Joe Biden

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. That was the system. Not one single time. And I was chairman of the committee. Now, I would point out one other thing to my friend. I want to have complete candor. If one considers taking judges based on their ideology and call that political, yes, we Democrats were political, as well. I am not complaining about that. I am not complaining about anybody who stands up and says I do not want Judge Smith, the President's nominee, because I think he will be bad on the court for the following reasons and comes to the floor and makes the case. I do not quarrel with that because I think that is the prerogative of the Senate and any Senator. What I am quarreling with is a different kind of politicizing, and that is drawing the conclusion that because I now control the Senate, I am not going to let the President of the United States have nominees whether or not I have an ideological problem with them.

Mr. BIDEN. I did not say ``able.'' I was chairman.

Mr. BIDEN. That is correct.

Mr. BIDEN. If the Senator will yield, I was chairman or ranking member of that committee for 14 years. My distinguished colleague from Delaware is Senator Roth, who is my close friend. Every single Federal judge in the last 24 years who has been appointed in the district of Delaware or the third circuit has been appointed by Senator Roth. I did not expect, did not ask, and not once was ever consulted about who he would appoint, and I supported every one that he sent up. Not one single time was I made aware of anything other than after the fact, which is OK. I am not complaining about that.

Mr. BIDEN. If the Senator will yield, let me give an example of what you just said. I know you know, but it is important for the Record. I meet every year--I will not now because I am not the top Democrat on the committee. But every year for, I don't know, 14 or 15 years, I meet with what is called the Judicial Conference --a legislatively organized body where the Congress says the court can have such a function, where we look for recommendations. I might add, by the way, you may remember when there was a Republican President named Reagan, the Senator from Delaware introduced a bill to increase the number of Federal judgeships by 84. Why did I do that? I did that because the Federal court came to us, the Judicial Conference, and said, ``Here is our problem. We don't have enough judges to administer justice in a timely fashion in this country. And there is a backlog on all these criminal cases.'' I must admit to the Senator, when they came to me with that request, I knew the problem I was going to have. I was going to go into a Democratic caucus and say, by the way, a Republican President, who is a fine man but the most ideological guy we had in a long time, who announced he was going to appoint only very conservative judges, I was now going to give him 84 more than he had. I realized that was not a politically wise thing for me to do. But, listening to the court, I did just that. My recollection is the Senator from Maryland stood with me and said, ``I don't like it. I admit, I am not crazy about 84 more judges being appointed by Ronald Reagan. But the court needs to be filled.'' Now we have the strange happening, the courts come back to us and say--and they do this in a very scientific way--we not only need the vacancies filled, we need more judges than we have. They cite, as the Senator is very familiar with, they cite the backlog, they give the rationale that cases are being backed up. Guess what? The idea that we will even get a chance to discuss a judgeship bill, I predict to my friend from Maryland, on this floor is zero--zero. Not only that, to further make the point, this is the first time in the 24 years that I have been a Senator, in 24 years, the first time I have ever heard anybody come to the floor and say: You know, we should basically decommission judgeships. The ninth circuit is the busiest circuit in America, out in California. One of our colleagues, a very wonderful guy, a nice guy, says, ``I am not going to let any other judge be in the ninth circuit''--notwithstanding they have five vacancies, if I am not mistaken, and they are up to their ears in work. This started last year when I was in charge of the Democratic side. He said, ``I am not going to let anybody go through until the ninth circuit splits into two circuits.'' I said, ``Why do you want it to split?'' He said, ``The reason I want it to split is I don't like the fact that California judges are making decisions that affect my State.'' The distinguished Senator from Idaho is shaking his head. He agrees. He is in that circuit. It is painful to point this out, but the reason why there is a Federal court is so there is not Illinois, Indiana, Idaho, California justice. There is one uniform interpretation of the Constitution. That is the reason we have a Federal circuit court of appeals. Now, this is quite unusual. We have--and I was not referring to the distinguished Senator from Idaho, who is on the floor, when I said, ``there was a Senator.'' That is not to whom I am referring. But another one of our colleagues said he is not going to let anybody go through until there is a split, because he does not like the idea that decisions relating to his State are being made by judges who are not from his State or are not from States of similar size. That is, interestingly, an effectively rewrite of the Constitution of the United States of America. I do not think the Senator thought it in those terms, but that is literally what it is. Now I am being told, OK, unless we, in fact, split the circuit--and by the way, I am not opposed to splitting the circuit. We split the fifth circuit because when we got to the point where Florida grew so big--Florida and Mississippi and Alabama and Louisiana, they are all in the same circuit--but they got so big, because of population growth, we said--the court recommended, we agreed--that it should be split into two circuits. We understand that. I am not opposed to that. I am not arguing about that. But the idea that someone says, ``Until you do it my way, until you can assure me I am not going to be associated with that State of California, I am not going to let any vacancies be filled''----

Mr. BIDEN. If the Senator will yield on that point, it is probably going to get him in trouble, but I want to compliment the chairman of the committee. The chairman of the committee did not buy into that argument. The chairman of the committee took the position on this that we should act, and he had been pushing this for some time. Again, I see my distinguished friend, who now I work with in another capacity, as the minority--the euphemism we use is ranking member--of the Foreign Relations Committee. We have much less disagreement than we have on some issues relating to judges. But, with him here, I can remember that during the last days when the Senator from Delaware was trying to push through judges--on October 8, 1992, the last day of the session, with President Bush as President of the United States, the Senator from Delaware pushed through seven Republican judges--the last day. I will bet you that has not happened very often in this place with Democrats or Republicans: The last day, seven. The reason I mention that is one of my distinguished colleagues--we have very different views, but I like him a lot--walked up to me and he was from a State where there were two Republican Senators, and two of those judges were his. He walked up and shook my hand. This will not go in the Record--it will go in the Record, but his name won't, but my colleagues will know who he is. He shook my hand and said, ``Joe, you're a nice guy. I really appreciated it.'' He says, ``Of course, you know I would never do this for you.'' I like him because he is straightforward and honest. He meant it, and that's why we get along so well. I am not referring to the Senator from North Carolina. He said, ``I'd never do this for you.'' The point being, not that Biden is a good guy or Biden is a stupid guy, the point being that the court is in desperate trouble in a number of jurisdictions. In southern California and south Florida, and in a number of places where there are drug cases that are backed up, a number of places where there are significant civil case backlogs, a number of places where population growth is straining the court, they need these vacancies filled. I respectfully suggest that it is a rare--it is a rare--district court nominee by a Republican President or a Democratic President who, if you first believe they are honest and have integrity, have any reason to vote against them. I voted for Judge Bork, for example, on the circuit court, because Judge Bork I believed to be an honest and decent man, a brilliant constitutional scholar with whom I disagreed, but who stood there and had to, as a circuit court judge, swear to uphold the law of the land, which also meant follow Supreme Court decisions. A circuit court cannot overrule the Supreme Court. So any member who is nominated for the district or circuit court who, in fact, any Senator believes will be a person of their word and follow stare decisis, it does not matter to me what their ideology is, as long as they are in a position where they are in the general mainstream of American political life and they have not committed crimes of moral turpitude, and have not, in fact, acted in a way that would shed a negative light on the court. So what I want to say, and I will yield because I see my friend from South Carolina--North Carolina, I beg your pardon. I am used to dealing with our close friend in the Judiciary Committee who is from South Carolina. I seem to have the luck of getting Carolinians to deal with, and I enjoy them. I will yield the floor by saying, I will come back to the floor at an appropriate time in the near term, immediately when we get back from the recess, and I will, as they say, Madam President, fill in the blanks in terms of what the absolute detail and each of the numbers are, because I have tried to recall some of them off the top of my head, not having intended to speak to this issue when I walked across the floor earlier. Let it suffice to say at the moment, at least for me, that it is totally appropriate for any U.S. Senator to voice his or her opposition to any nominee for the Court, and they have a full right to do that. In my study of and teaching of constitutional law and separation of powers issues, there is nothing in the Constitution that sets the standard any Senator has to apply, whether they vote for or against a judge. But I also respectfully suggest that everyone who is nominated is entitled to have a shot, to have a hearing and to have a shot to be heard on the floor and have a vote on the floor. We had a tie vote in the committee, Madam President, on one of the Supreme Court nominees. I was urged by those who opposed him--and I opposed this particular nominee--to not report it to the floor. My reading of the Constitution, though, is the Judiciary Committee is not mentioned in the Constitution. The Judiciary Committee is not mentioned. The Senate is. We only in the Judiciary Committee have the right to give advice to the Senate, but it is the Senate that gives its advice and consent on judicial nominations. I sincerely hope, and I have urged the administration to confer with Republican Senators before they nominate anyone from that Senator's State. I think that is totally appropriate. I think it is appropriate, as well, that Republican Senators, with a Democratic President, have some input, which Democrats never had with the last two Republican Presidents. I think that is appropriate. But I do not think it is appropriate, if this is the case--and I do not know for certain, it just appears to be--if the real hangup here is wanting to reach an informal agreement that for every one person the President of the United States gets to nominate, the Republican Party will get to nominate someone, the Republican Party in the Senate. Or for every two persons that the President nominates, the Republicans get to nominate one. It is totally appropriate for Republicans to reject every single nominee if they want to. That is within their right. But it is not, I will respectfully request, Madam President, appropriate not to have hearings on them, not to bring them to the floor and not to allow a vote, and it is not appropriate to insist that we, the Senators--we, the Senators--get to tell the President who he must nominate if it is not in line with the last 200 years of tradition. Again, I did not intend speaking at all on this, other than the fact I walked through and it was brought up, and since I was in that other capacity for so long, I felt obliged to speak up. I see my friend from North Carolina is here. I do not know if he wishes to speak on judges or foreign policy matters, but whichever he wishes to speak on, I am sure it will be informative. I yield the floor. Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.

