Joe Biden

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that would increase the Social Security earnings limit--the amount that senior citizens can earn before they start losing Social Security benefits. As my colleagues know, the earnings limit is currently $11,280, and it is increased each year for inflation. For seniors between the ages of 65 and 69, every $3 earned over that limit means a $1 reduction in Social Security benefits. It is almost hard to believe this issue is still around. I remember back in my first term in the Senate--in 1977--when I introduced similar legislation. At the time, the earnings limit was $3,000, and I tried to increase it to $6,000. I was prompted to do so in part because of a Delaware woman who came up to me at a meeting and told me that she was breaking the law. I wondered what crime could this sweet, frail, elderly woman be guilty of. And, she told me. She had a part-time job and was being paid in cash so that she would not have to report her income and thereby lose her Social Security benefits. She needed both to survive financially. In the years since then, I have heard other stories--they are practically endless. Imagine an elderly couple whose adult child develops some medical problem. Like most parents, they want to help their child--they do not abandon their parental instincts and concern just because they have turned 65. But, to meet the costs of caring for their child, they need to go back to work--and as a result, they will lose some of their Social Security benefits. Or imagine the case--and it happens all too often--where the husband dies. And the wife, who he supported financially, now faces a dilemma. Her widow's Social Security benefits are not enough. She must get a part-time job to maintain a living. So, she goes to work, but loses part of her Social Security benefits. Or imagine those senior citizens who just want to supplement their Social Security income--so they do not become dependent on welfare or on their own children, who are facing a financial squeeze of their own between their mortgages and putting their kids through college. Those seniors who want to ensure that they do not become dependent on others are penalized by having their Social Security benefits reduced. Mr. President, these stories illustrate the perversity of a low Social Security earnings limit. It discourages some seniors from working, penalizes other seniors for working, and makes criminals of some seniors who need both a paycheck and a Social Security check to survive. This is not right. So why does this policy even exist? Well, believe it or not, at one time, it had a very legitimate purpose. In the midst of the Great Depression roughly 60 years ago, unemployment was rampant. And, the plain fact was, we wanted senior citizens out of the work force so that there would be more jobs for young workers with young families. That is part of the reason why Congress created the Social Security earnings limit--to discourage seniors from working. A legitimate rationale at the time. But not today. Today, unemployment stands at a low 5.5 percent. And, the American economy, with a shrinking labor pool, is facing competition within an ever expanding global marketplace. So, just when we need experienced workers in the labor force, we are wasting the greatest source of experience--our senior citizens. Just when we should be encouraging seniors to stay in the work force, many elderly workers are better off earning less than earning more. These are seniors who wish to work--in some cases, must work--who would work hard, and who could add millions of dollars to our economy. But, many are not working because the Social Security earnings limit penalizes them for doing so. This is simply not fair to our seniors, and it is not good for this country. We should not penalize anyone for wanting to work and for wanting to supplement their income. And, we should not make criminals of those who do. Now, unlike some of my colleagues, I do believe that some earnings limit still has a place. Social Security is, after all, a retirement program, not a reward for becoming old. But, an earnings limit set at $11,280 simply has no rational basis whatsoever. And those it hurts are too often those who are already struggling. I find it interesting that the effect of such a low earnings limit is that working, middle-class seniors are penalized. They lose part of their Social Security benefits. But, the wealthy are treated differently. The elderly Donald Trumps and the elderly Ross Perots of the country have far greater incomes than $11,280, but they get those incomes from investments and unearned income. Therefore, they do not face the reduction in Social Security benefits that the middle-class faces. This needs fixing. So, Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today would increase the Social Security earnings limit to $14,500 next year and then gradually increase it over the following 6 years until the limit reaches $30,000 in the year 2002. In other words, seniors could earn up to $30,000 per year before their Social Security benefits begin to be reduced. Earlier this month, the Senate debated and failed to pass similar legislation introduced by Senator McCain. I want to commend the Senator from Arizona for his dedication to this issue over the last several years. And, I say to my colleagues that the bill I am introducing today is the same as the Senate considered--and unfortunately rejected--a few weeks ago, except in a couple of respects. First, my bill would also apply the increase in the earnings