Joe Biden

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am offering a motion to recommit the conference report with instructions to add provisions relating to a third type of wiretap that was deleted, referred to as an emergency wiretap. I send the motion to recommit the conference report to the desk.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, may I make a suggestion? There are several colleagues who apparently will have difficulty getting here in the next 5 minutes for this vote. Senator Kennedy is on the floor, ready to proceed with an amendment. Maybe we could just stack the two? I have been opposing stacking them all day.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, we are now going to move to a motion that I offer to recommit the conference report with instructions to add a provision on multipoint wiretaps that was in our original Senate bill. I send it to the desk.

Mr. BIDEN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am delighted to listen to the Senator. I know what is going to happen. I am going to respond to him, and we are going to hear somebody talking about delay. I have talked a lot less time than the Senator from Utah, who was worried about delaying passage of the bill. I think he should talk. I have been in this game before, and I know what is going to happen. I am going to respond to him an equal amount of time, and somebody is going to say I am delaying. I would like a record to be kept as to how long we have spoken. I have no intention of delaying this. I am going to respond as briefly as I can and then yield the floor and, at a later date, introduce my amendments. Let me point out that you are looking at somebody who not only does not oppose the death penalty, I wrote the bill that added 57 new penalties. So I am not opposed to the death penalty. I am not only not opposed to it, I authored the Federal death penalty legislation. And the bill that I authored is the reason why those people in Oklahoma are going to be able to get the death penalty in a Federal court, if in fact there is a conviction. That is No. 1. Second, I disagree with the habeas corpus provisions that are in here. But I am not going to oppose the bill based on that. I am not going to offer amendments to change that. So, as we say in the law, the red herring keeps being thrown up here by those who are opposed to the death penalty, and it is really about habeas. And it is not about that. Third, those liberal Federal judges my friend is talking about, 57 out of the 100 of them are Republican liberal judges; 57 out of every 100 of them were appointed by President Bush and President Reagan; 57 out of every 100. So, to the extent that they are liberal and not the majority of the court, it is a Federal court appointed by two Republican Presidents. Just to clear some of the clutter away here, I also point out to you that there are some very tough provisions in this bill. I am not saying there are not. There are very tough provisions. My initial response was that the biggest weapon in here to fight terrorism was habeas corpus. That is an after-the-fact weapon, not a before-the-fact weapon. I am not as terribly optimistic as my friend from Utah. I believe we can stop terrorism. I believe we can stop terrorists. If the only thing I was to do here as a U.S. Senator was to clean up in the aftermath of terrorist acts and make the prosecution more available, then I would think I was doing half my job. That is not question. I do not question for a moment that the victims of the Oklahoma bombing and their families very much want the habeas corpus provision. I do not question that. They are victims. There are two things we are trying to do in this bill--deal with the victims of terrorism and prevent new victims. My point is habeas does nothing about preventing new victims. That should be our major thrust in my view. Also, I point out that my friend from Utah says that the district attorney is going to seek the death penalty. Well, if in fact the Federal trial takes place, which is going on--if, in fact, there is a conviction and they get the death penalty--I hope to God he will not intervene and delay the death penalty by then going into State court to get a death penalty if we already get the death penalty in Federal court. That is another red herring. The idea that the State attorney general, the district attorney in Oklahoma, is saying he needs a change in State habeas corpus in order to put to death people who in fact committed the Oklahoma bombing, they will already be dead. They will already be dead, if they are convicted, because they will be convicted under a Federal law, and they will be hung or injected with a lethal injection under Federal law. They will be dead. I surely hope he will not delay their death by deciding to have a whole new trial in State court. Again, it sounds reasonable when he says it to you. But when you parse through it, it makes no sense. Why would you try someone, and then delay the imposition of the death penalty after they have already been convicted and are about to be put to death? The other thing I would say is that there are some taggant provisions in here. I compliment my friend on the taggants. Everyone should know what taggants are. They are little tiny particles that they put in the manufacture of weapons, of bombs, of material that goes into bombs. So when the bomb goes off, the easiest way to think of it as a lay person, if somebody has a little Geiger counter, metal detector, they go around and pick up these taggants. They blink. They make sounds. So they can identify. Then they can look and see the taggant, and they can put it under a microscope and find out that this taggant, this material used in this bomb, was made in Dover, DE, or Sacramento, CA, at such and such a place, such and such a batch, and such and such a time. Then they can trace who purchased that batch of material, and they trace it back. And they find the guy who put the bomb together. That is what a taggant is. That is what it means. We had a very strong provision. The House had a weak provision. But to the credit of my friend from Utah, last night he put in the process that guarantees there will be taggants because everyone should know this: That, although there will be a study, the study once completed automatically goes into effect. So anyone who objects to it will have to get a majority vote in the House and the Senate to defeat it. That is a very positive thing he did; very positive thing. And I compliment him for it. Although it will delay by 28 months what we wanted to do, it will make it likely that that automatically will be the law, and it will require affirmative action to knock out the use of taggants. The other point that I want to make is that many of the things that the Senator said--all of the things he said--are accurate about the additional provisions in the law. But if I can make an analogy, it is kind of like giving a police officer a revolver that has six chambers in it and giving him one bullet. You are giving the revolver. That is good. You give him one bullet. That helps protect. But we should give him the other five bullets. My friend cited as one of the sterling objectives and achievements of this legislation as one example that would create a new crime, a new Federal crime--terrorism--that says that providing material support for terrorists is now a Federal crime. That is good. That is the gun and one bullet. But guess what we do? We say that you cannot use a wiretap under Federal law to go after people who have provided material support for terrorist groups. We do not include that in the list of crimes for which you can get a wiretap under Federal law. The Senate did. The House did not. So we do not include that. So we give them a gun. We give them the bullet. But we do not give them the full chamber. It is positive; agreed. But why in the Lord's name would you allow people to get a wiretap for bank embezzlement and not a wiretap for materially supporting a terrorist organization? Why would you do that? I do not understand that. Lastly, I would point out that--there is much more to say but I am not going to take as much time as my colleague because my friend from California has been standing here for all of this time--the Senator went into great detail about human pathogens and chemical and nuclear and biological warfare. He is right. We added those crimes. We added enhanced penalties. But guess what we did? We said, if it is a chemical or biological weapon, you cannot do what you can do for nuclear weapons. You cannot bring in the only people who know about them; the military--the only people trained with the equipment to dismantle them, the only people who know how to identify them. You cannot bring them in for chemical, or for biological weapons. But you can for nuclear. Again, an example of a half-step that is very positive. It is in the right direction. But then you make it not useless but incredibly difficult to enforce, or to deal with because you cannot call in the experts. It is like that movie you all saw, that one with Dustin Hoffman, and the danger that breaks out in the town, ``Outbreak.'' Let us assume a terrorist under this law uses a biological weapon. You are not going to have Dustin Hoffman flying in with the people in helicopters who are military who can deal with this. They are not going to be allowed to deal with it because we prevent them from dealing with it. We do not allow them to. The local cops are going to have to take care of it. You are not allowed to bring them in. Hollywood is going to have to revamp their scripts. I mean, see again, a positive step but a half tentative step. And, when you are going to close the deal because a few people disagree with it, we back off. We back off. I have much more to say. I will withhold the rest of my comments but conclude by saying there are two pieces here. There is dealing with the apprehension of, the conviction of, and the imposition of a penalty on those who commit terrorist acts. That is very important. We do some of that in here. But there is an equally important aspect of preventing and apprehending before they commit the heinous act, those engaged in terrorist activities. We do not do a very good job of that in here. I yield the floor, and I beg my colleague to yield and not take the floor because I will have to respond to him--and he is talking a lot more than I am--and let my friend from California proceed. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, let me begin by acknowledging that my friend from Utah supported a vast majority of the amendments that I am going to offer--not amendments--I am going to offer motions to recommit this bill with instructions to go back to the Senate language. Let me acknowledge that I think both the Republican leader and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee on the House side, Mr. Hyde, are all in a difficult position. I acknowledge that. Let me acknowledge that Senator Dole deserves responsibility for this bill. I think he does. I think he deserves the responsibility for also what is not going to be in this bill because we are backing off after votes, which I am about to go through, of 91 to 6 and 99 to 0 and unanimous consent agreed. All the things I am going to offer here were passed overwhelmingly by the Senate. And we caved. We caved so quickly on the House side it was like watching water go over a waterfall. I do think the leader bears responsibility for that as well, for not exercising his authority there because--I want to say at the outset here--I found this was the first time in any conference I have ever attended, even when the Democrats controlled the Senate, which they did off and on for the period I have been here, where everyone at a conference, but two, acknowledges that everything I am offering is correct and right but we are not going to do it because a minority of House Members do not like it. I will not, because I am afraid I will misspeak--and I do not have the transcript--I will not use the description the minority members used of the Republican leadership in the conference on the House side because I may misspeak and create a little dilemma. But I will try to dig that up for the Record. But this is the first time I am aware where a major piece of legislation, where the Senate on the critical points have agreed overwhelmingly--overwhelmingly; I mean, 90 to 1 kind of overwhelmingly--and we have caved to the House, where the leader of the House in the conference said, ``You're right, Senate. But I just cannot pass it if I take it back.'' I think there is a thing called accountability. I think we should pass what we think is right, and let them vote against it. So if they vote against it, let them pay the consequences. And if they