Joe Biden

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. You could ask them.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. I am not really warming the chair. I am serious. I could not see it. If I may beg the indulgence of my Republican colleagues, let me answer, because I think at least anything useful that could be said on my part has been said, with one exception, and I will say this and cease and desist. As I read the amendment, on line 5 it says, ``establishing a process of dispute resolution among allies.'' Now, the Senator from Texas has pointed out--and she has been a very, very, very forceful leader in opposition to our present policy in Bosnia. I wish she were not as effective, because she and I disagree. But she raised Bosnia again. I don't know how this dispute resolution mechanism of any nature would involve Bosnia at all. Serbia is not an ally, Bosnia is not an ally, Herzegovina is not an ally, Croatia is not an ally, Moldavia is not an ally. Looking over here, Romania--Romania is listed in the potential border disputes, ethnic Romanians in Moldavia versus Russia. None of those parties, Moldavia, Russia or Romania, are our allies. Bulgaria-Serbia, Estonia-Russia, Latvia-Russia, Estonia-Russia, Croatia-Serbia, Macedonia-Albania, Moldavia-Russia, Yugoslavia Serb-Bosnia, Serb- Croats, Serbs-Kosovo, Serbs-Macedonia, Albanians-Serbs, Hungarians-- possibly; Serbs--Albanians-Kosovoans, Greeks-Albanians, Albanians- Macedonians. None of those concerns, not a single solitary one, involves allies. They would not be covered by even the unstated illusory mechanism that might be created if we don't table this. My reason for being opposed to this is a little bit like what Senator John Pastore from the State of Rhode Island told me in 1973. I said, ``I'm not sure about this, Senator''--a vote. And he said, ``Let me give you a piece of advice, Joe.'' He talked with a gravelly voice. He said, ``When in doubt, vote no.'' I am in grave doubt, at a minimum. I cannot possibly see how what the Senator is suggesting in any way--I don't fully understand it. She is not proposing a particular mechanism. But I can't envision any mechanism that would have any impact on any of the things that are listed on that chart. Not a single one. Not a single one would fall within the definition of her resolution. Bosnia would not fall within the definition of her resolution. I know, ever since Ross Perot, all of us have gotten chart mania. You know, me, too. I have my charts back there. Maybe the chart was just wheeled out by mistake. But it, the chart, has no relevance to the resolution, none at all. I say as a Democrat on this side of the aisle now--I guess I should not be so flip about it. I do not mean to be. But all kidding aside, I really, truly, as they say--I don't get it. The examples the Senator from Virginia and Texas are worried about would not fall within the purview of this resolution even if such a dispute mechanism were arrived at. Nothing on the chart would fall within the purview of this resolution. I don't know what would that is not already working. And I don't know what is broken. I can't think of a single example--I would like to hear one--where NATO was unable to come up with a dispute resolution within the present structure. So that is why I oppose this. I will oppose it. I have great respect for my friend from Texas. I mean that sincerely. But I strongly disagree with this and I will urge my colleagues to vote ``No.'' I thank her for her indulgence. I have been asked to yield to Senator Craig for a consent request, unanimous consent request. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I realize there is no unanimous consent agreement, but our colleague, Senator Reed, has been here on the floor seeking to speak on NATO, and I yield for that purpose. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN. The managers' amendment which the Senator from Oregon has just offered addresses several of the amendments which have been offered by our colleagues. Let me very briefly highlight a few of them. First, we have an amendment proposed by Senator Bingaman affirming the importance of the Partnership for Peace program. Second, there is a provision offered by Senator Hutchison of Texas related to the strategic importance of NATO. Third, there is an amendment offered by Senator Specter related to payments owed to the victims of Nazi Germany oppression. Fourth, there is a requirement for a report on future rounds of enlargement. This amendment is a combination of amendments offered by our colleagues, Senators Bingaman, Harkin, and Jeffords. This is a very useful amendment, in my view, because it will require the executive branch to submit a detailed analysis related to the possible new members of NATO, including cost and military readiness issues before--before--a nation is invited to begin accession talks. This will, I hope, allow the Senate to have a better understanding of the ramifications of admitting new members in the future and thereby enable the Senate to fulfill its constitutional function of providing advice to the President in the negotiation of treaties. Finally, Mr. President, there is an amendment related to intelligence issues which was proposed by the chairman and vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Senator Shelby and Senator Kerrey of Nebraska. I appreciate very much the cooperation of all our colleagues and urge the approval of the managers' amendment.

Mr. BIDEN. We are only talking about a Hutchison amendment. I have no objection, as long as I understood it correctly. And I apologize. I was in the back of the room.