Mr. BIDEN. That is right.

Mr. BIDEN. I voted for all of them but seven, I might add. There were only seven times that I voted against any of those nominees.

Mr. BIDEN. Fair enough.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, again, I did not anticipate that I would be speaking to this issue. Fortunately, or unfortunately, I am on the floor, and I understand why the Senator from North Carolina came over to speak in light of things that were said earlier today when he was not here and I was not here. I would like to respond, at least in part, to what my distinguished colleague has said. Let me begin by parcelling this out into three pieces. First, is the issue of whether or not the administration has acted in good faith; second, is not whether or not the substantive issues raised by the distinguished Senator from North Carolina are accurate, but whether or not there is a response to them; I think his concerns are not accurate; and third, whether or not the ultimate condition being laid down by the Senator from North Carolina, as I understand it--and I could be wrong-- is appropriate. Let me begin, first, by talking about the administration. It is true that the distinguished Senator from North Carolina and I spent almost 4\1/2\ hours last night addressing, in very specific detail--apparently without sufficient success--the concerns the Senator from North Carolina has about this treaty. I note--and I will come back to this-- that the universe of concerns expressed by the Senator from North Carolina were submitted to me in writing some time ago. Although they have expanded slightly, they total 30, possibly 31, concerns. When I became the ranking member of this committee, I approached the distinguished chairman and said I would very much like to work with him, I would very much like to cooperate, and I would very much like to work out a forum in which we could settle our differences relating to what is sound foreign policy. The agreement made by the Senator from North Carolina with regard to the Senator from Delaware was this: I said I am willing to meet with your staff--you need not be there, Mr. Chairman--and discuss in detail every single concern you have. I am even willing to go out to Admiral Nance's home, because he was seriously injured. I am willing to go to his home and conduct these discussions. And to the credit of the chairman, he dispatched his staff to do that with me, my staff included, and I do not know, I will submit for the Record, the total number of hours we did this. But I know that I, personally, in addition to meeting with the Senator from North Carolina, have met with the staff for hours and hours. And our staffs have met for a considerably longer period of time--not in a generic discussion of this treaty, but on specific word-by-word analyses, negotiations, and agreement on the detail of proposals made by the distinguished Senator from North Carolina about how he feels the treaty has to be remedied. So what has the administration been doing? I think, to use an expression my grandmom used to use, ``Sometimes there is something missed between the cup and the lip.'' The administration--as I tried to explain to my friend from North Carolina last night, and his staff on other occasions--was giving conflicting marching orders. The administration, after direct discussions with Majority Leader Lott prior to January 29, agreed to meet and discuss this in detail with a task force that Senator Lott named. Senator Lott named a task force of interested Republicans. They included the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee; the distinguished senior Senator from Alaska, Senator Stevens; Senator Smith of New Hampshire; Senator Kyl of Arizona; Senator Warner of Virginia, and others, who were to sit down and discuss with the administration their concerns about this treaty and how they felt the treaty had to be changed. The first meeting of that task force, of which Senator Helms was a part, appointed by Senator Lott, occurred on January 29. Now, my friend from North Carolina--I can understand why there may be confusion here. He said that Sandy Berger, the National Security Adviser, dallied away the month of February. He was dallying with Senator Lott; he was dallying with Senator Warner; he was dallying with Senator Shelby; he was dallying with Senator Bob Smith; he was dallying with Senator Kyl; he was dallying with a task force appointed by the Republican leader. I can understand why the distinguished Senator from North Carolina, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, might not feel that is an appropriate forum. I can understand that. Those of us who have been chairmen do not like the fact that a majority leader will sometimes come along and say, ``By the way, even though this is within your jurisdiction, we are going to appoint a task force beyond your jurisdiction.'' But the truth of the matter is, picture the quandary of the President of the United States after a discussion with the majority leader of the U.S. Senate, and the majority leader said, ``Here are the folks you are supposed to deal with.'' I challenge anyone on Senator Lott's staff who are the main players in this to suggest that the administration didn't deal in good faith with them. There were hours and hours and hours of detailed negotiations with this group. I say to my friend from North Carolina, put the shoe on the other foot. He is the President of the United States. Here is a Democratic majority leader. He wants a treaty passed. The Democratic majority leader goes to him and says, ``I have appointed a committee of Democrats interested in this subject. I would like you to negotiate with them, not with Biden, the chairman of the committee. He is part of this group.'' So, beginning on January 29, Sandy Berger, Bob Bell, his chief negotiator, and the administration met for scores of hours. I don't mean 2. I don't mean 10. I don't mean 20. I mean 30 or 40 hours worth of negotiations with the principals, with the Republican Senators, as well as without them. Guess what. They reached an agreement. There is a universe of 30-some amendments. I hold it up now. This is what was presented to the administration by this coalition of Republican Senators concerned about the treaty. It, in fact, lists every known objection, every objection raised by any Republican that we are aware of or that the administration is aware of about the treaty. The number is 30. This document I have here listing those 30 concerns--not only concerns, 30 specific conditions--which the Republican task force, staffed by Senator Lott's staff and all other members' staff, listed. And they are listed. The specific proposals are listed that were made by the Republican task force. No. 1, enhancement to robust chemical and biological defenses. And they propose then two pages of language, three pages that relate to the conditions they would like attached to the treaty. That was repeated 30 times as is appropriate. The administration spent 30 or more hours sitting with these members and/or their staff and coming to an agreement on 17 of them, disagreeing on 13. So, simultaneously, later Senator Helms and I began a process that was tracking the same process. I was not part of the Republican group, obviously, and I did not represent the administration in this group. But the administration sat down and in detail responded to every single concern raised by the Republican task force named by the majority leader, and instructed by the majority leader to deal with that group. Simultaneously, I sat for hours and hours with Senator Helms' staff, and then last night, at the end of the process, with Senator Helms himself for 4 hours. I will estimate that I sat with the staff and my staff sat with Helms' staff 20 hours or more. Again, Senator Helms was very straightforward with us. He gave us a document listing his 30 concerns, some of which were the same and some of which were different. This is the document presented to me. Over a period of hours and hours and hours of negotiation, I agreed on 21 of the 30 issues raised by Senator Helms, disagreed on 9, 3 of which I indicated I would not take opposition to but I didn't support. So with all due respect to my distinguished chairman, he may not have been aware and his staff may not have informed him of the hours and hours and hours and hours of detailed negotiation between the Lott task force, including his staff and the administration. But had he been informed, he would know that those negotiations began at the instruction of Senator Lott on the 29th of January. So I am sure when the Senator reads this in the Record or is informed by his staff, he will realize that the fact he didn't meet with Sandy Berger until February 15 should not be a surprise. Sandy Berger thought he was meeting with Senator Helms when he met with Senator Lott's task force. Let me tell you what was the agreed objective of the task force and of my negotiations. It was this, that we would put all of the universe of objections--and I hope those who follow this in the press, watching this now or reading it later, will understand precisely what I am about to say. The objective was--I think the Presiding Officer, who has been involved in and interested in this issue, may be aware of this as well. It was agreed that the Republican objections--legitimate--would be put in writing, which they did. All of them would be laid down, which they were. They said they totaled 30. They would be talked about, fought over, negotiated, to see if there could be a compromise reached, and, at the end of the day, there would be two lists. Every one of those 30 amendments would fall in either column A, where there was agreement between the Lott task force and the administration, and hopefully Biden and Helms. Those things which could not be agreed to in column B. They got this picture. Thirty written conditions seeking to alter the interpretation of the treaty, or defend the intent of the treaty, put on paper, negotiated between the administration and the Lott group, and at the end of the day, they would be, to use the jargon of the Senate, ``fenced.'' That would be the universe of concerns, because, obviously, you can't address a concern unless you know what it is. They are the universe of concerns raised about the treaty. And there would be either conditions 1 through 30 placed in column A, where there is agreement to alter the treaty, or to add a condition to the treaty, I should say to be precise, or column B, where there is no agreement. Then what was envisioned was at the end of that process, within time, sufficient time to consider this in this Chamber, there would be the following process. The treaty would be brought up from the desk, stripped of any conditions that were reported out of the Foreign Relations Committee last time--this was the hope--and we would have the following procedure. Senator Helms and Senator Biden, as envisioned by the Lott group, would offer on behalf of the Lott group, Democrats and Republicans and the administration, a package in column A. That package with the administration would number 17, and if I were willing to add to that package with Senator Helms over the objection of the administration, that could be brought up to 21 out of the 30 concerns that everyone agreed on or 17 of the 21 the administration agreed on and Biden would support Helms on 4 additional ones whether the administration liked it or not, leaving maximum 13, minimum 9, conditions that could not be agreed upon. That was done. They are the numbers that we were left