vote against it, and do not have the votes, then we can come back and try to get what we can get. But this is not even where we have challenged what was described to me as a minority of the Republican caucus on the House side. They did not like it. Too bad. This is democracy. Too bad. There are a lot of things I do not like. I lose. I lose. But they did not like it. My goodness, 72 or 41 or 57 freshmen Republicans in the House do not like it. Great. So, yeah, I think that the leadership deserves credit and responsibility for not only what we are doing but what we are not going to do, apparently. Second, the conference report--the majority leader stood up and said--and I have great respect for the majority leader, I truly do. I think over 23 years I have demonstrated it. He is a bright, competent leader. But he stood up and he said the conference report is essentially what we passed. It is not even close to what we passed in the Senate. It is not even close, which I will outline here in a minute why it is not even close to what we passed in the Senate. The third point I would make is my friend from Utah and I have had sharp disagreements over habeas corpus for the last 15 years. They still exist. He is right in one important respect. This is a great habeas corpus bill. That is what this is. This is a habeas corpus bill with a little terrorism thrown in. I am not going to make any motions or move to strike the habeas corpus provisions. If we put back things in these provisions, I am willing to swallow the habeas corpus provisions, if we have a tough terrorism bill underneath it. A year ago this week the American people experienced the unthinkable. Terrorists planted a bomb in a Federal building in Oklahoma City and hundreds of innocent citizens were killed or wounded. Families were faced with tragedy and chaos. And the Nation was catatonic. In response to this horrendous crime that was committed, as well as the earlier terrorist bombs of the World Trade Center and Pan Am 103, the Senate passed a tough piece of legislation, in a timely fashion, to the credit of the majority leader and the minority leader. The House sat on it for the better part of a year. They would not even let their membership vote on it because apparently a minority over there thought that there was too much intrusiveness on the part of the Federal Government. Does it not seem kind of coincidental to all who may be listening that after a year we are finally urgently bringing this bill up on the week of the anniversary of the bombing? Where was it a month ago, 3 months ago, 5 months ago, 7 months ago? Now, the bill that we passed addressed both international and domestic threats of terrorism, and it carefully balanced the need for new law enforcement authority against the civil liberties that are so important to all of us. The bill also built upon work that had been done a year before in the Senate crime bill--now the crime bill, the Biden crime bill. It was the Biden-Hatch crime bill. I do not know whether he still wants to take credit for it. It was the Biden-Hatch crime bill. It is now the crime law of the United States of America. Guess what? There would be no death penalty for the two people about to be prosecuted were it not for the crime bill, were it not for the crime bill we passed, and the President led the way. There would be no death penalty because it is a Federal case, Federal law. There was no Federal death penalty for this. My friend is talking that unless we change this habeas corpus provision, the Oklahoma bomber will go free. If those who voted against the crime bill had prevailed, there would be no death penalty even available to be brought against those accused of the bombing in Oklahoma City under Federal law. They would have to try it in State court without the resources of the Federal Government to deal with it. We kind of rewrite history around here. As my friend from Wyoming often says, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts. Let me also point out something else. On building on the crime bill the Senate passed, the terrorism bill that focused narrowly on a terrorist threat, unfortunately, the House then delayed. It finally passed a bill that pretty much took terrorism out of this bill. Now we face a conference report that is only partially approved. I strongly support the Senate-passed version of the terrorism bill, despite the fact that I did not like what we did and how we did reform habeas corpus. We have never had a disagreement that we have to reform habeas corpus. The question is, Do you eliminate it essentially, or do you reform it? This bill essentially eliminates it at a State level. Quite frankly, reform is needed to stop abuse of the writ of habeas corpus. My friend, and he is a very able lawyer, trial lawyer, stood here and talked about how this is the most important thing to deal with terrorists--habeas corpus. Let me remind everybody who may be listening: In order to file a writ of habeas corpus, one has to be behind bars already. Got that? You already have to be in jail, convicted of a crime. When you file a writ of habeas corpus, you write it and you slide it between the bars and you send it via a court officer to the judge. You are in jail. Now, how does that prevent terrorism? It needs to be reformed. The abuses must be eliminated. It has nothing to do with stopping terrorism. I think that is what we are about. Is this not about trying to stop terrorism? Now, second, this is a very complicated subject that the Senator from Utah knows very well because he is a capable lawyer, and the Presiding Officer knows well because he is such a capable prosecutor. I mean that sincerely. Not a lot of lawyers understand habeas corpus. They know it is a great writ. If you sit down and ask them to explain in detail the difference between Federal and State habeas, they get lost. It is complicated and easily lends itself to exaggeration. Putting this in focus now, every single case that I am aware of--and I may be mistaken--that my friend and his two competent staff people come up with are State court cases--every single one that I have ever heard. There may be one that I have not heard. Every one that Senator Thurmond comes up with, which are legitimate to come up with, every one I have mentioned, they are State cases. Let me explain what I mean by that. It means that somebody was indicted and/or on information arrested, taken to a State court, tried under State law, convicted under State law, made appeals under State law, instituted their attempts under State habeas corpus to say, ``No, I was wrongly convicted. My constitutional rights were violated when they convicted me. Do not set me free, but give me a new trial.'' That is what habeas does. It does not find you not guilty. It requires you get a new trial if it is granted and, ``Send me back to State court to be tried again.'' Now, what happens? All the delays, 99 percent of the delays--let me be conservative--90 percent of the delays, take the best case to my friends, are delays when you are in State courts, State courts, State courts. Now, what are we talking about in the terrorism bill? What is this bill we are passing? Is this a State bill? No; it is a Federal bill. If someone violates any provisions of this bill that we are about to pass, what happens to them? Do they go to State court and get tried in State court, and are they subject to the delays that occur in State courts? No; they go to a Federal prison. They get tried in a Federal court. They have Federal judges. They have Federal prosecutors. They have Federal people. No State judge gets to say a thing. No State prosecutor gets to appear in any position other than if they happen to be a witness. Now, where is the delay? Where is the Federal habeas corpus problem? My friends do not cite any. Even if they do, we have a provision in here that I support. We set a strict limitation in Federal court, in Federal habeas corpus, with a Federal prisoner, tried under a Federal law, convicted in a Federal court, sent to a Federal prison, that they have x number of months in which to appeal their case, to make their habeas appeal. They get one bite out of the apple. That is fair. But it does not even deal with anything anybody argues is a problem. It just guarantees if there is any problem, it will be corrected, and if there is not, it will not occur. Now, say somebody is convicted under this law. They are convicted under this new law we are passing. Where are they going to go? They are going to go to Federal court. Now, how does changing all the State habeas corpus cases have anything to do with terrorism? I would like to know that one. That is a fascinating notion, what we call in the law a non sequitur. It does not follow. It sounds reasonable. All the people sitting in the gallery when Senator Hatch, a worthy and knowledgeable advocate, stands up and says, ``This is very important. Habeas corpus is the most important tool we have to fight terrorism,'' you all go, ``I know Habeas, and I know Corpus, and they are real tough people. They are out there bombing people.'' Or, ``Boy, I know that makes sense. I know about all the delays. He is right.'' It has nothing to do with State courts because, by the way, I say to the Presiding Officer, who knows this well, if it is in a State court, it is not a Federal crime. If it is in a State court, the Federal Government is not prosecuting. If it is in a State court, it is not international terrorism. If it is in a State court, it is not a terrorist under this bill. Now, what is the obverse? If it is in a Federal court, there is no evidence of delay on habeas corpus to begin with. But even if there is, we do correct it in this bill. But even if it is a problem, and even if we correct it, the only way you get the person who is filing the habeas corpus petition is if they are already in jail convicted. Now, tell me--I ask, if I could, folks watching this, how many of you feel if we could say in a blanket way, ``We guarantee you that anybody already behind bars--already behind bars--will be executed in a timely fashion if convicted of a capital offense,'' that will solve our terrorism problem? Do you all feel better now about terrorism? Do you all feel more secure about whether anybody will go in the New York subway with saran gas? You all feel better that someone is not going to come up with-- another wacko--one of these bombs they make out in some field in southern Delaware or northern Delaware or Montana or Alabama, and blow up a building and kill children--do you feel better? This is crazy. This is crazy. It may be needed just like health insurance may be needed, just like better highways may be needed. But what does it have to do with terrorism? Let me give you the one possible nexus. Here is how it goes. The only intellectually, in my opinion, legitimate argument that connects it to terrorism goes like this; it says that if we convict a terrorist and send a terrorist to jail, and if a terrorist is not able to abuse the system--which nobody is arguing that the Federal habeas system is being abused anyway, and they know they cannot abuse it and they are likely to go to death in 6 months or 6 years, then they might not have committed the terrorist act in the first place. That is the only intellectually credible argument to be made as to how this could deter terrorism. Granted. So let us put that provision in the bill. But let us not go forward and say, with all due respect, this is going to change terrorism. I just asked a rhetorical question. Go back home and ask your constituents if they know that the appeal time has been cut from an average of 6 years to 6 months for people already convicted, and do they think we have licked terrorism. They will tell you that we imposed justice, they will tell you that we eliminated abuse, they will tell you that we saved money--all of which is true. But I defy you to campaign on the notion that you stopped terrorism by changing habeas corpus. Remember, folks, you already have to be in jail, convicted of a crime, in order to be able to file one of these petitions that you then abuse. Now, the Senate-passed version of this bill really did do some things beyond habeas. It had all this habeas stuff in it, which, by the way, is a phenomenal overreach, but that is a different issue. I am not going to fight that again. I will register here just that the changes in Federal habeas make sense. The changes essentially say you cannot review State court decisions in a Federal court as to whether or not the State court accurately interpreted the Federal Constitution. That is a bad idea. That is saying that you cannot review, as a practical matter, State court judges' decisions on the U.S. Constitution in a Federal court. I will not go into the history of