Mr. BIDEN. Oh, no.

Mr. BIDEN. Reserving the right to object, I ask it be amended that we take 5 more minutes out so we have a total of--

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I have. And it is my understanding--the reason I am not objecting is that there are no other Democrats looking to speak on the Hutchison amendment, and I wanted to reserve at the end of the time for purposes of explanation, our respective explanations, of the Hutchison amendment of at least a couple minutes.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, we have enough time within this time to debate and finish the amendment of the Senator from Texas. But the Senator from Idaho has a very, very important amendment. If I agree to this request, it leaves me a total of 4 minutes to respond to his amendment, and nothing has been said in opposition to his amendment yet. If the Senator from Missouri speaks, it will leave less time. So I assume it's the leader's desire to have two votes by 5:10 or thereabouts. I don't know how we can do that.

Mr. BIDEN. I don't believe that will leave enough time. The Senator from California has been patiently waiting here. She wants 15 minutes. You and I have not even engaged your amendment yet. Senator Levin wants 5 minutes. So I would, for the moment, object. But I am sure we can work something out.

Mr. BIDEN. As I understand it, if we agree to this unanimous consent order, then there is 27 minutes on a side to dispose of the debate on the amendment of the Senator from Texas and the amendment of the Senator from Idaho.

Mr. BIDEN. Reserving the right to object, and I'm not sure I will object, I want to be certain that would mean the Senator from Delaware would--or one of us, the Senator from North Carolina--would control, I guess we would control 27 minutes, 27\1/2\ minutes, is that right, each? Is that correct? That is a question, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. BIDEN. I think the Senator's point is very well made. I hope it brings me luck. He is one of my closest friends in the Senate. And as he pointed out in a Roll Call article he got framed for me and signed-- it was an article featuring him and his aides--I am the only person in the Senate who could beat Strom Thurmond's record if I served in the Senate until I reached age 73, which I am sure my constituents will not let happen.

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I don't want to get anyone's hopes up or cause fear on anyone's part. I am not following in a recent line of departure from the Democratic side to the Republican side, but having reached the advanced age of 55, I cannot see from over there this chart, and that is why I am walking over.

Mr. BIDEN. Whether or not--and we disagree in the policy. I have been on this floor for 4 years saying we should be involved. But whether or not we should, NATO has nothing to do with that. NATO troops ended up there, but not because the American President went to a NAC meeting or our Ambassador to NATO at a NAC meeting raised this issue. It is because there was a policy decision made by a President, supported by this Senator--he didn't do it because of me, but supported by this Senator--to try to persuade NATO to do that. Whether or not there was a dispute resolution mechanism in place in NATO that was formal or informal is irrelevant to that question. The President of the United States first picked up the phone and called Tony Blair. Then he called Chirac. Then he called--and the list went on. Then they ended up in NATO. So I understand what the Senator is trying to deal with. To use an old expression, she in a sense is trying to fight the last war. We fought that war about Bosnia in the Chamber here. My team won; her team lost. But NATO enlargement and a dispute resolution mechanism have nothing to do with that decision. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, if I may be recognized, with all due respect----

Mr. BIDEN. With all due respect, what happened, whether the Senator agrees with the policy or not, the Secretary of State, the National Security Adviser, and their designees got on a plane, and they flew to Paris, and they flew to London, and they flew to Madrid, and they flew to Bonn, and they flew to Berlin, and they flew all over, and they met individually with the governments, not in Brussels.

Mr. BIDEN. With all due respect, Madam President----

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, it is done that way now. That is exactly what is done now. On Bosnia, what did we do?

Mr. BIDEN. What is broken?

Mr. BIDEN. I know that is not what the Senator intends. What I am suggesting after 25 years of watching this thing, I think that is what will happen. I will be happy to yield to my friend from Oregon.

