Joe Biden

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. I have.

Mr. BIDEN. But we never did. We never did. Twice before we didn't, not until after the fact, not until after they were no longer an independent nation. We never did. I believe--I hope we would, too. But understand it from their perspective. We never did.

Mr. BIDEN. I think the Senator has just made an overwhelming case why the Poles think it is so important. The Senator just points out, World War I, World War II--by the way, for those wars to get to France they had to roll over Poland first on the way. Then the reason why there was no war, as the Senator points out, after World War II--a cold war, not a hot war--is we had NATO. And the nations that we extended the umbrella of NATO to were kept free from fear of attack. Guess what. Poland was occupied during that whole period. Now Poland is no longer occupied, and they are worried that the world may have the same kind of amnesia that it had in 1917, and 1916, and 1915--and 1938 and 1939 and 1940. They are kind of worried because they figured it out, if you are under this umbrella, it dissuades anyone from invading you. So if it is a rationale to keep Germany in NATO, and NATO protects Germany because that gives it that added security, you can kind of understand why the Poles think it also makes sense for them, since they have been the doormat to Western Europe. There is much more to say about this. I will not go on. But the point is that NATO membership significantly reduces the prospect that anyone now or in the future would conclude that you are a worthy target of their aggression. That is the point the Senator is making. And the clear notion is that if in fact Poland were part of this alliance, to take one country, they would not have to wonder any longer whether or not they would have to wait for the Brits to do something--as occurred in World War II. They would not have to wonder if Russia or anyone else understood that Poland was no longer the doormat of Europe. If all goes well, as I anticipate, and I vote with my taxpayers' pocketbook to try to promote democracy in Russia--if all goes well, then in fact there is not any greater need in Russia for Poland to be a member of NATO than for Germany to be a member of NATO. There may be no need for NATO. Or it may be that Russia is part of NATO. But we are in a position, as the Washington Post says: American interest in expansion lies in reducing unpredictability and instability in an arc that has generated the century's major wars. One of the things, as the Post and many others have tried to point out, and as I have tried to point out on the floor before, part of Russia's necessary post-cold war evolution, mental evolution, if you will, is to understand and consider the novel notion that its neighbors have a right to whatever national orientation they want. Most other democracies in the world have figured that out. Most other nations have figured that out. And if you are not going to--the current likelihood that there is little danger that is posed for these three countries or any other part of Europe, it seems to me, again to paraphrase the Post, ``makes it smart and a cheap buy for the extra security now, in case things don't go the right way.'' But the bottom line is this: If, in fact, there is a rationale for us to continue to be a member of NATO, and I believe there is, and to continue to make commitments to the likes of Germany and other allies-- if there is a rationale for expanding NATO on the Soviet Union's border bringing in Turkey not too many years ago, there is a rationale to bring Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary under that umbrella. I will conclude--and I thank my colleague for allowing me to respond--but I conclude by suggesting to you that the way to the greatest certainty that Russia continues along its democratic trek and nonimperialistic instinct is to have these nations within NATO, forever removing the realistic possibility that they are part of the hegemony of the former Soviet Union or Russia.

Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator allow me 2 minutes to respond to that?

Mr. BIDEN. I think what is really at the heart of this is what was said, if I am not mistaken, in a sort of dress rehearsal of this debate--the Senator from Virginia and I appeared before a group of Connecticut voters who were down here at the request of one of our colleagues, Senator Dodd. He may remember my saying the real debate on the floor is going to be whether there should be NATO. The only thing I would like to state now, before I make my opening statement--in the context of a question so the floor hasn't been yielded to me; ordinarily I would not put it in the context of a question--is that isn't the real debate here, if there is no strategic rationale for expanding, if there is discussion questioning the strategic doctrine of NATO as it exists now, as Senator Bingaman said, and if there is no threat at all, as my friend from New Hampshire says, the real question is--this is a veiled way of us saying: Should we have NATO at all? If there is no threat to France, no threat to Germany, no threat to Poland, then obviously don't expand but also don't have NATO. If there is a threat at all to Germany or to France or the other 15 nations, or 13 nations, then there is clearly a threat to Poland or to the Czech Republic. You cannot have both. This call of no threat either present or anticipated, indicating there is no need to expand, I think, leads one to the conclusion that if they take that view, there should not be NATO. So I don't know why you don't just stand up and say why don't we just eliminate NATO because there we are spending, for assets devoted to NATO, counting our national budget, over $100 billion a year. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

Mr. BIDEN. If there isn't a threat, what is the need for NATO?

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. BIDEN. I don't want to take the Senator's time. He was kind enough to yield for a question. If he would like to, I could continue this. Otherwise, I will let him finish his statement and I will respond and point out why, in my view, there is not the least bit of inconsistency between wanting to see Russia as a democratic nation and expanding NATO.

Mr. BIDEN. With all due respect, the President never spoke of that in the context of drawing any new lines; he spoke in the context of being democratic nations.

Mr. BIDEN. What does that quote have to do with anything? What does it have to do with anything relating to whether or not we should expand NATO? How is it inconsistent with expansion of NATO?

