Joe Biden

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I thank the Republican leader as well as the Democratic leader for attempting to hold the vote long enough for me to get here. I voted before in the affirmative on the Graham amendment. We voted on it last year. I was one of the speakers at the International Chiefs of Police and Sheriffs Association discussing the juvenile justice bill. I thought I had left in plenty of time from a downtown hotel to get here. But, as Washingtonians will tell you, there is a good deal of road construction going on. I was caught behind the most polite cab driver in Washington. He stopped for everyone, which I was happy to see except for this day. Had I had the cab driver who runs over most people, I would have been up here. I should not say that. I will get letters about that. That was a joke, an attempted joke. But I want the Record to show that had I been here, I would have once again voted for the Graham amendment. I apologize if I inconvenienced the Senate in any way in attempting to hold it for me to get here. I thank my distinguished friend from Rhode Island for yielding.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Rhode Island yield to me so that I may explain why I missed that last vote?

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join Senator Leahy in introducing on behalf of the administration, President Clinton's Anti- Gang and Youth Violence Act, which the President announced last week in Boston. Three years ago Congress passed the Biden crime bill into law. Today, the verdict is in--the law is working to reduce adult crime. For example, the projected violent crime rate is the lowest since 1991 and the projected murder rate is the lowest since 1971. But we all know that, unlike adult crime, juvenile crime is on the rise. The statistics are all too familiar: Violent juvenile crime increased by 69 percent from 1987 to 1994; from 1983 to 1994 the juvenile homicide rate jumped 169 percent; and just recently, the Center for Disease Control has reported that the United States has the highest rate of childhood homicide, suicide, and firearm related deaths of 26 industrialized countries. We can and must do better than that. The President's program is based in large part, on success stories from cities like Boston, MA, which developed a comprehensive community- based strategy to both prevent at-risk youth from becoming criminals and deal harshly with those already in the criminal justice system. Boston's Operation Night Light sends probation officers on patrol with police to ensure that youth with criminal records stay out of trouble and to assist in the investigation of new crimes. And Boston's police force has joined with Federal law enforcement to target the illegal gun markets that supply most of the guns to gangs and violent youth. The results have been dramatic: Youth homicides have dropped 80 percent citywide; violent crime in public schools dropped 20 percent in just 1 school year; and most impressively--not a single youth died from a firearm homicide during 1996. Now that is a record we could be proud of. We are taking the same balanced approach to juvenile crime and drug abuse as we did in the 1994 Crime Act--tough sanctions, certain punishment and protection of vulnerable kids. Like the Democratic crime bill I, Along with Senators Daschle, Leahy, and many others introduced earlier this year--S. 15--the President's juvenile crime initiative cracks down on violent juvenile offenders and youth gangs, takes concrete steps toward preventing drug and gun violence, and invests in programs that will get kids off the streets and into supervised programs during the after-school hours when they are most likely to be the victims of gangs and criminals or the customers of drug pushers. The Anti-Gang and Youth Violence Act proposes to use Federal law enforcement where its expertise and resources can best contribute to fighting crime and the spread of gangs. The act also seeks assistance for local police and criminal justice systems to help them address matters that we all know are local law enforcement challenges that they handle the best. On the Federal level the President's bill: contains tough new Federal penalties applicable to gang activities such as racketeering, witness intimidation, car-jacking, and interstate firearms and drug trafficking; cracks down on juvenile gun use by extending the Brady bill to juveniles and requiring the sale of gun locks; makes juvenile records more accessible to police and educators; and targets abuse of drugs popular among youths by giving the Attorney General emergency rescheduling authority. But in recognition that the battle against youth crime and drug abuse is fought primarily in our communities and schools, the President's bill provides over $325 million annually to support State and local governments to: hire additional prosecutors to target gang and youth violence; create special drug and gun courts to handle violent juveniles more effectively; create safe-havens for at-risk youth; initiate systems of graduated sanctions so youth receive certain punishment for their first offense instead of a mere slap on the wrist; and promote use of curfews and put truants back in school where they belong. The President also proposes to recraft the Federal Juvenile Justice Office by eliminating bureaucracies, streamlining programs, providing additional flexibility to States and localities, and sharpening the Office's focus on research and development. These are reforms that I have long advocated. However, the President's reform proposal reaffirms our commitment to a few core principles that have worked well over the past 23 years-- juveniles should not be housed in adult jails or lockups; juveniles in custody should be separated from adult criminals; status offenders should not be incarcerated; and where it exists, the disproportionate confinement of minorities must be addressed. With the introduction of this legislation the administration, Senate Republicans, and Senate Democrats have now all made it a priority to address the problem of youth violence. Of course, there are other proven, effective crime control programs that I would like to pursue-- such as extending the 100,000 Cops Program to put another 25,000 cops on the beat. I am sure there are initiatives which others would want to push. But, instead of trying to pass an omnibus bill--which we all know will be difficult, if not impossible--I think that we should keep our focus on a targetted, specific bill which keeps our focus on the most immediate concern: youth violence and the criminal victimization of youth. I look forward to working with the administration and my Republican colleagues to craft responsible legislation that will address the pressing concerns of the American public and be signed into law during this session of Congress.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join Senator Leahy in introducing on behalf of the administration, President Clinton's Anti- Gang and Youth Violence Act, which the President announced last week in Boston. Three years ago Congress passed the Biden crime bill into law. Today, the verdict is in--the law is working to reduce adult crime. For example, the projected violent crime rate is the lowest since 1991 and the projected murder rate is the lowest since 1971. But we all know that, unlike adult crime, juvenile crime is on the rise. The statistics are all too familiar: Violent juvenile crime increased by 69 percent from 1987 to 1994; from 1983 to 1994 the juvenile homicide rate jumped 169 percent; and just recently, the Center for Disease Control has reported that the United States has the highest rate of childhood homicide, suicide, and firearm related deaths of 26 industrialized countries. We can and must do better than that. The President's program is based in large part, on success stories from cities like Boston, MA, which developed a comprehensive community- based strategy to both prevent at-risk youth from becoming criminals and deal harshly with those already in the criminal justice system. Boston's Operation Night Light sends probation officers on patrol with police to ensure that youth with criminal records stay out of trouble and to assist in the investigation of new crimes. And Boston's police force has joined with Federal law enforcement to target the illegal gun markets that supply most of the guns to gangs and violent youth. The results have been dramatic: Youth homicides have dropped 80 percent citywide; violent crime in public schools dropped 20 percent in just 1 school year; and most impressively--not a single youth died from a firearm homicide during 1996. Now that is a record we could be proud of. We are taking the same balanced approach to juvenile crime and drug abuse as we did in the 1994 Crime Act--tough sanctions, certain punishment and protection of vulnerable kids. Like the Democratic crime bill I, Along with Senators Daschle, Leahy, and many others introduced earlier this year--S. 15--the President's juvenile crime initiative cracks down on violent juvenile offenders and youth gangs, takes concrete steps toward preventing drug and gun violence, and invests in programs that will get kids off the streets and into supervised programs during the after-school hours when they are most likely to be the victims of gangs and criminals or the customers of drug pushers. The Anti-Gang and Youth Violence Act proposes to use Federal law enforcement where its expertise and resources can best contribute to fighting crime and the spread of gangs. The act also seeks assistance for local police and criminal justice systems to help them address matters that we all know are local law enforcement challenges that they handle the best. On the Federal level the President's bill: contains tough new Federal penalties applicable to gang activities such as racketeering, witness intimidation, car-jacking, and interstate firearms and drug trafficking; cracks down on juvenile gun use by extending the Brady bill to juveniles and requiring the sale of gun locks; makes juvenile records more accessible to police and educators; and targets abuse of drugs popular among youths by giving the Attorney General emergency rescheduling authority. But in recognition that the battle against youth crime and drug abuse is fought primarily in our communities and schools, the President's bill provides over $325 million annually to support State and local governments to: hire additional prosecutors to target gang and youth violence; create special drug and gun courts to handle violent juveniles more effectively; create safe-havens for at-risk youth; initiate systems of graduated sanctions so youth receive certain punishment for their first offense instead of a mere slap on the wrist; and promote use of curfews and put truants back in school where they belong. The President also proposes to recraft the Federal Juvenile Justice Office by eliminating bureaucracies, streamlining programs, providing additional flexibility to States and localities, and sharpening the Office's focus on research and development. These are reforms that I have long advocated. However, the President's reform proposal reaffirms our commitment to a few core principles that have worked well over the past 23 years-- juveniles should not be housed in adult jails or lockups; juveniles in custody should be separated from adult criminals; status offenders should not be incarcerated; and where it exists, the disproportionate confinement of minorities must be addressed. With the introduction of this legislation the administration, Senate Republicans, and Senate Democrats have now all made it a priority to address the problem of youth violence. Of course, there are other proven, effective crime control programs that I would like to pursue-- such as extending the 100,000 Cops Program to put another 25,000 cops on the beat. I am sure there are initiatives which others would want to push. But, instead of trying to pass an omnibus bill--which we all know will be difficult, if not impossible--I think that we should keep our focus on a targetted, specific bill which keeps our focus on the most immediate concern: youth violence and the criminal victimization of youth. I look forward to working with the administration and my Republican colleagues to craft responsible legislation that will address the pressing concerns of the American public and be signed into law during this session of Congress.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today, we renew our call for the congress to pass the ``law enforcement officers' bill of rights act.'' For 6 years, I have been working with Senator McConnell, other Senators, and the Nation's police officers to pass into law a bill protecting the rights of law enforcement officers on the front line of this Nation's fight against violent crime and drug trafficking. Before addressing the specifics of this legislation, I want to discuss the reality of law enforcement today. The simple fact is that as Federal, State, and local officials push to expand ``community'' or ``problem-solving'' policing we are necessarily requiring police officers to move away from standard procedures and towards more creative approaches. Of course, as we encourage creativity, there is always the need to guarantee the highest standards of police conduct. Unfortunately, because police department's internal disciplinary procedures vary so widely across the Nation, we are literally moving at cross-purposes. On the one hand, we are calling on police officers to take more creative approaches--which naturally raises the chances of technical violations of department procedures. While, on the other hand, we subject police officers to varying, often ad hoc, disciplinary procedures which do make clear what specific conduct is appropriate, nor what will happen should the conduct turn out to be a mistake. In fact, the practices that many departments use to guide internal investigations frequently allow police executives to take arbitrary and unfair actions against innocent police officers, while allowing culpable officers to avoid any punishment at all. The law enforcement officers' bill of rights is designed to replace the ad hoc nature of many internal police investigations by encouraging States to provide minimum procedural standards to guide such investigations. The standards and protections offered by this bill are modeled on the standards for law enforcement agencies developed by the National Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement. As the preface to the commission's standards on internal affairs notes: ``The internal affairs function is important for the maintenance of