Joe Biden

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, the second-degree amendment I have at the desk is very simple and straightforward. The Senator from New Mexico is introducing a budget process amendment, and what the amendment of Senator Gramm and myself does is, quite frankly, it merely extends the crime law trust fund for the extension of this agreement. I am told by the staffs of the majority and minority that in the budget process agreement that was agreed to with the administration, there is a line on page 90 of the concurrent resolution of the budget fiscal year 1998. On page 90, it says, ``Retain current law on separate crime caps at levels shown in the agreement tables.'' All we are doing here is extending the crime law trust fund. We are not making judgments on how that will be disbursed within the trust fund. We are just extending the trust fund to the extent of this agreement. And, Madam President, as I offer this amendment, we are maintaining a commitment to one of the few specific ways the reconciliation package can, by virtue of the type of legislation it is, maintain a commitment. The commitment we made was to fight violent crime. And, ironically, it is working. It is working. And so for us now to extend the violent crime trust fund, let it expire 2 years before this budget agreement expires, means we are going to be back at it again in the year 2000 or before, fighting over something we now know works. So I realize we can take a long time debating this. But the bottom line is this: We are not suggesting, as the Senator from New Mexico knows, how this trust fund money within the caps will be disbursed; merely that we have the continuation of the trust fund as long as the budget agreement to the year 2002. Of all the priorities addressed in this budget package, I believe that none is more important than continuing our fight against violent crime and violence against women. The amendment I am offering, along with Senator Gramm seeks to maintain this commitment in one of the few specific ways this reconciliation package can--by virtue of the type of legislation this is--maintain this commitment. That is by extending the violent crime control trust fund will continue through the end of this budget resolution, fiscal year 2002. Senator Byrd, 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 work force 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 find nearly the dollars we promised. Working together in 1993, Senator Byrd, myself, Senator Gramm, 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 more than 60,000 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; the lowest violent crime total since 1990; 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-Byrd-Gramm amendment before the Senate offers one modest step toward meeting that challenge: By assuring that the commitment to fighting crime and violence against women will continue for the full duration of this budget resolution. By assuring 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--through 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; and stand up for increased border enforcement--or don't. Every Member of this Senate is against violence crime--we way that in speech after speech. 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, standup to their abuser, and restore at least some small piece of the dignity taken from them at the hands of 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 barterers 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.'' I urge my colleagues to support the Biden-Gramm amendment. At the appropriate time--and I am not quite sure yet when is appropriate--I will ask for the yeas and nays on this. But make no mistake about it, what we are voting on here is whether or not we are going to commit now to the extension of the trust fund, the violent crime trust fund, for the extent of this agreement. That is all this does. That is everything it does, but that is all it does. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. BIDEN. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. BIDEN. Parliamentary inquiry. Can I get time in my own right?