limit to blind recipients of Social Security benefits. Currently, blind individuals aged 55 and over qualify for Social Security disability benefits if their earnings are below the level of the retirement earnings limit. My proposal would retain this parallel treatment between the retired and the blind. The second major difference between my bill and the earlier McCain legislation is that my bill does not include an offset. I believe we must find a way to pay for this bill. But, it was clear that the vote to defeat an increase in the earnings limit earlier this month was based in part on the proposed offset. So, my hope is that by not specifying an offset now, we can work together in a bipartisan fashion to find a suitable way to pay for the costs of this proposal and increase the Social Security earnings limit. Mr. President, those senior citizens who want to work and those who must work to make ends meet should be honored and commended, not penalized by the Social Security system. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I will reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor. Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise to speak to the motion-- I will withhold sending it to the desk at the moment--that I intended to offer. Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep concern and, quite frankly, disappointment that this conference report comes back to us without an important Senate provision that enjoyed very strong, bipartisan support in the Senate. On June 21, by a vote of 64 to 36, the Senate voted to give our State Governors the option to use some of their Federal highway funds on intercity rail, that is for Amtrak. It was a proposal that Senator Roth and I introduced, along with Senators Boxer, Chafee, Cohen, Jeffords, Kerry, Lautenberg, Leahy, Moynihan, Murray, Specter, Pell, Snowe, and D'Amato. I point out to my colleagues that these are States with varying degrees of Amtrak service. As a matter of fact, the Governors of those States which have a limited amount of Amtrak service, have the greatest concern about being given this additional flexibility. The bottom line here is Amtrak has, as the distinguished chairman of the committee knows, out of necessity made some significant cuts in its operations over the last couple of years, in a sense downsized the number of trains it runs as well as the number of personnel that it has. The result of that has not affected, much, the Northeast corridor, where people have significant access to rail. But it has affected States like Montana, it has affected States like Vermont, it has affected States like Mississippi, because they have lost trains because we could not justify their cost based on these new, incredible restrictions placed upon Amtrak. I might note, by the way, although the reigning expert is on the floor--the Senator from Rhode Island--that I do not know of any national rail system in the world, as a passenger rail system, that runs on operating costs, on the money that it takes in. Everybody comes over and my conservative and liberal colleagues--there are not many liberals left--but my conservative colleagues come back from Japan and Germany or Europe and they say, ``Boy, we rode on these trains and they were something else. Why do we not have trains like that?'' They subsidize them, like we do the airlines. They subsidize them, like we do the highways. None of them make it based on the fare everyone pays. There would not be any airlines running, we could not afford any ticket, if the fare we paid did not cover the air traffic controllers, covered the runways, covered the towers, covered the places we land. They are subsidized. But, somehow--I am not speaking to anybody on the floor here in particular, because I know the Senator from Rhode Island is a champion of rail as well as highways--somehow, we look at the Amtrak ticket and say, ``Boy, they are really subsidized,'' because we have a direct appropriation and everybody can see it. At any rate, what happened was in a number of States, like the State of Montana, officials said, ``Look, there are one or two trains that run across Montana, that go across the Northwest to the State of the Presiding Officer, and we cannot justify, based on passenger load, keeping that train going.'' Or the Vermonter, that goes up into Vermont, or the Crescent, that goes down to New Orleans and goes through Mississippi. It is kind of hard when you say you have to go out and cut--they are the ones which are cut. So all of a sudden Republican and Democratic Governors, like the Republican Governor from Pennsylvania, Governor Ridge, a former Congressman, said, ``Wait a minute, we need these trains going across. Not the ones going to Harrisburg and Pittsburgh and so on and so forth,'' the Governors of these other, various States agreed. So what we did was we came along with nothing particularly radical here. The amendment I am talking about, the flexibility amendment, was not designed to fix every problem that Amtrak has. It was not designed to make Amtrak solvent. It was not designed to solve any intercity rail problem that is going to exist because there are larger problems and there are larger costs. But, by providing the States some flexibility in allocating their Federal transportation funds, although not intended to be a final solution to Amtrak's problems, it was a partial solution to the problems the States had, the Governors had. So, increasing the State flexibility was an important goal. By the way, under the leadership of Senator Chafee and Senator Moynihan and the