professional conduct in a law enforcement agency. The integrity of the agency depends on the personal integrity and discipline of each employee. To a large degree, the pubic image of the agency is determined by the quality of the internal affairs function in responding to allegations of misconduct by the agency or its employees.'' The specific standards and rights guaranteed by the law enforcement officers bill of rights are designed to improve and enhance the quality of the internal affairs function, including: The right to be informed by a written statement of the charges brought against an officer; The right to be free from undue coercion or harassment during an investigation; and The right to counsel during an investigation. The provisions of this bill will take effect at the end of the second full legislative term of each State. After such time, a law enforcement officer whose rights have been abridged may sue in state court for pecuniary and other damages, including full reinstatement. Although the bill provides certain procedural rights, it gives States considerable discretion in implementing these safeguards, including the flexibility to provide for summary punishment and emergency suspensions of law enforcement officers. It is also important to note what the bill does not do. The bill explicitly provides that the standards and protections governing internal investigations shall not apply to investigations of criminal misconduct by law enforcement officers. As a result, criminal investigations of law enforcement officers would not be affected by this bill. Moreover, the protections in this bill do not apply to minor violations of departmental rules or regulations, nor to actions taken on the basis of an officers' employment-related performance. I would also like to acknowledge the hard work of several of the Nation's leading law enforcement organizations on this important bill. The real leaders behind this effort--and they have been the leaders since the police officers' bill of rights won passage in the Senate in 1991--are the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Association of Police Organizations, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, and the National Troopers Coalition. No one should be confused about where the force behind the law enforcement officers bill of rights lies--it lies with these organizations.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the bombings in Atlanta over the past 2 months--the second of which occurred last weekend--have marked the opening of yet another unfortunate new chapter in the escalation of domestic terrorism. While the magnitude of these attacks were far less than the World Trade Center and Oklahoma City bombings, they were noteworthy for the pernicious technique this criminal--or criminal organization--used: First, the terrorists attracted police, firefighters, and rescue workers to the scene by detonating one bomb, And then, with the unmistakable intent to injure the public safety officers responding to the first explosion, detonated a second explosive device in the parking lot outside the location of the first bombing. According to the experts, this tactic is one imported from the hotbed of terrorist activity--the Middle East. On two occasions last year, follow-on bombs were detonated in Southern Lebanon. One almost killed Israel's northern commander--Maj. Gen. Amiram Levine. Then this January, only 6 days before the Atlanta abortion clinic bombing, two bombs were detonated only 10 minutes apart near a bus station in Tel Aviv. Thirteen people were injured, including one police officer who came to the scene in response to the first bomb and was wounded by the second. Last month in Atlanta, the first bomb injured no one, but the ``follow-on'' bomb wounded seven people, including two FBI agents, one ATF agent, and two local firefighters. Experts have stated that many more rescue workers would have been injured had the force of the second blast not been deflected by a car, which just happened to be parked in the right spot. Five people were injured by the bomb that exploded in an Atlanta restaurant last Friday, but fortunately, the police found the second bomb and detonated it with a remote-controlled robot. Of course, all terrorist acts are horrific. But this follow-on bombing tactic is especially henious because the technique is designed to do one thing-- kill the police, firefighters, paramedics, and all the other professionals who unhesitatingly rush to the scene of a bombing to provide aid to the wounded. Mark my words: now that this tactic has been employed in Atlanta, covered by the national media, and probably communicated across the country through the Internet, some other devious, sick, individual, somewhere in the United States, will do it again. Mark my words. I believe that those who employ tactics aimed exclusively at injuring the police, firefighters, and other public safety officers should be punished above and beyond whatever punishment they would receive for destroying property or causing injury. That is why today I am introducing the Police and Rescue Squad Protection Act. The bill will increase the punishment for anyone who plants a follow- on bomb with the intent to injure public safety officers. And it clearly states that anyone who detonates, or attempts to detonate one bomb right after another bomb in the same location is acting with the criminal intent to injure law enforcement and emergency medical officials. In my view, this legislation will send a strong message that we will not tolerate the grotesque tactics that we've seen in the streets of Tel Aviv, and now, in Atlanta. More importantly, this legislation honors those who, without fear or hesitation, put themselves in jeopardy at a time of crisis. If this bill deters one terrorist from planting a follow-on bomb and saves the life of one police officer, firefighter, ambulance driver, or paramedic that rushes to the scene of a crime, then it will have been well worth the energy expended to enact it. I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today, we renew our call for the congress to pass the ``law enforcement officers' bill of rights act.'' For 6 years, I have been working with Senator McConnell, other Senators, and the Nation's police officers to pass into law a bill protecting the rights of law enforcement officers on the front line of this Nation's fight against violent crime and drug trafficking. Before addressing the specifics of this legislation, I want to discuss the reality of law enforcement today. The simple fact is that as Federal, State, and local officials push to expand ``community'' or ``problem-solving'' policing we are necessarily requiring police officers to move away from standard procedures and towards more creative approaches. Of course, as we encourage creativity, there is always the need to guarantee the highest standards of police conduct. Unfortunately, because police department's internal disciplinary procedures vary so widely across the Nation, we are literally moving at cross-purposes. On the one hand, we are calling on police officers to take more creative approaches--which naturally raises the chances of technical violations of department procedures. While, on the other hand, we subject police officers to varying, often ad hoc, disciplinary procedures which do make clear what specific conduct is appropriate, nor what will happen should the conduct turn out to be a mistake. In fact, the practices that many departments use to guide internal investigations frequently allow police executives to take arbitrary and unfair actions against innocent police officers, while allowing culpable officers to avoid any punishment at all. The law enforcement officers' bill of rights is designed to replace the ad hoc nature of many internal police investigations by encouraging States to provide minimum procedural standards to guide such investigations. The standards and protections offered by this bill are modeled on the standards for law enforcement agencies developed by the National Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement. As the preface to the commission's standards on internal affairs notes: ``The internal affairs function is important for the maintenance of professional conduct in a law enforcement agency. The integrity of the agency depends on the personal integrity and discipline of each employee. To a large degree, the pubic image of the agency is determined by the quality of the internal affairs function in responding to allegations of misconduct by the agency or its employees.'' The specific standards and rights guaranteed by the law enforcement officers bill of rights are designed to improve and enhance the quality of the internal affairs function, including: The right to be informed by a written statement of the charges brought against an officer; The right to be free from undue coercion or harassment during an investigation; and The right to counsel during an investigation. The provisions of this bill will take effect at the end of the second full legislative term of each State. After such time, a law enforcement officer whose rights have been abridged may sue in state court for pecuniary and other damages, including full reinstatement. Although the bill provides certain procedural rights, it gives States considerable discretion in implementing these safeguards, including the flexibility to provide for summary punishment and emergency suspensions of law enforcement officers. It is also important to note what the bill does not do. The bill explicitly provides that the standards and protections governing internal investigations shall not apply to investigations of criminal misconduct by law enforcement officers. As a result, criminal investigations of law enforcement officers would not be affected by this bill. Moreover, the protections in this bill do not apply to minor violations of departmental rules or regulations, nor to actions taken on the basis of an officers' employment-related performance. I would also like to acknowledge the hard work of several of the Nation's leading law enforcement organizations on this important bill. The real leaders behind this effort--and they have been the leaders since the police officers' bill of rights won passage in the Senate in 1991--are the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Association of Police Organizations, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, and the National Troopers Coalition. No one should be confused about where the force behind the law enforcement officers bill of rights lies--it lies with these organizations.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the bombings in Atlanta over the past 2 months--the second of which occurred last weekend--have marked the opening of yet another unfortunate new chapter in the escalation of domestic terrorism. While the magnitude of these attacks were far less than the World Trade Center and Oklahoma City bombings, they were noteworthy for the pernicious technique this criminal--or criminal organization--used: First, the terrorists attracted police, firefighters, and rescue workers to the scene by detonating one bomb, And then, with the unmistakable intent to injure the public safety officers responding to the first explosion, detonated a second explosive device in the parking lot outside the location of the first bombing. According to the experts, this tactic is one imported from the hotbed of terrorist activity--the Middle East. On two occasions last year, follow-on bombs were detonated in Southern Lebanon. One almost killed Israel's northern commander--Maj. Gen. Amiram Levine. Then this January, only 6 days before the Atlanta abortion clinic bombing, two bombs were detonated only 10 minutes apart near a bus station in Tel Aviv. Thirteen people were injured, including one police officer who came to the scene in response to the first bomb and was wounded by the second. Last month in Atlanta, the first bomb injured no one, but the ``follow-on'' bomb wounded seven people, including two FBI agents, one ATF agent, and two local firefighters. Experts have stated that many more rescue workers would have been injured had the force of the second blast not been deflected by a car, which just happened to be parked in the right spot. Five people were injured by the bomb that exploded in an Atlanta restaurant last Friday, but fortunately, the police found the second bomb and detonated it with a remote-controlled robot. Of course, all terrorist acts are horrific. But this follow-on bombing tactic is especially henious because the technique is designed to do one thing-- kill the police, firefighters, paramedics, and all the other professionals who unhesitatingly rush to the scene of a bombing to provide aid to the wounded. Mark my words: now that this tactic has been employed in Atlanta, covered by the national media, and probably communicated across the country through the Internet, some other devious, sick, individual, somewhere in the United States, will do it again. Mark my words. I believe that those who employ tactics aimed exclusively at injuring the police, firefighters, and other public safety officers should be punished above and beyond whatever punishment they would receive for destroying property or causing injury. That is why today I am introducing the Police and Rescue Squad Protection Act. The bill will increase the punishment for anyone who plants a follow- on bomb with the intent to injure public safety officers. And it clearly states that anyone who detonates, or attempts to detonate one bomb right after another bomb in the same location is acting with the criminal intent to injure law enforcement and emergency medical officials. In my view, this legislation will send a strong message that we will not tolerate the grotesque tactics that we've seen in the streets of Tel Aviv, and now, in Atlanta. More importantly, this legislation honors those who, without fear or hesitation, put themselves in jeopardy at a time of crisis. If this bill deters one terrorist from planting a follow-on bomb and saves the life of one police officer, firefighter, ambulance driver, or paramedic that rushes to the scene of a crime, then it will have been well worth the energy expended to enact it. I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I intend to address one of the most important matters that should come before the Senate in the next several weeks: the Chemical Weapons Convention. This convention-- negotiated under Presidents Reagan and Bush--would outlaw poison gas weapons. The Chemical Weapons Convention represents a significant step forward in our efforts to contend with the greatest immediate