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I ask that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of delaying a World Bank loan to Croatia until that country fully meets the obligations it agreed to when it signed the Dayton Accords in November 1995. Two days ago, the Clinton administration announced that it would attempt to block a $30 million World Bank loan to Croatia until Zagreb extradites Croats indicted on war crimes charges and allows Serbian refugees to return to their homes in Croatian territory. It appears that we may have difficulty in persuading other countries on the World Bank's board to go along with this postponement, but I believe that the United States should stick to its principles. Mr. President, the horrifying wars that took place in Bosnia and Croatia from 1991 to 1995 had many and complex causes. One of them was the thinly disguised desire of Serbian President Milosevic and Croatian President Tudjman to carve up Bosnia and Herzegovina. The revolt and temporary secession from Croatia by the Krajina Serbs--who themselves were led by extremely unsavory individuals who also carried out atrocities--interrupted the planned cooperation of the two rapacious strongmen in Belgrade and Zagreb. There is also no doubt, Mr. President, that the Croatian army-- trained by private Americans--played a valuable role in turning the tide in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the summer and fall of 1995 as part of its successful campaign to oust the Krajina Serbs from Croatia. But, Mr. President, the behavior of President Tudjman since then has been deplorable. He has knowingly coddled indicted war criminals, despite his obligation under Dayton to turn them over to the International Tribunal at The Hague. On numerous other occasions, I have spoken out in this Chamber against the atrocities--murder, rape, and vile ``ethnic cleansing''--that were perpetrated against innocent civilians in Bosnia. Most expert observers believe that Bosnian Serbs were responsible for the majority of these heinous acts. But several Bosnian Croats and some Croats from Croatia apparently were among the sadists, as were a few Muslims. That President Tudjman refuses to hand over the indicted who are living in Croatia is an affront to civilized people everywhere, and a direct slap in the face of the United States, which brokered the Dayton Accords. Moreover, despite pretty rhetoric and laws on the books, Tudjman has thrown up practical roadblocks to the resettlement of ethnic Serb refugees, preferring instead to govern a Croatia that is now much more ethnically homogeneous. I should add, Mr. President, that ethnic Croats who were displaced by Serbs earlier in this decade should also be allowed to return to their homes. Our goal is a peaceful, multi-ethnic, democratic Croatia. In Herzegovina, President Tudjman continues to rule through thuggish ethnic Croatian proxies headquartered in Mostar. These lawless types have refused all international attempts to integrate Mostar and have resorted to deadly violence against Muslims. In addition, despite their Bosnian citizenship, the Croats of Herzegovina were allowed to vote in Croatia's national elections earlier this month, providing much of the support by which Tudjman was re-elected in a campaign distinguished by his nearly one-sided access to the media and violence against opposition candidates. Mr. President, I firmly believe that Croatia will some day re-enter the Western European community to which it alleges it belongs. But Croatia cannot even think of becoming a member of Western institutions like the European Union or NATO until it lives up to its moral and legal commitments. Postponing the World Bank loan to Croatia would serve as a useful warning to President Tudjman that he cannot escape the consequences of his authoritarian and duplicitous behavior. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the government of the Democratic Republic of Congo must bring to an immediate end the systematic search and slaughter of Rwandan refugees, or else face isolation from the international community. Recent media reports allege the methodical execution of Rwandan refugees still hiding in the former Zaire by the Congolese military. Unless these atrocities are halted, Mr. Kabila should not expect ready support in the United States for his efforts to rebuild his country. News reports the last several weeks have alleged the existence of mass grave sites of Rwandan refugees. As of yet, we do not know for certain if these reports are accurate, and if so, by whose hands the refugees were slaughtered. A team of United Nations investigators arrived in Congo last week to initiate an investigation of these claims. Media reports of Congolese government directives to hinder this investigation, if accurate, are intolerable. The government of Congo must bring to an immediate end the persecution of the remaining Rwandan refugees, and actively assist the U.N. in its efforts to locate and repatriate these Rwandan nationals. According to reports of the United Nations and various nongovernmental organizations, thousands of Rwandan refugees continue to hide in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees estimates that between 200,000 and 250,000 refugees are still missing in Congo. While the actual number may be uncertain, what is clear is that a significant number of Rwandan refugees remain within Congolese borders. These refugees consist mostly of Rwandan Hutus who fled their country after the 1994 genocide that took the lives of an estimated 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus. Despite the large numbers of refugees who have already returned to their homes in Rwanda, a considerable number remain in Congo, many of them women and children. Many are exhausted and weak from almost three years of constant movement, malnutrition and illness. Clearly there exists the very real likelihood that among the Rwandan refugees who remain in Congo are those responsible for the 1994 Rwandan genocide. If so, they should be returned to Rwanda and held accountable for their crimes before their own countrymen at the International War Crimes Tribunal. There is absolutely no justification for the execution of any Rwandan refugee in Congo. Unfortunately, reports of persecution of Rwandan refugees in Kabila's Congo are not entirely new. Such claims have been associated with the Alliance of Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Congo since its early battlefield victories in eastern Zaire. However, Laurent Kabila earlier this month in a meeting with Ambassador Bill Richardson committed himself to assist international efforts to account for and repatriate Rwandan refugees in his country. The successful resolution of the refugee issue in Congo has serious consequences for the future of his country. Failure to follow through on this commitment seriously calls into question the credibility of the Kabila government to deliver on its promises to the world and its own people. The U.N. team in Congo so far has not encountered any difficulties. If Mr. Kabila expects to receive the support of the international community, it is imperative that he fulfill his earlier pledge and secure the access the United Nations needs to locate and repatriate the refugees. If Mr. Kabila does not live up to his existing commitments on the issue of the Rwandan refugees, it's unclear what confidence there will be for his promises of democracy and peace for the Congolese people.