why we did this in the first place back in the late teens of this century. But that is another issue. This is not an antiterrorism bill because it limits State habeas corpus. Unfortunately, what we have before us today is a conference report from which some of the most critical antiterrorism provisions are missing. My efforts to restore these tough provisions during the conference were unsuccessful. Despite the fact that the Republican chairmen on both sides, to their credit, acknowledged that they were good provisions, acknowledged that they were important provisions, acknowledged that they would work with me to pass these provisions in another form at a later date, and acknowledged that law enforcement needed some of these provisions very badly--notwithstanding that, notwithstanding that the majority of the members of the conference agreed with me, we voted them down. I say to my friend from California, who has not been here as long, I found it to be a fascinating experience that never happened to me before. I am used to getting beat flatout. I get beat a lot. I am used to that. I am used to winning once in a while, too. But I have never been beaten where everybody agrees with me and then they say, ``We cannot agree with you, Joe, because those guys and women over in the House, the minority within our party, do not like it.'' That is like me saying the four remaining liberals in the U.S. Senate--if there are that many--do not like something. Therefore, even though you are right and I agree with you, I am not going to go along with it. I am not being facetious. I respect their position because they want a bill badly. Apparently, the majority leader believes he needs a bill badly. Apparently, the President is concerned about having a bill. I am concerned about having a good bill. I am concerned about having the kind of bill we should have, the kind we passed. It was passed 91 to 6. That is the bill I am concerned about having. I was told the Republicans would oppose including these needed provisions in the bill because a group of Republicans in the House could not support the bill if they were included. In other words, a faction of Republicans--I might add that some liberal Democrats are agreeing with the ACLU. That is a fascinating combination. You know that phrase ``politics makes strange bedfellows.'' I want to tell you something. George Bush, or somebody, made famous the ACLU card, who carries that. When you have the people who carry ACLU cards and those who carry NRA cards sleeping in the same bed, it is fascinating. I would love to be in one of those meetings with the gunowners of NRA and the ACLU. Everybody is smiling. They are trying not to because they know how preposterous it is. It is fascinating. I am not being critical of either of the groups. It is human nature. They have objections for totally different reasons, as I understand it. They are a minority, no matter how you add them up. Yet, the majority in both parties is going to kowtow to them. I, quite frankly, do not understand this antipathy to fighting terrorists and holding them accountable. I do not understand how a small group of House Members has been able to seize control of the democratic process and block provisions that the vast majority of us support. I think it is wrong, and I think we in the Senate should insist on a terrorism bill that contains the tough provisions we passed more than 9 months ago. Today I will offer a number of motions to recommit this back to conference so the missing provisions can be put back. We must send the President a strong terrorism bill that addresses the very real threat posed by those who know only the language of terrorism and violence. But they are here at home and they are also abroad. They are both places, and we have to acknowledge that. Almost a year ago, after the tragedy in Oklahoma City, Speaker Gingrich issued a call to action. Let me quote him: This is the kind of exact moment when Americans ought to be Americans. We ought to pull together. We ought to send a unified response to terrorists at home and terrorists overseas that we are not going to tolerate this. The Speaker was absolutely right. We should pull together and send a message to terrorists. Let me ask you all a question, rhetorically. You are a terrorist planning a bombing. You are planning to put a chemical agent in the water supply in Minneapolis-St. Paul; you are planning to use a chemical weapon in Athens, GA, or in Atlanta at the Olympics; you are a terrorist planning to blow up the pyramid tower, the Transamerican Tower in San Francisco, to make my point. Now, what are you going to be most concerned about? Remember, we said, using the Speaker's words, this is to send a message to the terrorists. You are a terrorist planning this bombing, OK, or planning an act. Are you going to be more concerned that the Senate has just given the FBI the authority to wiretap not just the phone that you use in your house, but the phone that you have in your car, the one you have in your pocket that you keep throwing away and getting a new one so you cannot be detected, and the phone at the corner that you use to communicate your activities; are you more concerned that they may allow the Government to tap all those phones you are using? Or are you going to be more concerned that they change State habeas corpus? What do you think? What is going to send you a message? Are you going to be concerned if you are a terrorist planning an activity that if, in fact, you walk into Macy's Department Store and you plan a terrorist act like the IRA, and instead of using the bomb you use shotguns, you call the President of the United States, or you call the Governor of the State of California and say, ``Unless you do the following, we are going to walk into one of the largest malls in Los Angeles and indiscriminately kill people.'' And you walk in with a shotgun--12 of you, 10 of you, 3 of you--and you blow away, indiscriminately, 10, 20, 30, 50, 100 Californians. Under this bill, you cannot be prosecuted in Federal court. Guess why? Because there is no Federal predicate. It is not a Federal crime to use a shotgun in the State. What is going to send you more of a message? That, or the fact that State habeas corpus has been changed? What are you going to do? You are a terrorist. You decide you are going to use chemical weapons or biological agents. You are a terrorist. Now you learn that the Senate and the House just passed a bill that does not allow the Department of Defense, does not allow the military--the only ones with expertise in chemical warfare and biological warfare--does not allow them to participate in the investigation of your act. We affirmatively took that out of the bill. What message are we sending terrorists? Are you going to be more worried about a provision that allows the military to investigate chemical and biological warfare against American citizens, or are you going to be more worried about the State habeas corpus? That is what we did. That is what we did. We took it out of the Senate bill. This is not chopped liver, folks. This is serious stuff. Are you going to be more worried as a terrorist about to commit a crime, or having already committed one, that the Attorney General of the United States has the same authority that she now has with the Mafia; that, if she is convinced that an imminent act of danger is going to take place by a particular individual, she can order a wiretap that will last for 48 hours, and within those 48 hours she has to go to a Federal judge, convince that Federal judge she has probable cause to put that in place in the first place, and, if she did not, it gets thrown out? You can do it for John Gotti now. You can do it for organized crime now. But guess what? Our friends in the House decided you should not be able to do it for terrorists. What is the logic of that? Tell me. I do not ever remember being as upset about what has happened to a piece of legislation. Tell me the message we send to terrorists. What is the message you want to send them? ``Do not stop here. Wrong place.'' What is the message you want to send them? We have tools. If you are engaged in terrorist activities affecting Americans in the United States of America, to get you before you act, what are those tools? My friend was a prosecutor. Ask any prosecutor in here, ``What are the tools?'' Wiretaps, wiretaps, informants, information before the act occurs. But what do we do in this bill? We send a message to terrorists: ``Do not worry; no multipoint wiretaps for you.'' My friend from Utah says, correctly, that initially the President referred to the roving wiretaps. He says what the chairman of the House conference said, that that upsets people. They misunderstood. They thought they could indiscriminately put wiretaps. We know that is what they could do. The chairman of the Judiciary Committee knows it does not give the Federal Government that power, but because, apparently, whoever it was--talk show host, letter writers, or somebody--convinced them of that, they say we cannot pass it because the public misunderstands--misunderstands. How many people in the public do you think understand accelerated depreciation for equipment in factories? What do you think? Does anybody stand here on the floor and say, ``You know, because it is difficult for the public to understand that concept, we are not going to pass tax provisions that relate to accelerated depreciation?'' How many people understand on this floor, or off this floor, how the International Monetary Fund works? Do we sit here and say, ``You know, because if we took an exam, the American public would not know what it meant, therefore, even though we know it is good, even though we know it is in the national interest, we should not do it.'' That is just what we said; because people misunderstand what a roving wiretap is, we cannot have one. You are a terrorist. You are sitting there. You are the Unabomber-- allegedly, assuming he got caught. You are sitting in your old cabin watching portable TV, battery driven, and you see the Senate goes out and says, ``You know, do not worry. We are not going to wiretap.'' First of all, ``I do not have a phone. It does not matter. But when I go use a pay phone, they cannot get me now.'' Are you going to know? ``My God, they have this change in habeas corpus now. I am going to really worry about whether I commit this crime.'' I mean, come on. Come on. Ask any police officer if you have a case on terrorism. Would you rather have a change in State habeas corpus or the ability to have emergency wiretaps? Would you rather have a change in habeas corpus, or would you rather have multipoint wiretaps court approved? What do you think they are going to say? What do you think they are going to say? If you ask them, ``Would you rather have the health care system of America reformed or have that provision,'' they may say the health care system of America needs reform, but it has not anything to do with terrorists. They may want habeas corpus, but it does not deal with terrorism. It does not mean we should not include it. It sure means we should not advertise this legislation as legislation that fights crime. The destruction of Pan Am 103 reminds us that Americans are vulnerable wherever they are. The 1993 terrorist bomb at the World Trade Center in New York and the bomb blast at the Federal building in Oklahoma City were terrorist acts by anybody's definition. In response to the World Trade Center, Oklahoma City, et cetera, the President sent to the Congress the second bill focused primarily on international terrorism. Then, when the Oklahoma City blast occurred, he sent a bill that also addressed the domestic terrorist threat. Here in the Senate, the majority leader, Senator Dole, and Senator Hatch introduced a bill based in large measure on that proposal with some additions. They brought it to the floor within 2 months of Oklahoma City tragedy. The numbers in the President's proposals that were not initially included in the Dole-Hatch bill were added on the floor by overwhelming bipartisan support, and in the end the bill passed 91 to 8. Every one of the Senate conferees supported the bill. Think for a moment who we are talking about: Orrin Hatch, Strom Thurmond, Alan Simpson, Joe Biden and Ted Kennedy. It is not often you get this group all together on a major controversial piece of legislation. And, when you do, you can be sure that there is something we have seen precious little of around Washington: compromise and bipartisanship. The product of this compromise and bipartisanship was a bill that struck a key balance, a balance about protecting Americans from terrorists on the one hand while at the same time preserving the individual liberties that are the very hallmark of our American