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, there is not much that my colleague from North Carolina, the chairman of the committee, has said that I take issue with. Sitting with my staff here, as I was waiting to speak, I said, ``I have this long statement that is prepared that goes into detail about the bill. The truth of the matter is, the debate here is almost not about the bill, not about the conference report.'' I can and I guess I will at some point do what I probably shouldn't do and that is second-guess what the rationale and motivation of the House leadership is and what the rationale and motivation of the President and administration is relative to the one thing that doesn't have a darn thing to do with what the Senator and I worked so hard to put together--and, I might add, the Presiding Officer, as well is a member of the committee. He will remember we spent a lot of time on this--a lot of time. There has been talk, led by my friend from North Carolina, about reorganizing the State Department for the past several years. Nothing ever really happened. There was a lot of work, don't get me wrong, but in terms of producing something that would become law, nothing ever happened. We have been debating and talking about U.N. arrearages. We have really been debating the U.N. arrearages, or whether or not it was a reasonable, functional, useful organization. That has been a raging debate probably since the mid-1980s. It has been around for a long time but, in terms of the political chemistry on this floor of the U.S. Senate, for the last probably 10 to 12 years in earnest. As a matter of fact, I think my friend from North Carolina would acknowledge with me that in both our political parties it has taken on, in the fringes of our parties, a status that far exceeds anything about what the United Nations does or doesn't do. On one end of my party it is the salvation of the world, and on the other end of the Senator's party it is the Devil incarnate. It has kind of replaced the fervor that involved the debate for and against communism. It is a new thing, a new political dynamic. We worked very hard and we actually came up with a resolution. I respectfully suggest that what we did--and we made serious compromises--the Senator from North Carolina did not come to this conclusion gently, nor did the Senator from Delaware in terms of the compromise relative to what we did in the United Nations here. But the vast majority of the people who are informed on this issue, both in politics and in the foreign policy establishment and in the world community, acknowledge that what we did is a reasonable, straightforward and, I think, significant piece of work. I don't want to get my friend from North Carolina in trouble. I think the most significant thing about it is the Senator from North Carolina signed on to this. That puts in perspective not only the arrearages but what he has wanted to do to get the United Nations to change its tune a little bit. Hopefully, we will not be arguing another decade about whether or not it is a salvation of the world or the Devil incarnate. We will have a pretty clear-eyed view of what we expect of the United Nations and what we think its value is. That is a very valuable contribution all by itself, in my opinion. The third thing we did here, and I am sure my friend will not mind my saying this because we both said it publicly in different iterations over the last year or so--when I inherited this job from the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island, who retired, I went to see the chairman. We came here together, same year, same time. We have been friends; we have been ideological foes. We have been on the opposite sides on issues, and we have been together. We have been hanging out with each other for 25 years. I went to him and I said--which is, I guess, uncharacteristically blunt for me--``We can play this flat or we can play this round, Mr. Chairman; how do you want to do this?'' He came back and said, ``Joe, what are your priorities? What is important to you? This is what is important to me. Let's agree with what we can, and fight it out where we cannot agree.'' He has kept his word in everything he said to me. I said, ``It is important to me, with the end of the cold war, the Berlin wall down, that we do not cut back our foreign policy establishment.'' As we are cutting back our defense establishment I think as far as we should cut it back, cutting back our defense establishment, there is a need for us to extend our foreign policy reach and establishment, whether it means embassies or consulates or enough personnel or intense involvement in other countries. He said, ``It is not my intention in reorganization to emasculate the foreign policy,'' the 150 function, as we call it in budget parlance. So the third piece of this deal here is the State Department has been trying to get full funding for all its operations for years. And it is in here. Now there are reorganization provisions. The President agreed to the reorganization, and we put the structure of it into this bill. The Administration didn't like some of it. But the Senator and I agreed it was necessary. And in return we got a pretty balanced package here. Now, so far, so good, as they say. The Senator, I think, is fond of telling the joke about the guy who jumps off the 100-story building and as he passes the 50th floor a group of people are standing at a window and yell out, ``How is it going?'' And the guy falling down says, ``So far, so good.'' That is how I felt about this whole operation. I am feeling real good. We just haven't hit the ground yet. Everything we have done I am, quite frankly, proud of. I think we have made what has to happen. In a democracy of 250 million people, we make compromises. But the end result is, I think this conference report strengthens the foreign policy and the ability to conduct foreign policy and the security of the United States of America. Now, that is the so-far-so-good part. We both knew, the chairman and I, that the President wanted fast track, something he feels very strongly about. He probably could have saved fast track if he were willing to compromise on Mexico City, although that wasn't attached. I understand at the end of the day there were some in the House who said, if you attach this, we will go along with fast track. He didn't do it then. He didn't do it on other things. By the way, I have to say for the Record, because I want to be straight up about this, my colleagues know this, but so that everybody understands how I approach this, the abortion issue is not one that I live and die on. I think government should stay out of the business. I vote against funding of abortion and I vote against restrictions on a woman's right to an abortion, which makes everyone angry with me. The only person happy with me is me, in my conscience. But this for me is not on the list of the 10 most important issues facing America. It doesn't make that list for me. I must admit I do not have the passion for or against what is being debated in here to think it is warranted or worthy of being attached to what I consider to be a serious array of foreign policy considerations affecting this Nation. On the other hand, the Senator from North Carolina does. It is a matter of great passion and commitment to him. His opposition to abortion from the day we arrived on this floor of the U.S. Senate and I first became acquainted with him to today has not waned a bit. I respect him for that. I disagree with his approach--at least most of it. I vote against funding, so that part we agree on, but I disagree with his approach. But I respect it, as I do people like my friend Senator Barbara Boxer and others who vehemently feel the other way on both funding and access. The reason I bother to tell you that, Mr. President, is this. It took nothing on my part, I had to make no compromise to say to our House friends and to our friends in the Senate, we want to keep Mexico City off of this; but it did take some real sacrifice on the part of my friend from North Carolina to say, as he did last year, look, keep this off. There are other vehicles. We can fight this out other places. Don't confuse it with this historic undertaking. We have, I think, accomplished, in at least what we passed out of the Senate--I will be straight up with everybody. We hung tough on that. The truth of the matter was neither one of us were able to affect the House's attitude toward this. The one thing I think we share a lot in common, the one thing the chairman and I share in common is we are realists. We have been here for 25 years; we know how this place works. This is not something that--not because we are so smart, you would have to be an idiot to be here 25 years and not know how it works--speaking for myself. It is pretty clear that once we could not control what would happen in the House and what Representative Smith-- who, I might add, I suspect, although he knows a lot about the issue, knows a lot less about the issue than my friend from North Carolina. My friend from North Carolina was dealing with this issue before a lot of other people knew it existed. It became clear that we could not do much about it. Although the chairman and I still disagree on a