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, this budget bill--which would put us on a path to eliminating the budget deficit in the year 2002--contains numerous reforms of the Medicare program. In addition, the bill would restore short-term solvency to Part A of Medicare--the part that pays hospital bills and will otherwise be bankrupt in four years. I have no objection to most of the Medicare reform provisions, and I will vote for this bill overall. However, I want to talk briefly about two provisions that I oppose and explain why I voted to take them out of this bill. First, Mr. President, this bill would raise the age at which a person becomes eligible for Medicare from the current age 65 to age 67. I voted to keep the eligibility age at 65. While this increase would be gradual and would be phased in over the next 30 years--so it would not affect any current seniors--I think it moves us in the wrong direction. What we should be doing is making sure that more, not fewer, people have health insurance. Changing the current law so that today's workers will have to wait until they are 66 or 67 before they become eligible for Medicare threatens to add millions of people to the rolls of the uninsured. It is my understanding that 70 percent of Americans who retire between the ages of 60 and 65 will have no health insurance through their employers. If they have health insurance at all, they are paying exorbitant rates to buy it on their own. Increasing the eligibility age for Medicare by 2 years would leave most of these people unprotected for 2 more years. This result is totally counter to why we created Medicare in the first place: To make sure that older Americans have access to health care services when they are likely to need it the most. Raising the eligibility age for Medicare without addressing the issue of those who will lose--or those who will continue not to have--health insurance is a glaring gap in this proposal. Now, it has been argued by supporters of this change that because the Social Security retirement age will gradually increase to age 67, the eligibility age for Medicare should increase at the same time. But, Mr. President, there is no rational basis for linking Social Security and Medicare. They are two separate and distinct programs. If it is good policy to raise the Medicare eligibility age to 67--which I do not think it is at this time--then those arguments need to be presented. It is not good enough simply to say, ``Well, that's what we're doing with Social Security.'' And, I should note, that even when the Social Security retirement age increases, people will still have the option of early retirement at age 62. That is not the case with Medicare. It is all or nothing. And, we should not tell people between 65 and 67 that they get nothing. The second provision that I opposed would have--for the first time-- imposed means testing on higher income seniors. Under the plan, the monthly premiums for Medicare part B, which pays for doctor services, would have been based on how much income a person has. Now, I have long said that I believe it is not unfair or inappropriate to have wealthy seniors pay more for their Medicare coverage. So I support means testing in principle. But I am not sure that the means testing scheme in this bill is either fair or appropriate--and I think we ought to be sure of both before we make such a significant change in this program. This legislation was just drafted last week. Until noon yesterday-- Tuesday--this bill would have charged wealthier seniors higher deductibles under part B. But, then at midday, just a couple of hours before we voted on this issue, the bill was changed so that retirees with greater income would pay higher premiums, not higher deductibles. The fact that this last minute change was made just exemplifies the problem of trying to address this issue with haste. The premium increases in this budget bill are very substantial, and they would hit individuals with incomes over $50,000 and couples with incomes over $75,000. But we really do not know yet what the effect of these increases would be on these families, or on the Medicare system itself. This is why we need to proceed with greater caution. What we do in this budget bill--and what we must do--is what we have done many times in the last 30 years: Make the changes necessary to ensure the solvency of the Medicare Hospital Trust Fund over the next 10 years. To address the long-term concerns once the baby boom generation reaches retirement age, I have previously called for the establishment of a bipartisan commission to study the situation and make recommendations. This bill establishes just such a commission, and instructs it to report back to Congress in a year. My point is that neither the increase in the Medicare eligibility age nor means testing are necessary to solve the short-term financial problems of the Medicare system. Instead, these are issues that the new commission should look at. In making significant changes to the Medicare program--among the most successful Federal programs ever--we need to do so with great thoughtfulness and deliberation. These changes have no immediate impact on the Medicare trust fund or on our general goal of balancing the overall Federal budget by 2002. In short, there is no reason why we cannot wait until we have the benefit of the recommendations of the bipartisan commission--within the next year--before we take action of this nature. That is why I supported taking these changes out of the budget bill, and why I supported Senator Reed's alternative Medicare proposal to make only those changes needed to make sure that Medicare remains financially solvent.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Feinstein-Biden anti-bomb-making amendment. The bill would make it a Federal crime to teach someone how to use or make a bomb if you know or intend that it will be used to commit a crime. As my colleagues know, I fought to pass nearly identical legislation last year. Senator Feinstein and I tried several times to have it enacted as part of my anti-terrorism initiatives. The bill passed the Senate on two occasions, but unfortunately, it was rejected by the House both times. Critics of the bill claimed that it was unnecessary, unconstitutional, and would outlaw legitimate business uses of explosives. To respond to these claims, we asked the Justice Department to examine each of these questions. The report supports Senator Feinstein and my position on each and every criticism. So now that we have cleared away the basis for some of the opposition, I hope we can quickly enact this important legislation. And let me tell you why. I think most Americans would be absolutely shocked if they knew what kind of criminal information is making its way over the Internet. This information is easily accessible. It's proliferating by leaps and bounds. Let me give just one example. A guy named ``War-Master'' sent this message out over the Internet about how to build a baby food bomb. Here is how his message goes: These simple, powerful bombs are not very well known even though all the material can be easily obtained by anyone (including minors). These things are so [expletive deleted] powerful that they can destroy a car. The explosion can actually twist and mangle the frame. They are extremely deadly and can very easily kill you and blow the side of the house out if you mess up while building it. Here's how they work. And then the message goes into explicit detail about how to fill a baby food jar with gunpowder and how to detonate it. The message observes that the explosion shatters the glass jar, sending pieces of razor sharp glass in all directions. The message continues with even more deadly advice: Tape nails to the side of the thing. Sharpened jacks (those little things with all the pointy sides) also work well. As a result, the message concludes: If the explosion doesn't get 'em then the glass will. If the glass don't get 'em then the nails will. I am not making this up. And this is only one small example. Mr. President, we hear about this happening time and time again: A bomb goes off. People are killed. A criminal is apprehended. And we learn that the criminal followed--to the letter--someone else's instructions on how to make a bomb and how to make it kill people. Indeed, the Justice Department report indicates that numerous notorious terrorists--including the World Trade Center bombers and the murderers of a