way of life--and the very thing that terrorists wish to take away. I am struck by an irony here. I am a guy who has been criticized about being too adamant about civil liberties. I am a person who has often on this floor been castigated by my Republican friends as being too concerned about civil liberties and am now being opposed by those who say these provisions that I feel strongly about pay too little heed to the civil liberties and give too many powers to law enforcement. Ever since I came to the Senate 23 years ago, I have made it my top priority, my nonnegotiable priority, to fight for civil liberties. I take a back seat to nobody when it comes to standing against the unwarranted expansion of Government power and standing up for the privacy rights and liberties of all Americans. Yet, I am here in support of a tough, comprehensive, well-balanced counterterrorism bill that all of you supported as well. With all due respect to my friends in the House, the conference report does not strike that balance and it does not do the job that must be done to protect Americans from the threat of terrorism. I believe Chairman Hyde was right when, during the House debate on the bill, he opposed the amendment offered by Congressman Barr of Georgia, stating, ``Passage of the amendment would leave the bill a frail representation of what started out as a robust answer to the terrorist menace.'' Let me say that again. On the floor of the House of Representatives the conservative chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Henry Hyde, when Mr. Barr introduced those amendments relating primarily, in this case, to the wiretap, said to his fellow Members of the House, if the Barr amendment passes, it will ``leave the bill a frail representation of what started out as a robust answer to the terrorist menace.'' He was right then. He is right now. What we have before us is a useful but frail representation of what started out to be a robust message sent to terrorists across the world, which was, ``Not here in the United States. We are empowering law enforcement, with the due respect and regard to American civil liberties, to have additional tools to fight terrorism.'' That, unfortunately, is not what has happened. Today, I and others will offer motions to recommit the bill to conference with the intent of saving this terrorism bill. I believe my friend when he says to me that, if this bill passes without being strengthened to something like it was before, that he will work with me to create another separate bill to add all these provisions that I want in the bill--or that we want in the bill. I believe him. But we know the process. This is going to be an extremely political year. The idea of anything passing here, with Senator Dole as the leader running for President, that is going to upset the folks over on the House side in the minority of his party, I think is less than real. It is understandable. It would be the same if there was a Democratic leader running for President. It is not likely to happen. I doubt whether anyone here will stand on the floor and tell you there is even a 1 in 10 chance of passing any of the things I am going to raise or my friend from California is going to raise as independent pieces of legislation. This is our chance. So, at a minimum we are talking about a year or two delay. And how many terrorist acts might we have prevented if we had given the law enforcement officials the tools that we are taking away from them here? How many? Pray God none. Pray God someone will be able to be here, assuming I am here in 2 years, to stand on the floor and say: ``Biden said in mid-April of 1996 that if we do not put these provisions in the bill, we would have lost the ability to stop some terrorist acts. I would like to say to Senator Biden, there have been no terrorist acts in 2 years, so he was wrong.'' I will gladly, overwhelmingly, with joy in my heart, say, ``You were right, Senator. I was wrong. We did not have any terrorist acts in 2 years.'' But, can anybody deny that denying the Federal Government the ability to wiretap like they can for the Mafia, denying the Federal Government the ability, with probable cause signed by a Federal judge, to wiretap people suspected of terrorist activities--that is not going to enhance the chance we stop it? Today we will have a rollcall on a number of these votes. Today, I and others will offer motions to recommit the conference report. We must restore what the President, Senator Dole, Senator Hatch, Chairman Hyde, Representative McCollum and many others on both sides of the aisle in both Houses thought were important at one point, which is to take a clear and unequivocal stand against terrorists, whether they are overseas or in our own homeland. As the President has said, we must be guided by three bottom-line goals. First, we must protect Americans without curtailing Americans' rights. Second, we must give law enforcement officials the tools they need to protect Americans from terrorist attacks. And third, we must make sure that terrorists are not given safe haven, support, and comfort here in our country. I end by complimenting my friend from Utah for fighting hard to get these and other provisions back in the bill. He got some of them back in the bill in a conference, in his meetings with House Members. But in my view, he did not get the single most important provision in the bill. That is why, as a Congress, we must give the FBI authority to use wiretaps in criminal investigations; where we wrote special stringent protections into the statute in order to protect legitimate private interests. Each and every one of these protections range from strict probable cause showing to approval by a Federal judge to a requirement that officers minimize intrusive wiretaps, and time limits on any authorization will remain in the law. Wiretap proposals I will seek to include in the conference report are limited and modest, but they are urgently needed so we can identify and stop terrorists before--before-- before--before--before they strike. In the Senate, Senators Nunn and Thurmond hammered out a very limited and commonsense provision to involve the military if we should ever, God forbid, face an emergency involving biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction. Remember, we are talking about only technical and logistical support from the military, not law enforcement. We are talking about an emergency involving biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction; something the military is especially trained and equipped to deal with. The military, I might also add, has this limited authority when it comes to nuclear weapons now. Senator Nunn has now perfected that language, and we should include his provision in this bill. The conference report also fails to include a number of other provisions in the Senate bill which I believe the conference report should contain, including the following: We should add terrorism crimes to the list of RICO predicates, that is those laws which are designed to deal with organized crime, and make the penalties harsher. We should make it a crime to teach someone how to make a bomb when they intend it to be used. That is what the Senator from California will speak to again. We should extend the statute of limitations for certain firearms offenses, as we do for other offenses. All the provisions I have just mentioned were contained in the Senate bill which, as I said earlier, passed with the votes of 91 Senators and all the votes of us representing the Senate in the conference. What is more, at the same time that the conference bill goes easy on terrorists, it gets tough on law enforcement officials. For example, the House had stripped from the original bill a provision that would have helped protect police officers from cop killer bullets. Let me explain that just for a minute. In 1986, and again in 1994, the Congress outlawed a few bullets capable of penetrating body armor worn by our Nation's police officers for their protection. The key problem with this approach is that it is possible, indeed altogether probable, that a new bullet can be manufactured and brought to the market before Congress can pass legislation to stop it. For that reason, many had sought a performance test. In other words, let us all agree on a test that will determine what kinds of bullets can penetrate the body armor typically used by police officers. Then bullets that fail the test, so-called cop killer bullets, would be banned before they can see the light of day or kill a cop. The bill reported out of the House Judiciary Committee by Chairman Hyde contained the first modest step for this commonsense approach. It contained a study, just a study to determine if there is a fair test to determine whether or not a cop killer bullet is just that or is not that. But even this modest step forward was changed in the conference report. The conference bill includes a provision added on the House floor to study how police officers are killed, with mandatory participation by national sporting organizations. What do they know about cops being killed? The study is a setup. We already know that armor-piercing bullets have never actually killed a cop, but that result is because we have been able to ban armor-piercing bullets before they are marketed. So the so-called study in the conference report is a first step, it seems to me, in an effort to stop any action that may keep cop-killer bullets off the street. I found this astounding. It seems to me the conference report, while stripping out a number of provisions to crack down on terrorists, would make our law enforcement officers, who every day put their lives on the line, fair game for criminals in ways they are not now. The conference report orders a commission to study not the terrorists but Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials who work to protect Americans from terrorism. Again, I find this astounding. I hope the police officers of America are listening to this. This bill calls for a study of American police officers. Did you hear what I said? A study of American police officers, not a study of terrorist groups, a study of American police officers. I want to repeat, it is my intention to send the President a tough comprehensive bill. Since the conference report does not meet this standard, I will offer a series of motions to recommit the bill so that we get it right. I hope all of my colleagues will support just what they supported before. I am not asking anybody to change their mind. I am satisfied if the six people who voted against it before vote against it again, but I hope that we have a principled vote here where people vote the way they did before on these issues and not be cowed by a minority in either party, in either House at any time. I yield the floor. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.

Mr. BIDEN. I will respond to that later, Mr. President.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. I have no objection to keep going now. That is a call of the leadership. That is up to them. In the meantime, while we are figuring out how long we are going to go----

Mr. BIDEN. I offer a motion on behalf of Senator Nunn and myself to recommit the conference report with instructions to add a provision to give the military authority in the cases of emergency involving chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction. Mr. President, once I formally make that motion, I would suggest to my colleagues that we will regret mightily if there is a chemical attack and this does not pass. I now formally offer that motion to recommit.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, once again, my friend misses the point. I am not objecting to the State portion being put in here. That is not relevant. It has nothing to do with terrorism. It is not going to effect the bill. My colleague talks about this having an impact on terrorism. I believe we should reform State habeas corpus. We should, and it is appropriate to do it in this bill, as long as my friend from Washington does not have any illusions that he can go back and tell the people of Washington that by effecting State habeas corpus he has done something about terrorism. That is the point. It is relevant, just not relevant to stopping terrorism. The second point I will make--and then I will make my motion--is that people have been asking me about time. I am willing to enter into a time agreement. There are a maximum of a possible 14 motions. I doubt whether they will all be used. I am prepared to agree to one-half hour, equally divided, and to a time certain to vote tomorrow, or tonight, or whenever anybody wants to vote on it. So I want everybody to know that. I understand we may be trying to work that out now.