votes of the vast majority of Members here, we made a significant departure, a necessary but significant departure a couple of years ago when we passed the new highway bill, the so-called ISTEA. What that said was basically this. If, in a State, you decide to abate the air quality problems you have, or to deal with congestion, or to deal with rural transportation problems, out of your Highway Trust Fund moneys that you get you can go out and you can, instead of building a new lane of a highway, you can subsidize a bus or you can subsidize a bus route from Dover, DE, to Dagsboro, DE, instead building a new highway. It is cheaper and makes more sense. The leaders on this have been Senators Chafee and Moynihan. They said it does not make any sense to insist that States have to pour more concrete. They can say, ``OK, we want to put a bike path in. We can spend money for that, or for buses, if it is going to improve the air quality, instead of more lanes for cars.'' It gave flexibility to the States. It was only a portion of the highway money they received. So all this amendment did, and I think the reason why it enjoyed such wide support, was to just logically extend that flexibility. The goal of the Senate amendment, which was dropped in conference, was not to shift the burden of passenger rail services in the States. It was to allow the States to have another alternative to deal with their problems. For some, this means a small portion of their highway money--I say that because to use the vernacular the cement and asphalt guys out there said, ``Oh, my. They are going to be able to spend money on something other than laying concrete or laying down asphalt.'' They can still lay billions of dollars worth of concrete and asphalt across this Nation under the flexibility amendment. This is not a backdoor to do away with the highways. This is a provision to give flexibility to the States. And it does not require an additional penny. It just says the States can use some of it. Instead of building a bicycle path, they can say in Vermont, we want to keep that train that comes up into Vermont from the Northeast corridor, and brings us millions of dollars worth of skiers every year, improves our economy, and has a significant impact on health of our State. We want to use some of our highway money to pay Amtrak to say, ``Look, put that train back on. We will pay for it. The rails are already there. We will pay for it.'' Because they understand this, the Governors of our States are actively seeking to keep Amtrak running. The Republican Governors from Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, and the Democratic Governors, also, feel very strongly about this. The Senate language dropped in conference would have provided those Governors the means, if they chose, to support Amtrak routes important to their States. Specifically, it would have made Amtrak an eligible use for funds from two areas--the so-called STP fund, Surface Transportation Program, which is known as STP around here; funds to be used for most kinds of roads and highways, as well as capital costs for bus terminals, car pool projects, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, hike and bike trails. Right now, under the Surface Transportation Program, you can expend money, if you are Governor, from your highway trust fund to build a bus terminal. You can spend your money from the highway trust fund to build a bike or hike trail, a bicycle path, or a pedestrian path. You can do all of that. You can even spend the money for promoting car pooling, all of which makes sense. But the one thing you cannot do is you cannot say--even though you have a railroad track running through your State where you want it to go--Amtrak, if you can put an extra train on there, we will pay you for that. Why? It makes no sense. So the Senate language added intercity rail--translated, Amtrak--to that list of things that Governors can do consistent with the aims of the program to support and fully fund an integrated transportation system. Integrated means highways. It means buses. It means subways. It means Amtrak, if this were to prevail. It gives them flexibility. The second thing the Governors could do, in addition to going to the so-called STP fund--is go to the congestion mitigation and air quality fund, or, the so-called CMAQ fund. CMAQ is an innovative program designed by Senators Moynihan and Chafee which supposed to help urban areas come into compliance with the Clean Air Act. Mr. President, we all know in most of our States where we are told that, if the air quality is not particularly good, the Governor is told to take the necessary steps in order to meet the Clean Air Act standards. This gives the Governor an opportunity when managing a growing State, a growing community and a growing urban area, to say, OK, one of the ways I can deal with increased congestion is, instead of putting more cars on the highway, to increase intercity rail. Let us imagine what would happen if we shut down Amtrak in the Northeast corridor? Those of you, the tourists here today, traveling I- 95 from here up to Boston through the States of Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, can you imagine? How many more lanes can we add on to I-95 in order to just transport people up and down? How many more airplanes can we add? We are having problems with airports. There is so much traffic on the east coast they are talking about the State of Delaware and the Wilmington airport becoming an overflow facility for the Philadelphia airport.

Mr. BIDEN. Sure. I am delighted to.

