all my colleagues to back up their words and follow through on their commitments to defeat violent crime. Pass this bill. Continue the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund. Take serious action against violent crime. Show the criminals that we are serious about fighting crime. Show the American people that their safety is of the highest priority for us and that we are taking action. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today, I introduce a bill which will re- authorize the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund for an additional five years. I firmly believe that re-authorization of the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund for another five years is the single most significant thing that we can do to continue the war on crime. In 1994 when we introduced the Biden Crime Bill, which eventually became the crime bill of 1994, some people disagreed with certain aspects of the bill. But, we all agreed that crime control is a place where the federal government can and should play a key role. We can all argue about how much we should be involved in education or welfare, but no one can argue about the requirement of the government to make our streets safe. That is the starting point for all ordered society. So, I, along with the Senior Senator from Texas, Mr. Gramm, and the Senior Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, worked to set up a Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund. The way we did that was not to raise taxes--it was to cut the size of the federal government and use the money to fight crime. And so we agreed to let 250,000 Federal employees go. Then we took the paycheck that would have been used to pay John Jones and Sue Smith and we put it into a trust fund to do nothing but deal with violent crime in America. And guess what--it worked. Since the Fund was established in the Biden Crime Bill, The Office of Management and Budget tells us that Congress had appropriated $16,648,000,000 from the fund through 1998, and $10,300,000,000 was estimated for 1999 and 2000 combined. What has this money done you ask? Just look at the numbers: To date, the money has funded more than 103,000 police officers under the COPS program to make our streets safer. As of 1999, over 17,000 new prison, jail or alternative beds had been added under the Violent Offender Incarceration/Truth-in-Sentencing Grants Program. Under the drug court program nationwide, more than 140,000 offenders have participated in drug courts, receiving the supervision and treatment they need to stop abusing drugs and committing crimes. Under the National Criminal History Improvement Program, enhancements to the FBI's National Criminal History Background Check System have helped block more than 400,000 gun sales to ineligible persons. And, program improvements now allow 35 states and the District of Columbia to submit data to the FBI's National Sex Offender Registry, which became operational in July 1999. The fund has provided money to states and localities to help offset the costs of incarcerating criminal illegal aliens under the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. Under the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment for State Prisoners program, all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the five territories, have implemented drug testing and treatment programs that address 80 percent of offenders who have drug or alcohol problems. Through the largest Violence Against Women Act program, funding for the STOP Violence Against Women Formula Grants Program is changing the way communities work together to respond to domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. And there are other Violence Against Women Act grant programs which have had an impact on many communities. The Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies program encourages jurisdictions to implement mandatory or pro-arrest policies in domestic violence cases. The Rural Domestic Violence and Child Victimization Enforcement Grant Program has recognized the special needs of victims in rural locations. The Civil Legal Assistance Grant Program is designed to strengthen civil legal assistance for domestic abuse victims through innovative, collaborative programs that increase victim access to services. And, the Grants to Combat Violent Crimes Against Women on Campuses Program was first funded in FY 1999 to promote comprehensive, coordinated responses to violent crimes against women on campuses. The results of these efforts have taken hold. Crime is down--way down. And we didn't add 1 cent to the deficit. The significance of the Trust Fund, why it was so important, is because it funds the initiatives contained in the Biden Crime Bill. The money has to be used for new cops and crime prevention. It can't be spent on anything else but crime reduction. It is the one place that no one can compete. it is set aside. It is a savings account to fight crime. This fund works. It ensures that the crime reduction programs that we pass be funded. It ensures that the crime rate will continue to go down instead of up. It ensures that our kids will have a place to go after school instead of hanging out on the street corners. It ensures that violent crimes against women get the individualized attention that they need and deserve. It gives states money to hire more cops and get better technology. Today our challenge is to keep our focus and to stay vigilant against violent crime. This is one modest step toward meeting that challenge. This Act shares bipartisan support. No one wants crime and no one wants to raise taxes. Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike-- this should be an easy one for all of us. In July of last year, during debate on the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill, my friend from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, declared his commitment to get the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund re-authorized. Senator Gramm has always stepped up to the plate on this issue as well, and I commend them for their commitment to this program. As Senator Byrd aptly stated back in 1994 when we were first debating this, ``the war on crime is of such an overriding concern that, as in the past, the Committee on Appropriations must take extraordinary actions to confront the issue.'' That still rings true today. Although crime is down, we can not become complacent. We must continue the fight. We need this Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund more than any other single piece of legislation. Every member of the Senate is against violent crime--we all say it in speech after speech. Now, I urge all my colleagues to back up their words and follow through on their commitments to defeat violent crime. Pass this bill. Continue the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund. Take serious action against violent crime. Show the criminals that we are serious about fighting crime. Show the American people that their safety is of the highest priority for us and that we are taking action. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I rise to tell you about St. Paul School in my hometown of Wilmington, Delaware. In a country that can only be measured by the well-being of its least-advantaged citizenry, St. Paul has a special story that is too often left untold. St. Paul Church and the adjoining school are landmarks on the Wilmington skyline, visible from Interstate 95 heading North through Wilmington. Surrounding it are remnants of a once heavily-populated Irish and German immigrant communities and now is in the heart of the Hispanic section of the city. It sits at the base of the West Side and since the 1800's, has been a safe haven for generations of children and families newly arriving to American shores and settling in our community. St. Paul School was founded in 1874. Its 125 year history is clear-- providing quality education to immigrant and minority children. Yet at St. Paul, there is a much deeper, much more powerful message. While St. Paul is a school of 235 kindergarten through eighth graders, 99% of whom are urban children of color from some of Wilmington's most distressed areas, its students are prepared well and consistently perform above the national indicators of student achievement. There is no culture of poverty or sense of hopelessness in any child, in any classroom in this school. St. Paul's dispels the assumptions and myths about the innate inability of inner-city minority children from very precarious circumstances to succeed academically and socially in mainstream society. At St. Paul, parents are properly engaged, teachers are supremely dedicated and most important, children come ready to learn. This in a school where more than half the students enter with limited English-speaking ability, most of the families live on the margins of poverty and the teachers and administration work for pay well-below their parochial, public and private counterparts. St. Paul is indeed a special place, but in my view, it is one of so many other stories we need to find out about, embrace and share with America. Furthermore, it is the reason that we must continue to invest in the education of our children. On February 9, 2000 in Wilmington, there will be a Commemorative Mass benefiting the Saint Paul School Scholarship Fund. It is a time when St. Paul School will take center stage for many in our community. It makes perfect sense because every day, education and its importance takes center stage in the lives of St. Paul children. Our community--both now and in future--will be better because of the efforts of schools like St. Paul around the country where truly no one child is left behind. We in Wilmington salute St. Paul School.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to salute a true champion of humanity. A man whose whole life has been a gift of service without material reward. A man whose work has as much meaning for the poor and disenfranchised in Sudan as it does for the poor and disenfranchised in his Wilmington community. A man whose faith in the human spirit abounds. A man that I proudly call my friend, the Executive Director of Delaware's Ministry of Caring, Brother Ronald Giannone. This week, business and community leaders and hundreds of Brother Ronald's closest friends from across the State of Delaware will gather to celebrate his fiftieth birthday. This Golden Birthday bash principally is to thank him fifty-times over for his countless years of service to our community. We will salute him because of who Brother Ronald is, what he represents and how much he means to improving the quality of life in my home State. Let me be specific. Brother Ronald is the kind of guy who when asked by a man or a woman down on his or her luck, ``Can you spare a dime?'' responds with a meal, a place to stay and a rigorous routine of training and education to help keep that man or woman from the throes of homelessness and despair. He is hope to the hopeless, an oasis of strength and inspiration for all those who benefit from his generosity. For these reasons, Brother Ronald is a true Delaware treasure, but still there is so much more. Brother Ronald is an exemplary administrator. There is, quite simply, no other organization like his Ministry of Caring. His 32 full-time facilities address every need of an