Federal judge--have been found in possession of bomb- making manuals and internet bomb-making information. And there is another situation that we are hearing about more and more frequently. We read about it in our local papers across the country. These bomb-making instructions are having an ever increasing impact on children. In Austin, TX, a boy lost most of one hand and part of the other after following bomb-making instructions he found on the internet. This boy once had plans to serve in the Marines. But that dream is now gone. And in Massachusetts, several boys--in separate incidents throughout the State--were maimed when they tried to mix batches of napalm on their kitchen stoves. These experiments were direct results of kids finding a bomb-making recipe on the internet. And what is even worse is that some of these instructions are geared toward kids. They tell kids that all the ingredients they need are right in their parents' kitchen or laundry cabinets. These stories illustrate what can happen when the literally millions of kids today sit in front of their computer and type ``explosive'' on their keyboard. In minutes, they can have instructions for making all sorts of explosive devices they never knew even existed. I know that some say that going after people who only help other people make bombs is not the way to go. They say that bomb-making instructions are protected by the first amendment. And I agree--to a point. I take a backseat to no one when it comes to the first amendment. I have always argued that we must take great care when we legislate about any constitutional right--paticularly our most cherished right of free speech. But let's not forget the obvious. It is illegal to make a bomb. And there is no right under the first amendment to help someone commit an illegal act. Our bill says you have no right to provide a bomb-making recipe to someone if you know that person has plans to destroy property or innocent lives. You have no right to help someone blow up a building. The Justice Department has concluded that our legislation--with some minor modifications which we have incorporated into this bill--is entirely consistent with the first amendment. I am glad that the Senate voted last year to join Senator Feinstein and me in making this type of behavior a crime. I hope this time around, we can pass this legislation through the full Congress and send it on to the President so he can sign it into law.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, this Sunday, numerous students, parents, and alumni of my Alma Mater, Archmere Academy in Claymont, DE, will be gathering to honor the Rev. Joseph P. McLaughlin, O. Praem. who, during his 26 years as a teacher and headmaster at Archmere, has been more than a pillar of the academy. He has been a vital part of Archmere's spirit, and a tremendous influence In the lives of thousands of young women and men. One of the cliches that teenagers hear again and again is how their teen years are ``the best years of your lives''. Well, with all due respect, for most kids, it is not that simple. Too many adults have forgotten how those years are often filled with uncertainty and discomfort, as teenagers undergo tremendous physical and emotional changes, have their values frequently called into question and their judgement tested beyond their experience, and must make major decisions which will impact the course of their entire lives and careers. At no other time in their lives are they forced to make so many major choices with so little experience and information upon which to base those choices. It is a time when guidance, understanding, and friendship are critical. For more than a quarter-century, young men and women of Archmere Academy, have counted upon Father McLaughlin for that guidance, understanding, and friendship. And he has always been there for them, guided by his own deep faith, sincerity, and lifelong experience in dealing with young people. Of course, we will never know many of the specific instances of Father McLaughlin's intervention, because he is the soul of discretion and modesty, but there are countless Archmereans who will tell you that when they needed an advisor, a mentor, a friend, Father McLaughlin was there for them. I graduated from Archmere before Father McLaughlin arrived, but my two sons attended the school during his tenure, and my daughter is currently an Archmere student. Each has had the utmost respect for his commitment, his wisdom, and his generosity of spirit, and all have benefitted from his years of dedicated service. Having been involved with the school as an alumnus and as a parent, I have seen firsthand Father McLaughlin's tireless efforts result in Archmere's becoming one of the premier high schools--not only in Delaware and the surrounding region, but nationally. It is obvious that he has succeeded splendidly. The school is truly the academic beacon on the hill envisioned by the school's founders, the Norbertines. Archmere historically has attracted students of all backgrounds, and turned out promising young scholars, and, most importantly, fine young men and women with solidly-rooted values and well-placed priorities. In the longstanding tradition of the late Father Justin E. Diny, Headmaster Emeritus, Father McLaughlin has long recognized that a school's success can not be measured solely by the test scores of its students, or by the number of graduates moving on to prestigious universities--though by either of those standards Archmere is unquestionably an unqualified success--but also by the character of the young men and women who pass through its gates. With his keen sensitivity for the Academy's rich history and tradition--``The Archmere Way'', as it is known on campus and throughout the community-- Father McLaughlin saw to it that Archmere graduates were solid, civic- minded citizens with commitment and compassion as well as being outstanding scholars. As headmaster, Father McLaughlin has been admired for his personal decency, his quiet and gentlemanly way, his ability to listen to all sides before coming to a decision, and his vision for Archmere's mission and its future. He has long recognized that Archmere's future lies in its past, in terms of both history and tradition. In his belief that Archmere alumni--those who have had such a tradition imbued in their characters--should play a vital role in sustaining and nurturing the Academy's atmosphere, Father McLaughlin has uniquely enriched the lives of all those students who attended Archmere during his tenure. As a result of Father McLaughlin's genuine commitment to maintaining the unbroken chain--from Archmereans to Archers to Auks--past and present Archmere alumni continue contributing to the school community long after their campus years are over. It is my fervent hope that this tradition--the one for which Father McLaughlin worked so hard to perpetuate--the idea that an Archmere education is but the first step in a lifetime of involvement, will be a cornerstone of the Academy for all succeeding generations of Archmere students. Father McLaughlin will now redirect his tireless energies and many talents to his new position as novice master and formation director for the Daylesford Abbey, where he will continue in his familiar role as mentor and counselor, as he matures new members of his order, thus ensuring that his enthusiasm, dedication, and legacy of service to the community will be instilled in yet future generations of teachers, students, and community-minded men and women of faith. As he embarks upon that challenge, all of us who love Archmere and the traditions our alma mater stands for, wish our friend Father McLaughlin him well, for his service should be held up as an example and an inspiration for all who accept the challenge to teach America's youth.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. I assure the Senator that after the Senator has his conversation, we can go back to this and he can have the floor.