number of things, one thing we have established--and I am proud of it, and I think he is too--is that we are absolutely straight with each other. So he came to me and said, ``Look, Joe, this is in. They are going to compromise on this, but it's going to be in. So my position now, Joe, is it's in, so let's pass the whole thing.'' I tried my best and kept my promise, I stuck with my commitment, but I told him, ``If it's in, I am going to have a problem sticking with the deal--that is, pushing this through.'' Let me tell you why. It has less to do with the merits of the argument relating to Mexico City than it does if we pass it here with this attached, even though the President will veto it. I am going to be completely blunt about this. If we pass this, my worry is that it will embolden the ``Congressmen Smiths'' and others to suggest that they can keep doing this on everything that comes over here. I want to tell my friend straight up, that is my rationale. I am of the view--and this is like reading the entrails of goats and guessing like the soothsayers did 2,000 years ago what is going to motivate Members of the House or an administration to act or not act. My feeling is, since the Senate has not passed this Mexico City language in the past, and there is a majority that votes against Mexico City language--and this is purely presumptuous on my part--if Speaker Gingrich, keeping his commitment to his people, put it in, he realizes and is able to say, the Senate will not pass this, the President will not veto it, let's move on; we have a better chance of getting to the spot we want to get to--the Senator and I--which is to clear up the U.N. arrearages, reorganize the State Department, and fully fund the State Department. So I guess what I am saying is, the only place we disagree is tactically what is the better thing to do to get what we both want, notwithstanding that we disagree on Mexico City. I vote against Mexico City restrictions; the Senator votes for them. But I don't think that is what is motivating either one of us here at this moment. To speak for myself, that is not what is motivating me at the moment. What motivates me at the moment is, what do I tell my colleagues on my side of the aisle, a fair number of whom listen to me on these issues--and that is presumptuous to say, but it is just because I am the ranking member. What do I tell them is the most likely route for us, at the end of the day, to be able to get the State Department reorganized, get the U.N. arrearages paid, and funding for the State Department through the supplemental? The conclusion I have reached--and I would not bet college tuition on it for my daughter--is to stand firm, demonstrate there are not enough votes here to pass Mexico City, with the knowledge the President is going to veto it and the pressure is to get on with the business of foreign policy. I could be wrong about that. One way or another, I think it is fair to say that at least the Senator and I know--from different perspectives--that isn't going to become law. The President is going to veto this with this language attached. I could--and I am inclined to, because I am proud of it-- spend a great deal of time talking about the merits of each of the pieces of this conference report. I will refrain from that, because I would be preaching to the choir. I am preaching to the author here. It is not like I am going to say anything he doesn't know. I can put in the Record the details of what constitutes what we have accomplished and what is in the conference report. In many respects, the conference reported back a better bill than we put out. In many ways, it has been a better bill. But time is our enemy. Time is our enemy. I must again be completely blunt with my colleagues. At one point, I counseled that we not even debate this, let's vote, get it over with, and send it to the President and let it be vetoed. I believe the more time we take to deal with the U.N., the more difficult and intransigent the U.N. becomes, the harder it is for Ambassador Richardson to take what we have given him and get the results we want, the harder it is for us to unravel a State Department that needs unraveling, in terms of reorganization. Time is not our friend. I read on the way down this morning on the train--I commute every day from my home State of Delaware. I have a little ritual, and my friend knows about this. I read my local paper because of its interest and out of self-defense, I read the New York Times, and I read the Wall Street Journal, and that gets me to Baltimore. From Baltimore on, I prepare whatever I am going to do that morning. So commuting 4 hours a day isn't all bad, because you have a lot of time to prepare. On the way down, I read in the New York Times this morning's lead article about the IMF. It is pretty clearly unrelated to this issue but tangentially involved with the issue of Mexico City. But it looks like IMF isn't going to go anywhere. I will not put this in the Record. I don't often put in news articles. But this is on page 9 of the New York Times, entitled, ``GOP Snubs White House on Billions for IMF.'' Well, there are only three or four major foreign policy considerations on our plate right now. NATO is a big one, and the Senator and I will deal with this come Tuesday. Then there is IMF, the U.N., and reorganization of the State Department. It seems to me--and I do not in any way--and I give my friend my word on this--direct any of this at him or to anyone in particular. It seems a shame that three of those four major issues get tied up in what is in fact a divisive and, understandably, national debate relating to abortion. Sometimes I wish we had the House rules, which say that whatever you do has to be germane. But then I am not so sure, because I realize they can get the Rules Committee to do anything they want. But it is too bad we can't say that we are going to debate foreign policy and settle it, that we are going to fight out abortion, and that we will fight out education, and so forth. I understand the practical reasons why that is not the case, but the truth is that it creates real problems. The one and only place--and I will cease after this--where I disagree with my friend from North Carolina, the chairman of the full committee, is on this issue of whether or not there has in fact been a compromise that has been put forward by the House leadership on the issue of Mexico City. It has been stated--and this is the only place I disagree with my friend--that the House anti-abortion forces, led by Smith of New Jersey and Gingrich, the Speaker, compromised on 90 percent of what the Mexico City language is. In truth, I think that is illusory. I don't think there is any compromise. Let me for the record, for those who are going to make difficult decisions here on how to vote--I am going to vote no on this bill. The reason I am going to vote no on this bill is because I am opposed to Mexico City. That is true. But that is not the main reason I am going to vote no. To be honest with you, were I President of the United States, I would have a harder time deciding whether to veto this or not because I care so much about the three provisions. Arguably, someone could say why not swallow on another provision that you strongly disagree with, but in comparative weight, in terms of how it affects the national interest, arguably you should go ahead and not veto. But I am not President. I am a U.S. Senator. As a U.S. Senator, I am obliged to explain my rationale for why I am going to vote against this. I am reiterating what I said at the outset. I think if we vote no in this body, whether you are for or against Mexico City, we, quite frankly, take the House leadership off of a bit of a dilemma. I believe in my heart that much of the House leadership would rather this not have been in this bill. They know how important this is, even though I am not questioning their support for the Mexico City language. It is a little bit like my saying I feel very, very strongly about tobacco companies being able to target advertising to children--very strongly. I think they have been outrageous in what they have done. Should I attach that tobacco language to this foreign policy bill? Would that be appropriate no matter how strongly I feel about it? Should I say I am not going to fund the United Nations arrearages, I am not going to reorganize the State Department, I am not going to fund the State Department, and, by the way, although it is not in this bill, I am not going to replenish the International Monetary Fund even though there is an economic crisis in Asia that could still spill over to the United States? And the single most significant thing we could do to stop that from happening is regenerate confidence to the degree that everyone knows there is enough money in the IMF to help these countries get back on their feet. Should I say because of my feeling about tobacco advertising that I am ready to scuttle all three of those? I think that is inappropriate. I think the House leadership--I could be wrong, but I think the majority of the House thinks it is inappropriate. It does not matter. A minority in the House, as has occurred in the Senate, with Democrats as well as Republicans, on other issues, both of us have attacked