individual or family who finds themselves homeless, destitute and/or in transition. He clothes, he shelters, he feeds, he takes care of children, he helps develop skills, he finds jobs, he provides medical care, he cares. He teaches those who need his assistance all the things they must do to be self-sufficient. And for those who seek to provide real change, he exemplifies just what it takes to make real differences in one life. Still, it does not stop there. Brother Ronald understands that while he feeds someone in the Emmanuel Dining Room, someone else is starving in Sudan. Consequently, his work and Ministry extend far beyond American borders and into the lives of people throughout the world. Few people could have such grand vision and still focus so directly on those suffering in their own hometown. Such is the case with Brother Ronald. Though I could say much more about this outstanding American, I will add only this. In the words of my hero, my dad, Joseph R. Biden, Sr., ``it is a lucky man that wakes up each morning, puts his feet on the floor, goes to work and believes that it matters.'' Even luckier is the man that does these things, and inspires everyone around him to believe the same. Happy 50th Birthday, Brother Ronald.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, three years ago I joined with my distinguished friend and colleague, Senator Hatch, to introduce the ``Hatch-Biden Methamphetamine Control Act'' to address the growing threat of methamphetamine use in our country before it was too late. Our failure to foresee and prevent the crack cocaine epidemic is one of the most significant public policy mistakes in recent history. We were determined not to repeat that mistake with methamphetamine. That 1996 Act provided crucial tools that we needed to stay ahead of the methamphetamine epidemic--increased penalties for possessing and trafficking in methamphetamine and the precursor chemicals and equipment used to manufacture the drug; tighter reporting requirements and restrictions on the legitimate sales of products containing precursor chemicals to prevent their diversion; increased reporting requirements for firms that sell those products by mail; and enhanced prison sentences for meth manufacturers who endanger the life of any individual or endanger the environment while making this drug. We also created a national working group of law enforcement and public health officials to monitor any growth in the methamphetamine epidemic. I have no doubt that our 1996 legislation slowed this epidemic significantly. But we are up against a powerful and highly addictive drug. The Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act of 1999--which I have cosponsored--builds on the 1996 Act. First and foremost, it closes the ``amphetamine loophole'' in current law by making the penalties for manufacturing, distribution, importing and exporting amphetamine the same as those for meth. After all, the two drugs differ by only one chemical and are sold interchangeably on the street. If users can't tell the difference between the two substances, there is no reason why the penalties should be different. The amendment also addresses the growing problem of meth labs by establishing penalties for manufacturing the drug with an enhanced penalty for those who would put a child's life at risk in the process. We provide the Drug Enforcement Administration with much needed funding to clean up clandestine labs after they are seized as well as to train state local law enforcement officers to handle the hazardous wastes produced in the meth labs and certify them to train their colleagues. Methamphetamine is made from an array of hazardous substances-- battery acid, lye, ammonia gas, hydrochloric acid, just to name a few-- that produce toxic fumes and often lead to fires or explosions when mixed. I am revealing nothing by naming some of these chemical ingredients. Anyone with access to the Internet can download a detailed meth recipe with a few simple keystrokes. Our legislation would make such postings illegal. We provide money for the Drug Enforcement Administration to clean up these toxic sites and certify state and local officials to handle the hazardous byproducts at the lab sites. We provide funds for additional law enforcement personnel--including agents, investigators, prosecutors, lab technicians, chemists, investigative assistants and drug prevention specialists in High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas where meth is a problem. We also provide funds for new agents to assist State and local law enforcement in small- and mid-sized communities in all phases of drug investigations and assist state and local law enforcement in rural areas. Further, the legislation provides much needed money for prevention, treatment and research, including clinical trials. It asks the Institute of Medicine to issue a report on the status of pharmacotherapies for treatment of amphetamine and methamphetamine addiction. I understand that the scientists at the National Institute on Drug Abuse are making headway in isolating amino acids and developing medications to deal with meth overdose and addiction. We also have a provision that would allow certain doctors to dispense Schedule III, IV and V drugs from their offices to treat addiction. I am glad to see this provision included. Ten years ago, I asked the question: ``If drug abuse is an epidemic, are we doing enough to find a medical `cure'?'' Unfortunately that question is still with us. But today we also have another question: ``Are we doing enough to get the `cures' we have to those who need them?'' We have an enormous ``treatment gap'' in this country. Less than half of the estimated 