Mr. BIDEN. I would be happy to do that. Motion to Recommit

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

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am sure my friend from Washington is aware that these are Federal offenses we are creating here. They have nothing to do with State habeas corpus. He is aware of that, is he not?

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I hope both of my friends from Oklahoma and my friend from North Carolina--speaking to my friends from Oklahoma-- understand that we do not want the delay in this bill. This bill got delayed in the House of Representatives for close to 6 months. I did not hear people coming to the floor with me and saying, ``Where is the bill, where is the bill, where is the bill, where is the bill?'' Now we are told to make this bill workable, and we should not attempt to do better. I cannot believe the Senator from North Carolina would support a provision allowing, for example, someone to be taught how to make another fertilizer bomb to blow up another Federal building--maybe this one in North Carolina--and maybe learn how over the Internet. He would not want that to happen. Yet, he is probably going to vote against adding that provision back into the bill. He will probably vote, ``No, I will not send it back to the conference and have them include that provision.'' We had a provision saying you cannot teach people how to make fertilizer bombs, plastic bombs, and baby food bombs on the Internet, when you know the intent is for that person to use it. Yet, they are all going to stand here and vote against me on that. I find that fascinating. I hope the folks in every one of our districts remember this. They are going to vote against me when I say we want to prevent future Oklahomas. We want to take care of those victims of Oklahoma and make sure retribution is had. That is why the crime bill I authored set the death penalty for it. And there would not even be a death penalty had President Clinton's crime bill not passed. Those people in Oklahoma would not be able to get the death penalty. Some of my colleagues voted against the crime bill, and now they are hailing the death penalty. The only reason why those people are being tried and, if convicted, will get death, is because of the crime bill they voted against. I find this kind of fascinating logic going on here. The third thing I point out, and that was tried in Federal court--and then I will yield to my friend from Georgia, who has a very important amendment or very important motion to make--I also point out that we should be worried about future victims. Future victims. The comment was made--and a legitimate comment--by one of my colleagues a moment ago, when he said, ``On behalf of the victims of the bombing in Oklahoma, please pass this bill.'' On behalf of the tens of millions of Americans who may be the next victims, on behalf of them, please give the police the authority they need to enhance their ability to prevent future Oklahomas by allowing them to wiretap these suspected terrorists under probable cause, just like we do the Mafia. What is good enough for the Mafia ought to be good enough for a bunch of whacko terrorists. So not only mourn those who died, which I do, but pray for those who are living that they continue to be able to live. I mean, how in the Lord's name can we, after Oklahoma, stand here on the floor and vote against the motion I predict they will vote against which says you cannot teach someone how to make a fertilizer bomb on the Internet when you know it is going to be used? They are going to vote against that. What about future Oklahomas? I see my friend form Georgia is ready to proceed. So I will yield the floor for the purpose of his making his motion after I make a concluding statement. In each of these amendments that I offered yesterday, Chairman Hyde in the transcript of yesterday's proceedings said--this is what this is all about--and I quote. He said: Mr. Chairman, [Chairman Hyde speaking] may I say something? Mr. Chairman, let us cut to the chase. I agree with the Senator [i.e. Senator Biden] and have always agreed with the Senator on this issue, the wiretap issue. The facts of life are that we lose about 35 votes in the House if we pass the wiretap provision. That is what this is about--35 folks in the House who do not like it. That is why we are going to vote against our interest probably in the next couple of hours. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today, I would like to offer a tribute to one of the outstanding citizens of my State, one of those citizens who truly represents the best not only of Delaware but of America--the best of our heritage and our hope, the best of our national spirit of community. It will surprise no one to learn that the citizen I'm describing is a volunteer firefighter. Wayne A. Steen, Sr., joined the Mill Creek Fire Co. on October 2, 1967, as a member of its youth division, Explorer Post 921. In the course of his 4 years of membership, Wayne served as both president and chief of the post. On September 22, 1971, just a few days passed his 18th birthday, Wayne Steen became a full member of the Mill Creek Fire Co. For 20-plus years after, he served the company in virtually every office and on virtually every committee, putting in more than a thousand hours and responding to about 600 fire and ambulance runs--those are not career totals; that's 1,000 hours and 600 runs per year--and earning three citations for heroism and leadership. In addition, Wayne Steen has served as a director of both the New Castle County and the Delaware State Fire Chiefs Associations, and he was long an active member of the Delaware Valley regional association and the International Society of Fire Service Instructors. Wayne Steen's fire service career represents literally the best of the best--exceptional leadership in a group of exceptional leaders, exceptional citizenship and commitment in a group defined by active concern for neighbors and community, and by selfless dedication to protect and promote the public safety. Because of Wayne's extraordinary community leadership and service, June 12, 1995, marked a great public as well as personal tragedy. At this point, this tribute becomes a little difficult for me. First, Wayne Steen is someone I've known and worked with for many years, someone I'm proud to call a friend. And second, Wayne fell victim to a medical condition that I was lucky to survive without any long-term disability. Wayne was not as lucky, and it is hard to reconcile my good fortune with the challenge he and his family continue to face every day. On that date last June, Wayne was in command of a group of firefighters at the scene of a fatal traffic accident. While on duty, he fell victim to the sudden strike of a brain aneurysm, which left him in a coma. When I went to see Wayne in the hospital, there seemed to be little doubt that his condition would do anything but worsen. He was 41 years old. With medical care, the support of his family and friends, and, I have absolutely no doubt, by some force of his own will that no mere physical condition could defeat, Wayne's condition was stabilized, and he was able to leave that hospital room where I saw him last summer. But still the struggle had just begun, and it will be a lifelong battle for Wayne and for the family and friends who fight by his side. It is tempting to describe Wayne Steen as a fallen hero, but I do not think it would be right to do so. Certainly, he is a hero, and had earned the right to be thought of as such long before last June. His fire service career was, in fact, as good a living definition of citizen-heroism as we are likely to find, and we should--and must--honor such service always. But Wayne Steen is not fallen, because he has stood too tall, and he has elevated us all too much. Wayne Steen devoted much of his spirit-- as well as his time and his talents--to serving a great and essential ideal, and if some part of his spirit has left this life, I have no doubt that it has risen to a higher one. Wayne is not fallen because he serves us still, as long as his example of citizenship continues to call to the best in all of us. We honor leaders like Wayne Steen best not with our words but when we continue their work, when we learn that they have given so much because their purpose is so important to us all. And we honor them best when we recognize and fulfill our obligation to those who put themselves at risk to protect our families, our homes, and our communities--our obligation to support them in their service and, when tragedy strikes, in their need. We must be there for people like Wayne, who have always been there for us. Wayne's family--especially his wife, Terry, and their children, Phillip, Wayne, and Heather--have been there for him in the way we would all hope to support a loved one through such a traumatic ordeal. Their courage, dedication, and strength continue an inspiring family tradition. The members of the Mill Creek Fire Co., as well as the broader fire service community, have also kept their faith with Wayne and with the Steen family, another great tradition--members of the fire service always keep the faith. There is no escaping that what happened to Wayne Steen is a tragedy, the kind that cannot be explained, and I do not want to minimize in any way the depth of the loss or the difficulty of the struggle. Our tears are more than justified. Yet still, through our sadness and in asking Americans to offer prayers and good wishes in support of Wayne and his family, I would also ask that we not forget the immeasurable triumphs of Wayne Steen's life and spirit. Let us not forget the lessons he has taught us by his citizenship, let us not forget the purpose to which he sacrificed so much. Let us not forget the bond and obligation we share as fellow citizens--let's take care of each other more often, let's work together better. Let's remember how lucky we are. That's what Wayne Steen would want, and we owe it to him.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I have two comments I would like to make. I first would like to respond very briefly to a speech earlier in the day made by one of my colleagues before I discuss the foreign relations authorization bill pending before the Senate. I would like to address briefly the earlier comments of my good friend, the distinguished Senator from Arizona, regarding the President's involvement in resolving our trade impasse with Russia. The distinguished Senator suggests that it was inappropriate for the President to impress upon Mr. Yeltsin that the poultry industry is important to Mr. Clinton's home State, as well as to many other parts of America; I must say forthrightly, the single most important industry in my State. Since Russia announced over a month ago that it was banning the import of all American poultry, I have been in daily contact with the White House, our Trade Ambassador Mickey Kantor, and our Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman, to keep this $500 million market open to American poultry growers. Fortunately, the hard work of the administration has paid off. Just this week the Russians announced that they are backing down. This would not, in my view, have been possible without the direct involvement of the President, the Vice President, Ambassador Kantor and Secretary Glickman. Since 1982, Sussex County, one of our counties in Delaware, has remained the No. 1 broiler-producing county in the United States of America. The Delmarva peninsula is home to 21,000 poultry workers, and produces more than 600 million birds per year. It is a major supplier of the Russian poultry market. Last year, for example, one major Delaware producer exported 1,300 tons of frozen poultry to Russia. Another exported $10 million worth of poultry products. Those of us who understand this industry know that it is under increasing competitive pressure as grain prices soar and the price of other meats fall. But, they know how to prosper in a competitive environment. That is why we can ship higher quality poultry to Moscow and Saint Petersburg and still beat their prices. In turn, it is the responsibility of this and, I believe, every administration to maintain the open international markets that they need, not only for American poultry but for all American products. Keep in mind that Russia's market was closed as recently as 1991. Now, Russia purchases $500 million worth of poultry every year, and the market has been growing. This is just one of the many products they purchase. This has been a real success story for American exports. Of American exports, the agricultural community is the only real success story in American exports of continuing, year-in-and-year-out consequence. I, for one, think it is perfectly appropriate, as a matter of fact absolutely necessary, for the President of the United States, in this case President Clinton, to let President Yeltsin know just how important these exports are. I cannot think of any better way for a President to drive the point home than to make this issue personal. I wanted very much for the President to successfully resolve this problem of the poultry industry. As any negotiator on the floor of this Senate understands, the one way in which, on a close call, we all appeal to our colleagues ultimately is we say: This is personal to me. This is personal to me. Mr. Yeltsin is a politician. Every world leader is a politician. Politicians in international relations react no differently than politicians on the Senate floor. I think it was perfectly appropriate and necessary for the President to use everything in his arsenal to convince the Russians not to violate international trade agreements with regard to poultry or anything else. Mr. President, I believe that the people who disagree with the President acknowledge he is a master communicator. You can bet Yeltsin got the message. So let us keep the big picture in mind and not get hung up on questions of style. The results, which are keeping 500 million dollars' worth of export markets open, speak for themselves. I think this is an important achievement on President Clinton's part and an important international trade issue. Had he failed, it would have set the precedent for significant trade consequences for the United States, and not just in poultry. I think most Americans, regardless of political party, feel the President did the right thing. I know I think he did the right thing.