with. Then it was envisioned that after passing the agreed-to conditions, we would then move to the conditions upon which we did not agree, and the Republicans under the leadership of Senator Helms would offer those conditions as we do on other treaties. I would be given the right to offer an alternative or to amend them, and we would vote ad seriatim. Then at the end of the day, after having disposed of all 30 of the concerns, we would then vote up or down on the treaty. Now, I call that a negotiation. I have been here for 24 years. I have been involved in a lot of serious negotiations. I have never been involved in negotiations where more people who were appointed to participate have acted in good faith. Think about this now. Name me a circumstance where a treaty has been presented by a Democrat or Republican President where there have been 19 conditions agreed to on that treaty, or 21 conditions in my case, 17 in the case of the administration, and then we vote on another either 13 or 9 additional changes. What I think my friend is saying--maybe he does not mean to say it-- what I read him to say is, unless you agree with us on the other nine, we are not going to let you vote. Now, look, I doubt whether my friend from North Carolina would find it appropriate if the American textile workers sat down with Burlington Mills or any other textile owner and said, we are going to negotiate a new collective bargaining agreement and we are going to go on strike unless you agree on every one of our conditions. How is that a negotiation? That is an ultimatum. That is not a negotiation. So I hope he does not mean it. I cannot believe, I do not believe Senator Helms means that if the administration does not come up now and separately negotiate with him after having settled the negotiation with the group called the Lott group, unless the administration agrees to Senator Helms' version of universality, Senator Helms' version of verifiability, and Senator Helms' version of constitutional requirements, et cetera, he will not let the treaty be voted on, because when you cut through everything, that is what it sounded like. I said at the outset I divided this into three pieces. One, whether or not there was negotiation by the administration in good faith. I will just let the record stand. And I repeat again, Senator Lott--and I do not know the exact circumstances under which it came about, but I assume it was after discussion with the President of the United States of America, President Clinton--set up a task force that included Senator Stevens, Senator Helms, Senator Kyl, Senator Warner, Senator Shelby, Senator Nickles, Senator Bob Smith, and Senator McCain. The President of the United States was told by the distinguished majority leader, Senator Lott, these are the people I want you to sit down with and try to work out their concerns. That first meeting took place on January 29. I began my meetings with Senator Helms on February 11. Again Senator Helms and his staff were part of the Lott task force. So although I understand that Senator Helms might not have liked that arrangement, I ask him to consider the dilemma that the administration was placed in when being told by the majority leader: negotiate with this group. I assure you, I promise you, I commit to you, to every Member of the Senate in my discussions with the President, with the Secretary of State and with the National Security Adviser, they all believed they were negotiating with the appropriate parties in the Senate because that is what the majority leader told them to do. The second point. They conducted a negotiation which culminated in an agreement that ended last Thursday when Bob Bell, representing the administration, sat down with the principals as well as all the staffers of those eight Senators, including Senator Lott's staff, and produced the document I have in my hand listing all 30 conditions raised by the Republican task force, including Chairman Helms, and placing every condition either in column A or column B--column A meaning those conditions where they have been worked out and agreed to, where the Lott task force, representing the Republicans in the Senate, and the administration reached an agreement on a condition they could both accept; and column B, where they could not accept, they could not reach an agreement. That was the product of hours and hours and hours and hours of detailed negotiation. I say to the Presiding Officer and anyone who is listening to this, I am not talking about general agreement. I am talking word-by-word specific agreement on every comma, whether it should say ``shall'' or ``should,'' every single word of their conditions, the majority of which were agreed to, compromise was reached on; the minority of which there was no compromise. I then was informed by the administration in the person of Bob Bell and Sandy Berger that to their surprise either Senator Helms' staff or someone purporting to represent Senator Helms at last Thursday's meeting, which was supposed to tie this in a knot, define the universe of conditions, place them all in one of two categories, and get about the business of proceeding on the treaty, at the last minute--literally the last minute--as I understand it. I mean, the meeting was over--the administration walked in the meeting, as I understand the Lott group thought they were walking in the meeting, to tie this knot, everything in column A or column B. Someone suggested that the chairman of the full committee did not find that appropriate. So I met with the Democratic leader and the administration. I went in the leader's office. I said I believe Senator Helms is still operating in good faith, as I believe he still is. I don't want to confuse this negotiation, but why don't you authorize me, Democratic leader, to speak for the Democrats? Why don't you let me go sit down with Senator Helms and try to get to the bottom of what appears to be a misunderstanding here? Because the understanding by the Lott group and the administration was that this was supposed to be all tied up with a unanimous-consent agreement last Thursday. So I sought a meeting with Senator Helms and he graciously agreed. And I kept him very late. He had a very busy day. I sat with him in his office last night until 8:30. The meeting began around 4 o'clock in the afternoon, without any break, without any interruption. I took out a document that his staff had prepared. It is dated March 13, ``To the Honorable Trent Lott, majority leader, from Jesse Helms, Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, subject: Status of negotiation over key concerns relating to the CWC.'' And then Senator Helms, in that memo to Senator Lott, listed--and they are numbered--listed 30, ``concerns relating to CWC.'' Each of those concerns had, and it was very helpful the way it was organized, listed, No. 1 through 30, and then at the top of each of the numbers it said, ``status,'' status relative to the administration: No agreement with the administration or agreement with the administration. So I sat down with Senator Helms, because I am very jealous of the prerogatives of the Senate versus any administration, and feel very strongly about the role of the Senate in treaties. I sat down with Senator Helms with the understanding and knowledge on the part of the administration, who knew I might not agree with them on everything, and my Democratic leader, and for 4\1/2\ hours went through all 30 issues, point by point. I reached agreement with Senator Helms, not on eight or 13 or 17, depending on whose number you take as to whether the Lott group and the administration agreed. The administration thinks they agreed on 17. Senator Helms said they only agreed on eight. I don't want to get into that fight. But I can tell you what I did. I agreed on 21 of the 30. I disagreed with the administration on several points Senator Helms raised because I think he was right. They relate to the prerogatives of the Senate. Let me give an example. Under the Constitution, the U.S. Senate has a right to reserve on any treaty. We wanted to restate that right. The administration didn't want that right restated in the treaty as a condition. I agreed with Senator Helms, it should be restated; notwithstanding the fact we are not reserving on this treaty, we had a right to reserve if we wanted to. That is called preserving the prerogatives of the Senate delegated to the Senate in the Constitution of the United States of America. That is an example of one of the areas where the administration was unwilling to agree with Senator Helms and I was willing to agree. So at the end of the day we agreed to 21 items, and I was willing to make the case to my Democratic leadership, to put into column A. So that we would have one vote on 21 conditions to the treaty when it was brought up, leaving only 9 areas where we disagree. Of those nine, we were perilously close to agreement on several. I call that, in the universe of negotiations, good-faith negotiations. But, if by negotiating one means that the President or those who support the treaty, like Senator Lugar, a Republican, or Senator Biden a Democrat, have to agree to a condition that would kill the treaty, then that is not a negotiation. That is an ultimatum. Now, I am confident the Senator from North Carolina cannot mean that, and I am hopeful that we will continue to talk about the nine that remain unresolved. But at the end of the day, with all due respect, the Senate has a right to work its will. I am a professor of constitutional law at Widener University law school. I have taught, now, for a half a dozen semesters, a seminar to advanced students in constitutional law on separation of powers. One of the things I expressly teach is the treaty power in the Constitution. That is, for lack of a better shorthand, those powers separated between the executive, the legislative, and judiciary. And among those things, in terms of that horizontal separation, there are areas that have been in dispute for the last 200 years. One of them is appointment powers, second is treaty powers, and the other is war powers. Then there is the so-called vertical question of the separation of powers: State government versus Federal Government; individuals versus State or Federal Government. On the issue of the treaty power, I would observe what I observed earlier about the appointment power. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the Judiciary Committee shall decide who should or should not be a judge. It says, the Senate. Nowhere in the Constitution does it mention the Foreign Relations Committee. It mentions the Senate. So, I do think it is inappropriate, from a constitutional perspective, to deny the Senate, if that were anyone's intention, and I am not convinced it is yet, the right to vote ``yea'' or ``nay'' on ratifying a treaty or any conditions thereto. So now let me leave the item I mentioned I would speak to first, whether or not there were good-faith negotiations on the part of the administration. I hope I have amply demonstrated that there were. They thought they were supposed to deal with the task force the majority leader of the Senate said deal with, and they did it in good faith. I would be very surprised if any member of that group--I have not spoken to any of them because I am not part of that group, from Senator Warner to Senator Stevens to Senator McCain to Senator Kyl--would come to the floor and say the administration did not negotiate in good faith to us, tirelessly, hour after hour after hour. (Mr. SESSIONS assumed the chair.)