4.4 to 5.3 million people who need drug treatment are receiving it. Licensing qualified doctors to prescribe certain pharmacotherapies from their offices is a significant step toward bridging the treatment gap. Also to that end, this bill authorizes $10 million for treatment of methamphetamine addiction. The bill also tightens the restrictions on direct and indirect advertising of illegal drug paraphernalia and Schedule I drugs. Under this legislation, it would be illegal for on-line magazines and other websites to post advertisements for such illegal material or provide ``links'' to websites that do. We crafted this language carefully so that we restrict the sale of drug paraphernalia without restricting the First Amendment. All in all, I believe that this is a comprehensive bill that attacks the methamphetamine and amphetamine problem from every angle. Today the Senate also passed the ``Date Rape Drug Control Act of 1999,'' a very important piece of legislation which will place the most stringent controls on GHB, a drug which is being used with increasing frequency to commit rape. I commend Senator Abraham for his efforts to get this bill passed and I thank him for acknowledging my efforts as well. For nearly five years now, I have been working to raise awareness about date rape drugs including rohypnol and ketamine. In 1996, I first introduced legislation to schedule these drugs under the Controlled Substances Act. This was not a step I took lightly because there is a regulatory procedure in place for scheduling controlled substances. But my view was that the regulatory process would take years to do what needed to be done in months, forfeiting valuable time in the fight to stop these drugs from being used to commit heinous crimes. Federal scheduling is important for three simple reasons. First, federal scheduling triggers increased state drug law penalties. This is because state law penalties are linked to the level at which a drug appears on the federal controlled substance schedule. Since more than 95 percent of all drug cases are prosecuted at the state level, not by the federal government, federal scheduling is vitally important. Second, federal scheduling triggers tough federal penalties. And third, scheduling has proven to work. In 1984, I worked to reschedule Quaaludes from Schedule II to Schedule I, Congress passed the law and the Quaalude epidemic was greatly reduced. Again in 1990, I worked to re-classify steroids as a Schedule III substance, Congress passed the law and again a drug epidemic that had been on the rise was reversed. Progress on scheduling date rape drugs has been slow. This past August--four years after I first called for stricter regulations--the Drug Enforcement Administration finally classified ketamine as a Schedule III drug. Rohypnol has yet to be classified as a Schedule I drug, though we have passed legislation that stipulates that it is subject to federal penalties. Far from perfect, but it is a small step in the right direction. In 1996, we passed legislation to crack down on those who commit violent crimes--including rape--by giving the victim a controlled substance without that person's knowledge. As a result of that legislation, this cowardly act is punishable by up to 20 years in prison. And today the Senate passed legislation that recognizes that GHB is a significant public safety hazard and will result in the drug being designated as a Schedule I substance. At the same time, the legislation recognizes that there is a public health interest here. GHB is currently being studied as a treatment for narcolepsy and this bill goes to great lengths to ensure that this research can continue without undue burdens. Further, the ``Date Rape Drug Control Act'' requires the Attorney General to assist in the development of forensic tests to help law enforcement detect GHB and related substances and develop training materials on date rape drugs for police officers. The bill also calls for a national awareness campaign to warn people about the danger of these drugs. Recently, these date rape drugs have been used in my State of Delaware. Several women at ``The Big Kahuna,'' the largest nightclub in Wilmington have had drugs slipped into their drinks. This is a serious problem and we must take bold steps, like passing the measure we passed today, to establish strict penalties for this cowardly crime. I am pleased that the Senate has passed both of these important pieces of legislation today and I hope to see them enacted into law.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, 3 years ago I joined with my distinguished friend and colleague, Senator Hatch, to introduce the Hatch-Biden Methamphetamine Control Act to address the growing threat of methamphetamine use in our country before it was too late. Our failure to foresee and prevent the crack cocaine epidemic is one of the most significant public policy mistakes in recent history. We were determined not to repeat that mistake with methamphetamine. That 1996 act provided crucial tools that we needed to stay ahead of the methamphetamine epidemic--increased penalties for possessing and trafficking in methamphetamine and the precursor chemicals and equipment used to manufacture the drug; tighter reporting requirements and restrictions on the legitimate sales of products containing precursor chemicals to prevent their diversion; increased reporting requirements for firms that sell those products by mail; and enhanced prison sentences for meth manufacturers who endanger the life of any individual or endanger the environment while making this drug. We also created a national working group of law enforcement and public health officials to monitor