Mr. BIDEN. I ask unanimous consent that the Murkowski amendment be temporarily laid aside.

Mr. BIDEN. I yield the floor. Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.

Mr. BIDEN. I have no objection, I say to the Chair.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I always enjoy debating my friend from Wisconsin. It has been a hundred years since I have been a trial lawyer, but one of the things a fellow I used to work for, a great trial lawyer in Delaware named Sid Balick, used to say was, when you have said what you wanted to say, you made the points the best you can, it is best to sit down. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, again, the Senator is always straightforward. He indicates he worries that this is a scenario for reenacting a set of circumstances, putting in place a set of circumstances, that will allow the abuses that took place before to come around again. I am not being smart when I say this, but you, Senator Feingold are going to be here. The likelihood of that happening with you sitting here in this Chamber and with it sitting out there by itself is zero, unless all of a sudden you go back to Wisconsin and decide that you don't like your--and I mean this positively--your crusade for fiscal responsibility anymore. I pointed out in the beginning, one thing I have found out about you is your tenacity. I can't believe there is any reasonable prospect that the scenario you fear has any prospect of occurring while you are here. I don't think it is occurring period, but in terms of what is likely to happen, I don't want to be a board member when they come back and tell you, ``By the way, we're not privatizing,'' and ``By the way, we want more money,'' and ``By the way, we're increasing our salaries,'' all of which would have to come through here. I will argue again, if it is buried inside the State Department, you have a much better chance of it occurring there than if it is sitting out in the cold light of day, and I mean that sincerely.

Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield for one point on that?

Mr. BIDEN. This is just one paragraph from it. . . . the Board believes that a transfer of existing broadcasting support costs and personnel from USIA to the international broadcasting entity would be a ``cost neutral'' transaction within the foreign affairs budget function. Such a transfer could cover space costs and management support services currently provided by USIA, including security, accounting, payroll, training, and procurement. This notion that salaries would explode isn't realistic. We can't even get a raise for judges here, which most of my colleagues tell me we should get. They have to come with an appropriation every year. You think these salaries are going to explode and that this is going to be a sitting duck? My view is, if I can see it, if I can feel it, if I have to confirm it and it is not buried in an organization, I have a lot more impact on it. Look, as I said, there is a lot to say, but the former VOA directors, the Voice of America directors, they do not argue, Democrat and Republican, that we should put the radios and VOA into the State Department. They say keep it where it is. So, I really admire the Senator. I will say again, the people of Wisconsin should be thankful and appreciative that he kept his commitment. He saved them money. Like in that movie, ``Show me the money.'' You saved them the money. Now, move on, Senator. There ain't no more money to save unless you are eliminating all of the radios. And if you move them into the State Department, which your amendment would do, that will be the effect. I asked my colleague, because we are good friends, I asked, how long are you going to go on this? He said, well, I am going to make my points and then go as long as required to have to respond to your responses. I said, you mean if I don't keep responding, you won't respond? I think he implicitly said yes. So I am going to stop responding to his responses in the hope that he will stop responding and we can get on with the vote. Hopefully, the vote will be like it was in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, overwhelmingly, a majority of Democrats and majority of Republicans staying committed to the savings he has initiated and staying committed to the radios. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. If the Senator will yield again, but the Senator's amendment only provides $819 million, not $1.021 billion. What I am confused about is, how does the Senator's amendment in this regard differ from the bill that the chairman and I have brought before the Senate? We have $819 million in our bill, which you don't like, nor do I, and the fact that we make the United Nations meet benchmarks before it is released. But assuming it was released, how does the Senator's amendment provide any more money to pay the arrearages that the Senator believes that we owe?

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the Senator from North Carolina has been kind enough to give me the minute to respond. The Lugar amendment does not have one single penny more in it than this bill. We do pay all of our allies the arrearages that we owe them with the bill in the way it is drawn up. The administration has supported this compromise we have come up with. This basically is the way to get the job done. But I emphasize, there is not one additional penny in the Lugar amendment. There is no distinction in how we get paid. The principle is, should there be any conditions placed on the United Nations? This bill does place conditions they can meet. The Senator, on principle, says none should be there. If you wish to put conditions at all, you should vote with us. If you want no conditions, vote with him. But it is the same amount of money. I urge that you vote ``no'' on the Lugar amendment.

Mr. BIDEN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 382

Mr. BIDEN. If the Senator will yield, Mr. President, I am sorry, I didn't phrase the question well and clearly enough. Even if the money gets through, as the Senator is suggesting his amendment would accommodate, how would the Senator's amendment fully fund and pay the arrearages the Senator believes we owe our allies? Is there enough money in the Senator's amendment to fully pay the money the Senator believes that we owe our allies through the United Nations as it relates to the United Nations peacekeeping?

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to offer a perfecting amendment to Senator DeWine's amendment No. 383. I offer this amendment on behalf of Senator Dodd. It amends the pending amendment to add two additional categories of individuals who may be excluded under this amendment: First, members of the Haitian high command; and, second, members of the paramilitary organization known as FRAPH. Both of these organizations were responsible for serious human rights abuses during the coup regime from 1991 to 1994. I ask unanimous consent that the DeWine amendment be so modified to include the amendment which I send to the desk from Senator Dodd.