Mr. BIDEN. As my friend will remember, a man named Werner was a very dynamic leader of NATO, a German who was made the number one man in NATO. I recall being in Brussels. Don't hold me to the year. I think it was somewhere around 6 over 8 years ago. There was a lot of saber rattling going on relative to Greece and Turkey. I remember asking Werner about what this all meant. We were about to have a meeting. He was having a luncheon for me, as they do for any Senator who will go over and pay attention, and with the permanent reps and some of the military. He said to his assistant general so and so, and general so and so, one a Turk and one a Greek, ``Call them in the office.'' They called them in the office. He basically said, ``What is going on, fellows? What is the deal?'' The Turkish and Greek military representatives of NATO sat there and in the privacy of that room discussed the politics in their own country; why they didn't see there was much of a problem, but you have to understand it is going nowhere. If any formal mechanism is put in place, the ability of that Greek general and that Turkish general to walk into a room and totally off the record say, ``We think this, we think that,'' and talk about it in front of a German, and an American, all members of NATO, that would evaporate. Now we will have set up a bureaucratic deal, no matter what it is, no matter how tenuous it is, now it is posture. One of the things that we get done--and it will come as a shock to some people, but in the Chamber it will not come as a shock--is how do we most often on this floor resolve the disputes when we really get down to it at the last minute in a crunch on any important issue. We go back to one of those two rooms. There is no press. There is no floor. There is no record. And I say, ``OK, what's the deal? If I change this, can you do that?'' Isn't that how we do it? That is how NATO does it. Now, if we were required by law, by our governments, by our parties, that the only time we could meet is if we say, ``I will meet you at 3:30; we will meet in room S. 107, and we will have two people there, and I will formally table my concern,'' that is what worries me.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I would like to recount a little history--a history I'm sure many are familiar with. One hundred years ago last August, the first World Zionist Congress convened in the Swiss city of Basel. Although the gathering attracted little attention at the time, what transpired then would forever change the course of Jewish history, and indeed world history. What later came to be known as the Basel Program stated quite simply that the aim of Zionism was ``To create for the Jewish people a home in Palestine secured by public law.'' With that simple proposition, the delegates at the first Congress formally set into motion the Jewish national liberation movement. It would mean the fulfillment of a spiritual yearning that had remained unrealized for over two millennia. At the conclusion of the conference, Theodor Herzl recorded a prescient entry in his diary: In Basel, I founded the Jewish state. If I were to say this aloud I would meet with laughter; but in another five years, and certainly in another fifty years, everyone will be convinced of this. From the distance of a hundred years, I can say we are convinced. Of course, it took fifty years of sacrifice--and a world shamed by the Holocaust--before Herzl's dream of a Jewish homeland became a reality. But it happened, and tomorrow we celebrate fifty years of Israeli independence. In that short span of time, Israel has become the beacon of hope for Jews the world over. It has successfully absorbed wave after wave of immigrants from every corner of the globe. It has built a thriving economy larger than the economies of all its immediate neighbors combined. It is the sole democracy in a region where dictatorships and monarchies are the norm. It excels in science, technology, and culture far out of proportion to its small population. In short, the Jewish people have, after long tribulation, taken their rightful place among nations. And Israel has become a symbol to all of us. The very fact that Israel exists means that Jews will never again be at someone else's mercy. They are masters of their destiny. Israel is the tangible expression of the solemn vow we made after the Holocaust-- ``Never Again.'' Never again will Jews be powerless. Never again will they have to rely upon the mercy and goodwill of an overlord. Never again will they have to watch helplessly as nearly half of their people is exterminated. Put simply, Israel symbolizes the restoration of Jewish independence and dignity. Nearly a quarter century ago as a junior Senator on the Foreign Relations Committee, in my first official trip overseas, I made a formative journey to Israel. It was just after the Yom Kippur war--a war that vividly brought home Israel's vulnerability as well as the absolute necessity of an intimate U.S.-Israel relationship. The lessons I learned on that journey have remained with me ever since. In the past twenty-five years, I have worked with six different Israeli Prime Ministers and six different American Presidents. I have been twice in the majority party in the Senate and I am now in the minority for the second time. But through it all, the United States relationship with Israel has remained a constant feature. It transcends individual leaders and political parties. It is not subject to the vagaries of international events. The bond between Israel and the United States is unbreakable. This strategic and moral partnership between Israel and the United States has made possible the peace agreements between Israel and three former adversaries. As Israel's enemies have seen that they cannot drive a wedge between our two countries, so they have come to recognize slowly but surely that Israel is here to stay. I know that I speak for many of my colleagues when I say that the American commitment to Israel over the next 50 years will be just as reliable as it has been in Israel's first 50 years. I urge my colleagues to support this joint resolution and I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, on a hill in the western section of my hometown of Wilmington, Delaware, stands St. Anthony's Roman Catholic Church, a beautiful and imposing masterpiece of architecture and a testimonial to the power of faith that