any growth in the methamphetamine epidemic. I have no doubt that our 1996 legislation slowed this epidemic significantly. But we are up against a powerful and highly addictive drug. The Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act of 1999--which I have cosponsored--builds on the 1996 act. First and foremost, it closes the ``amphetamine loophole'' in current law by making the penalties for manufacturing, distribution, importing and exporting amphetamine the same as those for meth. After all, the two drugs differ by only one chemical and are sold interchangeably on the street. If users can't tell the difference between the two substances, there is no reason why the penalties should be different. The bill also addresses the growing problem of meth labs by establishing penalties for manufacturing the drug with an enhanced penalty for those who would put a child's life at risk in the process. We provide the Drug Enforcement Administration with much needed funding to clean up clandestine labs after they are seized as well as to train state and local law enforcement officers to handle the hazardous wastes produced in the meth labs and certify them to train their colleagues. Methamphetamine is made from an array of hazardous substances--battery acid, lye, ammonia gas, hydrochloric acid, just to name a few--that produce toxic fumes and often lead to fires or explosions when mixed. I am revealing nothing by naming some of these chemical ingredients. Anyone with access to the Internet can download a detailed meth recipe with a few simple keystrokes. Our legislation would make such postings illegal. We provide money for the Drug Enforcement Administration to clean up these toxic sites and certify state and local officials to handle the hazardous byproducts at the lab sites. We provide funds for additional law enforcement personnel--including agents, investigators, prosecutors, lab technicians, chemists, investigative assistants and drug prevention specialists in High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas where meth is a problem. We also provide funds for new agents to assist State and local law enforcement in small- and mid-sized communities in all phases of drug investigations and assist state and local law enforcement in rural areas. Further, the legislation provides much needed money for prevention, treatment and research, including clinical trials. It asks the Institute of Medicine to issue a report on the status of pharmacotherapies for treatment of amphetamine and methamphetamine addiction. I understand that the scientists at the National Institute on Drug Abuse are making headway in isolating amino acids and developing medications to deal with meth overdose and addiction. We also have a provision that would allow certain doctors to dispense Schedule III, IV and V drugs from their offices to treat addiction. I am glad to see this provision included. Ten years ago, I asked the question: ``If drug abuse is an epidemic, are we doing enough to find a medical `cure'?'' Unfortunately that question is still with us. But today we also have another question: ``Are we doing enough to get the `cures' we have to those who need them?'' We have an enormous ``treatment gap'' in this country. Less than half of the estimated 4.4 to 5.3 million people who need drug treatment are receiving it. Licensing qualified doctors to prescribe certain pharmacotherapies from their offices is a significant step toward bridging the treatment gap. Also to that end, this bill authorizes $10 million for treatment of methamphetamine addiction. The bill also tightens the restrictions on direct and indirect advertising of illegal drug paraphernalia and Schedule I drugs. Under this legislation, it would be illegal for on-line magazines and other websites to post advertisements for such illegal material or provide ``links'' to websites that do. We crafted this language carefully so that we restrict the sale of drug paraphernalia without restricting the first amendment. All in all, I believe that this is a comprehensive bill that attacks the methamphetamine and amphetamine problem from every angle. Today the Senate also passed the ``Date Rape Drug Control Act of 1999,'' a very important piece of legislation which will place the most stringent controls on GHB, a drug which is being used with increasing frequency to commit rape. I commend Senator Abraham for his efforts to get this bill passed and I thank him for acknowledging my efforts as well. For nearly 5 years now, I have been working to raise awareness about date rape drugs including rohypnol and ketamine. In 1996, I first introduced legislation to schedule these drugs under the Controlled Substances Act. This was not a step I took lightly because there is a regulatory procedure in place for scheduling controlled substances. But my view was that the regulatory process would take years to do what needed to be done in months, forfeiting valuable time in the fight to stop these drugs from being used to commit heinous crimes. Federal scheduling is important for three simple reasons. First, Federal scheduling triggers increased state drug law penalties. This is because state law penalties are linked to the level at which a drug appears on the Federal controlled substance schedule. Since more than 95 per cent of all drug cases are prosecuted at the state level, not by the Federal government, federal scheduling is vitally important. Second, Federal scheduling triggers tough federal penalties. And third, scheduling has proven to work. In 1984, I worked to reschedule Quaaludes from Schedule II to Schedule I, Congress passed the law and the Quaalude epidemic was greatly reduced. Again in 1990, I worked