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I would now like to register my strong opposition to the question we are about to vote on, the conference report on H.R. 1561, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act. In spite of some modifications, this report still, in my view, suffers from the fatal flaws that afflicted the Senate bill which we voted upon in December and I voted against. This conference report would abolish three agencies that continue to serve the interests of the American people: The Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, the U.S. Information Agency, and the U.S. Agency for International Development. While unwisely folding these agencies into the Department of State, it would severely cut funding for diplomatic activities, thereby further undermining our ability to carry out a coherent foreign policy. The report also includes a sadly inadequate sum for foreign assistance, contains language that would be extremely damaging to POW/ MIA identification in Vietnam, unwisely tampers with the 1982 joint communique with China, and generally attempts to give the impression that it is an internationalist piece of legislation. Mr. President, the intent and impact of this legislation is not internationalist at all. No, the report is, in fact, yet another attempt at backdoor isolationism, in my view. The legislation has its genesis in a deeply flawed ideological belief that no matter what the objective facts are, less Government tomorrow is better than whatever level of Government we have today. Following this simplistic logic, we have three independent agencies today so let us have two, or one, or even none tomorrow. Never mind that all three agencies--ACDA, USIA, and AID--have all made significant strides in restructuring their activities and saving large sums of money and large sums of taxpayer dollars on their own accord. Never mind that the missions of all three of these agencies are even more important today than they were during the cold war. Less is more, so hack away. If this act were anything more than a numbers game, it would not blithely give the President a waiver authority to save up to any two agencies of his choice. It is like picking draft choices. I will trade you one and you pick any two you want. It has nothing to do with anything other than the notion that less is better. For, if it were otherwise, we would say, ``Mr. President, you must deal specifically with this agency or that agency.'' This, however, is like giving up future draft choices. The legislation appears at first glance to have been crafted in blissful ignorance, both of what has been going on in our foreign policy apparatus for years and what it takes to conduct American foreign policy around the globe today. How else could one explain ignoring ACDA's increasingly critical watchdog role in nuclear nonproliferation. It does not matter that the cold war is over. We now face the danger of nuclear weapons in the hands of several new countries, including rogue States like Iran and Libya. Moreover, terrorist groups threaten to get ahold of nuclear material for the purpose of blackmailing entire cities and potentially nations. Now, more than ever, we need the proven expertise and independent judgment of ACDA. Can we really believe that the drafters of this legislation are unaware of USIA's technologically sophisticated efforts to bring America's message to the world? Do they also not know that American public affairs officers are often our embassies' most proactive diplomats? Can they not see that merging them into a large bureaucracy would inevitably smother their creativity? Mr. President, is it credible to believe that the innovative public- private enterprise funds that USAID has pioneered in Central and Eastern Europe have escaped the notice of the sponsors of this legislation? Do they really not comprehend that development aid is a cost-effective way to head off crises around the world? No, I think the answer to all these questions is clear: Less is more, so let us slash, let us slash. It is bad enough that absorbing these agencies would rob them of their independence that has served this Nation so well for decades. But, Mr. President, this legislation adds insult to injury by denying the State Department the necessary funding to adequately carry out the new functions it will now inherit, along with its current duties as the principal vehicle for the carrying out of U.S. foreign policy. The sponsors of this legislation would have us believe that a profligate and bloated bureaucracy needs to be cut down to size. In my view, nothing can be further from the truth. The international affairs budget is now 45 percent lower than it was in 1984. Altogether, it represents only 1.3 percent of Federal spending. Over the past 3 years alone, the State Department's budget has been cut in real terms by 15 percent, at the same time the Department's responsibilities have been increased with the birth of many new countries out of the wreckage of the Soviet Union. We see what is happening in Bosnia. We know what is happening in all the former Soviet republics, and it makes sense for us not to have a presence there? It makes sense for us not to be involved? It makes sense for us to close embassies? It makes sense for us not to open consulates? I cannot believe that is what is motivating this legislation. It is simply this notion that we should cut and slash. Forced to respond to these fiscal stringencies, the State Department has taken some very painful measures: It has cut its total work force by 1,700 persons. It has downsized the Senior Foreign Service by almost one-fifth, and, in my opinion, this measure is a thoughtless waste of a national resource. It had to cancel, for example, the 1995 and 1996 Foreign Service examinations--in effect, a tragic waste of a future national resource, namely, the best and the brightest college and university graduates who will be unable to join our diplomatic corps and serve this Nation. It has cut its administrative expenses by nearly $100 million. Anyone visiting an American embassy abroad has seen our highly trained professionals doubling- and even tripling-up in cramped office space, even as they routinely work 12 hours a day or more. Yet, Mr. President, some politicians see fit to use the Foreign Service and other agencies as whipping boys in an attempt to fuel this mindless anti-Government feeling that afflicts some of our fellow citizens. I regret to say that last summer, one of our colleagues and a good friend of mine castigated American diplomats for allegedly working in ``marble palaces'' and ``renting long coats and high hats'' only a few weeks after Bob Frasure, Joe Kruzel, and Nelson Drew were killed on the Mt. Igman Road above Sarajevo--working not in a marble palace, but in an armored personnel carrier, and wearing fatigues, not long coats and high hats. Finally, the State Department has been forced to close a string of diplomatic posts, thereby severely hampering our ability to carry out political, economic and cultural diplomacy in an increasingly competitive world. I come from a State where there are a number of multinational corporations. They have historically--not solely, but in part--had access and information provided to them through economic and commercial officers at our consulates and our embassies. Why are we closing them? In the name of economy, in the name of the long-term future of American economic growth? What is the reason? From all this, any objective observer, in my view, can see that the foreign policy apparatus of the United States has already been pared down to the bone. What does this legislation do? After mandating that the State Department assume the functions of ACDA, USIA and AID, it calls for further budget cuts of $1.7 billion over the next 4 years. I think this is a shell game which ends with nothing left under any one of the shells. In effect, this legislation will also cripple our ability to head off crises around the world through diplomacy that this President and future Presidents of the United States will be faced with the stark choice of either doing nothing or sending in the military. Let me make a truly radical suggestion, Mr. President. This year we gave the Pentagon $7 billion more than it asked for. I have consistently supported keeping the U.S. military the strongest military in the world, and I continue to do so. But why not give the Pentagon only $5 billion more than it asked for and transfer the remaining $2 billion to the international affairs budget, keep the three agencies functioning, and enable this country to get back into the big leagues of international diplomacy? Unfortunately, with our backdoor isolationists in control of this Congress, this perfectly sensible suggestion, I believe, is totally impossible. No, Mr. President, this conference report is a triumph of ideologically driven romanticism. It speaks to an earlier, simpler age. Unfortunately, though, we are approaching the turn of the 21st century. The world is ever more complex, not simple, and closing our eyes will not make the complexity go away. This bogus administrative reform, combined with purposefully punitive budget cuts, is no more than backdoor isolationism, in my view. This conference report ought to be titled ``The Smoot-Hawley Foreign Policy Act of 1996.'' It is a blueprint for the affairs of an inward looking, minor nation, not the world's only remaining superpower. As you might guess, I will cast my vote against this backdoor isolationism, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the same. This is not a time to turn inward. This is a time to look outward. This is a time to claim our mantle, to engage in diplomacy, and to help shape a world that will make it safer and economically more viable for Americans to live in. I thank my colleagues for their indulgence and yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I have for many years now supported a line- item veto that can help to wipe out wasteful special-interest spending items that are added to our appropriations bills. But I have also cosponsored and supported line-item veto authority for the President that includes the authority to cut special-interest tax breaks, that lose money from the Treasury as surely as any spending program. In many ways they weaken our control over the deficit more than annual spending bills. Because tax breaks characteristically last for years with little or no review, they can cause more damage than any single item in 1 year's appropriations bill. The line-item veto we passed out of the Senate last year, the separate enrollment version that I have consistently supported for over a decade, included clear and strong language that put special-interest tax breaks under the same veto power as any pork-barrel spending project. Unfortunately, the version that came out of conference with the House has so diluted that provision that it may well apply to virally no tax breaks. That is why I will vote for Senator Byrd's proposal, that restores the clear authority to cut tax breaks as well as special-interest spending. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I have long supported an experiment with a line-item veto power for the President. Over a decade ago, I introduced my own plan for a line-item veto, with Senator Mattingly. Since then I have cosponsored several similar plans, in particular those offered by my distinguished colleagues Senator Hollings and Senator Bradley. I have held this position for all these years, Mr. President, not because I believe the line-item veto will solve our deficit problem. No single procedural change can do that. I support a line-item veto because it will, at the margins, shift the incentives now in our system to attach special-interest spending to our appropriations bills. To rein in that practice, Mr. President, we must expose it. The line-item veto will give the President a tool, if he chooses to use it, to raise the profile of wasteful, special-interest spending--to expose it to the light of public scrutiny. The need to track down and remove wasteful spending is not new, Mr. President, but it has never been more important than now. As we continue down the road toward a balanced budget, we must reserve every dime of taxpayers' money for the most important priorities of this country. Now, more than ever, waste in one program will require cuts in more deserving areas. So we must do all we can do to change the incentive to smuggle such spending into appropriations bills in the first place, or to give the President the power to cut it out once it gets there. Mr. President, the version of the line-item veto that I have consistently supported is not the one before us now. Nevertheless, I will vote for this line-item veto plan today, because I believe that it can be a useful check on wasteful spending, at a time when we must subject every dollar we spend to the most careful scrutiny. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to explain the difference between the version I have consistently supported--the one, I must add, that we passed out of the Senate last year--and the version here before us today. I have long held that separate enrollment is the best approach, in contrast to the enhanced rescission plan before us now. But what do those fancy titles mean? The separate enrollment approach to the line-item veto is the one that I have supported, and the one that I think most people have in mind when they think of a line-item veto. Quite simply, separate enrollment requires that the Congress take each item in the spending bills we pass and send them to the President separately, instead of lumped together as we do it now. We used to send individual spending items to the President separately, back before the Civil War. I believe that the separate enrollment approach would restore a relationship between Congress and the Executive that was upset by the practice of lumping those items together. To that extent, it would be less disruptive of the constitutional relationship between the branches of our Government. The way we do it now, we send the President every item for national defense, for example, in a single spending bill. If the President believes that there are too many tanks, or too many trucks, or too many missiles, he must veto the entire national defense bill to cut out the spending that he doesn't want. We write bills that way on the bet that the President will accept additional spending as the price of getting our national defense or other basic needs paid for. And, we must admit, Mr. President, we write bills that way because it serves the needs of individual Members of Congress to have their special projects--that on their own merits, in the cold light of day, could not muster a majority vote--to have those special projects pulled through the process by the locomotive of essential legislation. By sending each item of spending to the President as individual bills--by separate enrollment of each item--Congress would expose each of those items to the scrutiny it deserves, would remove the camouflage of the larger spending bills. The modest hope is not that the President will, willy-nilly, cut and slash special-interest items. Rather, the expectation of those of us who have promoted this idea is that Members of Congress--confronted by a President with this new power--would choose not to include those special interest items that cannot pass the threshold of public scrutiny. That is essentially the version that we passed out of the Senate last year, Mr. President, with one important addition. We included special interest tax breaks among the items the President could veto. Those tax expenditures lose money from the Treasury just as surely as any spending program. And as for those items vetoed by the President, the normal constitutional procedures would apply--two-thirds majorities of each House would be required to override the veto, to restore the spending that the President has cut. I have supported that approach as the one that least disturbs the constitutional relationship between the President and Congress, particularly on the crucial issue of the power of the purse. I was heartened when that was the version passed by the Senate last year. By the same token, Mr. President, I am less happy about the version before us today. But because I am still convinced that we need to improve our capacity to discourage if possible, and to cut out if necessary, any wasteful, special-interest spending, I will vote for this version. The line-item veto bill before us today provides for a procedure that is more correctly known as enhanced rescission. It greatly transforms a Presidential procedure that right now has virtually no teeth--the rescission. Currently, the President may tell Congress that he doesn't want to spend funds for one or more items in a spending bill that he has signed into law. But that will have no effect unless the Congress chooses, on its own, to pass a rescissions bill that may or may not include the items specified by the President. If Congress chooses not to act, the President remains obligated to spend those funds in the legislation he has signed into law. So right now the rescission power doesn't amount to much, Mr. President, unless Congress decides on its own to make it law. The bill here today would change that, would put real teeth in the rescission power. It would give the power of the law to a President's decision not to spend money on those items he chooses. That decision would become law unless Congress passed a specific bill to disapprove of his action. If Congress did not act, then the President's decision to cut those items would stand. If Congress did pass a bill that disapproved of the President's cuts, the President could then use his veto power, which would require a two-thirds majority of each House of Congress to overturn. This is a powerful new tool in the hands of the President. That is why I have always held that we should experiment with the line-item veto--that we should set a date certain on which the legislation will sunset. This line-item legislation provides for an 8-year experiment, after which it will terminate unless Congress agrees that the experiment has produced more benefits than costs. This is longer than I think is necessary--particularly if we discover unintended consequences--but it does provide for two Presidential administrations over which to test the merits of this proposal. I am more disappointed that the President's ability to cut special interest tax breaks has been severely weakened in conference with the House. The remaining provision would apply to only a few tax items--in fact, with clever tax lawyers on the job, it could well apply to virtually no tax breaks. So, Mr. President, like so much legislation we consider and that becomes law, this line-item veto bill advances a worthy cause--cutting out waste and special-interest spending--but not in the ways that all of us may agree with. As someone who has for years advocated the separate enrollment method of line-item veto, I wish we had chosen that route. But there is a more fundamental question--Will we give the President a power that will expose congressional spending to a higher level of scrutiny? Will we take an additional step to prevent the inclusion of special-interest spending in our appropriations bills? I am willing to take that step, Mr. President, and will vote for the conference report.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I come to this debate on the minimum wage from a different perspective than some of my colleagues here today. In January of this year, my State of Delaware decided to raise the minimum wage, after a debate a lot like the one we are hearing today. We like to think that Delaware is a special place, Mr. President, and in many ways it is. But it is also a lot like the rest of the country. We have big businesses and small, we have world-class high-technology businesses in chemicals and pharmaceuticals, a cutting-edge financial service sector and--a lot of my colleagues are surprised when I tell them this--a major agricultural sector. With that kind of diversity, I think Delaware has something to teach the rest of the country. We are, after all, the first State to ratify the Constitution, so we think our example is worth following. The proposal we adopted in Delaware is much like the one before the Senate today. The proposal before us today would call for a two-step increase in the minimum wage, from the current $4.25 an hour to $5.15. In Delaware, we also chose a two-step increase, from $4.25 to $5.00. In my State, that increase will directly affect over 30,000 Delawareans and their families, 9.5 percent of the work force, just a little below the national average of 11.5 percent who currently work for the minimum wage. So Delaware is like the rest of the country, Mr. President, just a little bit ahead of everybody else when it comes to addressing the problem of stagnant family incomes in general and the shrinking value of the minimum wage in particular. And that is what I would like to talk about today, Mr. President--the puzzle of why, in a growing economy, with rising productivity and rising profits, a full-time job for hard-working adults has failed to provide a rising standard of living. The minimum wage itself provides one important illustration of this disturbing trend. Since 1991, the last time we raised the minimum wage--with a bipartisan majority, Mr. President, and signed into law by President Bush--the real spending power of the minimum wage has dropped nearly 50 cents. If we fail to raise the minimum wage, it will drop to a 40-year low when this year is over. Right now, you can put in a full 40-hour workweek, 52 weeks a year, and take home just $8,840, just three- quarters of the poverty level for a family of three. For those families, with a full-time worker, the current minimum wage is not even the minimum they need to stay out of poverty. That is something we cannot forget as we search for ways to convince more people to stay off of welfare and to turn away from crime. There are, unfortunately, other examples of the declining rewards of hard work for so many American families. It is not just those wage earners who are working to keep themselves and their families out of poverty who have seen their incomes stuck, who are running as fast as they can just to keep from falling further behind. Mr. President, the median wage--the real middle income statistically speaking--is actually 5 percent less this year than it was in 1979. This is happening in an economy that has been growing at about 2.5 percent over the same time. Where has all that growth been going? Who has gained from the growth in the economy? Between 1977 and 1992, the lowest 20 percent of American families saw their incomes drop 17 percent. But the top 20 percent enjoyed a 28-percent increase, and the top 1 percent saw their incomes shoot up 91 percent--virtually doubling. So there has been growth, Mr. President, but the distribution of that growth among working families has been increasingly unequal. Now, I for one do not think that human nature has changed all that much in the last 20 to 25 years. I do not think the richest 1 percent are suddenly twice as smart as they used to be, or that workers at the other end of the scale decided to become less productive. Something else is going on, Mr. President, something more fundamental and far reaching than a simple business cycle, perhaps something we have seen only a couple of times before in our Nation's economic history. There is a lot of evidence that the economy no longer functions the way it used to, that it no longer provides the stable, middle-income jobs that built America's middle class after World War II. As someone who has put his faith in the free enterprise system, Mr. President, I am inclined to see these changes as part of the way this system works--changing markets, changing products, changing skills have always been a key feature of the American economy. But while Americans have a strong tolerance--even an appetite--for