it. I think the strongest message we could send is to stop it. The Senate is not going to accept it. The President clearly will not accept it, because then I think the leadership on the other side will say, ``Look, minority within our minority. I know this is important to you. I kept my commitment to you. We tried it. Now let's get down to the business of the Nation.'' I could be wrong about that. But that is why Joe Biden is voting against the thing that he, at least 49 percent, was responsible for creating, this bill, along with the 51 percent of my friends, including the Senator from North Carolina. I cannot think of anything other than the crime bill that I put as much time into than this. This is a little bit like sacrificing your child. I put a lot of time and energy, and my staff put in hundreds of hours, as has the chairman's staff. I am proud of our product. But I know the President is going to veto this. What is going to embolden the Chris Smiths of the world to continue to throw a monkey wrench into the foreign policy of this Nation? My point to my colleagues on my side of the aisle is to vote no. That, coupled with the President being against it, maybe will allow us to get down to the regular business of the Senate again. But I could be wrong. Again, this is a tactical judgment, from my standpoint, on how we get on with conducting the foreign policy of this Nation and taking on our responsibilities in the U.S. Senate to do that. But having said that, let me make sure everybody understands what Mexico City is. You say to people out there, ``Well, this is about Mexico City. Well, is it about smog? What do you mean Mexico City? What is this about? Corruption? Drugs? No. It is about Mexico City. Mexico City is a consequence of a reference to a meeting which took place on population planning back in 1984 where a whole bunch of nations got together under the auspices of the U.N. They were going to meet in Mexico City and decide how they should deal with the notion of population planning. The Reagan administration announced administratively a new policy on international population assistance, which was a change in what the U.S. Government policy had been as it related to assisting organizations involved in population planning in other countries. Let me make a very important distinction. Even I had to go back and read this. This is not about involving any restrictions on governmental agencies. Money we send to the Mexican Government, the Mexican Government can use in population planning funds--if we send them any-- any way they want with one restriction, and it is the Helms law. Senator Helms--and I supported it--argued that we should not be sending taxpayer dollars to other countries in the form of foreign aid if those other countries, or private organizations within those countries, are going to take our taxpayer dollars and perform abortions--in the case of China, coerced abortions, where the Chinese Government has coerced people into having abortions, forced abortions, to maintain this one- child policy, one child per family. So it became law. It is still law. Under the Helms amendment, taxpayer dollars collected and sent overseas, in what most people would refer to as foreign aid, cannot be used to perform or to coerce abortions. That is the law. Mexico City is in addition to that. Mexico City says--I caution my staff to correct me if I make even any nuance mistake about this because it is important--Mexico City comes along and it does two things. It says when the United States, by whatever mechanism, sends American taxpayer dollars to nongovernmental organizations instead of to the comparable Department of Health and Social Services in Mexico-- for example, they have a comparable agency in their Federal Government like we have in ours--sending funds to them, it gets treated one way. Sending funds to, say, Mexico City Planned Parenthood, not a U.S. corporation, not a U.S. entity, but a Mexican entity, or any other country, in Argentina, in China, in Vietnam, the Mexico City directive of President Reagan said not only can they not use their funds because the Helms amendment blocks use of any taxpayer dollars--OK? Not only the government, but to these private agencies. The add-on that President Reagan, through Executive order, laid out was the following. It said not only can they not use our funds, the money we send, say, to Planned Parenthood Mexico, they cannot use their funds--let me get this straight for everybody. Right now, if we sent, through a population control program, money to Planned Parenthood Mexico, Planned Parenthood Vietnam, Planned Parenthood--I don't know that they have one but assume they do--and we sent money to the Government of Vietnam, the Government of Mexico, the government of another country, as well for population control under our law, if we find out they, either the private agency, or the government, is using that money to perform abortions, then it is against Federal law. We stop doing it. It is the Helms amendment. It cannot be done. OK. That is the law. That is not in question here. That is the law now, and it will stay the law. But this is a different deal. Former President Reagan said not only do we want to stop that; we want to stop these nongovernmental agencies from using their own money. So now Planned Parenthood in Mexico gets a dollar of U.S. taxpayers' money; they can't use that dollar to perform abortions. They can't use that dollar to go out there and be promoting those abortions. OK. But now let's say they have a fundraiser in Mexico City, and all Mexican citizens show up and they contribute $2. So they have $3 to spend now, two of their own that they raised that has nothing to do with taxpayers' dollars and one that is the American taxpayers' dollar. Mexico City says they can't even use their own dollars, their own money to do either of two things: One, to perform abortions or, two, to lobby their own Government on anything relating to abortion. Now, the irony here is if they were the Right to Life Committee in Mexico City, they also could not lobby with their own money their Government to end abortions. It is a gag rule. We are saying what we can't say to their Government--even Mr. Smith and others have not tried to say--any money we send to the Mexican Government to control population can't be used to perform abortions, and if they take any of our money they can't use any of their own money to do anything relating to abortion. We don't say that. We know we can't tell another Government they can't use their own tax dollars, but we feel we can tell a nongovernment agency, these NGOs they talk about, nongovernment organizations, we think we can tell them what they can do not only with the money we send them but with their own money. That is the objection this President has. By the way, we went through a similar debate here in the United States on the so-called gag rule. It would be unconstitutional. We could not say to local Planned Parenthood in Duluth, MN, ``You are getting some Federal funding; you can't use the Federal money. . . .'' We can say that. But we could not then say, ``With your money, you can't even tell anybody who comes in to see you about the options that are available.'' We can't say to a local doctor in the United States of America, ``Look, we can pass a law saying you cannot perform an abortion with taxpayer dollars''--we could do that, but under our first amendment we could not say to the doctor or clinic, using their own funds, you cannot counsel the patient, ``By the way, there are four ways to deal with your problem. One of them is . . .'' We can't do that. That is what we call the gag rule. But we are going to gag the world. We are going to tell the world, if you are involved with us in any way, you not only in accepting our dollars cannot use our dollars, you can't use your own dollars. The President and a vast majority of my colleagues feel very strongly--I admit they feel more strongly than I do--about that as a matter of principle. So what is this fight about? Where did the compromise come in? What did the House do to make this Mexico City language more palatable or reflect what is called a compromise by my friend from North Carolina? Well, the compromise contained in this report would put Mexico City into place, make it law--it is not law now, but it was an Executive order, by the way, from President Bush and President Reagan, and eliminated by President Clinton. This would now put into legislation Mexico City language. But here is what the language said. It would permit the President to waive the restriction on U.S. funds to a group that used its own money to perform abortions. Hardly any of these groups do that. So it is really not giving up much, and it would require the President to say, you can use your own money to perform an abortion. That is allegedly the compromise. But let's look at what it leaves in place. And by the way, there would be a small financial cost in doing so. Population funds would then be limited to $356 million in that year as opposed to $385 million if he exercised this waiver. That is the penalty the President would pay to waive. But there is no waiver authority on the provision which is referred to as the lobbying restriction. And this is the