threat to our national security--the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The Chemical Weapons Convention will make it illegal under international and domestic laws for a country to use, develop, produce, transfer, or stockpile chemical weapons. The CWC will help protect our citizens from the use of poison gas weapons by terrorist groups. It will benefit our military by requiring other nations to follow our lead and destroy their chemical weapons. It will improve the ability of our intelligence agencies to monitor chemical weapons threats to our Armed Forces and our Nation. The convention has the strong support of the American chemical industry, which was centrally involved in the negotiation of the CWC. It also takes into account all of the protections afforded Americans under our Constitution. This is a bipartisan treaty, initiated and negotiated under President Reagan, further negotiated, finalized, and signed under President Bush, and strongly endorsed and submitted for the Senate's advice and consent to ratification by President Clinton. The costs of the CWC are small, but its benefits are potentially enormous. At present, international law permits the Libyas and the North Koreas of the world to produce limitless quantities of chemical weapons. That will change when the CWC enters into force. The CWC will make pariahs out of states that refuse to abide by its provisions. Through the sanctions required by the convention, it will make it more difficult for those pariah states to obtain the precursor chemicals they need to manufacture poison gas. It will create international pressure on these states to sign and ratify the CWC and to abide by its provisions. The CWC will create a standard for good international citizens to meet. It will brand as outlaws those countries that choose to remain outside this regime. The entry into force of the Chemical Weapons Convention will mark a major milestone in our efforts to enlist greater international support for the important American objective of containing and penalizing rogue states that seek to acquire or transfer weapons of mass destruction. Ironically, should the Senate fail to give its advice and consent, this milestone will pass with the U.S. On the same side as the rogue states. Consequences of inaction Mr. President, with just over 2 months remaining until entry-into- force, we have reached the eleventh hour. The convention has been signed by 161 countries and ratified by 68. It will enter into force on April 29 of this year, with or without the participation of the United States. While the United States led the effort to achieve the CWC, the Senate, which received the convention from President Clinton in 1993, has not yet given its advice and consent to ratification. Our failure to ratify this convention before April 29 will have direct and serious consequences for the security of this country. First, the CWC mandates trade restrictions that could have a deleterious impact upon the American chemical industry. If the United States has not ratified, American companies will have to supply end- user certificates to purchase certain classes of chemicals from CWC members. After 3 years we will be subject to trade sanctions that will harm American exports and jobs. Second, an overall governing body known as the Conference of States Parties will meet soon after April 29 to draw up rules governing the implementation of the convention. If we are not a party to the CWC, we will not be a member of that conference. This body with no American input could make rules that have a serious negative impact on the United States. Third, there will be a standing executive council of 41 members, on which we are assured of a permanent seat from the start because of the size of our chemical industry--that is, if we have ratified the convention by April 29. If we ratify after the council is already constituted, then a decision on whether to order a requested surprise inspection of an American facility may be taken without an American representative evaluating the validity of the request and looking out for the facility's interests. Fourth, there will be a technical secretariat with about 150 inspectors, many of whom would be American because of the size and sophistication of our chemical industry. If we fail to ratify this convention in the next 2 months, there will be no American inspectors. Finally, and most importantly in the long term, by failing to ratify we would align ourselves with those rogue actors who have chosen to defy the CWC. This would do irreparable harm to our global leadership on critical arms control and non-proliferation concerns. Mr. President, I would now like to address some of the benefits we will derive by joining the CWC. Terrorism One clear benefit of the CWC is that it will help protect us against the threat of terrorist groups acquiring poison gas and using it against our citizens at home or our troops abroad. Imagine for a moment if those responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing or last year's attack on our troops in Saudi Arabia had used poison gas instead of conventional devices. How many more Americans would have been killed? The CWC will make it more difficult for terrorists to get their hands on chemicals that would allow them to blackmail us with the threat of killing thousands of Americans with a single device. This convention will require countries to destroy their stockpiles of chemical weapons, eliminating the risk that these weapons could fall into the wrong hands. It also will control the transfer of those chemicals that can be used to make chemical weapons, thus restricting and improving the monitoring of chemicals that terrorists need to manufacture weapons. Most importantly, parties to the convention will be required to pass implementing legislation to place the same prohibitions on persons under their jurisdiction that states themselves accept under the convention. This will mean that states will control strictly all toxic chemicals and their precursors. Any prohibited activity under the convention will be criminalized. That was not the case with the 1995 attack on the Tokyo subway in which lethal sarin gas caused thousands of casualties. At that time, there was no Japanese law against the manufacture and possession of chemical weapons. Following that horrible incident, Japan moved swiftly to enact legislation to criminalize chemical weapons activities of the sort banned by the convention. Under the CWC, all parties must do the same. In conjunction with the legislation we will introduce in our Congress to implement the CWC, the convention will provide American law enforcement officers the tools they need to investigate terrorist groups that are trying to acquire chemical weapons and improve the prospects for early detection and prosecution. In short, while it cannot entirely eliminate the threat of chemical terrorism--and I would submit that no treaty can--the CWC will make it much harder for terrorists to obtain poison gas and to use it against Americans. Military The CWC also has benefits for our Armed Forces. Let me make two facts absolutely clear. First, the U.S. has foresworn the use of chemical weapons once the CWC enters into force. Second, the Defense Department is required by law to destroy nearly all U.S. chemical weapons by 2004. Failure to ratify the CWC will not change these two facts. However, the CWC will require other nations to follow our lead and destroy their chemical weapons. As the gulf war demonstrated, we do not need chemical weapons to deter potential adversaries like Iraq and Libya from using chemical weapons against our troops. The threat of overwhelming and devastating nonchemical retaliation will serve as a sufficient deterrent. Thus, the Chemical Weapons Convention will enhance, not damage, the capabilities of the U.S. military to carry out its mission. Several current and former distinguished military officers have spoken to the benefits of this convention. Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf in his recent testimony before the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee stated: We don't need chemical weapons to fight our future warfares. And frankly, by not rarifying that treaty we align ourselves with nations like Libya and North Korea and I'd just as soon not be associated with those thugs in this particular matter. Gen. John Shalikashvili, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has stated before the Foreign Relations Committee : ``From a military perspective, the Chemical Weapons Convention is clearly in our interest.'' Adm. Elmo Zumwalt, former Chief of Naval Operations, wrote last month in the Washington Post: This treaty is entirely about eliminating other people's weapons--weapons that may some day be used against Americans. For the American military, U.S. ratification is high gain and low or no pain. In that light, I find it astonishing that any American opposes ratification. In addition, several prominent veterans and military groups, including the V.F.W. and the R.O.A., have endorsed the CWC. I will ask that Admiral Zumwalt's op-ed and statements by these groups be printed in the Record. The CWC does not diminish our ability and duty to provide our troops with defenses against those that would contemplate the use of chemical weapons against us. Indeed, the administration plans to maintain a robust program of upgrading defenses against chemical weapons. Should chemical weapons be used against us after the CWC is in force, we will be ready. Furthermore, the CWC will place the weight of world opinion behind us to take whatever action is necessary to respond to or prevent an adversary using chemical weapons. I emphasize again that the most important aspect of the CWC from a military perspective is that it will place most of the world in the same situation we are in--not relying upon chemical weapons as a part of military doctrine. This can only be considered a positive development for our military. Verification Another 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 on-site 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, re- emphasized 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. Mr. President, having discussed some of the clear benefits of joining the CWC, I now would like to address some of the costs associated with not joining, as well as some of the objections that have been raised to the convention. Industry Perhaps no single aspect of this debate has seen more misinformation than that having to do with the affect the CWC would have on the U.S. chemical industry. Mr. President, the chemical industry plays a larger role in the economy of the State of Delaware than it does in any other State. Over half of Delaware's industrial output comes from our 47 chemical plants. Their sales represent more than 10 percent of our State's economic output. The chemical industry employs tens of thousands of Delawareans. The people who own, manage, and work at chemical plants know they have no greater friend than this Senator. If I for one moment thought that the convention would harm the American chemical industry, as some have alleged, I would raise this issue. But the fact of the matter is that the only thing about the Chemical Weapons Convention that would hurt the American chemical industry would be the Senate's failure to give its advice and consent. In 1995, the American chemical industry exported $60 billion around the world, accounting for fully 10 percent of all American exports and making it the single largest exporting industry. More than 1 million Americans are employed by the U.S. chemical industry. Should we fail to ratify the CWC, we will put a portion of these exports and these good-paying jobs at risk by leaving our chemical manufacturers open to sanctions, the very sanctions that American negotiators insisted should be a part of this convention as a way to pressure rogue states. In fact, the Chemical Manufacturers Association estimates that failure to ratify the CWC could jeopardize $600 million of our chemical exports. The charge that the CWC will harm American business appears all the more preposterous when one considers the fact that the convention was negotiated with the unprecedented input of the U.S. chemical industry. Thanks to their help, the convention contains thresholds and exemptions that protect businesses, small and large alike, from bearing an undue burden. The American chemical industry helped develop the ground rules under which inspections will occur, including provisions for protecting confidential business information. Chemical company representatives also helped design the brief, three-page form that represents the only reporting obligation for 90 percent of the approximately 2,000 companies that will have obligations under the CWC. I will ask that a statement by Mr. Fred Webber, the president of the Chemical Manufacturers Association, be printed in the Record. To quote from another statement of Mr. Webber's: The U.S. Chemical Industry worked hard to help Government negotiators craft a CWC that provides strong protections against future uses of chemical weapons, at a minimum burden and intrusion on commercial chemical facilities. The protection our industry achieved in the CWC can only be realized if the Senate acts quickly to ratify the convention. U.S. chemical companies recognize that while they produce goods intended for peaceful uses, their products and inputs could be misused for nefarious purposes. That is why they so actively have supported this convention. Their involvement in the CWC has been a model of good corporate citizenship. Unfortunately, we will reward this responsible behavior with a slap in the face if we fail to ratify the CWC and subject the U.S. chemical industry to international sanctions. 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 U.S. 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. 