the dynamic shifts that characterize our economic system, they have an equally strong sense of fairness. Americans expect that hard work will be rewarded--not with riches, maybe, but certainly with a little security and a little comfort. For far too many Americans, Mr. President, our system is providing far too much of those dynamic changes and far too little fairness. I don't want my colleagues to forget that the absolute, bedrock requirement of our democratic system is the belief by the majority of our people that they are being treated fairly. Because this is not just a free enterprise economy, Mr. President, that we have here in America. We are blessed to have a system of popular government that provides and protects the property rights that are the foundation of our economy. Take away that sense of fairness, take away the sense that at the end of the day, there is some justice in the way our capitalist democracy works, and people can start looking at other systems, other answers. The unhappy history of this century provides too many examples for us to blithely dismiss this problem. It is not too much to say that the real bottom line that we have to keep our eyes on is on the balance sheet of fairness. No amount of national wealth can buy that sense of fairness, no list of statistics can substitute for it. As an optimist, Mr. President, I do not believe we are facing an insurmountable crisis. In fact, by my reading, a large part of our history has been a pretty successful search for ways to balance the changing demands of a dynamic economy with the unchanging demand for some basic fairness, for some simple justice, in the way we reward work. We can make work pay, and make work a realistic alternative to the wasteful choices of welfare or crime, that will surely cost us more than the modest minimum wage bill before us today. So I urge my colleagues to follow the lead of my State of Delaware. Restore some of the historical value of the minimum wage, some of the justice that is the real bottom line in America.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, few who ever served in this body have been as universally mourned as those of us from both sides of the aisle who knew him will mourn our former colleague, Ed Muskie, who died here in Washington early this morning. The reports already circulating on the news wire services and the obituaries that will appear in tomorrow's newspapers, all will make much, and rightly so, out of his long and distinguished service as a public man. Few men or women in our history have contributed so much to the Nation as Ed Muskie did as a U.S. Senator for 21 years and as Secretary of State; few have contributed as much to their native State as Ed Muskie did as a member of the Maine House of Representatives and as Governor of the State he loved so much; and few have contributed as much to one of the major political parties as Ed Muskie did to the Democratic Party, which he served as a Vice Presidential candidate in 1968 and as chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. It is fitting that, upon his death just 2 days before his 82d birthday, Americans should be reminded of his long and faithful public service and leadership--but those of us who knew and served with Ed Muskie will remember him more familiarly as a man of principle, as a powerful personality, and, most of all, as our good friend. One thing that I learned very quickly, serving with him on the Budget Committee and the Foreign Relations Committee, was that while he exhibited the gravitas--the character and substance--that might be expected of a man whose full given name was Edmund Sixtus Muskie, he was a very human, very good-humored man--most of the time--who was most comfortable simply as Ed Muskie, and who if he was your friend was your friend for life. It is true that his good humor would sometimes momentarily desert him--he had a temper that verged on the volcanic, and he was capable of weeping public tears over an insult to the wife whom he loved--but those moments occurred, for the most part, because Ed Muskie never believed that a career in politics obliged his head to divorce his heart; despite a powerful intellect that won him a law degree, a Phi Beta Kappa key and a long, successful career both in law and in politics, he never believed that political feelings must somehow be set aside. He was passionate about his politics--he believed the work we do here is important to improving the lives of Americans--and he believed that what he felt was as important to achieving that end as what he thought. But though Ed Muskie sometimes wore his heart unashamedly on his sleeve, he was also very much a Yankee, very much a man of Maine, who put great stock in getting things done, and getting them done at the right price. By that I am not referring so much to his chairmanship of the Budget Committee--although he certainly exerted a strong hand at that helm, often to the dismay of bureaucrats throughout the land and not infrequently to Senate colleagues who failed to make a strong enough case for their favorite program--no, for him, getting things done at the right price meant achieving that meld of idealism and realism which we often say a democratic system of Government requires but which few of us ever achieve with the grace and consistency of an Ed Muskie. The people of Maine understood that as well as we did here in the Senate, and he understood and loved them, as well. I remember him saying one time, ``in Maine, we tend not to speak unless we think we can improve upon the silence.'' Out of his wisdom, out of his passion, out of his drive to get things done, Ed Muskie often spoke up for Maine and for America--and we need only feel the silence of his passing gather about us now to know how much he improved upon it during a long and accomplished life. In the words of William Shakespeare, ``he was a man, take him for all in all, [we] shall not look upon his like again.''

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am sorry that I cannot vote for this appropriations bill today. We must move quickly to resolve the issues that still remain from last year's prolonged, confrontational, and, in the end, fruitless budget debates. But this bill will not advance that cause. This bill, despite the best efforts of the distinguished leaders of the Appropriations Committee, still falls short. I am heartened that a majority of the Senate was moved to approve more adequate funding for our Nation's educational system. There is certainly no higher priority for us than preparing our country's young people for the future. But that is not the only priority our country has, Mr. President, nor is it our only responsibility here in Congress. And, I am sorry to say, I find that this bill does not fulfill those responsibilities. Our attempts to provide more support for the infrastructure investments we need for cleaner air and water were an inadequate step in the right direction. And we failed to meet our responsibility to maintain our country's hard-won superiority in high-technology research and development. It is surely a false economy if we claim that we must sacrifice clean air and clean water, that we must roll back the progress we have made in advanced technologies, to balance the budget. That is simply not the case. Amendments that provided more adequate support for those key national priorities at the same time specified the savings from other parts of the budget needed to neutralize their impact on the deficit. Mr. President, we could have met those responsibilities and still kept within the tight spending limits set by this bill. But we chose not to, Mr. President. And if the Senate bill falls short, Mr. President, the version of this legislation passed by the House, I fear is even worse. But, Mr. President, I must oppose this omnibus appropriations bill for one overriding reason--this bill slashes the effort to add 100,000 more police to our Nation's streets. This is the single-most-important crime-fighting initiative the Federal Government has undertaken in decades and I will not be party to any effort to go back on our word to add 100,000 police officers to the streets and neighborhoods all across America. I have spoken with the White House and the President agrees that the only course to take on the 100,000 cops program is unequivocal and unwavering support for adding 100,000 cops to our streets--all dedicated to community policing. This program is working--more than 33,000 police have already been funded. What is more, the results of community policing speak for themselves--more cops mean less crime. To cite just one specific example--look what has happened in New York City. More police devoted to community policing has proven to mean less crime--in the first 6 months of 1995 compared to the first 6 months of 1994: murder is down by 30 percent; robbery is down by 22 percent; burglary is down by 18 percent; and car theft is down by 25 percent. In the face of that success in fighting America's crime epidemic, it would be folly to go back on our commitment to adding 100,000 cops. ``If it ain't broke, don't fix it''--as a former President used to say. That, unfortunately, is exactly what the latest continuing resolution proposes to do--instead of fully funding the President's request for the 100,000 cops program, this latest proposal would slash the 1996 request for the cops program to $975 million--about one-half the $1.9 billion request. Not only is the 100,000 cops program subject to extreme cuts--but the latest continuing resolution also takes nearly $813 million that was supposed to go to the 100,000 cops program to fund a so-called law enforcement block grant program. What is wrong with this approach? First, this so-called law enforcement block grant is written so broadly that the money could be spent on everything from prosecutors to probation officers to traffic lights or parking meters--and not a single new cop. Second, this block grant has never been authorized by the Senate. So, let's be clear on what is being done here. What this continuing resolution does is take a crime bill that has been passed only by the House, whose funds have been authorized only by the House, whose block grant idea has already been rejected by the Senate, and incorporate it into an appropriations bill so it is passed and funded--all in one fell swoop. Mr. President, if we are going to legislate by fiat like this, then we might as well do away with committees, with hearings, with subcommittee markups, with full committee markups, and with careful consideration of authorizing legislation. We could simply do all the Senate's business on appropriations bills or continuing resolutions. I, for one, happen to believe that's a terrible way to proceed and I believe that's reason enough to oppose this bill. If the Republicans want to change the crime bill, they have the right to try--but let's do it the right way and then let's vote on it. Wiping out major pieces of the most significant anti-crime legislation ever passed by the Congress on an appropriations bill makes a mockery of our Senate process. The importance of the programs we are considering, not to mention the perception of our institution, demands better. Thank you, Mr. President. Vote on Amendment No. 3466, as amended

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by Senators Hatch, Shelby, and Grassley regarding the drug office. I strongly support the addition of $3.9 million to help our new Drug Director-- General McCaffrey--with the increased staff he needs. As my colleagues know, I have the distinction of being the author of the law that opened the Office of National Drug Control Policy. It took more than a decade worth of effort to start this office--the Reagan administration opposed my every effort to have a Drug Director. It was not until 1988 that they finally relented. Let me also offer a little history about why the Drug Office staff was reduced in the first place. Under the previous administration, the Drug Office had become overrun with political appointees. Frankly, it became a political dumping ground with the greatest percentage of political appointees of any Cabinet agency. This was not the only reason for the reduction in staff, but it was the key reason I did not oppose the reduction. But, today we have a new Drug Director, an accomplished, impressive general who has been tasked with the difficult job of bringing action to our national effort against drugs. The General has asked for, and the President has formally requested, an additional $3.9 million to increase the staff by 80 personnel. Today, we are offered an amendment sponsored by Republican Senators that provides what General McCaffrey requested. It is my hope that this signals that my Republican colleagues will be as supportive of General McCaffrey's future requests as they are of this one.