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, let me move to the next point that relates to the merits of this treaty. That is a legitimate area of disagreement. I will be brief because I am keeping the staff and the pages, who have to go to school tomorrow morning, very late. universality Critics charge that the CWC will be ineffective because rogue states such as Syria, Iraq, North Korea, and Libya--all of whom are suspected of or confirmed to have chemical weapons--have not joined the convention. Therefore, the argument goes, the United States should withhold its ratification until these states join. I could not disagree more. Just think of it. The logic of this argument would lead us to a world where rogue actors--not good international citizens--determine the rules of international conduct. Such a policy would amount, effectively, to a surrender of U.S. national sovereignty to the actions of a few. Instead of the United States actively leading international coalitions and setting tough standards on nonproliferation matters, the convention opponents would have us do nothing until every two-bit rogue regime would decide for us when we should act. This reasoning is contrary to the record of the past 40 years, during which the United States has led the way in nonproliferation initiatives. From the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, to the missile technology control regime, to the comprehensive test ban treaty, and to the chemical weapons convention itself, we have fought for establishing accepted norms of behavior. I happen to believe that international norms count. In a recent article that I coauthored with my distinguished colleague, Senator Richard Lugar, we noted that such norms provide standards of acceptable behavior against which the actions of states can be judged. They also provide a basis for action--harsh action--when rogue states violate the norm. Suggesting that we should now take a back seat to the likes of North Korea and Libya does a grave injustice to our record of international leadership and leaves such nations free to act as free operators without fear of penalty or retaliation by the nations whose armies and citizens they threaten. The fact that there is now no international legal prohibition against the development of chemical weapons should not be lost here. The suspected programs that treaty opponents are so concerned about are right now entirely legitimate according to international law, and we have already had a telling example of what can result from this perverse situation. The Japanese police were aware, before a cult attacked the Tokyo subway with sarin nerve gas in 1995, that the cult was manufacturing the gas--but they had no basis in Japanese law to do anything about it. That will change, both internationally and domestically, once the CWC enters into force. The convention will establish an international norm against the development of chemical weapons. It will provide the legal, political, and moral basis for firm action against those that choose to violate the rules. If the goal of treaty opponents truly is to target the chemical weapons programs of suspect states, then joining the convention is the best way to achieve this objective--and refusing to join is the surest way to protect the world's bad actions. verifiability A great benefit of the chemical weapons convention is that it increases our ability to detect production of poison gas. Regardless of whether we ratify this convention, regardless of whether another country has ratified this convention, our intelligence agencies will be monitoring the capabilities of other countries to produce and deploy chemical weapons. The CWC will not change that responsibility. What this convention does, however, is give our intelligence agencies some additional tools to carry out this task. In short, it will make their job easier. In addition to onsite inspections, the CWC provides a mechanism to track the movement of sensitive chemicals around the world, increasing the likelihood of detection. This mechanism consists of data declarations that require chemical companies to report production of those precursor chemicals needed to produce chemical weapons. This information will make it easier for the intelligence community to monitor these chemicals and to learn when a country has chemical weapons capability. In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1994, R. James Woolsey, then Director of Central Intelligence, stated: ``In sum, what the chemical weapons convention provides the intelligence community is a new tool to add to our collection tool kit.'' Recently, Acting Director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet, reemphasized this point before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Mr. Tenet stated: ``There are tools in this treaty that as intelligence professionals we believe we need to monitor the proliferation of chemical weapons around the world. * * * I think as intelligence professionals we can only gain.'' No one has ever asserted that this convention is 100 percent verifiable. It simply is not possible with this or any other treaty to detect every case of cheating. But I would respectfully submit that this is not the standard by which we should judge the convention. Instead, we should recognize that the CWC will enhance our ability to detect clandestine chemical weapons programs. The intelligence community has said that we are better off with the CWC than without it--that is the standard by which to judge the CWC. constitutionality One of the issues that should not be contentious, and I hope will not continue to be a focus of attention, is whether the convention, and particularly its inspection regime, is constitutional. Every scholar that has published on the subject, and virtually every scholar that has considered the issue, has concluded that nothing in the convention conflicts in any way with the fourth amendment or any other provision of the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, to accommodate our special constitutional concerns, the United States insisted that when parties to the convention provide access to international inspection teams, the government may ``[take] into account any constitutional obligations it may have with regard to proprietary rights or searches and seizures.'' In plain English, this means that inspectors enforcing the Chemical Weapons Convention must comply with our constitution when conducting inspections on U.S. soil. It also means that the United States will not be in violation of its treaty obligations if it refuses to provide inspectors access to a particular site for legitimate constitutional reasons. In light of this specific text, inserted at the insistence of U.S. negotiators, I am hard pressed to understand how anyone can seriously contend that the convention conflicts with the Constitution. There is nothing in the convention that would require the United States to permit a warrantless search or to issue a warrant without probable cause. Nor does the convention give any international body the power to compel the United States to permit an inspection or issue a warrant. This is the overwhelming consensus among international law scholars that have studied the convention, two of whom have written to me expressing their opinion that the convention is constitutional. I ask unanimous consent that the letters of Harvard law professor, Abram Chayes, and Columbia law professor, Louis Henkin, be included in the Record following my statement.