to reclassify steroids as a Schedule III substance, Congress passed the law and again a drug epidemic that had been on the rise was reversed. Progress on scheduling date rape drugs has been slow. This past August--4 years after I first called for stricter regulations--the Drug Enforcement Administration finally classified ketamine as a Schedule III drug. Rohypnol has yet to be classified as a Schedule I drug, though we have passed legislation that stipulates that it is subject to federal penalties. Far from perfect, but it is a small step in the right direction. In 1996, we passed legislation to crack down on those who commit violent crimes--including rape--by giving the victim a controlled substance without that person's knowledge. As a result of that legislation, this cowardly act is punishable by up to 20 years in prison. And today the Senate passed legislation that recognizes that GHB is a significant public safety hazard and will result in the drug being designated as a Schedule I substance. At the same time, the legislation recognizes that there is a public health interest here. GHB is currently being studied as a treatment for narcolepsy and this bill goes to great lengths to ensure that this research can continue without undue burdens. Further, the Date Rape Drug Control Act requires the Attorney General to assist in the development of forensic tests to help law enforcement detect GHB and related substances and develop training materials on date rape drugs for police officers. The bill also calls for a national awareness campaign to warn people about the danger of these drugs. Recently, these date rape drugs have been used in my State of Delaware. Several women at ``The Big Kahuna,'' the largest nightclub in Wilmington have had drugs slipped into their drinks. This is a serious problem and we must take bold steps, like passing the measure we passed today, to establish strict penalties for this cowardly crime. I am pleased that the Senate has passed both of these important pieces of legislation today and I hope to see them enacted into law.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Conference Report before the Senate contains the State Department authorization bill. With enactment of this legislation, we will finally--after three years of effort--approve critical legislation to authorize the payment of nearly $1 billion in back dues to the United Nations. Enactment of this legislation will serve, I believe, three important purposes. It should finally end the long-festering feud between the U.N. and Washington about our unpaid back dues; it should bring much-needed reforms to the world body so that it can more effectively perform its missions; and it should, I hope, end the debate about the utility of the U.N., and restore bipartisan support in Congress for the U.N. system. The agreement before us will allow us to pay $926 million in arrears to the United Nations contingent upon the U.N. achieving specific reform conditions, or ``benchmarks,'' to borrow the Chairman's expression. The first set of these conditions can be readily certified--thereby releasing $100 million immediately. The second and third set of conditions will be difficult to achieve. But I have great confidence in our ambassador to the United Nations, Richard Holbrooke. And I believe that with the money on the table--that is, with the assurance that the U.S. payment will be available--the reforms will be easier to obtain then they might otherwise be. The State Department authorization bill contains several other important provisions which I would like to highlight briefly. First, the bill authorizes $4.5 billion in funding over the next five years for construction of secure embassies overseas. The tragic embassy bombings in East Africa in August 1998 underscored the current vulnerability of our embassies to terrorist attack. Simply stated, the large majority of our embassies around the world do not meet current security standards. Thousands of U.S. government employees--both Americans and foreign nationals--are at risk, and we must do all that we can to protect them. In addition to authorizing funding, this bill codifies many important security standards, including the requirement of that embassies be set back 100 feet from the street, and the requirement that all agencies be co-located in the embassy compound. All this is important. But what is essential is that we provide the actual funding. So far, aside from last fall's emergency appropriations bill, funding for embassy security has fallen far short of need. The President requested $3 billion in advance appropriations in his budget request, which was rejected by the Appropriations Committees. We must give our attention to funding this priority matter next year. Second, the bill provides for the establishment of a Bureau of Verification and Compliance in the Department of State to monitor arms control and non-proliferation agreements. In his plan for the integration of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency into the State Department, the President proposed that the functions of verification and compliance be handled by a ``Special Adviser'' to the Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security. We think the Administration's proposal is ill-advised. Given the way the State Department operates--where key policy battles are waged among bureaus at the Assistant Secretary level --this ``adviser'' would be a weak bureaucratic actor, and the function of assuring compliance with arms control treaties and non-proliferation regimes would thereby be unacceptably diminished. Therefore, the conference report includes a provision which requires that this important duty be