dominates the skyline. Founded in 1924, St. Anthony's Parish has been a major force in the religious, social, and cultural life in Wilmington for four generations. In addition to the magnificent church, the parish has built St. Anthony's Grade School, an elementary school, and Padua Academy, a fine high school for young women. In addition, there is Fournier Hall, a center for the social and recreational needs of the community; The Antonian--an apartment complex built to ensure that the neighborhood's senior citizens have access to quality, affordable housing; and the Father Roberto Balducelli Community Center, which provides day care for the community's children and daily activities for their grandparents and great-grandparents. And every June, St. Anthony's Festival draws tens of thousands of Delawareans and people from across the country for a week of good food, good fun, and a celebration of God's blessings. For three-quarters of a century, the good people of St. Anthony's Parish--both clergy and parishioners--have looked to the needs of the entire community, and joined together to meet those needs. The entire Greater Wilmington area has benefitted from their efforts. They truly have earned a special place in our lives and the life of our city. As St. Anthony's Parish begins the year-long celebration of its seventy-fifth year, they have chosen to kick off that celebration Thursday evening, April 30, with a dinner and Mass of Thanksgiving, in which they will honor three of the pillars of the parish, three individuals who have labored long and hard over many years to build St. Anthony's into the vital part of community life that it has become; Father Mario Bugliosi, Brother Michael Rosenello, and Father Roberto Balducelli. Father Mario came to Wilmington for the first time in 1954, as a teacher at Salesianum High School, a premier Catholic high school. After spending five years at Salesianum and a year at a high school in Philadelphia, Father Mario returned to Wilmington in 1960 as an Associate Pastor at St. Anthony's and, except for a two-year hiatus in his native Italy, has been doing the Lord's work among us ever since. His kind, gentle manner and complete decency--always there with a supportive word for everyone--has made him the parish's chief ``Confessor''--the man you go to in times of crisis (spiritual or otherwise), at times when you are in need of advice and counsel, and at times when you simply need someone to listen. He personifies the notion that ``to minister'' need not refer only to great and glorious words from the pulpit, but to a quiet moment over a cup of coffee, a shared walk along the street, or to a visit to the home of someone in spiritual need. Brother Mike--there are folks in the parish who refer to him as ``Mr. Padua'' for his yeoman like work at the school--also first came to St. Anthony's in 1954 as a Pastoral Assistant and the Director of Youth Ministry. After a short absence in the 1960's, he returned to the parish in 1966 as the Director of Parish Maintenance, where he has overseen virtually every aspect of life at the school, starting with the construction of the new school building beginning in 1967. He developed the girls' athletic programs at the school and coached basketball himself for many years. He has organized and directed many of St. Anthony's most successful social events over the years and decorated the church for all of its major feasts and celebrations. And perhaps most importantly to the students at Padua, he has overseen the operations of the school's cafeteria, ensuring that lunch time is both delicious and nutritious as well as a time for catching up with friends. He is one of those fellows who is always there when the parish or the parishioners need a fresh idea, an organizer, or a pair of hands used to hard work. For fifty-two years, first as a teacher and Associate Pastor, then for twenty-nine years as pastor, and for the past ten years as the parish's ``Senior Statesman'', Father Roberto Balducelli--``Father Robert'' to everyone in Wilmington--has been the man who makes things happen. He is responsible for the building of St. Anthony's Grammar School, the Parish House and Rectory, the Padua Academy, and the Antonian. He was the founder of the community center which now bears his name, and initiated the St. Anthony's festival, which has become one of the premier social events for families of all faiths in the Wilmington area. He is a living legend, known and respected by Delawareans who have never set foot in his church but who share his love for our city and its people, and yet for all of his success in working with the leaders of Delaware industry, commerce, and government, he has never left the working-class community to which he came from Italy a half-century ago. Twenty years ago, he was chosen by Delaware's largest newspaper, The News Journal as one of ten outstanding Delawareans--and he has been building upon that legacy for two decades since. Since his ``retirement'' in 1988, he has continued his efforts to develop recreational facilities for young people bringing youngsters from the city out into the country to enjoy the outdoors and share in the spirituality and enjoyment of God's natural creations. Those efforts would tax the energy of a dozen people half his age, but for Father Robert, it is simply a continuation of his tireless energy on behalf of his flock. He is truly one of Delaware's living treasures. These three individuals, plus the thousands of parishioners and staff who have worked so hard with them over the years, epitomize the old idea that a church is a vital part of the community, not just on Sundays, but every day in many ways to everyone in the community. Their spirit is the spirit that has sustained St. Anthony's parish for seventy-five years, and hopefully will sustain the parish and its parishioners for many years to come. I am honored to have the opportunity to salute that spirit and commend St. Anthony's Parish as they embark upon their seventy-fifth year doing God's work in Wilmington.