Mr. BIDEN. So let me make this point absolutely clear, despite what opponents of the convention have said, there will be no involuntary warrantless searches of U.S. facilities by foreign inspectors under this convention. In light of this, I hope that the constitutionality of this convention will not become an issue in this debate. Let me conclude that portion by suggesting to my distinguished colleague from Alabama, who is presiding, that I believe, on the merits, this is a good treaty. It is not merely me. The Senator from North Carolina listed people who do not think it is a good treaty. I will submit for the Record everyone, from General Schwarzkopf to the Joint Chiefs of Staff to Senator Lugar, people who believe very, very fervently, as I do, this is clearly in the overwhelming national interest of the United States of America. I ask unanimous consent that a list of supporters of the CWC be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

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

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. You would think we would want to change the system. I would say, to the best of my knowledge, all 100 Senators here are honest and decent people. But the perception out there is that there must be--must be--something wrong because all this money is in here. So, it seems to me, I say to my friend from South Carolina--and I am not being solicitous--as usual, you have cut to the quick of the matter. Nothing can fundamentally change--fundamentally change--with regard to the way in which the process works until we have the ability under the law to limit the amount of money we spend, to determine how we can raise it, and to limit certain outside excesses that presently exist. If we did the things that we all would agree privately we have to do, the Supreme Court, I believe, would rule under their recent case law that it was a violation of the first amendment. So what I am saying to my friend from South Carolina is, besides thank you, that you are dead, dead, dead right. I am going to vote for things in addition to this amendment, but not because I think without this amendment they are going to work, but because I think they are the only things we can do. And, I hope that I am wrong in terms of my reading of the Court's assessment of the first amendment. My colleagues sometimes kid me, Mr. President, because they know I teach constitutional law in law school now. I think it must send shutters through Justice Scalia and others that I have been teaching the last 5 years a course on constitutional law and separation of powers issues. But you know what they say, if you want to learn a subject, teach it. If you want to learn a subject, teach it. I am an adjunct professor at Widener University Law School, and I have taught a seminar on constitutional law for the past 5 years on Saturday mornings. I might add for the record, I do it without any conflicts to my job in the Senate. I do it Saturday mornings, on my time. Nobody helps me with it. I am telling you, Senator Hollings, you are right. Without changing the Constitution and giving us the power to determine what parameters we set or how we raise money for elections or how much we can spend, then anything we do here is subject to significant change by the Supreme Court. Twenty-one years ago the Supreme Court ruled that spending money was the same thing as speech. The Court said that writing a check for a candidate was speech, but writing a check to a candidate was not speech. The Supreme Court made a supremely bad and, I believe, supremely wrong decision. By saying that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom to write a check, the Court is saying that Congress cannot take the responsible step of limiting how much money politicians can spend in trying to get elected. And we have to start putting limits on this because money is just permeating the system. I am sure I am going to repeat a few things here that have been said by others, but I think they are worth being repeated. In just the last 4 years, the total amount of money given to the political parties has increased 73 percent--73 percent. The total amount of money spent on races for Congress has increased 600 percent in the last 20 years. These are in real dollars--600 percent. I ask you, how do these young pages, some of whom hopefully have dreams and aspirations of standing where I am right now--hopefully, a number of you have that aspiration--how do they get started. When I started to get involved in public office, I had to raise the awful sum of $150,000 to make the race credible, $250,000 to be in the game, and $350,000 to win in little old Delaware. Today, somebody who wants to beat an incumbent, me or Bill Roth, they better be able to raise a minimum of $2 million. But guess what? We only have 700,000 people in my whole State. But you know why they need so much money in Delaware? The reason is, we are in the fourth most expensive media market in the country. And as everybody knows, just to get to the point where 60 percent of the people in your State know enough about you to make a judgment whether they should vote for you or not, costs a lot of money. Just to get to know you--nothing else, not even to get to the point where they have any idea what your views are. Just to get to the point you are known. You know what it costs, I say to my friends who are from States much bigger than mine but in places where it is a lot cheaper to buy television? You know what it costs to air one 30-second ad at a good time on Philadelphia television on one of the network stations? It is $30,000 for 30 seconds.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I want to apologize to my friend from South Carolina because, as usual, he has been carrying the heavy load here. He has been carrying the water for all of us. I do apologize for not being here, to be more engaged in this debate. Frankly, I say to my friend from South Carolina, everything else we talk about--all the other talk about what we are going to do about campaign financing and campaign finance reform, and who has more money and who has less money, and how to avoid the stain and stink of money--ultimately, cannot make a difference until, we do what you have been telling us we need to do for the last decade or more. We have a Supreme Court that has interpreted the first amendment in a bizarre way. This is not only with regard to the Buckley case. Take, for example, all this talk about soft money. We would not be in the spot we are in with soft money in terms of both political parties had it not been for the Supreme Court decision last year. At least there used to be a couple of veils left in this dance of seven veils. Now, you have major, major contributors who can come in and just change the whole dynamic of Senate and House races. I just came from a meeting on chemical weapons. This is sort of the biological agent of politics that we are trying to eliminate here. Two years ago, in the last cycle, if somebody wanted to come in and put up $100,000, $500,000, $1 million, $5 million--if they did it all by themselves, did not coordinate it with a political party, put up billboards and advertisements and did not collude with the one or the other political parties against a specific candidate, then they could spend all the money they wanted. But there was this little veil that sat there. It did not allow the multimillionaire to pick up the phone and call the chairman of the Democratic Party or Republican Party in Delaware and say, look, I want to defeat Biden or I want to defeat the other guy and I have a million bucks; how do you want me to spend it? The Supreme Court came along--a fellow I voted for, a brilliant guy-- and wrote an opinion and said in effect, ``Oh, no, there's no distinction between you going out and spending it yourself, in first amendment terms, and giving it to and coordinating with a political party.'' What happened? We have a thousand dollar limit on individual contributions. But what does that mean? In my campaign this last time out, all of a sudden I find--I assume in coordination with the political party; by the way, I am not saying Democrats would do the same thing if they had the money--all of a sudden, I am finding all these ads on the radio with our good friend Malcolm Wallop. He was a good friend; he is a good man. He was heading up Americans for Freedom or some organization with a name like that. He said, ``This is Americans for Freedom. Do you realize Senator Joe Biden is taking away your freedom?'' Another group came in and did specific radio ads against me, coordinated by the Republicans. All of a sudden, my opponent had money. When he had to go out and get little pieces at a time, he had a hard time convincing people to give him the money. But, you get a couple of those big guys, they come along, and here is 10, 20, 50, 70, 100,000 bucks. The point I am making is, all that is legal now. So what are we going to do? We can pass all the laws. I support McCain-Feingold. I am going to vote for it. But, I am reminded of that person who once said, ``You know, moderate reform is like moderate chastity.'' That is about what we are getting here with legislation. When I arrived here, one of the first things I did, to the best of my recollection--it was Dick Clark and Joe Biden--was propose Federal funding of elections, congressional elections, because I wanted to get the private money out of this deal. I wanted to challenge incumbents, to let challengers have the same money incumbents had. I did not want public officials to be beholden to anybody but the American taxpayer. I will never forget, some Democratic Senators, God bless their souls, like Warren Magnuson--``Maggie,'' as we used to call him--from Washington State, and some very prominent Republicans, looked at me and said, ``Kid, do you know what you're doing here? Do you understand this?'' I am not joking about this. ``Do you understand this?'' One Senator I will not name but has long since passed, called me into the Cloakroom, pulled me aside and said, ``Joe, come here.'' I was 30 years old at the time. I walked in and said, ``Yes, sir?'' He said, ``Enough of this stuff now, all right?'' I said, ``Enough of what?'' He said, ``This thing about giving the other guy the same amount of money we get.'' He said, ``I worked too''--I won't quote him precisely--``I worked too darn hard to get to the point where some little sniveling brat will get the same money I have to run against me.'' Well, that is why nobody in here wants to have it that way. I am not crazy about the fact. I have been around longer now. I am a senior Senator, so I can raise more money than the other guy. But, the other guy should have as much money as me to run, and neither of us should have to go around with our hats in hand saying, ``Will you help me?'' because it is a corrosive process, especially for a new guy and a new woman. The reason I am saying that is this. I believe the vast majority of people who contribute to campaigns contribute to campaigns because they, in fact, find a Senator who already has a position they agree with. The problem I worry about is the young person who decides to run for the first time. I will repeat this story. I told it in a hearing once, and I paid for it. But I will repeat it again and probably will pay for it again. Toward the end of my first campaign, when I was 29 years old, I had no money, didn't have a thing--no television money--and all of a sudden, the guy that couldn't possibly be beaten, I am within a point of him, the polls said. About 10 days before the election, I get a phone call from a group of men I never heard from before in an area of my State, I say to the Presiding Officer, where we used to only ride through and say, ``My God, look at the size of those houses.'' I get a phone call. They were decent men, by the way, decent, honorable men. They called me, and we went out to this place they call ``the hunt country'' in my area. You know it. You know some of the people. I was just so flattered they invited me. I was thinking, 10 days. My brother, who is 6 years younger than me, was my campaign finance chairman. You can tell how effective we were. We had no money. He was 24 years old. The Senator from South Carolina knows my brother. Jimmy says, while driving me out there, ``You know, Joe, we got a call from the radio stations. If tomorrow we don't have the check for next week, we're off the air.'' Now, like anybody who is running for office, you pour your heart, your soul, everything into this.