more important provision because (a) few of the organizations that receive population funds actually perform abortions, and (b) from the administration's viewpoint, the principle worth upholding is one embodied in the first amendment of our Constitution, and that is this provision restricts free debate. In fact, the reason the restriction applies only to foreign organizations and not domestic organizations is that it wouldn't be permitted under our Constitution under the first amendment if we tried to apply this language to an American nongovernmental organization. It would be unconstitutional. Now, the statement of the managers in the conference report elaborates on the definition of lobbying and makes it clear that the provision is in fact designed to restrict speech. What are we doing now? We are telling them they can't use their own money to speak to their own Government, not our Government, not our money, can't use their own money to speak to their own Government about the issue of procreation. Let me read the managers' statement, fancy term for saying what is contained in the attachment to this legislation. This is relating to what constitutes lobbying. ``Such practices include not only overt lobbying for such changes but also such other activities as sponsoring rather than merely attending conferences and workshops on the alleged defects of the abortion laws as well as drafting and distributing of materials or public statements calling attention to defects in the country's abortion laws.'' That is pretty broad. That is the problem the administration has. This is so far-reaching in terms of what it does as it relates to speech that as a matter of principle they have made no bones about it; 3 days after they came into office they scrapped this language. It is now being forced down their throat if they want to be able to conduct the foreign policy of the United States of America. So my disagreement with my friend from North Carolina relates only to whether or not this is really a compromise. None of the language is changed. Only the ability of the President to waive the first section, not the second section. And by my understanding the managers' definition of what constitutes lobbying is even broader than anyone reasonably would think lobbying is in our country. Now, I think this is antidemocratic. It is a gag rule. It is inappropriate for us to do this. It interferes in ways we should not be interfering. And it will have no impact, in my view, on whether there are more or fewer or lesser abortions performed in the United States of America. As a matter of fact, I am of the view--and I am, as I think 99 percent of Americans are, opposed to abortion. No one likes abortion. Even among those who have had one and/or perform them, I don't know anybody who likes abortion. But I think, ironically, Mexico City could cause more abortions to be performed worldwide. If Mexico City's restrictions are reimposed, several population organizations, including the largest in the world, the International Planned Parenthood Federation, will not any longer take any U.S. population control money. They are going to say, ``If the price for us taking your money is we have to not use any of our money ever again, then we don't want your money.'' Is that a good idea? What have we accomplished? I think these restrictions could lead to significant cutbacks in family planning assistance in several countries. Such assistance increasing access--for example, assistance to increase access to contraceptive services, to information related to everything from the rhythm method to the use of condoms to the use of the pill, all those things which are critical in preventing unwanted pregnancies--I think that the lessening of the amount of money available for that, because you know these organizations are not going to accept U.S. money, I think it is going to increase the number of abortions. I think this is especially so in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, where abortion, under the Communist period, was often the method used for family planning. For example, in Kazakhstan, U.S. assistance to some two dozen clinics, Planned Parenthood-type clinics in Kazakhstan from 1993 to 1994, led to a 41 percent decline in the number of abortions performed in that country. Did you hear what I just said? When we were engaged in pointing out to the people of Kazakhstan what alternatives they had to deal with unwanted pregnancies other than abortion, and that information was made available, the number of abortions declined by 41 percent. In Russia, contraceptive use increased from 19 percent to 24 percent in the years 1990 to 1994. During this period, from 1990 to 1994, the number of abortions dropped from 3.6 million performed in Russia to 2.8 million. If, like me, you want to stop abortions, you had over 800,000 fewer abortions in Russia because we were providing money to train and to make available information to Russian women and men about the use of contraceptives. But what are these organizations going to do now, when they say, if we give them money, they know they can't even talk to their governments or attend conferences and talk about abortion? They are not going to take the money. In Ukraine, the Ministry of Health reported an 8.6 percent decrease in abortions between January and June of 1996, which it directly attributes to the women's reproductive health program that began in 1995 with U.S. funding. For every 100 abortions performed in the 6 months before, there were 8 fewer performed in the next 6 months. Why? Because of population services. Now, look, I don't mean to, I don't intend to, and I don't pretend to want to engage my friend in a debate on abortion. As I said when he was necessarily off the floor, the only place we disagree as it relates to this conference report is how much of a compromise the House really made. I would argue essentially they made no compromise and allowed the President to waive in one circumstance the Mexico City restriction which is hardly ever used anyway. I think--I know from the administration's perspective and the majority of my colleagues on this side and about 8 or 10 on your side, that it is a larger principle of whether or not we can impose internationally a gag rule that can't be imposed nationally because of our first amendment. Again, I am not arguing the merits of it, but I am arguing that is enough, I think, to doom this conference report. And I will conclude by saying--and I thank my friend for his indulgence--but I conclude by saying the only other thing we probably disagree on, and only of late, is tactically what is the best way to get what we both want done. I think if the Senate rejects, as well as the President veto's threat exists, tactically that puts up more of a wall that says, Look, let's deal with foreign policy, not with Mexico City on this; pick another vehicle. But I want to tell you--and I don't say this to be solicitous--I don't know anyone who is tactically smarter, in terms of Senate procedure, than my friend from North Carolina. We have both been here the same number of years, but I do not have his knowledge and experience relative to the rules. But I think I have almost as much of an instinct about what will motivate or not motivate our colleagues in the House or the Senate. So, again, we disagree on only two points: One, this is not much of a compromise on Mexico City; two, tactically I am urging my colleagues to vote ``no'' to make the point that this is not an easy access, to keep attaching this kind of language. Because it will allow, in my view, the leadership in the House to say, ``Look, if we want to get something done, let's not attach it.'' That is my rationale. We have no disagreement on the legislation. We both made real compromises on the core of this. I think we both, on both our parts--it is presumptuous of me to say this and self-serving for me to say this--but think we did a good job. I think we worked the way one of the major newspapers in America said the way the committee is supposed to work. We actually heard the facts, debated it, fought it out, resolved it, and did what was reasonable in the outcome. So I say to my friend, I don't know where this will all lead except I am confident, either because of action on this floor or by the President, this conference report is not going to become law and we are going to have to go at this again. But I fear, as he does, time is awasting. It is harder each time to put Humpty-Dumpty back together again. Time is running out. We are moving into an election year. I do not in any way question his motivation. I do not in any way suggest that I know my tactical judgment is better than his. But I have reached this conclusion--and we talked about this--I have reached this conclusion for the reasons I have stated. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I yield as much time as my friend from Vermont would like, and I ask unanimous consent that since I am going to be absent from the floor, that he have the authority to yield any time he wishes as well. I have 2 hours 10 minutes left. I yield up to 2 hours 5 minutes to my friend from Vermont.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, is the time in control of the Senator from Delaware?

Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. I would be glad to yield.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I have listened to and been involved in this debate now for weeks before this got to the floor, and since it has gotten to the floor, and now in the final moments. And I find myself in an unusual position. I think the claims made by everyone on both sides of this issue are greatly exaggerated. Although I have voted against vouchers, and have voted against direct funding to private schools, I strongly support, and have since I got here in 1973, the use of the Tax Code to indirectly assist private schools. My friend from North Dakota talked about how the public schools are getting short shrift, but so are the private schools. The private schools I went to were Catholic grade schools where the average income I expect was lower--I know it was lower in the neighborhood I lived in--than the average income in the public schools. I will not belabor this, mainly because no one is interested and, secondly, because I do not have the time. I think when we get here on the floor and people say, this is really about priorities, I agree. And if the debate really were whether or not to spend this money for aiding higher and elementary and secondary education, all three--and about $300 million of this bill is for secondary and elementary education through the Tax Code--I would say that is a legitimate debate. The truth is, most of the people who are voting against this are voting against it because in principle they don't think the Tax Code should be used this way, period. They have no desire under any circumstance--and they think it is anathema to our system--to help even indirectly private schools. So I find myself in strong disagreement and in a distinct minority in my party on that view. Consequently, I voted against a whole lot of things I have supported for 20 years, because most of the initiatives that were brought up that I supported were in lieu of--in lieu of--this use of the Tax Code, this IRA, which is going to be a very, very small amount of money for most people, by the way. Then having done that--and I do not in any way suggest that the sponsor of this legislation had this in mind--along came an amendment that trumped everything for me. I have always been an extremely strong supporter of public schools. I have supported education for the 25 years I have been here. With every major education initiative, I have played a small part, at least in my vote, along with the Senator from Massachusetts, who has been the leader in this body on education issues since I have been here. So along comes an amendment by Senator Gorton that essentially emasculates the notion of Federal participation in the education process in our country. I am not suggesting that he is not philosophically committed to the notion that there should be no Department of Education, that it should all be local. But, I think that is malarkey. I think that is absolutely ``brain dead'' in terms of what this country needs. That is my view. So now I am faced with a dilemma. I want to support this bill. But, in helping a little tiny bit those parents who send their kids to private schools--over the objection of my friend Senator Kennedy and others--in the process, from my perspective, I would be voting to emasculate the Federal responsibility in education by shifting all programs to a block grant. I find it ironic, by the way, all this talk from Republicans about, ``We don't want any directed education programs, we want block grants,'' and then everyone voted for a Republican-sponsored amendment to create a new directed Federal Government education program which is not a block grant. At any rate, I can no longer support this bill. It really makes me angry with myself that I can't vote for this bill. All these years trying to get a little bit of fairness, in my view, for private and parochial schools. It is just about to happen, and I can't vote for it now because it undermines everything I have believed about the role of the Federal Government in education for the last 25 years. So I say to my friend from Georgia, who has been straight up with me, upfront with me, the whole way--our offices are across from one other-- although we met on this and strategized on this, and, I think to the chagrin of my Democratic colleagues, although I helped play a part in getting this bill to the floor, now I can't vote with him. Now, if you go to conference and this is dropped--that is, the foolishness of the Gorton amendment--and the bill comes back here without the Gorton amendment in it, I will vote for it and I will vote to override a Presidential veto. But I cannot vote for it in its present form. The reason, Mr. President, I wanted to vote for the Education IRA proposal is because I believe in it. I have always believed--and I voted as far back as 1978--that we should find some way to help financially those parents who wish to send their children to the school of their choice. That does not mean that I support every effort to provide tax dollars or tax breaks to support private education. But, I have supported--and will continue to support--reasonable, appropriate, constitutional measures that do not take money away from the public schools to help middle-class and lower-income families who choose an alternative to public schools. Let me also say that my support for this bill--and similar initiatives--should in no way be viewed as an abandonment of public education. Yes, there are some supporters of this bill who believe that there should be no Federal role in education or that the Federal government should not help States fund public education or that we should decrease our commitment to public education. I have not, do not, and never will subscribe to that philosophy. I have supported and will continue to support increasing funding for public schools and for programs to help the public schools--Title I for disadvantaged children, Goals 2000 academic standards, safe and drug free schools, special education, school construction, and smaller class sizes, to name a few examples. Public education must be our top priority. But, no matter how much those on both sides of this issue try to make it so, this is not an either-or choice--where you either support public education or you support families who choose an alternative to public schools. That is a false choice. Now, having said all that, Mr. President, let me explain in some detail why I believe it to be true--why I believe this bill is reasonable and appropriate, and does not undermine public education. In doing so, I need to review some of the provisions of this bill, which my colleagues are familiar with. I do this because as I have talked to people about this bill--and as people have talked to me--it is clear that there is a lot of misunderstanding about it. So, let me take a few minutes to explain exactly what this bill is and is not. This bill is not is a voucher bill. It does not provide a voucher or grant to pay for private schools. This is not a tuition tax credit bill. It does not give a tax write-off for the costs of tuition at private schools. And, this is not a bill to aid private schools. It does not give private schools a dime of tax money. What this bill does is simply say that the interest earned on a family's savings that are used for education will not be considered taxable income. Let me be more specific. Last year, we established Education IRAs for higher education. This was a proposal that I had originally introduced in 1996 as part of my comprehensive bill--known as the ``GET AHEAD'' Act--to make college more affordable for middle-class families. Under last year's tax bill, families can now put up to $500 per year into an Education IRA and if that money is later used to pay for the costs of higher education, the interest on that savings will not be taxed. This bill does two things to build on last year's law. First, it increases the amount that can be put into the account each year from $500 to $2000. Second, for families with incomes under $160,000, the bill allows funds in an Education IRA to be used--without having to pay tax on the interest--for the costs of a child's education at any level--elementary, secondary, or higher education--and at