handled by an Assistant Secretary of State for Verification and Compliance. Third, the bill reauthorizes Radio Free Asia (RFA) for another ten years. RFA, which was established in 1994 pursuant to legislation I introduced, broadcasts news and information to the People's Republic of China and other non-democratic states in East Asia. I am pleased that Congress has given its further stamp of approval to this important instrument of American foreign policy. It is fitting that this bill is named for two devoted public servants who were deeply involved in the development of foreign policy legislation for the last two decades--James Nance and Meg Donovan. Admiral James W. Nance, known to everyone as ``Bud'', served as staff director of the Committee on Foreign Relations for most of the 1990s, working with his long-time friend, the Chairman of the Committee, Senator Helms. Admiral Nance was a steady hand in guiding the Committee staff for so many years, and was integral to the initial development of the ``Helms-Biden'' legislation in 1997. Meg Donovan was long-time staffer for our House counterpart committee, serving under Chairman Dante Fascell. After Chairman Fascell retired, Meg worked closely with the Foreign Relations Committee on behalf of Secretary Christopher, and then Secretary Albright, as a senior deputy in the Bureau of Legislative Affairs. Meg's advice and counsel was important on dozens of occasions--not only to senior State Department officials but also to our committee. Bud Nance and Meg Donovan were both deeply committed to a bipartisan foreign policy. They were both taken from us too soon. It is therefore in tribute to them that we have named this bill--which represents an important act of bipartisanship--in their honor. the need for small business superfund relief

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, under the present law there are nondischargeable items with cash advances. It is a little over $1,000. This goes down to $750. There is a difference, but it is not what the Senator from Connecticut makes it out to be. No. 2, in the means test in terms of ``other necessary expenses,'' it includes such expenses as charitable contributions, child care, dependent care, health care, payroll deductions--that is taxes, union dues, and life insurance. It is not true they are not able to be viewed as ``other expenses'' to be considered within bankruptcy. I understand the Senator's point. I think he doth protest too loudly. It is not $1,000; it is $750. That is true. It is a $250 difference. That is what we are arguing about. I have no more time, so I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased that today the Senate is voting on the nomination of our friend and former colleague Carol Moseley-Braun to be U.S. Ambassador to New Zealand, as well as Ambassador to Samoa. I am confident that Senator Moseley-Braun will be an excellent ambassador. She has all the requisite skills--political savvy, personal charm, and street smarts--to represent the United States in the finest tradition of American diplomacy. I would like to make a few comments about the remarks made yesterday by the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, the senior senator from North Carolina. During yesterday's session, the chairman spoke on the floor about this nomination. While he essentially conceded that Senator Moseley- Braun will be confirmed by the Senate, he proceeded to make several arguments which I believe deserve a response. First, the chairman stated that there had been a ``successful coverup'' of serious ethical wrongdoing. I believe such a loaded accusation should be supported by facts, yet the chairman offered not a shred of evidence that anyone has covered up anything. On the contrary, during the consideration of the nomination, the Committee on Foreign Relations was provided with several thousand pages of documents requested by the Chairman, documents which were produced in a very short period of time. Included in these materials were several internal memoranda from the Department of Justice and the Internal Revenue Service; Committee staff members were even permitted to read the decision memos related to the IRS request to empanel a grand jury. Second, the chairman suggested that Senator Moseley-Braun has ``been hiding behind Mr. Kgosie Matthews,'' her former fiance, who, the chairman charged, is now ``conveniently a missing man.'' Mr. Matthews, it should be emphasized, is Senator Moseley-Braun's former fiance, and it is ludicrous to suggest that she is somehow responsible for his whereabouts or actions. Third, the chairman suggested that the request of the Internal Revenue Service for a grand jury to investigate the Senator was blocked by political appointees in the Justice Department, ``no doubt on instructions from the White House'' and that it was somehow odd that the request was blocked. Here are the facts: in 1995 and 1996, the Chicago field office of the Internal Revenue Service sought authorization to empanel a grand jury to investigate allegations that Senator Moseley-Braun committed criminal violations of the tax code by converting campaign funds to personal use (which, if true, would be reportable personal income). The IRS request was based almost exclusively on media accounts and some FEC documents. When the first request was made in 1995, the Department of Justice urged the IRS to do more investigative work to corroborate the information that was alleged in the media accounts. Justice invited the IRS to resubmit the request. The IRS resubmitted the request in early 1996; but it had not added any significant information to the request. In other words, it did not provide the corroborative information