Mr. BIDEN. Right, free speech. You pour everything into it. So I was sitting there, and I was within a point, according to the polls, of pulling off at that time, that year, what was viewed as the upset of the year. I wasn't even old enough, Mr. President, to be sworn in the day I got elected. So I was riding out there. I walked into this room with nice big leather couches. I get offered, like we do in the Foreign Relations Committee, a sherry. That is a kind of foreign relations thing, sherry. I get offered a sherry. I don't drink, so I politely said, ``No thanks.'' These guys are real nice guys, five or six of them, and most of them made a living, God bless them--I don't begrudge them this--by clipping coupons. They came from wealthy families with a lot of money, and they are decent guys. Two of them had already been helping me. They thought this was a nice little revolution, this kid coming up doing this. They sat there and looked at me. The one guy who was the older of this group--I say I was 29, so they were probably between the ages of 32 and 40. One guy looks at me and says, ``Joe, can you tell us your position on capital gains?'' Now, Mr. President, I knew the right answer for $30,000. I knew the right answer. Capital gains had not been an issue in the campaign. I had never spoken out on capital gains. No one had talked about it, but I am not stupid. I was sitting there--and this is the God's truth--I was sitting in that room seeing what I worked for for 2 years about to go down the drain because I don't have $20,000 to keep my radio ads on the air. $20,000 wouldn't get you anything these days, but it would have kept me on the air for 10 more days with my radio ads, which were very effective, as it turned out. I sat there, and I don't know why I did it--not because I am so honorable and brave or anything--I just blurted out, ``I don't think we have to change the capital gains structure.'' That was the end of the conversation. Everybody was very polite to me, said, ``Great idea,'' and talked about a few other things. They said, ``Joe, lots of luck in your senior year.'' I got up and left. I didn't raise any money from them. I could have said, ``You know, gentlemen, I think the capital gains rate should be reduced.'' I knew that is how they all made their living. By the way, there is a legitimate, serious argument that capital gains should be reduced. It is not like it is something that is immoral or bad. I just happen to disagree with it. The truth is, I had not even thought that much about it, so it would not have been like I was selling my soul had I changed a position. But, the contrariant instinct got the better of me. I heard the words come out of my mouth and I thought, ``Oh, my God, what did I just say?'' Maybe I should not be so honest, but I have been around here too long. I have been here 24 years. And, this story illustrates the corrupting nature of the process. I have never known anybody I have worked with where a contributor says, ``Here, I got some money for you if you go ahead and take a certain position.'' That is not how it works. That is not the corruption. The corruption is sort of an insidious thing. It is insidious. But, in the public's mind, it is all bad now, even when we get support from people for positions we die for politically--whether somebody contributed to us or not, we would hold them dear, we would go down. I always say to young people when they say they want to run for office, answer one question: Is there something you are willing to lose over? If you are not willing to lose over something, you should not get involved in politics; you should go do something else. And for all the women and men in the Senate, there are positions over which they are willing to give up their seats rather than yield on. Somebody who contributes to them, who happens to share their view on that issue--now it is tainted in the public's mind. When we get support from people who are supporting us because we are of like mind, not because we changed our mind to get their support, we are viewed in a way that we must have done it because of the contribution. That is how bad it has gotten. So what I do not understand, I say to my friend from South Carolina, is, you would think out of mere self-preservation and our own honor----

Mr. BIDEN. I do not have a TV station. I believe we are the only State in the Nation that does not have its own commercial television station. That is not because we are good, bad, or indifferent. It is because it would make no economic sense. I live within 22 miles of the antennae of every one of the major stations--every one of the major networks in America. They are located in Philadelphia. I live in Delaware. And so what happens when I buy an ad or my opponent buys an ad on television? For every 100 people who see the ad, 96 of them live in New Jersey, Maryland, or Pennsylvania and are unable to vote for or against me. But I have to pay for them all. Now I am not complaining because I have an advantage. I am an incumbent. It is an advantage and a disadvantage. The disadvantage is that you are an incumbent. People do not like incumbents. The advantage is that people know your name. If you are an unknown person running, like I was the first time, how do you get to the point where even enough people know your name--unless you have a lot of money? And, my goodness, what it must be in the State of Michigan or Pennsylvania or South Carolina. Nevada is a little bigger now, but when I got here we were bigger than Nevada. Those States are bigger in population than Delaware. I can speak knowledgeably only about one of our colleagues who did not run the last time. I will not mention his name. I know why he did not run. He would have won, and most people say he would have won. The State he happened to represent required him to raise at least, he thought, $12 million. He did not want to do that anymore--did not want to do that. Look, the way we can raise the money is we can raise it at $1,000 a shot. That is the most we can raise from an individual. How many phone calls--from non-Federal property--do you make to be able to raise, in $1,000 increments, $12 million? That is a lot of money. But guess what that does now? It means that you have to go from a circle of people who you know--and you know you do not have to worry about their backgrounds, their circumstances, where they came from, what their objectives were--to the universe. And, I want to tell you there is not a single U.S. Senator, myself included, who, I believe, could vouch for the character or motive or motivation of all the people who contributed to them unless they have the FBI working for them. We would have to spend more money than we raise to do background checks. You know what I always think of, I say to my friend from South Carolina? I think of the guy who was probably more chaste than Caesar's wife, Jimmy Carter. I will never forget when he was running for President. He showed up at a fundraiser, and there was a guy named John Gacy--remember him, the mass murderer? Seriously, I am not joking. This literally happened. Gacy walks in and he contributes to Carter. And he is standing between Rosalynn Carter and Jimmy Carter. Then, later, we find out that the guy is a mass murderer. I say that not just because it is kind of humorous and we all laugh about it. But, I say that because there is no way, no matter how thorough you are as a candidate, that you can know about all your contributors. And I would have thought by now that we would all be worried about how it reflects on our reputation if a contributor turns out to be somebody that should not have contributed. For example, recently there was a name of somebody who was an unsavory contributor, as it turned out, in the newspaper. It was a Chinese man. One of my guys said, ``My God, we have a man by that name that contributed to you,'' and I said, Oh, my God, find out who this guy is. It is a name that is a relatively common Chinese name, I found out later, like Smith or Jones. Guess what? It turns out the guy with that name who contributed to me was a librarian with the Library of Congress. I will never forget sitting in my seat going, Oh, thank God, thank God. Because, really and truly, what would have happened if it turned out to be the guy everybody was writing about? If I were up for election I would have to spend $100,000 in television ads to prove I did not know the guy. Now, maybe we are counting on the people being so cynical that they will not hold anybody accountable for this. But I just think for pure self-preservation--not self-preservation of our jobs, self-preservation of our reputations and our integrity--that we would very much like the system to change. I might add, you know how they kid around here. We joke when we have colleagues who announce they are not running again and they have been here for some time. We always joke and say things like, Well, now you will be able to tell them what you think. There was a guy that my friend from South Carolina knows well, and I will never forget him. Remember Steve Young--Senator Young from Ohio? Senator Young had been out of office about 2 or 4 years, but he was a guy I think who was widowed at that time, a man in his eighties, if I am not mistaken. And, he hung around here. He did not lobby anybody but he hung around, in the gym, in the dining room. You may remember this story, Senator Hollings, and I apologize for being so personal. But, the reason I am telling these stories is I want to communicate to the American people who are listening in real personal terms how this system works. I will never forget the effort of the distinguished Senator from South Carolina who took me under his wing when my first wife was killed in an automobile accident. When I got remarried and wanted to introduce my new wife, Jill, to the people, he had a reception for me up in the famous caucus room and everyone from the Vice President, President, the Supreme Court, really laid it out to welcome my wife. And, I might add, as they say, a point of personal privilege, I still appreciate that. I will never forget there was a reception line and, Senator Hollings, you introduced me to people. Later in the night the reception line was still going on but you were having to entertain some of the people you brought along. Old Steve Young came in the line, Senator Young was being nice, welcoming people who were coming in. This is a true story. And, a guy walked up to Senator Young--he was to my left--put out his hand, and said, ``Senator, I bet you don't know my name.'' I can't quote what Senator Young said exactly because I am on the Senate floor and it would be inappropriate, but Senator Young turned to me and said, ``Joe, will you tell this horse's tail his name? He has forgotten it.'' All of us would like to say that once in a while. So we joke and we say when someone leaves this place, Well, guess you will be able to tell them what you think now. The implication in that comment is that how nice would it be if you were totally unfettered, even indirectly, totally unfettered? I envy, and I mean this sincerely, the women and men in here who have close to unlimited wealth, and I do not begrudge that. I mean that sincerely. I would love nothing better than to be able to run for office and say I do not want anybody's money. I do not want one single penny from anybody, thank you very much, because then I know people would look at me and no one would be able to even think or imply that anything I did was because of anything anybody contributed to me. I do not know why there is not a stronger instinct on this floor for that notion of not having to be beholden to any contributors--and more support for public funding. We may never get to the point where we even get television time made available to challengers. We may never get to the point, and I am a distinct minority, where we have public financing, so the taxpayers are deciding whether they in fact, support a candidate. But, at least we could get to the point, if we have the Senator's amendment, where we could limit the amount of money in the process for everybody across the board, for everybody. Boy oh boy, do you not think it would be nice not to have to go out and do all those fundraisers? Let me say what our friend from Nebraska, Senator Kerrey, says. The danger in having this kind of discussion is that we imply that the 99 percent of the honorable people who contribute to us are somehow motivated by a bad reason. The vast majority of people who contribute to both political parties are people who contribute because it is their way of participating in the system and they want to promote the person whose ideas they agree with. That sounds naive to say after all these years, but it is true. I understand why the public does not believe any of it. I understand why the public does not believe any of that. I will conclude, Mr. President, because I see there are others here who wish to speak. I will never forget thinking as a young man when I arrived here that the best thing to do, and I still think it is, is to bring everything out in the cold light of day. That is why I have spent time explaining how the system works. I am often reminded of that phrase, that saying, that comment attributed to Bismarck in Germany. Bismarck allegedly said there are two things you should never watch being made. One is sausage and the other is legislation. I would amend that slightly. Once the American people got a chance to see exactly how this worked, with all the disclosures which I think are necessary and good in the long run, I think the thing that suffered was our collective integrity--our collective integrity. To the average person like my dad, anybody who was able to contribute $1,000 to a public official for a campaign must be doing it for a reason, and maybe is not so altruistic. So, what does it say now that they pick up the paper and realize that individuals and corporations and unions and anybody else can contribute $20,000, $30,000, $50,000, $100,000, $1 million? Why do we expect them to say, ``Well, it must be nobly motivated, it is not for selfish reasons.'' In many cases it probably is totally nobly motivated. Mr. President, I think that the single most important thing that has to be done from a purely practical sense is to amend the Constitution and give us the right to limit the amount of money that candidates are able to spend. I lay you 8 to 5 that if you ask every Senator to stand up and say whether or not they thought too much money was being spent in public elections, 90 out of 100 would say yes. I bet that if you asked them, do you think we should limit the amount of money that is spent, at least 70 would say yes. But if you asked them, ``Will you or your party lose political advantage if you do that?'' they may change their views. The truth is that it is not just the Republicans who don't want this reform; it is some Democrats, too. And, the truth of the matter is, if we do what you and I, Senator Hollings, talked about a long time ago--essentially make it available for everybody to have the same amount of money, either by establishing a limit so that everybody would be able to be equal, or by providing public funding--every one of us would have a race every time. None of us like having those races.