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. American leadership Mr. President, let me stress that the CWC will go into effect with or without us on April 29. The only way we can ensure fully effective American leadership is to ratify this convention before that date. We will needlessly pay a price if we ratify after that date. Let us remember that this is not a partisan issue before us. After more than 8 years of negotiation under two Republican administrations, President Bush signed the final version of the CWC in January 1993. To demonstrate the bipartisan support for the CWC, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record a statement made earlier this month by former President Bush in which he re-stated his strong support for ratification of the CWC. I also ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record a recent op-ed by former Secretary of State James Baker. Many of the strongest supporters of this convention are Republicans. The distinguished senior Senator from Indiana, Senator Lugar, has led the effort to ratify the CWC. All of us, Republicans and Democrats alike, need to recognize that this convention is a matter of our national interest. Mr. President, I fear that our status as the world's non- proliferation leader would be irreversibly compromised by our unwillingness to ratify the CWC. Already, all of our G-7 partners have ratified the CWC. What will be their reaction when we try to enlist their support for proliferation initiatives targeting rogue states if we cannot even take the simple step of joining a regime that we led the way in creating? Make no mistake. If we fail to ratify the CWC, we will forfeit the high ground on global proliferation matters. And that is not something to be taken lightly, for the result will be a far more dangerous world. Conclusion Mr. President, in conclusion, the burdens of the chemical weapons convention are small, but its benefits are great. The American chemical industry strongly supports this convention. Our military is already committed to destroying our poison gas stockpile, and the convention will require the same of every other CWC member state. The CWC will improve our ability to monitor the chemical weapons capabilities of other states. In short, Mr. President, the CWC will improve the security of Americans. The CWC may not be perfect--and no treaty is--but it is considerably better than the alternative of doing nothing. Ultimately, the question we will have to ask is--are we better off with the CWC or without it? I hope that I have demonstrated today why we would be far better off joining a treaty regime that we created, rather than turning our backs in favor of the status quo or worse. We need to disregard arguments that are superfluous to the core reality of what this convention will accomplish: It bans poison gas, period. This convention is the best means available to ensure that there will be no more victims of poison gas like the soldiers in the trenches of World War I or the innocent victims of a murderous Iraqi regime. I understand that a task force of Republican Senators has been working with the White House to address concerns raised by some of our colleagues. I hope that this process soon will yield a resolution of ratification that merits strong bipartisan support. But I cannot emphasize enough the importance of this convention to our national security. We have a very real deadline hanging over our heads. I would urge my colleagues to learn more about this convention in the next few weeks so that they can make an informed decision about its necessity for our national security. Please contact me or my staff if you have questions about the cwc and what it will and will not do. If we bring this convention to the floor and engage in a full, frank, and open debate on its merits, I am confident that two-thirds of the Senate will be convinced that the Chemical Weapons Convention is good for American business, good for the American military, and good for the American people. Mr. President, we owe it to them to have this debate at the earliest possible time. I ask that the material to which I referred be printed in the Record. The material follows: [From the Washington Post, Jan. 6, 1997] A Needless Risk for U.S. Troops (By E.R. Zumwalt, Jr.) It has been more than 80 years since poison gas was first used in modern warfare--in April 1915 during the first year of World War I. It is long past time to do something about such weapons. I am not a dove. As a young naval officer in 1945, I supported the use of nuclear weapons against Japan. As chief of naval operations two decades ago, I pressed for substantially higher military spending than the nation's political leadership was willing to grant. After retiring from the Navy, I helped lead the opposition to the SALT II treaty because I was convinced it would give the Soviet Union a strategic advantage. Now the Senate is considering whether to approve the Chemical Weapons Convention. This is a worldwide treaty, negotiated by the Reagan administration and signed by the Bush administration. It bans the development, production, possession, transfer and use of chemical weapons. Senate opposition to ratification is led by some with whom I often agree. But in this case, I believe they do a grave disservice to America's men and women in uniform. To a Third World leader indifferent to the health of his own troops and seeking to cause large-scale pain and death for its own sake, chemical weapons have a certain attraction. They don't require the advanced technology needed to build nuclear weapons. Nor do they require the educated populace needed to create a modern conventional military. But they cannot give an inferior force a war-winning capability. In the Persian Gulf war, the threat of our uncompromising retaliation with conventional weapons deterred Saddam Hussein from using his chemical arsenal against us. Next time, our adversary may be more berserk than Saddam, and deterrence may fail. If that happens, our retaliation will be decisive, devastating--and no help to the young American men and women coming home dead or bearing grievous chemical injuries. What will help is a treaty removing huge quantities of chemical weapons that could otherwise be used against us. ``Militarily, this treaty will make us stronger. During the Bush administration, our nation's military and political leadership decided to retire our chemical weapons. This wise move was not made because of treaties. Rather, it was based on the fact that chemical weapons are not useful for us. Politically and diplomatically, the barriers against their use by a First World country are massive. Militarily, they are risky and unpredictable to use, difficult and dangerous to store. They serve no purpose that can't be met by our overwhelming conventional forces. So the United States has no deployed chemical weapons today and will have none in the future. But the same is not true of our potential adversaries. More than a score of nations now seeks or possesses chemical weapons. Some are rogue states with which we may some day clash. This treaty is entirely about eliminating other people's weapons--weapons that may some day be used against Americans. For the American military, U.S. ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention is high gain and low or no pain. In that light, I find it astonishing that any American opposes ratification. Opponents argue that the treaty isn't perfect: Verification isn't absolute, forms must be filled out, not every nation will join at first and so forth. This is unpersuasive. Nothing in the real world is perfect. If the U.S. Navy had refused to buy any weapon unless it worked perfectly every time, we would have bought nothing and now would be disarmed. The question is not how this treaty compares with perfection. The question is how U.S. ratification compares with its absence. If we refuse to ratify, some governments will use our refusal as an excuse to keep their chemical weapons. Worldwide availability of chemical weapons will be higher, and we will know less about other countries' chemical activities. The diplomatic credibility of our threat of retaliation against anyone who uses chemical weapons on our troops will be undermined by our lack of ``clean hands.'' At the bottom line, our failure to ratify will substantially increase the risk of a chemical attack against American service personnel. If such an attack occurs, the news reports of its victims in our military hospitals will of course produce rapid ratification of the treaty and rapid replacement of senators who enabled the horror by opposing ratification. But for the victims, it will be too late. Every man and woman who puts on a U.S. military uniform faces possible injury or death in the national interest. They don't complain; risk is part of their job description. But it is also part of the job description of every U.S. senator to see that this risk not be increased unnecessarily.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I wish to discuss an important decision facing the President this week in the fight against drug trafficking: Whether to certify that Mexico and Colombia have taken sufficient steps in the past year in combating the narcotics trade. The choice is important not merely because it affects our bilateral relations with these countries, but also because it will send a broader signal about our seriousness of purpose in the war on drugs. Of course, there will be other nations whose performance on counternarcotics will be assessed by the President this week. But when it comes to the narcotics trade, Mexico and Colombia are in a league by themselves--Colombia, as the leading source country for cocaine, and a major source of heroin, and Mexico, as the leading transit country for cocaine, and as a significant source for heroin, methamphetamines, and marijuana. And it is because of their predominance in the narcotics trade that the President's decision becomes a barometer of the U.S. commitment to this effort. Before discussing my specific views on the Colombian and Mexican cases, however, I want to briefly offer some general observations about the drug certification process. Just over 10 years ago, in the 1986 omnibus drug bill, the United States began a process of annually certifying the performance of countries which were either a major source of narcotics, or a major transit route for narcotics trafficking. Decertification does not merely carry a stamp of political disapproval. By law, nations decertified are ineligible for most U.S. foreign aid, and the United States is required to vote against loans for such nations in international financial institutions such as the World Bank. The President has three choices: First, he can certify that a country is fully cooperating with the United States, or is taking adequate steps on its own, to combat the narcotics trade. Second, he can decertify a country--a statement that it has not met that standard. Finally, he can provide a national interest waiver--a statement that the country has not met the standards of the law, but that the U.S. national interest lies in continuing the assistance programs. Not surprisingly, the nations subject to the scrutiny of the decertification process have not been thrilled with the honor. Indeed, many nations have protested that the United States has no right to challenge their performance on counternarcotics--given that the large demand in this country helps to generate the supply. Other nations perceive the certification process as an effort to shift the blame for our drug problem. I firmly reject such arguments. First, while I concede that the demand in the United States for narcotics has contributed to the explosive growth of the drug trade in Latin America in the last two decades, the dramatic increase in the power of the narcotics cartels--particularly in Colombia and Mexico-- cannot be blamed upon the United States alone. The nations themselves must bear responsibility for their own neglect--for failing to take effective action against vast criminal enterprises which arose before their eyes. Of course, the United States must do its part to combat the drug problem. Over the past decade, we have. For example, we have steadily increased both our financial resources and our political commitment to combating the narcotics trade. We now spend $16 billion annually on our national drug program, as compared to $4.7 billion a decade ago. We have devised a national strategy, written by a drug czar who coordinates national policy from the White House. We have increased sentences at the Federal level for narcotics traffickers. We have strengthened controls on money laundering and the trade in precursor chemicals. There is more to be done. But by any objective measure, the United States continues to do its part. Second, I strongly disagree with the suggestion that the United States has no business assessing the performance of other nations in the drug war. The decision by the United States to maintain a partnership with another government--any government--must be based on an assessment of whether the cooperation between the two sides advances American interests. This is hardly a radical concept; rather, it is the daily practice of diplomacy. The people of the United States should expect nothing less. How else can we justify providing the full benefits of partnership--including foreign assistance and special trade preferences--unless we are satisfied that the other nation is doing its part on issues of great concern to us? After a decade of experience with the certification law, we can reach a conclusion about its utility--and whether it is worth preserving. I believe a strong case can be made that it should be. In the first few years after enactment of the law, the certification process, it is fair to say, was less than effective. It was the custom of the Reagan and Bush administrations to only decertify those nations with which our relations were already badly damaged. In other words, the primary focus was not on narcotics performance but on geopolitics. Thus, in the late 1980's, the nations regularly decertified were Syria and Iran--both on the list of state sponsors of terrorism; Afghanistan, then a satellite of the Soviet Union; and Panama, then under the control of General Noriega. In the Bush administration, after the U.S invasion ousted Noriega, Panama again was certified, and the nation of Burma--by then under the control of despotic generals--was added to this list of usual suspects. But not once did either President Reagan or Bush decertify a democratic ally. The message of this action was clear: Maintaining normal diplomatic relations took precedence over our anti-narcotics interests. As a result, most nations that were major drug trafficking centers came to expect that certification would be the norm--and that for all the talk and supposed pressure from Washington, they would not pay a price if they failed to meet our expectations. Under President Clinton, that approach has changed for the better-- and for that change much credit must go not only to the President, but also to the previous Secretary of State, Warren Christopher. Most significantly, last year President Clinton decertified Colombia--a democratic nation which had, for much of the 1990's, been a close partner in the war on drugs. But when it became clear that the President of Colombia had taken campaign contributions from drug dealers--a matter that I will