Mr. BIDEN. The reason is because, just like when the bank owes you money, they owe you money--the question is how much we owe them. You are saying we owe them $1.370 billion. My time is running out. Maybe later the Senator from North Carolina might yield me a few minutes. I reserve the remainder of my time for my friend from Virginia, Senator Robb. I am out of time. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN. It's very simple.

Mr BIDEN

Mr BIDEN. Mr. President, the single most significant thing we can do in Congress today is to reform the way we fund political campaigns in this country. I have been saying it for 24 years now, and while some things are better than they used to be--large amounts of cash are no longer being passed under the table in brown paper bags--many things are worse--large checks are being passed over the table, or in the Chamber of the House of Representatives, in the clear light of day. But, regardless of what's better and what's worse, the fundamental problem, in my view, remains. That problem will not be fixed by tinkering at the edges, or making a small reform here and a small reform there--because the fundamental problem is not a flaw in the system's construction. The fundamental problem is the system itself--a system where the amount of private money is out of control and is not susceptible to be controlled in the public interest. Until we get private money completely out of the system, we will not completely reform the system. That is why, Mr. President, I have been pushing for public funding of congressional campaigns for my entire career, and that is why I am pleased today to join several of my colleagues in introducing the Clean Money, Clean Elections Act. When I first came to the United States Senate, 24 years ago, in speeches on this floor and in testimony before the Rules Committee, I outlined three principles of a better system. All three are contained in this important proposal. First and foremost, we must have a system of public funding. Let me explain why that is so crucial. When they asked Willy Sutton why he robbed banks, he said that was where the money was. Politicians do not rob banks, but they, like Willy Sutton, must go where the money is. You will not get very far in this business by asking for contributions from people who do not have money. So, inevitably, people running for office find themselves on the doorsteps of the wealthy and the special interests. Or, they are wealthy enough to fund their own campaigns. The result is that other old saying--he who pays the piper calls the tune. Those who pay the bills ultimately, when you get right down to it, are the ones who decide who runs for office. And, they are the ones, at least in the mind of the public, to whom elected officials are beholden. No matter what other reforms you enact, unless you get private money out of the system, that is the way it will continue. I submit that it would be better to let the American people decide--on the merits--who runs for office. And, I submit that it would be far better for America to make sure that elected officials are beholden to no one but the people who elected them. Second, we need to level the playing field between incumbents and challengers. I have, Mr. President, been both an incumbent and a challenger. And, I can tell you that being an incumbent has its disadvantages. But, the biggest advantage of incumbency is in the money chase. It is such an advantage that if I were looking out only for my own self-interest, I would not support this proposal. I do pretty well in raising money, and the thought that my opponent would have the same amount of money as I do is not exactly an appealing notion. But, there is something much bigger at stake here than my own electoral future. What is at stake is nothing less than a healthy, vibrant democracy. What is at stake is whether election to office will be based on the merits of the individuals, not on who is the best fundraiser. Third, we need to limit the overall amount of money that can be spent in political campaigns. Back in 1976, all candidates for all congressional races--Senate and House--spent $99 million in the general election. In 1996, all candidates for Congress in the general election spent over $626 million--more than six times as much. In just the last 4 years, the total amount of money given to political parties has increased 73 percent--in just the last 4 years. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has ruled--in what is, in my view, a wrong decision, but one that we are bound by--that spending money is the same thing as speech. Thus, Congress cannot limit spending in political campaigns, unless a candidate is offered some benefit in return for voluntarily agreeing to a spending limit. Enter the ``Clean Money, Clean Elections Act.'' This significant proposal that we are introducing today would, as I said a moment ago, meet the three principles I just outlined. It would limit spending in campaigns--in a constitutional way--by providing public funding and free media time to candidates who agreed to abide by those limits. And, it would be full public funding for both challengers and incumbents--so that private money is eliminated from the system and so that both challengers and incumbents are on the same level playing field. I am not so naive, Mr. President, to believe this bill is going to pass today--or even without a fight. I have been down this road too many times before. Too many special interests have too many vested interests in the status quo. But, if we are to reverse the tide of cynicism and mistrust that surrounds political campaigns--and even our institutions of government--then we must change the system so that the only interests we are all concerned about are the interests of the American people.