Mr. BIDEN. I thank the Senator. I must tell you that there is a piece of me that says keep the system the way it is, because it is awful hard to beat me the way the system is. There is a Senator we used to know who was very powerful here. I would say, ``Senator, how in the Lord's name did you get that person to contribute to me?'' He said he told them, ``It's not so much what Biden can do for you; it's what Biden can do to you.'' The truth of the matter is, if you are here and you have gained seniority and you are in a good position--better in the majority than the minority--it is a lot easier for you to stay if you are challenged. So I have to admit to you that I know if I ever prevail in making sure everybody running has the same amount of money, or by practically making it low enough so everybody could raise the same amount of money--I might say, ``Oh, my God, what have I done?'' But it is the right thing to do. I don't have a lot of hope that we can do it. I thought when I got here in the midst of Watergate that maybe that episode would shock us into doing something serious--and we did it, until the Supreme Court overruled it. I hope we take advantage of the current situation and have the courage to act at a time when the spotlight is going to be on not only potentially illegal, but clearly unseemly, aspects of how these funds are raised. I want to make it clear that I am not suggesting that I am any better or worse than anybody else in this body. I am merely suggesting that we should change, for our own safety's sake and for our reputations, the way we do it now. I don't know how to really do it unless you first have the authority under the Constitution to be able to do it. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.

Mr. BIDEN. Yes.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, each of us--not just those of us here in the Senate, but virtually every American--can remember someone; a teacher, a coach, a principal, who made a singular contribution to our lives during our school days. Someone who helped to show us the way as we passed through adolescence and into adulthood. Someone who was a role model, a mentor, a confidante, a friend. For more than forty years, Father Robert Kenney has been such an individual in the lives of hundreds, if not thousands, of young men who have attended Salesianum School in Wilmington, Delaware. As a teacher of mathematics, he prepared them for college and careers; as Athletic Director and baseball coach for 34 years, he molded the skills and the characters of young athletes, teaching lessons on the ball-field which would remain with his players throughout their adult lives. As Salesianum's principal, and later president, he maintained and broadened the school's fine reputation for building young men of character, young men whose sense of integrity, honor, compassion, and civic-mindedness were as great as their knowledge of mathematics, history, or literature. Today, Salesianum graduates can be found among the leaders in business and industry, education and the law, public service and community affairs can be found not only throughout Delaware, but across the Nation as well. A great many of them trace their leadership skills, in addition to their academic knowledge, to Father Kenney and the atmosphere he maintained at Salesianum School. Father Kenney has been more than teacher and coach, more than principal and president, even more than mentor to scores of young men. He is a major part of the beautiful and rich history of Salesianum and the contributions that the school has made to our city, our State, and the lives of so many of us. He is, quite simply, one of the heroes of our time in the State of Delaware. The high school I attended, Archmere Academy, is one of Salesianum's great rivals on the athletic field. There were a number of spring afternoons when I looked across the baseball diamond and hoped fervently that this would be the game when we would finally beat Father Kenney's well-coached and talented team. It never happened. Father Kenney would always figure out a way to squeeze out a win against the Archers. Often, it wasn't close. But as much of a rivalry as existed between the two schools, Father Kenney was someone I respected immensely, for his character as a man and as an educator was legendary. During my years in public service, as I have witnessed on an even greater scale Father Kenney's contribution to our community, my admiration has only deepened. This June, Father Kenney will be stepping down as Salesianum's president, though he will remain involved in the life of the school and the community. He calls Salesianum ``my life's work,'' and intends to continue to work with the school, its alumni association, and the people of our community. He probably knows this, but even if his ties to school and community weren't so strong, we wouldn't let him cease to be involved. As Salesianum's baseball coach, Father Kenney and his teams compiled a record of 411 wins against only 168 losses, for a winning percentage of .710. It is an impressive record, but I can tell you that his winning percentage in developing young men of great character is even more impressive. On behalf of our fellow Delawareans, I wish Father Kenney the best for his newest venture. Yet I promise you, Father Kenney, Delawareans are going to keep you busy.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 3 minutes, if I may, as in morning business.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Last week, President Clinton announced a new addition to our strategy in the fight against drug abuse by young people in America. I applaud the President's effort to focus on teen drug abuse, and believe that it is a good response to a disturbing trend that we cannot ignore. We must harness a moral condemnation of drug use by all segments of our population. I commend Mr. Coker for making a difference, and am grateful for his contribution in the fight against drug abuse.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, last fall, I had the opportunity to participate in a ribbon cutting ceremony commemorating renovations to the Queen Manor low-income senior citizen complex in Dover, DE. One of the highlights of the ceremony was a poem written and read by Mr. James B. Coker that reminds us that drug abuse is not the answer. Mr. President, I ask that the text of the poem be printed in the Record. The poem follows: The high I need doesn't come in a bottle Or in an auto's throttle Just give me some hugs Not someone's drugs