discuss shortly--and that his government lacked the political will to confront the drug trade, President Clinton stated plainly that Colombia had not met the standard of the law. That decision has profound implications elsewhere. Nations everywhere took notice--and are now on notice that the United States would make its decision on certification based on the standards of the law, not on the dictates of diplomacy. That, in turn, has greatly empowered the State Department and the law enforcement agencies--which now have greater leverage in holding our foreign partners to their counternarcotics commitments. In sum, because of the ``truth-in-certification'' which we now practice, I believe that the process has become a useful tool in our ongoing effort to procure the assistance of other nations in the war on drugs. Any effort to repeal the law or alter it significantly would be misguided. That is not to say the law is perfect--few laws are. During consideration of the foreign assistance legislation in the Foreign Relations Committee, I will be open to exploring ways of improving the certification process--to assure that the law advances our common objective: of ensuring that all nations join us in fighting the scourge of drugs. But that question is for another day. Today our primary attention must be devoted to the issue at hand: whether to certify that Colombia and Mexico have met the standard of the law. I renew my call--which I also made last year--to decertify Colombia and to not fully certify Mexico, but instead grant a national interest waiver. As has been widely reported, credible evidence suggests that Colombian President Ernesto Samper accepted millions of dollars in campaign contributions from the Cali cartel during the 1994 Presidential campaign. An investigation by the Colombian Congress--an investigation which our State Department has described as a ``patently flawed process''--absolved Samper. But the conclusion of the Congress is not surprising, because many members of that body are also under investigation for accepting bribes from the cartel. President Samper might have overcome the stain of these allegations by taking concrete action to combat the drug trade. In fact, Samper had pledged such action in a letter to many members of this body in July 1994. But Samper's pledge proved to be, in large part, an empty gesture. For example, long-promised reform of the sentencing system--which provides inadequate penalties for drug trafficking--has not been enacted, although the Colombian Congress is just now taking up the issue. The inadequacy of the current system was amply demonstrated last month, when two noted leaders of the Cali cartel were sentenced to relatively light sentences--10\1/2\ years in one case, 9 years in another. They were fined just $2 million. None of their assets were forfeited. Under the sentencing system in effect, the actual time served may be reduced by half. Worse still, the evidence is strong that they continue to operate their empires from prison--operations which the Colombian Government has done little to prevent. Other measures, such as reconsideration of extradition or strengthening the Colombian money laundering statute, might have permitted the certification of Colombia. But extradition is not on the table; and the money laundering statute is only now being considered in a special session--a transparent last-ditch effort to head off decertification. I say all this in full knowledge that there are thousands of dedicated officials in the Colombian National Police, and millions of ordinary Colombian citizens, who abhor the destructive nature of the drug trade on their own society, and are fully committed to combating it. I admire their courage and determination to fight on, despite the dangers of confronting the drug lords, who have no respect for human life. But how can we be assured of the Government's commitment against drug trafficking when the President of the country himself almost surely benefited from the drug trade? This must be an essential consideration in any certification decision: whether there exists corruption at high levels of government. We cannot demand perfection in implementation of policy. We cannot impose impossibly high burdens. But we can demand that the highest levels of government remain free from suspicion. Colombia has failed that test. Stated plainly, the corruption at the top in Bogota is the single most glaring failure in Colombia's performance--and the overriding reason that I recommend decertification. Mr. President, there is no joy in this conclusion. But we cannot overlook the corruption involving President Samper and the Congress, and we cannot avoid the conclusion that Colombia has not done enough to combat the drug trade. The story for Mexico is different than Colombia's. The key difference is the commitment of the President of Mexico, who I believe is steadfast in his determination to root out corruption in the Mexican police system. Unfortunately, his personal commitment has, thus far, been insufficient to cleanse a police system that is rotten to the core. The examples of police corruption in Mexico abound. The most troubling example was revealed just last week. A veteran general of the Mexican Army, a man hired just 3 months ago to head Mexico's antinarcotics agency--precisely because he was believed to be incorruptible--was fired after being accused of taking payments from one of Mexico's leading drug barons. The arrest of General Gutierrez raises several important questions about the United States-Mexican relationship in fighting the drug war. First, why did Mexico fail to alert us when it first suspected General Gutierrez some 2 weeks before his arrest? As a consequence, how much intelligence did the United States share in that 2-week period with Mexico that has now been compromised? Additionally, why did our intelligence assets fail to learn that the general had been placed under investigation? Finally, will we be able, in the short term, to continue cooperative law enforcement efforts--or will we have to step back and reassess the level and scope of our joint programs? Mr. President, we must have answers to these questions--both from our Government and from the Mexican Government. But until we get those answers, and until we see follow through by the Mexican Government on certain promises, I do not believe that we should certify that Mexico has provided full cooperation in the war on drugs. Instead, however, I do believe that the President would be justified in granting Mexico a vital national interest waiver. That decision--less than full certification--would send a strong political signal to the Mexican Government that its performance last year was inadequate, without causing a total disruption in our joint efforts. In making this recommendation, I should note that Mexico has made some progress in its effort to combat the narcotics trade. Last year, at our urging, it enacted several important anticrime laws--an organized crime law, a money laundering statute, and a chemical diversion statute. It has agreed to extradite, under exceptional circumstances, Mexican nationals. It has agreed to set up organized crime task forces in key locations in northern and western Mexico. All this is important. But, as the saying goes, the proof is in the pudding. We have seen only a handful of extraditions. We await implementation of the new anticrime laws. And we await full funding and adequate support for the task forces. Most important, we must see institutional changes to root out corruption--for that remains the largest obstacle to combating the drug cartels. All the laws, all the promises, all the task forces will be insufficient if Mexico cannot rectify the systemic corruption in its law enforcement agencies. Mexico's efforts to confront corruption, ultimately, will be the test of whether it is serious in combating the narcotics trade. Let me reiterate that I believe that, in contrast to the case of Colombia, Mexico has a President who is on our side. President Zedillo has demonstrated great courage in advancing an agenda of institutional reform and in trying to weed out corrupt actors in his government. We must stand with him in this effort. But we must also be honest about the situation as we now see it --and honesty compels the conclusion that Mexico should not be fully certified. But I do not believe that we should take the step of decertifying Mexico. President Zedillo's demonstrated leadership amid the growing drug threat is the fundamental reason I propose a national interest waiver for Mexico. A full decertification of Mexico could have long- lasting, damaging repercussions that we cannot now predict. At a minimum, it could inhibit the political space that President Zedillo has to press forward with his agenda of reform. And if we destroy the President's political ability resolve to combat the drug traffickers, we will have achieved nothing--and we may well lose the gains that we have recently achieved. Even as I recommend decertification for Colombia, and a national interest waiver for Mexico, I should emphasize that this issue can-- under the law--be revisited during the coming year as to Colombia. The law permits the President to provide a national interest waiver during the course of the year provided there has been a fundamental change in government, or a fundamental change in the conditions that led to not providing a full certification in the first instance. In this regard, I encourage the Clinton Administration to spell out benchmarks for Colombia to achieve in the coming months --benchmarks that, if achieved, would permit the President to move forward with a national interest waiver. Mr. President, I do not underestimate the difficulties facing Colombia and Mexico in combating the power of the drug barons. But the difficulty of the challenge cannot be an excuse for insufficient action. Given the massive scourge of drugs confronting us, we must continue to raise the level of expectations and attention given to the drug trade by our southern neighbors. This is what the certification process calls for, and this is what our nation must do.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise in support of our colleague, Congressman Richardson, to become our Ambassador to the United Nations. Mr. President, I will very shortly yield back the remainder of the time. I understand I have 15 minutes under my control. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to thank the chairman, Senator Helms, for his willingness to bring this important nomination to the floor so expeditiously. I join Chairman Helms in endorsing the nomination of Representative Bill Richardson to be the Permanent Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations, with rank of Ambassador. I commend President Clinton for having nominated him, and I strongly urge my colleagues here today to vote to confirm this distinguished Member of Congress who already has a long list of diplomatic accomplishments to his name. Congressman Richardson has ably represented the Third District of New Mexico for 14 years, but it is his experience in successfully negotiating the release of Americans and others in some of the world's least hospitable locales that has brought his formidable diplomatic skills to light. This diplomatic experience will serve him well at the United Nations as he seeks to advance American interests in contacts with 185 other nations. Likewise, Congressman Richardson's personal background and political experience have prepared him well to represent the United States in the world body. Bill Richardson was born in California and grew up in Mexico City. He attended high school in Boston and remained there to attend Tufts University, where he earned a bachelor's degree and a Master of Arts in Law and Diplomacy. Bill Richardson then came to Washington, working in the Legislative Affairs Office at the State Department and as a staffer on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where, like his predecessor, Secretary of State Albright, he gained an appreciation for the role of the Senate in helping craft American foreign policy. In 1978, Bill Richardson moved to Santa Fe, and in 1982 he won election to this first term as a Member of Congress. His vast district has been described by one writer as a ``mini-U.N.,'' with a diverse population that is 35 percent Hispanic and 25 percent Native American, including members of 28 different tribes. As a Congressman, he served on the Intelligence Committee and was a fervent advocate of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the official biography of Bill Richardson.