any school, public or private, or for home schooling expenses. There is no tax deduction for the amount put into the savings account. And, there is no tax deduction for the entire cost of a private school education. Those are myths. This bill simply says that interest earned on Education IRAs--which already exist for higher education--will not be taxed if the money is used at any level of education. What is the harm in that? I see none. We are simply expanding existing Education IRAs so that people can use their own money to pay for elementary and secondary education costs. Now, Mr. President, here is something interesting. The cost of this proposal is estimated by the Congressional Budget Office to be $1.6 billion over ten years, paid for by closing loopholes in the current tax law--not by taking money away from public schools. But, about $1.3 billion of the cost is expected to result from Education IRAs used to help finance the cost of a higher education. Only $300 million--and, remember, that's over a 10-year period--would result from Education IRAs used to help pay for elementary and secondary education. In other words, less than 20 percent of the cost of this proposal is a result of Education IRAs being used for elementary and secondary education costs--what all the hullabaloo has been about--and some of that would be used by families with children in public schools. Let me repeat that. Under this bill, Education IRAs can be used to help families whose kids attend public schools. If parents need to buy their kids public school uniforms, they can use this money. If parents need to buy their kids a computer, they can use this money. If a child needs an after-school or summer tutor, parents can pay for that tutor using this money. How is that a disaster that will befall this nation's public school system? The answer is, it is not. That is a rhetorical exaggeration by opponents of this bill, who are trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, they claim that this bill is significant because it will undermine public education, and on the other hand, they argue that this bill is meaningless because the tax benefit for the average family, they claim, will be $37 per year. Which is it--significant or meaningless? It cannot be both. The truth is, this bill in the aggregate will have only a marginal impact. But, to some families, it will be a real help. And, so I believe that this bill is an appropriate way to reach a desirable goal--assisting parents who wish to send their children to the school of their choice. Finally, Mr. President, although I support this bill, let me say that I am disappointed with the way the Republican leadership chose to bring up this bill. I am disappointed because we did not use this opportunity to have a serious debate on education in this country. By any measure, as I just noted, this bill will have only a small impact. And, it will help primarily--not exclusively, but primarily--families whose children attend private schools. I support it out of a sense of fairness. But, meanwhile, there are 45 million public school children in this country. And, we have schools that are falling down, classes that are overcrowded, and children who have nowhere to go and nothing to do when the final school bell rings at 3:00 in the afternoon. Even if the Education IRA proposal becomes law--which I think it should, and I hope it will--it is not a fix for the problems of America's schools, and we should not pretend otherwise. No matter how important I think this bill is, it is not about making our public schools better. We could have put more money in building and repairing schools. We could have put 100,000 new teachers in our elementary school classrooms to reduce class size. We could have funded after-school programs to help keep kids off the streets and away from crime. We could have done all of these things in addition to the Education IRA proposal. But, we did not. We have missed the opportunity to think big and have instead gone forward with a bill that gets by with something small. Nonetheless what is being done here is important, and I look forward to voting for it if the Gorton amendment is dropped.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Once again, Mr. President, as often occurs here, we are presented with Hobson's choices. As I said, I have strongly supported and continue to support the school construction initiatives of Senator Moseley-Braun, but her amendment should have been added to the bill, not given as an alternative to it. In order to vote for her amendment, I would have had to vote against the guts of the Coverdell bill. I support the essence of what Senator Coverdell is doing. So I voted against Senator Moseley-Braun's amendment, although I strongly support it and think we need to invest considerable amounts of money in school construction. I conclude by saying I only wish it had been an add-on to the Coverdell bill, not in place of the Coverdell bill. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I wanted to explain the reason I voted the way I did on the last amendment. I strongly support Senator Moseley- Braun's amendment and approach.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a minute?

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to call my colleagues' attention to a guest editorial by a long-time friend of mine, Mr. Sam Shipley, which recently appeared in the Wilmington News Journal. I think he makes some very important points about the presidential tax check-off box, and I commend the article to my colleagues. I ask that it be printed in the Record. The editorial follows: [From the Wilmington (DE) News Journal, Mar. 11, 1998] $3 Election Check-off Can Add Up (By Samuel L. Shipley) The presidential tax check-off needs promoting by the Federal Election Commission. It's been a secret to most Americans. One of the most effective strategies to increase taxpayer awareness would be through public service announcements in the news media, particularly national television. And there would be no better time to air them than now, when Americans have their 1040 forms in hand, complete with instructions on making the check-off. This year, the 1040 forms for 1997 taxes will allow each taxpayer to check off $3 as a matching contribution to the presidential campaign. This can be doubled to $6 on joint tax returns, even if only one spouse is employed. The money from the presidential campaign check-off on Form 1040 is allocated equally among presidential candidates, after they raise a certain amount of funds on their own. In the 1990s, despite a national decline in voting participation, more than 100 million Americans turned out to cast ballots for president. No doubt the overwhelming majority of these people file annual income tax returns. This means that this year alone, there is the potential for hundreds of millions of dollars from citizens of all walks of life to be set aside for the 2000 elections. It has been estimated that $1 billion or more was spent on the 1996 presidential election by the respective candidates and their parties. If taxpaying Americans would begin using the presidential campaign funding check-off this year and next, federal election funds to presidential races could replace a large percentage of the money that candidates see fit to seek from the special interests. As a Delaware state Democratic Party chairman for many years and participant in many national political activities and campaigns, I am absolutely convinced of one point. The overwhelming majority of candidates for high national office do not like to go, hat in hand, asking people--particularly special interests--for money. Some absolutely detest it. But with the high cost of staff, organization and particularly media, they see no other alternative. The American people have it in their hands, now more than ever, to give presidential candidates the opportunity to back off from special interests--if they will only use the voluntary $3 tax check-off. This would go a long way to let presidential contenders campaign and serve with honor and dignity. This is the beginning of an answer to the cancer of politics, if only the people will take a scalpel to sleazy special-interest money. This could act as a catalyst to pressure on Congress to overhaul campaign spending practices.