that the Justice Department had requested. The decision to deny the request for authorization of the grand jury was made in the Tax Division, after consultation with senior officials in the Public Integrity Section. Although it is not that common for grand jury requests to be refused, the Department of Justice is hardly a rubber stamp--for the IRS or anyone other agency. It is guided by the standard of the United States Attorneys' Manual, which requires that there be ``articulable facts supporting a reasonable belief that a tax crime is being or has been committed.'' (U.S. Attorneys' Manual, 6-4.211B). The committee staff was permitted to review, but not retain, the internal memos in the Tax Division rejecting the IRS request. From the trial attorney up to the Assistant Attorney General for the Tax Division--four levels of review--all agreed that there was not a sufficient predicate of information that justified opening a grand jury investigation. In short, there were not the ``articulable facts'' necessary for empaneling the grand jury. There is no evidence--none--that this decision was influenced by political considerations or outside forces. Last year, when the story became public that Senator Moseley-Braun had been investigated by the IRS--and that the requests for a grand jury had been denied--the Office of Professional Responsibility at the Department of Justice opened its own inquiry. They investigated not Sen. Moseley-Braun, but the handling of the case within the Department of Justice. Their inquiry concluded that there was no improper political influence on the process. So, far from the ``Clinton White House blocking the grand jury,'' all the proper procedures were followed, and there is no evidence of White House intervention in the case. Equally important, the Office of Professional Responsibility review concluded that the decision on the merits was appropriate. Next, the chairman suggested that the decision to reject the grand jury request was somehow tainted because the senior official at the Justice Department who made the decision, Loretta Argrett, ``was a Moseley-Braun supporter, who had made a modest contribution'' to Senator Moseley-Braun's campaign, ``who had a picture of Ms. Moseley- Braun on her office wall'' and that the Senator had ``even presided over Ms. Argrett's confirmation in 1993.'' Here are the facts: Ms. Argrett, the Assistant Attorney General for the Tax Division, was the senior official at Justice who approved the decision not to authorize the grand jury request. It is true that Ms. Argrett gave money to the Senator's campaign: the grand sum of $25. It is also true that the Senator chaired Ms. Argrett's hearing, a hearing at which several other nominees also testified. I chaired the Judiciary Committee at that time. I routinely asked other members of the Committee to chair nomination hearings, just as Senator Thomas chaired last week's hearing on Senator Moseley-Braun. Finally, it is also true that Ms. Argrett had a photograph of her and the Senator hanging in her office--a photo taken at that confirmation hearing. All of these facts were disclosed to the Deputy Attorney General at the time, Jamie Gorelick, for a determination as to whether Ms. Argrett should be involved in the case. On June 2, 1995, Assistant Attorney General Argrett disclosed these facts to the Deputy Attorney General and concluded that, based on the minimal contact she had with the Senator, she believed she could act impartially in this case. Deputy Attorney General Gorelick --one of the most capable public officials I have known in my years in the Senate--approved Ms. Argrett's continued participation in the case. Mr. President, I will not delay the Senate any further. The Committee did its job and gathered the available evidence. There is no evidence in the record that disqualifies Senator Moseley-Braun. She will be an excellent ambassador, just as she was an excellent senator. We are lucky that she still wants to continue in public service. I urge my colleagues to vote to confirm Senator Carol Moseley- Braun.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, on August 26, 1999, 13 young women, ages 15 and 16, put the First State on the map again by capturing the Senior League Softball World Series in Kalamazoo, Michigan. This was a tremendous accomplishment for Delaware and for the country. The Stanton-Newport team completed an undefeated run through the double elimination tournament by winning a come-from-behind victory over a persistent and well seasoned team from the Philippines. As one reporter put it, eight teams participated in the tournament, but ``only one will have its flag fly over the field for the next year.'' Proudly that will be the flag of the United States of America thanks to the team from the great State of Delaware. The Stanton-Newport team is an outstanding example of the power of youth sports in America. As I have said many times in the past, young people need a hobby they love, at least one adult who supports them and a good many friends with similar interests. Organized sports provides this much and more. In competitive sports young people learn responsibility, discipline, and the importance of cooperation and teamwork on and off the field. Later, these same young individuals will be able to apply their hard- earned lessons to everyday life. The young women of Stanton-Newport epitomize the exceptional athletes and citizens from across the nation who are inspired on a daily basis by their committed parents and coaches. I am proud to call this team a home-grown product and continue to salute their efforts on behalf of the First State and the rest of our nation. They are indeed World Champions.