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, Bill Richardson has engaged in successful diplomacy with some of the world's most recalcitrant regimes and rebels. His humanitarian concern for individuals and his commitment to advance this country's interests have led him to countries like North Korea, Cuba, Iraq, Serbia, Nigeria, Burma, Haiti, and Sudan. My colleagues will recall that he negotiated the release of an American helicopter pilot in North Korea, three Red Cross workers in Sudan, and two Americans imprisoned in Iraq. Two weeks ago, Congressman Richardson came before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and outlined how the United Nations should be used to advance American interests, while streamlining its bureaucracy and reforming its structure. I ask unanimous consent that his statement before the committee be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, Congressman Richardson reminded us that while U.N. reform is important, we must never lose sight of the fundamental value of the United Nations for our national interests. We rely on the United Nations to provide humanitarian assistance to millions who otherwise would have no source of food or shelter. We rely on the United Nations to eradicate disease and improve health. We rely on the United Nations to prevent nuclear proliferation. We rely on the U.N. to facilitate and maintain peace. The United Nations allows us to combine our resources with those of others to bring about outcomes that are in our national interest. We must pursue reform, but we should not use reform as a stalking horse to undermine the United Nations' ability to carry out tasks that serve our fundamental interests. We must maintain our leadership in the United Nations. Doing so entails meeting our commitments to the United Nations; specifically, it means paying our back dues. We cannot expect others to fulfill their international obligations if we do not fulfill our own. The President's request for a $921 million supplemental appropriation. to be disbursed 2 years from now, is a good place to begin a bipartisan effort to pay off our debt and encourage meaningful U.N. reform. Mr. President, I look forward to working with Congressman Richardson over the next 4 years to ensure that the United States continues to play a leading role at the United Nations so that the United Nations continues to work in America's interests. Let me just suggest that I think since I have been here--and it has been 24 years--we have not had anyone who by temperament, experience, background, and education is any more qualified to be our Ambassador to the United Nations than Ambassador Richardson. We, all of us who have served here, at least for 2 years or more, have come to know him personally or have become acquainted with his incredible record of special missions, where he has not gone off on his own but gone off under the aegis and umbrella, at least, and being told by informing administrations what he has been doing, and the remarkable negotiations that he has undertaken with such remarkable results. The reason I mention that is not that that qualifies a man or woman to be the Ambassador to the United Nations in and of itself, but it indicates that this is a man who understands how to assess his opposition's interests and how to try to meet that interest without yielding on any principle that is important to this country. I think Madeleine Albright did that job well, as others have, and I think that Bill will do it equally as well. I also think that he goes there equipped with a firsthand knowledge of the concerns expressed by the chairman of the committee, the Senator from North Carolina, and our distinguished colleague from New Hampshire, who just spoke. This is not something he has to divine or guess about. This is not just in terms of our arrearages. Our involvement with the United Nations--and the future relationship the United States will have with the United Nations--is something that he is personally aware of, in terms of the intensity, the extent to which the concern exists, and the detail of the concern as emanated from the U.S. Congress, both in the House and the Senate. So, he is a man who will arrive on the scene fully aware of both sides of this equation. He is not just a very gifted academic or diplomat who will serve us there. He is not someone who has just learned academically of the concern of the Congress and the simple, basic, legitimate political concerns that we have. I don't mean partisan political, I mean political in the sense that we have to answer to our constituencies as to what we are going to do about paying arrearages, if we pay arrearages, and how we pay them. And I think that is a particularly useful background for a man to have at this moment, going to that job. He is, as I said, academically qualified. He is qualified by temperament. He is qualified by experience. And he is qualified, uniquely qualified in what is probably the single most significant issue that has faced our relations with the United Nations, probably since the United Nations has come into existence. That is: What is the relationship and role of the President's authority to make commitments relative to the use of American dollars and forces in other parts of the world, and how does that interrelate with the Congress and the Senate, in particular, and how and under what circumstances should we be making up our arrearages and looking out for our longer term interests at the United Nations? So for those reasons and many others which I have not mentioned here today, I think Bill Richardson is the right man for the job at this moment, although I suspect he would be qualified for the job at any moment. But I think he is particularly qualified to take over this job at this time.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I do not see any other of my colleagues seeking to speak on this nomination. Therefore, I am prepared to yield back the remainder of my time and am prepared to vote anytime the chairman deems it appropriate.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I join with my longtime colleague in this endeavor, Senator Boxer, to restate our continuing opposition to legislation changing the current dolphin-safe standard. As usual, she has explained the issue much better than I could, so my remarks will be brief. Throughout the 1960's, 1970's, and 1980's, hundreds of thousands of dolphins were senselessly killed every year because of the use of gigantic purse seine fishing nets. Our efforts to require that each nation wishing to export tuna to the United States document that it possessed a dolphin protection program and a dolphin mortality rate comparable to ours largely failed, resulting in unilateral embargoes against noncomplying nations. The senseless slaughter of dolphin justifiably outraged many Americans. Literally tens of thousands of letters, telegrams, and phone calls poured into tuna companies' offices and Capitol Hill. The message heard was loud and clear: Don't allow this needless massacre to continue. Then, in 1990, something remarkable happened. American tuna companies, environmentalists, and consumers came together and revolutionized an entire industry. That April, Starkist, and shortly after that Chicken of the Sea, and Bumblebee--which combined sold more than 80 percent of the tuna in America--announced voluntary purchasing bans against all tuna caught in association with dolphins. On the heels of this campaign, then-Congresswoman Boxer and I wrote and shepherded into law the Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act--a landmark statute that set one very simple, uniform standard: No tuna caught by purse seine net fishing, or by a boat capable of purse seine net fishing, can be labeled as dolphin-safe. Our labeling law immediately transformed the decades-long controversy. Dolphin mortalities caused by both American and foreign tuna boats plummeted from more than 52,000 in 1990, to just under 3,000 in 1995. A tremendous decrease. Millions of consumers now purchase tuna with a clear conscience, knowing that the deadly purse seine net method was not used. Simply put, the Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act remains a remarkable success story. It does not mandate anything. It does not require thousands of bureaucrats. It merely requires accurate, truthful labeling. From the nutritional information printed on boxes of cereal, to salt content listings on low-sodium crackers, honesty in labeling is a well- established principle of law. This does not necessarily mean that all types of a given product must conform to the requirements of a particular labeling law. All milk is not required to contain 2 percent milkfat, for example. But, if a dairy company wishes to label its product as 2 percent milkfat, it must meet that standard. In essence that is the concept underlying the current dolphin safe standard. Unfortunately, legislation (S. 39) introduced recently by Senator Stevens and Senator Breaux changes the criteria for the current label, thereby eliminating the protection and honesty now provided. While the proposed no-mortalities requirement sounds good on its face, it is for all practical purposes unworkable and unenforceable. One observer, equipped with a pair of binoculars, can hardly keep accurate watch over the entire contents of a 1 to 2 mile long, half-mile wide net, submerged hundreds of feet below water. I recognize the potential significance and power of the October 1995 Panama Declaration, and I agree that our unilateral embargoes deserve a serious reexamination. In fact, legislation I and Senator Boxer introduced during the 104th Congress would have implemented key parts of the declaration by repealing the current comparability embargoes and opening our market--literally the most lucrative in the world--to all tuna caught in compliance with the current dolphin-safe standard. But market access issues, questions of whether to allow dolphin-safe and other tuna into our market, are separate from the reasoning behind the current label. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and in the administration to lock-in the progress we have made. And I commend Senator Boxer for her diligent efforts to protect our environment while preserving our principles.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, for the third consecutive Congress, I am introducing legislation to expand the Federal Government's $150 payment to States when they bury veterans in State-owned veterans cemeteries. For those who are not familiar with my proposal, it is quite simple. My bill says that if a State buries a veteran free of charge in a State-owned cemetery--and that veteran is eligible for burial in a national veterans cemetery--the Federal Government will pay the State $150 for the cost of the plot. In other words, Mr. President, rather than the multiple and restricted criteria of plot allowance payments to States under current law, there would instead be only one standard in judging whether a State receives assistance from the Federal Government. And, that standard is: Is the veteran eligible for burial in a national cemetery? Period. Not only is it simple, it is the only thing that makes sense and the only thing that is fair. When the plot allowance for States was first established a decade ago, Congress did it in part to relieve the pressure on the national cemetery system. Our national cemeteries were filling up rapidly. That trend continues today. More than half of all national cemeteries are closed to additional burials, and there is no where near enough space for all of America's World War II veterans, let alone the veterans from later conflicts. So, rather than undertake the expensive process of building more national cemeteries, we entered into a partnership with the States for the creation of State-owned veterans cemeteries. That partnership has worked well, especially in States like Delaware that do not have a national cemetery to begin with. But, after entering into this partnership, the Federal Government then limited for whom it would reimburse States for the cost of the plot. We said that States would receive the $150 payment only if the veteran was receiving disability compensation or a pension; died in a veterans hospital; was indigent and the body was unclaimed; or was discharged from the military due to a disability. In other words, we ask States to bury all veterans eligible for burial in a national cemetery--but then we do not financially help them when they do. And, States are not even being reimbursed for all wartime veterans that they bury. Let me repeat that. States are not being reimbursed for all wartime veterans that are buried in State-owned veterans cemeteries. I mention that, Mr. President, because some people have characterized this bill as an attempt to provide the plot allowance to States for the burial of nonwartime veterans, and an attempt to give a benefit intended for those who fought in wartime to those who did not. That is simply not the case. There are thousands of wartime veterans who do not meet the current law's criteria. In fact, each year, about 5,000 veterans--many of them wartime veterans--are eligible for burial in a national cemetery and are buried without charge in State-owned veterans cemeteries, but do not meet the criteria set forth in current law for the States to receive the plot allowance. That is not fair to the States, and it is not right for America's veterans. Mr. President, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that this proposal would cost $1 million per year. While we all want to balance the budget--and this proposal will be paid for--$1 million per year is a relatively small sum in order to fulfill our commitment to America's veterans. In 1995, the Senate recognized this in unanimously approving this proposal as an amendment to the budget bill. Whether this bill is voted on separately or as part of another measure, it does not matter. What matters is that we work to ensure that America's veterans are guaranteed a decent and dignified burial. I encourage my colleagues to join me in this effort.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a comprehensive bill I first introduced last summer to make college more affordable for middle-class families. Formally titled the ``Growing the Economy for Tomorrow: Assuring Higher Education is Affordable and Dependable'' Act, it is known as the Get Ahead Act for short. This legislation contains numerous provisions--some of which have been or will be introduced by others as separate bills; other provisions are novel to this bill--but they all have one thing in common. They all are an attempt to renew our commitment to see that the American Dream of a college education remains within reach of all Americans. Because, the plain truth is, that dream is slipping out of reach for many middle-class families. When I was in college 30 some years ago, my parents could send me to a State university for less than 5 percent of their income. And, it stayed about that much--college costs went up each year by about the same amount that the average family's income went up--until 1980. And, then, college costs exploded. Since 1980, the cost of public college tuition and fees has increased nearly three times faster than the average family's income. We can debate endlessly the reasons why and who or what is to blame. But, all that middle-class families know is that the costs have skyrocketed, and they must constantly worry about how they will ever be able to afford to send their children to college. For a long time now, Members on both sides of the aisle have believed that the Federal Government has a role and responsibility in helping Americans get to college. Not to guarantee that everyone in America goes to college, but to guarantee that no one who qualifies for college is turned away just because they cannot afford it. It is important for individual Americans--and it is important for the future of America as a whole. But, I think it is legitimate to question that commitment today when costs are rising out of control; when we spend more on loans that have to be repaid and less on grants that do not; and when the tax law rewards investment in machines but not investment in people. It is time, Mr. President, to renew and reaffirm our commitment to higher education. And, so, I offer the Get Ahead Act, and I invite my colleagues to join me in this effort. Let me take just a few minutes to review what this bill would do. And, I ask that a much more detailed summary of the bill be included in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. First, the Get Ahead Act provides direct tax relief for the costs of higher education. This is accomplished by creating a $10,000 