Mr. BIDEN. I say to my friend from New Jersey, Mr. President, that statistic makes the point. Two of the three people who know most about the transportation problems in this country are right here in the Chamber now, and the Senator from New Jersey is one of them. Ten thousand additional flights. We are having trouble keeping airports open during certain hours so people cannot have them interfere with their living standard and the quality of life. Where are they going to go, and why are we doing this? Why are we failing to make this small change in flexibility? I never impugn the motive of anybody on this floor. But I must tell you in my 23 years here I have not run across many lobbies that are more powerful than the highway lobby, than the cement folks and the asphalt folks. There is nothing bad about them. But I think they are being incredibly shortsighted here in terms of not allowing this flexibility. I think in the long run, in 2 years, or 10 years, the public is going to say, ``Enough, I do not want a 17-lane highway running by my house.'' To combat this growing concern, Mr. President, these CMAQ funds, that the States receive as part of their highway funds, could be used for Amtrak, at the discretion of the Governors, if they chose to mitigate congestion and to carry the same number of people with less pollution and cars on the highways. Surely, this would be an appropriate use of those funds, a use currently denied the States. In addition to those provisions, Mr. President, this amendment would permit States to enter into interstate compacts to support the Amtrak services. For example, the Presiding Officer is from the great State of Washington. You cannot very well get a train to go to Washington coming from Chicago unless you get the folks in the Dakotas, Montana, and Idaho to let it get there. There is no other way to get it there. If they do not have the ability to come up with the funds to provide for that train coming through, then it is a problem. So it allows, if they so choose, the States in the Northwest to enter into a compact if they want those trains to move from Chicago to the State of Washington with more frequency. States come up with their own money, come up with the money they want out of their highway funds, if they decide to do so. In the long run the answer to Amtrak's financial problems are not solved by this amendment. It will come from clearly defined, dedicated sources of funds supporting capital means. That is the only way out for Amtrak. I must say that I am pleased to note that Senator Roth has taken an amendment that he and I supported, and has drafted just such a bill which has come out of the Finance Committee which he chairs. I look forward to working with him, and dealing with that bill on another occasion in the near future. It has to do with setting up a trust fund, a very small one, so that Amtrak will have the funds it needs for necessary capital improvements. The Senator from Montana supports that as well. But, Mr. President, this flexibility proposal was taken out I think for very shortsighted reasons--not for lack of support of Senator Chafee, who stood his ground as long as he could in this conference. It was dropped because the House was adamant in refusing to give the States the needed flexibility to manage their transportation needs the way they should do best. As a matter of fact, the chairman in the House on this committee, a gentleman from Pennsylvania, a very, very tenacious, very good Congressman, works very hard, even resisted to consent to the entreaties of his Governor telling them he needed this. And so I in no way am suggesting that the Senate did not try its best to hold this provision. The House just adamantly refused to give the States flexibility. So much for the revolution. So much for the devolution of power away from Washington to the States. Here we have an example on the limits of revolutionary fervor; it ends when the committee is threatened with a tiny, marginal loss of authority or it ends where important interests to the highway community decide they want it to end. The Senate language that was dropped would not spend one dime of additional State or Federal money--not one dime of additional money. It would not require the States to spend any funds on Amtrak, not a single penny, if they did not want to. It would not change any formula for distributing or allocating transportation funds among the States. It would not affect the amount of annual Federal transportation funds States now receive individually or in total. The bottom line is the Senate amendment simply permitted States to use funds they already qualify for in a way that is not currently permitted. Current restrictions on the use of Federal transportation funds would be removed and Governors around the country would be able to use those funds as they see fit, including in support of intercity rail services provided by Amtrak, if this amendment were to prevail. In very congested areas, particularly in urban corridors along the east and west coasts, but in other areas as well, adding more highways in certain areas is simply not an economic or environmental option. Keeping an Amtrak route open on existing rail right-of-way, which is much more cost effective and safer and cleaner than buying land to construct even one more lane on a major interstate highway, is the way to go. The increasing flexibility provided by the Senate amendment is fully consistent with the major goals of the national highway safety bill before us today and with ISTEA, the landmark legislation that calls for a National Highway System designation. The need for enhanced State flexibility is clear. I find it fascinating that my colleagues, some of whom spoke today, colleagues who I have great respect for from wide open spaces of the West, from Montana and Wyoming, talk about the need for us to consider their specific needs and afford them flexibility, allowing them to have a highway speed limit higher than might be appropriate in the middle of Philadelphia County in Philadelphia, PA, or in the middle of Newark, NJ. I understand that and appreciate that, but I have always found it difficult to understand how they cannot appreciate the problems of urban States where it makes much less sense for us to go out and build additional highways than it does for us to allow the States to have flexibility to use some of those moneys, designated portions of them, for the purpose of making sure we meet air quality standards, safety standards, and the transportation needs of the people of our State. Let States decide. Let States decide. This is the mandate set out in both the House and Senate budget resolutions which we are going to hear a lot about today. Let the devolution of power occur; send it back to the States. This whole thing is also a mandate that sets out for Amtrak authorizing legislation that we are going to take up very soon. The first stage of this new authorizing