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today marks the first anniversary of the entry into force of the Chemical Weapons Convention, which bans the development, production, stockpiling, and use of poison gas. The achievement of that Convention and of U.S. ratification were signal accomplishments of the Bush and Clinton Administrations. I am pleased to report that, after a year in force, the Chemical Weapons Convention has begun to pay significant dividends for our national security. Those dividends would be even greater if both Houses of Congress would pass legislation to implement the Convention, so that the United States could come into compliance with it. When the United States finally ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention, just days before it entered into force, we joined roughly 90 other states. In the days and months that followed, several important countries followed our lead. Among the 107 countries that now have joined the Convention are Russia, China, India, Pakistan, and Iran. Over 60 more nations have signed the Convention, and some of those are in the final stages of ratification. I want to emphasize those five particular countries that have ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention since we did. Many opponents of ratification said that Russia and China would never join, that we would be limiting our own options while other major powers refrained from the obligation to do without chemical weapons. Both Russia and China have joined, however, and China has admitted--for the first time--that it has had a chemical weapons program. India and Pakistan have also ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention, and that is something of a triumph. South Asia is probably the area where the risk of nuclear war is highest today. Both countries are generally assessed as nuclear-capable. Pakistan recently tested a missile that could target nearly any site in India, and India is talking about reviving a missile that could strike all of Pakistan. Yet both those countries ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention, and India admitted--again, for the first time--to having a chemical weapons program. Before the Convention entered into force, the United States and Russia were the only two admitted chemical weapons possessors. To date, however, six more countries--including South Korea, as well as China and India--have complied with the Convention's requirements to declare their chemical weapons and existing or former chemical weapons facilities. The chemical weapons that India has declared will be destroyed. The chemical weapons facilities that China, South Korea and other countries have declared will be destroyed, unless the Council of States Parties approves conversion of those facilities under stringent safeguards. These are achievements that we could not guarantee a year and four days ago, when Senate consent to ratification was debated and approved. But we have them today, and I hope there will be more such admissions, declarations, and destruction of chemical weapons and chemical weapons facilities in the years to come. In the past year, the Technical Secretariat of the Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Warfare (the international inspectorate for the Convention) has conducted nearly 200 inspections. Roughly three- fourths of those inspections--including 25 in Russia--have been at chemical weapons production, storage, and destruction facilities. About a third of the inspections have been in the United States--with no problems in protecting sensitive U.S. information. The United States is the only country currently destroying its chemical weapons, and the Technical Secretariat must monitor these facilities continually during destruction operations. As other countries begin to destroy their chemical weapons stocks, their inspection numbers will increase accordingly. Few among the treaty's critics or proponents expected this much progress so soon. There is still a long way to go. But in just one year, the Convention has clearly begun to prove its utility as a tool to reduce the threat of chemical weapons. What remains to be done? One crucial step is for the United States to come into compliance with the Convention. We have yet to enact implementing legislation pursuant to the Convention. Until we do so, our country will remain a violator of the Convention. Why is that? The Convention requires us to make violations of it a crime; we have yet to do that. The Convention also requires declarations regarding certain chemical production. We have submitted that declaration only regarding government facilities, because we lack legislation to require commercial reporting and to protect the confidential information in those reports from disclosure through the Freedom of Information Act. Finally, we still need a regime to govern international inspections of private U.S. facilities. Aside from the dishonor that we bring upon ourselves by failing to comply with a treaty that we have ratified, why should we care? We should care because our failure to enact implementing legislation harms the national security. It makes it difficult to encourage compliance by other countries, or to request a challenge inspection if another country's declarations omit a suspected chemical weapons facility. In addition, other countries are using our delay to draw attention away from their own misdeeds. Last month, a Russian general was interviewed by Izvestiya. The general made an utterly specious claim that the Sverdlovsk anthrax disaster was due to natural causes--a claim that even Russian officials have long since abandoned--and he even recycled the old lie that the United States invented AIDS. But how did the article end? Why, with a recital of the U.S. failure to enact implementing legislation! That's truly outrageous, but that will continue until we come into compliance. The fault does not lie with this body, Mr. President. The Senate passed S. 610 on May 23 of last year. It then languished in the House for six months, before being attached to an unrelated measure. One way or another, we must enact this legislation. The implementing legislation is not perfect. I noted last year that it harms U.S. interests if we bar the analysis of U.S. samples outside this country or give the President the right to invoke a national security exemption from inspections. The immediate need, however, is to enact a bill and bring our country into compliance with this important and useful Convention. We have come far with the Chemical Weapons Convention. It is already proving its worth. But there is still this overdue work to accomplish-- not for the sake of others, but to further our own national security. We can do it, and we should do it now.