tax deduction for college tuition and fees as well as the interest on student loans. We currently give tax breaks to businesses for investment in the future--in research and development and in the purchase of new plant and equipment. I support that. But, at the same time, we do not provide tax relief to middle-class families who invest in their own children's future through higher education. We should. In addition, under the Get Ahead Act, all scholarships, including that used for room and board, would be excluded from taxable income, as was the case prior to the 1986 Tax Reform Act. And, the tax exclusion for employer-provided educational assistance would be extended and made permanent. As my colleagues know, when an employer pays part or all of the costs of an employee's education, that does not have to be counted as income to the employee for tax purposes. Last year, we extended that provision through May 31, 1997. What my bill does is make it a permanent part of the Tax Code--so we do not have to keep coming back and extending it every year or so--and my bill ensures that the tax exclusion applies to both undergraduate and graduate education. Last year, unfortunately in my view, in extending the tax exclusion, we applied it only to undergraduate education. Second, Mr. President, the Get Ahead Act encourages people to save for the costs of higher education. Specifically, it would allow individuals to withdraw funds from their Individual Retirement Accounts for education expenses--without incurring a 10-percent penalty tax. Also, more Americans would be able to take advantage of Series EE Savings Bonds. These are the bonds where you do not have to pay tax on the interest if the money from the bonds is used to pay for college tuition. And, my bill would create Education Savings Accounts--accounts similar to IRA's. Each year, families could put tax free up to $2,000 per child into an ESA for their children. That money would accumulate tax free--and you would never have to pay taxes on it if the money was used to pay for college. Finally, Mr. President, the Get Ahead Act would award merit scholarships to all students who graduate in the top 5 percent of their class. While the $1,000 scholarship would cover about two-thirds of the cost of a community college, I realize this is not a large sum of money for someone attending a 4-year institution, especially if it is a private college. But, it could make a difference for many students, and I believe that, regardless, it is important that we start to reward students who meet high academic standards. There is one provision not in the bill that was in last year's bill. Last year, I included a section clarifying the Federal tax treatment of State prepaid tuition plans. Similar provisions were enacted last year as part of the minimum wage bill, and therefore I did not need to include them in this year's bill. Mr. President, the Get Ahead Act is aimed at seeing that individual Americans have the opportunity to get ahead. In today's economy, in today's world, you need a college education to do it. And, for those who would criticize this proposal as a handout to the middle class, let them ponder what the future of America will be like if the vast masses of the middle class are denied a college education. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a comprehensive bill I first introduced last summer to make college more affordable for middle-class families. Formally titled the ``Growing the Economy for Tomorrow: Assuring Higher Education is Affordable and Dependable'' Act, it is known as the Get Ahead Act for short. This legislation contains numerous provisions--some of which have been or will be introduced by others as separate bills; other provisions are novel to this bill--but they all have one thing in common. They all are an attempt to renew our commitment to see that the American Dream of a college education remains within reach of all Americans. Because, the plain truth is, that dream is slipping out of reach for many middle-class families. When I was in college 30 some years ago, my parents could send me to a State university for less than 5 percent of their income. And, it stayed about that much--college costs went up each year by about the same amount that the average family's income went up--until 1980. And, then, college costs exploded. Since 1980, the cost of public college tuition and fees has increased nearly three times faster than the average family's income. We can debate endlessly the reasons why and who or what is to blame. But, all that middle-class families know is that the costs have skyrocketed, and they must constantly worry about how they will ever be able to afford to send their children to college. For a long time now, Members on both sides of the aisle have believed that the Federal Government has a role and responsibility in helping Americans get to college. Not to guarantee that everyone in America goes to college, but to guarantee that no one who qualifies for college is turned away just because they cannot afford it. It is important for individual Americans--and it is important for the future of America as a whole. But, I think it is legitimate to question that commitment today when costs are rising out of control; when we spend more on loans that have to be repaid and less on grants that do not; and when the tax law rewards investment in machines but not investment in people. It is time, Mr. President, to renew and reaffirm our commitment to higher education. And, so, I offer the Get Ahead Act, and I invite my colleagues to join me in this effort. Let me take just a few minutes to review what this bill would do. And, I ask that a much more detailed summary of the bill be included in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. First, the Get Ahead Act provides direct tax relief for the costs of higher education. This is accomplished by creating a $10,000 tax deduction for college tuition and fees as well as the interest on student loans. We currently give tax breaks to businesses for investment in the future--in research and development and in the purchase of new plant and equipment. I support that. But, at the same time, we do not provide tax relief to middle-class families who invest in their own children's future through higher education. We should. In addition, under the Get Ahead Act, all scholarships, including that used for room and board, would be excluded from taxable income, as was the case prior to the 1986 Tax Reform Act. And, the tax exclusion for employer-provided educational assistance would be extended and made permanent. As my colleagues know, when an employer pays part or all of the costs of an employee's education, that does not have to be counted as income to the employee for tax purposes. Last year, we extended that provision through May 31, 1997. What my bill does is make it a permanent part of the Tax Code--so we do not have to keep coming back and extending it every year or so--and my bill ensures that the tax exclusion applies to both undergraduate and graduate education. Last year, unfortunately in my view, in extending the tax exclusion, we applied it only to undergraduate education. Second, Mr. President, the Get Ahead Act encourages people to save for the costs of higher education. Specifically, it would allow individuals to withdraw funds from their Individual Retirement Accounts for education expenses--without incurring a 10-percent penalty tax. Also, more Americans would be able to take advantage of Series EE Savings Bonds. These are the bonds where you do not have to pay tax on the interest if the money from the bonds is used to pay for college tuition. And, my bill would create Education Savings Accounts--accounts similar to IRA's. Each year, families could put tax free up to $2,000 per child into an ESA for their children. That money would accumulate tax free--and you would never have to pay taxes on it if the money was used to pay for college. Finally, Mr. President, the Get Ahead Act would award merit scholarships to all students who graduate in the top 5 percent of their class. While the $1,000 scholarship would cover about two-thirds of the cost of a community college, I realize this is not a large sum of money for someone attending a 4-year institution, especially if it is a private college. But, it could make a difference for many students, and I believe that, regardless, it is important that we start to reward students who meet high academic standards. There is one provision not in the bill that was in last year's bill. Last year, I included a section clarifying the Federal tax treatment of State prepaid tuition plans. Similar provisions were enacted last year as part of the minimum wage bill, and therefore I did not need to include them in this year's bill. Mr. President, the Get Ahead Act is aimed at seeing that individual Americans have the opportunity to get ahead. In today's economy, in today's world, you need a college education to do it. And, for those who would criticize this proposal as a handout to the middle class, let them ponder what the future of America will be like if the vast masses of the middle class are denied a college education. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, for the third consecutive Congress, I am introducing legislation to expand the Federal Government's $150 payment to States when they bury veterans in State-owned veterans cemeteries. For those who are not familiar with my proposal, it is quite simple. My bill says that if a State buries a veteran free of charge in a State-owned cemetery--and that veteran is eligible for burial in a national veterans cemetery--the Federal Government will pay the State $150 for the cost of the plot. In other words, Mr. President, rather than the multiple and restricted criteria of plot allowance payments to States under current law, there would instead be only one standard in judging whether a State receives assistance from the Federal Government. And, that standard is: Is the veteran eligible for burial in a national cemetery? Period. Not only is it simple, it is the only thing that makes sense and the only thing that is fair. When the plot allowance for States was first established a decade ago, Congress did it in part to relieve the pressure on the national cemetery system. Our national cemeteries were filling up rapidly. That trend continues today. More than half of all national cemeteries are closed to additional burials, and there is no where near enough space for all of America's World War II veterans, let alone the veterans from later conflicts. So, rather than undertake the expensive process of building more national cemeteries, we entered into a partnership with the States for the creation of State-owned veterans cemeteries. That partnership has worked well, especially in States like Delaware that do not have a national cemetery to begin with. But, after entering into this partnership, the Federal Government then limited for whom it would reimburse States for the cost of the plot. We said that States would receive the $150 payment only if the veteran was receiving disability compensation or a pension; died in a veterans hospital; was indigent and the body was unclaimed; or was discharged from the military due to a disability. In other words, we ask States to bury all veterans eligible for burial in a national cemetery--but then we do not financially help them when they do. And, States are not even being reimbursed for all wartime veterans that they bury. Let me repeat that. States are not being reimbursed for all wartime veterans that are buried in State-owned veterans cemeteries. I mention that, Mr. President, because some people have characterized this bill as an attempt to provide the plot allowance to States for the burial of nonwartime veterans, and an attempt to give a benefit intended for those who fought in wartime to those who did not. That is simply not the case. There are thousands of wartime veterans who do not meet the current law's criteria. In fact, each year, about 5,000 veterans--many of them wartime veterans--are eligible for burial in a national cemetery and are buried without charge in State-owned veterans cemeteries, but do not meet the criteria set forth in current law for the States to receive the plot allowance. That is not fair to the States, and it is not right for America's veterans. Mr. President, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that this proposal would cost $1 million per year. While we all want to balance the budget--and this proposal will be paid for--$1 million per year is a relatively small sum in order to fulfill our commitment to America's veterans. In 1995, the Senate recognized this in unanimously approving this proposal as an amendment to the budget bill. Whether this bill is voted on separately or as part of another measure, it does not matter. What matters is that we work to ensure that America's veterans are guaranteed a decent and dignified burial. I encourage my colleagues to join me in this effort.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, in the 1980's as the Communist countries of Central and Eastern Europe were casting off the Soviet yoke, then- Professor Albright conducted research into the attitudes of the people of these countries, and she wrote about the need to assist them in their transition from communism to freedom. That is where Senator Helms and I and others on the Foreign Relations Committee got to see her again because she came and testified about that research and the polling data that she conducted. Her academic and personal understanding of these issues will allow her to formulate policies to encourage the continued spread of political and economic freedom throughout the world as she attempts to implement this administration's foreign policy. At the United Nations, Ambassador Albright successfully advanced and defended American interests and enlisted the support of others for our policies. Her straight talk and tireless commitment won her the admiration of Democrats and Republicans alike. She recognizes that while it is sometimes in America's interest to act alone, always acting alone is ineffective and an unnecessary use of our resources. Two weeks ago, Ambassador Albright came before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and outlined a comprehensive framework for American foreign policy into the next century, one in which none of us, I think, is likely to accept wholesale. But that is the way the process is supposed to work. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that her insightful statement to our committee be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN. How much time remains?