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, of all the priorities included in the Budget Resolution now before the Senate, I believe that none is more important than continuing our fight against violent crime and violence against women. To a great extent, this Budget Resolution meets this test--but, in at least one area of this crime front, I believe the Budget Resolution must be clarified. The amendment does exactly that--by clarifying that it is the sense of the Senate that the Violent Crime Control Trust Fund will continue through fiscal year 2002. First, let me point out that it is Senator Byrd who, more than anyone, deserves credit for the crime law trust fund. Senator Byrd worked to develop an idea that was simple as it was profound--as he called on us to use the savings from the reductions in the federal workforce of 272,000 employees to fund one of the nation's most urgent priorities: fighting the scourge of violent crime. Senator Gramm was also one of the very first to call on the Senate to ``put our money where our mouth was.'' Too often, this Senate has voted to send significant aid to state and local law enforcement--but, when it came time to ``write the check,'' we did not fund nearly the dollars we promised. Working together in 1993, Senator Byrd, myself, Senator Gramm, Senator Domenici and other Senators passed the Violent Crime Control Trust Fund in the Senate. And, in 1994, it became law in the Biden Crime Law. Since then, the dollars from the Crime Law Trust Fund have: Helped add nearly 70,000 community police officers to our streets; helped shelter more than 80,000 battered women and their children; focussed law enforcement, prosecutors and victims service providers on providing immediate help to women victimized by someone who pretends to ``love'' them; forced tens of thousands of drug offenders into drug testing and treatment programs, instead of continuing to allow them to remain free on probation with no supervision and no accountability; constructed thousands of prison cells for violent criminals; and brought unprecedented resources to defending our southwest border--putting us on the path to literally double the number of federal border agents over just a 5 year period. The results of this effort are already taking hold--according to the FBI's national crime statistics, violent crime is down and down significantly--leaving our nation with its lowest murder rate since 1971. And the lowest murder rate for wives, ex-wives and girlfriends at the hands of their ``intimates'' to an 18-year low. In short, we have proven able to do what few thought possible--by being smart, keeping our focus, and putting our ``money where our mouths'' are--we have actually cut violent crime. Today, our challenge is to keep our focus and to stay vigilant against violent crime. Today, the Biden-Gramm amendment before the Senate offers one modest step towards meeting that challenge--By confirming the Senate's commitment to fighting crime and violence against women will continue to at least 2002. By confirming the Senate's commitment that the Violent Crime Control Trust Fund will continue--in its current form which provides additional federal assistance without adding 1 cent to the deficit--to at least 2002. The Biden-Gramm amendment offers a few very simple choices: Stand up for cops--or don't; stand up for the fight against violence against women --or don't; stand up for fighting the scourge of youth violence-- or don't; stand up for building new prisons--or don't; stand up for increased border enforcement--or don't. Every member of this Senate is against violent crime. Now, I urge all my colleagues to back up with words with the only thing that we can actually do for the cop walking the beat, the battered woman, the victim of crime--provide the dollars that help give them the tools to fight violent criminals and help restore at least some small piece of the dignity taken from them by a violent criminal. Let us be very clear of the stakes here--frankly, if we do not continue the Trust Fund, we will not be able to continue such proven, valuable efforts as the Violence Against Women law. Nothing we can do today can guarantee that we, in fact, will continue the Violence Against Women Act when the law expires in the year 2000. But, mark my words, if the Trust Fund ends, the efforts to provide shelter, help victims and get tough on the abusers and batterers will wither on the vine. Passing the amendment I offer today will send a clear, unambiguous message that the trust fund should continue and with it, the historic effort undertaken by the violence against women act that says by word, deed and dollar that the Federal Government stands with women and against the misguided notion that ``domestic'' violence is a man's ``right'' and ``not really a crime.'' statement on the market access program

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, recognizing reality and the hour, I am going to tell you what my amendment was going to be, and then I will withdraw it. This amendment was to see to it that the moneys from the tobacco settlement, if any, could have been used for VA health care, as well as Medicare. But looking at that lineup, I understand the outcome, and so I withdraw the amendment.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my good friend, the distinguished Ranking Member of the Budget Committee, Frank Lautenberg, in introducing this amendment. We are in excellent company, joined by the distinguished Chairman of the Finance Committee, Bill Roth, the distinguished Majority Leader, and other supporters of Amtrak. As I testified just last week before Senator Shelby's Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Amtrak is currently under the gun--both the Amtrak Reform Act we passed last year, and our current budget plans assume that Amtrak will be without operating subsidies beginning in 2002. Personally, I am not convinced that this is a wise course of action. Virtually all passenger rail systems in the world are supported by public funds, because their benefits--reduced congestion on highways and at airports, less air pollution--are enjoyed by those who may never ride a train. Public support does not automatically signify inefficiency, Mr. President; in the case of passenger rail, it is a recognition that the public benefits are not fully paid for by individual ticket purchases. But it is even clearer, Mr. President, that passenger rail deserves support for its major capital needs. Just as the federal government provides funds for highways, airports, ship channels, and ports, it has a proper role--justified by the strictest notions of economic efficiency--in providing support for the basic infrastructure of our national transportation system. Despite the heavy burdens placed on Amtrak by years of under funding, Amtrak has responded with increased efficiency--and has undertaken a business plan that aims at operating self-sufficiency by the year 2002. This amendment expresses the sense of the Senate that we should live up to our end of the deal we entered into when we passed the Amtrak Reform Act last year--we should, at an absolute minimum, provide Amtrak with the funds necessary for them to reach 2002 with the equipment, routes, and ridership that will make that self-sufficiency possible. That means providing Amtrak with the funds--both long-term high-return capital from its capital funds, as well as operating support--that they anticipate in that business plan. And I must add, Mr. President, that following the recommendation of last year's Presidential Emergency Board, Amtrak has agreed to provide pay raises for its long-suffering workers. To make good on that commitment, and to provide similarly for all of the workers that have gone for years without a pay raise--or even a contact--Amtrak will require the funding level we commit to with his amendment. I am gratified that we have the support of so many of my colleagues for this amendment. Today, we will put the Senate on record in support of funds for Amtrak that will allow them to achieve the goals that we have set for them. That, Mr. President, is the least we can do.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BIDEN. I further ask that my amendment be set aside.