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, while on a field trip to a Civil War site in the 1950's, a young African-American boy from Delaware asked his teacher why there was no mention of black soldiers. He learned a cold, hard lesson that day--that even though black soldiers fought and died for their country, they were not honored because of the color of their skin. That field trip ignited what would become a 40-year crusade by a Delawarean named Wilson K. Smith. Mr. Smith is a retired Army Sergeant, who was decorated with a Bronze Star and Silver Star during the Vietnam war as a member of the 101st Airborne Division, First Special Forces. In 1957, Sgt. Smith began collecting war stories from black veterans. By 1979, he had tracked down all the African-American Congressional Medal of Honor recipients. In 1989, he began seeking financial pledges and support to build an African-American Medal of Honor monument. I am proud to have worked closely with Mr. Smith over the last 5 years to see the realization of his dream. Last month, the names of the 85 African-American Medal of Honor recipients were officially recognized in a permanent exhibit at the Pentagon. This exhibit replicates a monument honoring black Medal of Honor recipients now on permanent display at Morgan State University in Baltimore, MD. Mr. Smith was the driving force behind the design and fundraising for this monument. This monument will help keep the legacy of the African-American Congressional Medal of Honor recipients alive for generations to come. Never again will young African-American school boys and girls have to wonder why black veterans are not honored for their service and sacrifice to the United States of America. The Medal of Honor is the highest award for bravery in military service to our country, but few are aware of the names, faces and stories of heroism of the Medal of Honor recipients. These are truly inspiring Americans, who continue to serve this country by their examples of courage, patriotism, and selfless dedication above and beyond the call of duty. From the Civil War to the World Wars to Vietnam to the Persian Gulf war, they have been the outstanding defenders of liberty, the highest hope of humanity in struggle, and the truest representatives of human strength. A memorial to bring that inspiration to African-Americans and to all of us, is a most worthy endeavor. It truly has been my honor and pleasure to have strongly supported Wilson Smith's crusade, along with many other national and State leaders, including former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Colin Powell. Wilson Smith is an outstanding man, Delawarean, U.S. veteran and historian. We all will forever owe him a double debt of gratitude for his service to our country.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I will deliver the first in a series of statements on the theme of NATO enlargement. In the next 4 months leading up to the Madrid Summit in July, I will examine the rationale for NATO's admitting new members, which countries appear to be leading candidates for admittance to the alliance, how NATO and Russia can define a new relationship, the responsibilities of our European allies in the process, and how to share the costs of enlargement fairly. Mr. President, as many of our colleagues are aware, the distinguished foreign Minister of the Republic of Hungary, Laszlo Kovacs is in Washington this week for a series of meetings. I would like to take the occasion of the foreign Minister's visit to note the progress that Hungary has made toward meeting the criteria for membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and to thank his government for the assistance it has provided to our forces involved in the Bosnia mission. Mr. President, the foreign Ministers from the 16 NATO members will meet in Madrid in early July to decide which Central European democracies should be invited to begin accession negotiations with the Alliance. In the NATO Enlargement Facilitation Act of 1996, Congress named Hungary--along with Poland, Slovenia, and the Czech Republic--as a leading candidate for NATO membership and, therefore, eligible for transition assistance. I plan to travel to the region over the Easter recess to assess the progress that these countries have made toward meeting the criteria set out in the NATO enlargement study. Today, however, I can already point to several things that indicate to me that Hungary is well on its way toward assuming the responsibilities of NATO membership. The first is the successful effort by Hungary to conclude bilateral treaties with its neighbors, Romania, Slovakia, and Ukraine. Students of Central European history know how truly important these treaties are for the security of the region. Many had predicted that the end of the cold war would bring with it a resurrection of Hungary's territorial claims against its neighbors, and they predicted an era of instability that would make us wish the cold war had never ended. Events, and the concerted effort of the Hungarian Government, have proven the pessimists wrong. First, Hungary has succeeded in establishing a stable, open democracy that has allowed the Hungarian people to enjoy the fruits of political and economic freedom. Equally important, Hungary has recognized that its security and prosperity are dependent upon a resolution of the territorial claims that poisoned relations with its neighbors in the decades after World War I. For those of my colleagues who have asked: ``Why should NATO admit new members?'' I ask you to look closely at the Hungarian example. One of the criteria for new members of NATO is that they must resolve all territorial disputes with their neighbors. Just as common membership in NATO has allowed France and Germany to overcome the enmity and territorial disputes that had resulted in three wars in 80 years, so too has the prospect of NATO membership led to reconciliation in Central Europe. The Hungarian Government is to be commended for its forward-thinking policies that recognize that cooperation is the key to stability in Europe in the 21st century. I particularly want to recognize the political courage of Hungarian Prime Minister Horn in disregarding the criticism of ultranationalists in his country and signing these treaties. In exchange for renouncing territorial claims, Hungary has secured pledges that its neighbors will respect the rights of the large ethnic Hungarian communities in those countries. As the European Union also begins to expand its membership eastward, I hope that national boundaries in Central and Eastern Europe will matter less and less, and the free exchange of people, products, and ideas will help ensure peace and prosperity for all. Romania and Slovakia are home to the largest Hungarian communities outside Hungary, and ideally we would like to see them join NATO as well. I am pleased by the recent progress made by Romania, which through free and fair elections has peacefully changed its government. The new ruling coalition, incidentally, includes a party representing the interests of the Hungarian minority. Slovakia, unfortunately, for the past several years has seemed to be heading in the wrong direction. I must question the commitment of Prime Minister Vladimir Meciar to democracy, particularly to minority rights and a free press. The treaty with Hungary is a step forward, but if Slovakia is to join the community of Western democracies, it must show that it will not water down its commitments to respect the cultural and linguistic rights of its ethnic Hungarian citizens. The other theme I want to focus on today is the cooperation that Hungary has extended to us and our allies in connection with the ongoing peacekeeping mission in Bosnia. An essential part of that mission has been a staging base in Taszar, Hungary, which the Hungarian Government has leased to the U.S. military. It is from that base that we have deployed our forces to Bosnia to prevent a return to Europe's worst fighting since World War II. As former Secretary of Defense Perry has stated, without the cooperation of Hungary, the IFOR and SFOR missions would have been immeasurably more difficult. At Taszar 1,200 Hungarian troops are working with 3,200 Americans. This cooperation has allowed Hungarian officers and enlisted men to understand how a NATO military functions and what Hungary must do to allow its forces to operate jointly with those of the NATO countries. By all accounts, the work at Taszar has been a rousing success, both in supporting the IFOR and SFOR missions and in helping the Hungarian military. The threat to the security of Europe today no longer comes from an easily identifiable Soviet adversary; it comes from the prospect of instability. It comes from the prospect of future Bosnias. NATO must adapt to this new reality and prepare itself to undertake missions outside the territory of its member states. Our experience at Taszar shows that Hungarian membership in NATO will help us and our allies to carry out these new missions and will enable us together to help maintain the security and stability of the continent as a whole. Moreover, the Taszar experience shows how NATO enlargement can help reduce costs that we and our allies would face without enlargement. Enlargement will allow us and our allies access to bases like Taszar in times of crisis, and it will allow the central European democracies to rely on others for part of their security, thereby reducing the cost to them of restructuring their militaries. Let me reiterate that the prospective new members of NATO must agree to make the financial sacrifice necessary to modernize their militaries. We will, of course, do our fair share to help. In that regard, the 15 percent of the direct enlargement costs that last month's Pentagon cost study envisages the United States will assume seems an equitable proposal. But the prospective new members and the non-U.S. current NATO members must shoulder the largest share of the costs. My meeting with Mr. Kovacs today to discuss Hungary's progress toward NATO membership was extremely fruitful, and, as I mentioned earlier, I will visit Budapest later this month to help me ascertain for myself if Hungary is ready to join the Atlantic alliance. I commend the Hungarian people on the progress they have made in creating a successful democracy and free-market economy over the past 8 years and for their determination to ensure their security through cooperation with their neighbors and other democracies. I hope that Hungary will continue in this direction and will meet the criteria for membership in NATO so that in July it will be in the group of prospective members invited to begin accession negotiations with the alliance. I thank the chair and yield the floor. I thank my colleague from Alabama for giving me the opportunity to take the floor. Mr. SHELBY addressed the Chair.