Mr. BIDEN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I will yield myself 15 minutes. Mr. President, let me begin, while both my senior colleagues are on the floor here, by complimenting Senator Byrd on his ringing endorsement of Madeleine Albright. Senator Helms and I have been around here a long while, 24 years. But that is a short time compared to the senior Senator from West Virginia. We all know that when he stands to take the floor and give his endorsement to a candidate who requires confirmation, probably more than any other Senator on this floor, the Chamber listens. Madeleine Albright is a fine candidate, but she is also a lucky candidate today to have such strong support from the Senator from West Virginia, and, as well, she is fortunate to have the Senator from North Carolina as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. I publicly thank him for how gracious he has been and for how he has expedited this nomination. We all know he is a man of very strong convictions, and we all know that when Senator Helms concludes that there is something moving in the Senate too swiftly, or it is something he does not support, he is, along with the Senator from West Virginia, maybe the most effective person on the Republican side of the aisle in slowing things down. There was a lot of discussion in the press and a lot of discussion in the Cloakrooms about whether or not Senator Helms was going to cooperate. I am here to tell you that he has not only cooperated, he has expedited it, and he has been, as always, the consummate gentleman in the way in which he has dealt with his colleagues, the new ranking member in particular, but the committee in general and the Senate as a whole. I personally thank him for doing what I never doubted he would do once he concluded he was going to get this on the floor early. I want the record to note that we are moving on one of the two most important Cabinet posts, and we are doing it before anything else has happened in this body. I thank the chairman. Mr. President, to state the obvious, I strongly support Madeleine Albright's nomination to become the 65th Secretary of State of the United States of America. Obviously, along with others who have spoken, I commend the President for nominating her. There was a friend of ours who doesn't always like having a quote attributed to him, but I must attribute every quote. I never want to make that mistake again. I will not use his name, but I will acknowledge that this is not emanating from me. We had a colleague who served with the Senator from North Carolina and me for some years--and I will tell him the name after I finish--who used to say, ``It is great in politics when conscience and convenience cross paths.'' I would suggest that Madeleine Albright's nomination to be Secretary of State meets that test like none other since I have been here. This is truly a historic occasion. I know we do not and should not think in terms of quotas and affirmative action. But the fact of the matter is this is one of two remaining bastions where the mindset, I think, of a foreign policy establishment, the mindset of the public, the mindset of everyone, is that it is sort of the province of men. And that stereotypical notion is, in large part because of the cooperation of the Senator from North Carolina, about to end today. That does not mean that makes anyone a good Secretary of State or makes her the most qualified person. But that is where the conscience part comes in. It just so happens that the woman we are about to confirm--God willing and the creeks not rising--is also eminently qualified to be Secretary of State. I have been here too long to use phrases like ``this is the most qualified person.'' There are 50 people maybe in America who are qualified to do this job, and there are probably 10 as qualified, but none more qualified than Madeleine Albright. One of the things I think that has endeared her and recommended her to Senator Helms and to me, both of us having served on the Foreign Relations Committee for so long, is that we have encountered Madeleine Albright in our official capacities and our personal political lives on a number of other occasions, and we have found her, as professor, as foreign policy adviser, and as a politically active academic, to be extremely incisive, blunt, to the point, and honest with us in her assessments. You have no idea--maybe you do, Mr. President, but the longer you are here it will become even more apparent. I find that the hardest speak to understand is foreign policy speak. And I sometimes used to kid, after years of being the chairman or the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, I would say to the witness, ``You sound like you are from the State Department.'' That means that you get a nonanswer; never a wrong answer, but a nonanswer. Madeleine Albright is very straightforward. And it is a welcome thing. We had that in other Secretaries of State, Democrat and Republican. But it is always nice to know. In her 4 years as our Representative to the United Nations, Ambassador Albright has ably demonstrated her qualifications to carry American foreign policy into the 21st century. Her personal history, her academic research and writing, her diplomatic experience, and her political acumen make her uniquely qualified to lead this country in working with our friends and allies--and our adversaries, and there are some--to further our national interests and the ideals of freedom and democracy that we espouse as a nation. As we all know by now, Ambassador Albright was not born an American. She and her family chose to come to these shores out of a deep appreciation of what America stands for. She was born in Czechoslovakia, which between the two world wars was the only country in Central Europe to share our commitment to freedom and democracy. She was twice forced to flee her native land, first in the wake of the Nazi occupation, then 10 years later after a Communist coup. She has seen first-hand the two worst forms of tyranny of this century, and she vividly understands the importance of standing firm against aggressors who seek to subvert freedom. The young Madeleine Korbel earned a bachelor's degree from Wellesley College in political science in 1959, worked briefly as a journalist, then married and raised three bright, accomplished, and lovely daughters, two of whom I have had the occasion to get to speak with and get to know a little bit better. At the same time she was raising her family, she attended graduate school at Columbia University. In 1968, she earned her master's degree and the certificate of the Russian Institute at Columbia. She went on to receive her Ph.D. from Columbia in 1976. With her doctorate in hand, she came to Washington to work for one of the finest men ever to serve in this Senate--the late Senator from Maine, Edmund Muskie, who himself went on to become Secretary of State. As his chief legislative assistant, she gained an appreciation for the role of the Senate in helping the President and the Secretary of State craft American foreign policy, experience on which she will draw as we work with her in the years ahead. Ambassador Albright left Senator Muskie's staff in 1978 to work for her former professor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, on the staff of President Carter's National Security Council. She then worked at two of the most prestigious think-tanks in Washington--the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars--before becoming a professor at Georgetown University in 1982. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the official biography of Madeleine Albright.

Mr. BIDEN. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, Ambassador Albright possesses a rare talent for articulating the reasons why events in seemingly far away places matter a great deal to ordinary Americans. I was with another member of this administration, Sandy Berger, today and we were talking about it. I said that I had to leave to go and deal with Madeleine Albright's nomination on the floor. And I said, ``They seem to like her.'' I don't think this is inappropriate to suggest. There is no State secret. He said, ``We were at a meeting, and she used the line that I think is great, and it captures what is going on. She said, `It is amazing that the 1 percent of the resources of this Government may very well' ''--that is approximately what we spend on the whole foreign policy establishment of this Government--`` `\1\ percent of the resources of this Government will probably determine 50 percent of the future of this Nation over the next 6 to 8 years.' '' The reason I bother to mention that as an aside is that one of the things she grasped very well, as all great Secretaries of State have, is in the context in which she is operating, and the context in which the foreign policy it will be her responsibility to promote will be hers. Ambassador Albright has made a convincing argument for the United States to remain engaged throughout the world and for this Congress to give the State Department the resources it needs to, as she said, ``promote and protect the interests of the American people.'' I look forward to working with Ambassador Albright to secure an adequate level of funding for her to direct American diplomacy, in order that our Foreign Service officers, our U.S. Information Service officers, and our Agency for International Development workers can be active throughout the world. We need a diplomatic corps that can react quickly and decisively to crises before they escalate and then threaten peace and stability. We cannot afford to keep the State Department so underfunded that diplomats are reduced to making calls from pay phones because our missions are so poorly equipped that even the telephones don't work. Mr. President, there is much more to say and much that has been said. I do not want to be the one to slow up the process. Let me conclude by suggesting that I particularly look forward to working with Ambassador Albright in a number of specific areas--the ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention before it enters into force April 29, and to negotiate further arms control treaties, including a Start III accord. I also look forward to developing a policy in Bosnia that allows us to withdraw our forces by mid-1998 without allowing a relapse into renewed fighting among the various parties there. I also am looking forward to encouraging democracy throughout the world in places like Serbia, Belarus, Iraq, China, Burma, and Cuba, all of which are going to be daunting tasks we face. And to be sure, before NATO decides to admit new members--I hope that we will--that the enlargement will increase the security of all the countries in Europe, and, second, that the costs of enlargement are fairly allocated in a manner not unduly burdensome on the American taxpayer. And third, that a NATO charter with Russia can be concluded that allows the alliance the opportunity to consult with Moscow before making final decisions, in order to accommodate enhanced security in Europe. And also to increase our efforts at combating the scourge of international drug trafficking, which threatens so many of our neighborhoods and families. The one thing that every Secretary of State has given lip service to is dealing with that issue. The one thing that every Secretary of State, Democrat or Republican, has promptly forgotten is a commitment I have gotten before from every Secretary that they will not forget. But I want the Record to note, if Madeleine Albright is listening, that I remind her I will not forget her commitment that the State Department should be involved in that testy, little, difficult item of dealing with the international drug problem. The truth of the matter is most folks at the State Department and foreign policy types think it is kind of beneath them to deal with drug policy, and I am here to tell them, now that I rank on the Democratic side, I will be a thorn in their side about increasing their attention to that issue. Mr. President, I am enthusiastic about the prospect of working with Ambassador Albright over the next 4 years. I am confident that she will cooperate closely with the Senate to ensure that our foreign policy continues to embody American ideals and to serve the interests of the United States around the globe. I strongly urge my fellow Senators to vote to confirm Madeleine Albright as our next Secretary of State. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN. How much time does the minority control?

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, the only thing I can say in 10 seconds is it is an inspired choice of a great man at the right time.