legislation for Amtrak was announced last December with major routes elimination taking place effective in April, frequency reductions in the selection of routes throughout the country that will be completed this coming October. The bottom line is more States will have less service in areas that they need and that they could very well be willing to use highway funds to keep. As a result, many communities across the country find themselves with little or no interstate rail service, and the Governors of those States know that intercity rail is an important option for small towns without air service as well as for congested commuter corridors. They know that intercity rail supports commerce and is an important component of the modern national transportation system. Last June, I entered into the Record a letter from Governor Dean of Vermont, Governor Thompson of Wisconsin, Governor Engler of Michigan, Governor Carper of Delaware, and subsequently Governor Ridge of Pennsylvania, Democrats and Republicans alike, asking for this flexibility. Among the authors of that letter were Governors who had already committed their own State general revenues to support intercity rail routes and at the same time they had surpluses in their Federal transportation program that they are prohibited from using, that is, money that went back to the States they could not use because they did not want to build more highways. I said, ``Can't we use that for this?'' They said, ``No, you can't.'' So they are required to go into the general funds of their States. That seems to me to be counterproductive. Many States have confirmed the importance of Amtrak. Today, Mr. President, I have a letter from those same Governors, joined by Governor Allen of Virginia, another Republican, along with additional letters from Governor Whitman of New Jersey, reinforcing their support for the Roth-Biden amendment in the Senate version of the National Highway System bill. These letters were sent in October, unfortunately to no avail. They were sent to Congressman Shuster, chair of the House Transportation Committee and leader of the House conferees. I ask unanimous consent these letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, because the support is still out there and because the need for Amtrak services must still be met by the States and because the principle of increased State flexibility is still valid, I will continue to fight for this Senate language that has been dropped from the conference report. But because I do not want to waste more time on this proposal and tie up my friend, the chairman of the committee, who I again thank for his dogged support of this proposition at a time when so much of our legislative business is yet to be done, I will not introduce this motion to recommit. But I consider the loss of important Senate language a clear reason for me to vote against this conference report. I also want my colleagues to know that I will seek another means by which to accomplish the goals of the Roth-Biden amendment, and I will continue to fight to get it put into law. To put it to you very bluntly, Mr. President, the reason I am not going to pursue this right now is if this prevails and gets sent back to committee, these States that are looking for the flexibility will also in the meantime have additional moneys tied up. They will not be able to get moneys that are in this bill that they need now. So I am in kind of a catch-22 position. My purpose here is to help Amtrak and to give Governors of States flexibility to decide what their transportation network should look like. But if I succeed, it goes back to the House again and goes back into conference, and I am not at all sure, to be very blunt about it, whether or not my friend from Rhode Island, notwithstanding his Herculean efforts, would be able to prevail were we to send him back. So that is why I am withholding this motion. So I will yield. I saw my colleague from Delaware, who is the lead sponsor on this amendment. I do not know whether he wishes to speak on this right now. But for the time being--is there any time under the control of the Senator from Delaware?

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, we are being asked to vote on the antitrust provisions of this conference report. As I understand it, these provisions would allow doctors to form Medicare provider networks-- similar to existing managed care networks that are run by insurance companies--without running afoul of the per se standards of anti-trust law. This provision violates the Byrd law. It is extraneous. It has no effect on the deficit, and therefore it does not belong in the budget reconciliation bill. Furthermore, Madam President, this issue has just now been brought before the Senate. There was no similar provision in the Senate version of the reconciliation bill. There have not been hearings before the Judiciary Committee. And, we have not had a chance to examine the effects of this change in anti-trust law. But, let me say that as ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, I would be happy to give this matter full consideration. We should find out whether the change proposed here would really create more competition in the health care sector of the economy--and we should examine whether this would be a benefit to rural areas of the country. And, frankly, in this new health care climate, with the emphasis on big insurance companies running managed care plans like HMO's, doctors need some protection. I have told physicians in Delaware that I am willing to help find ways to ensure that doctors can be doctors. I think that if doctors ran the managed care networks, we might all be better off. If that means that we [[Page S 17321]] must provide anti-trust relief, then I am willing to look closely at it. But, I cannot support doing it here--doing it now--on a bill that is supposed to reduce the deficit. Therefore, I will support stripping this provision from the bill, and I will vote against the motion to waive the rules for physician anti-trust relief. I hope, however, that we will look at this more closely, in a more rational way, on another day.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I want to speak very briefly to something that was called to my attention only an hour or 2 hours ago. That is, according to the wire services, Admiral Macke said, and I quote, with regard to the case where two Marines and a Navy seaman are on trial in Okinawa on charges that they abducted a 12-year-old girl on September 4 in a rental car, drove her to a secluded sugar cane field where one of the persons, Seaman Marcus D. Gill, admitted in court that he had raped the girl. In response to that incident, which has international consequences for us, it is probably the most significant disagreement we have had with Japan, including trade agreements, caused as much of a stir and outrage, and understandable stir and outrage, on the part of the Japanese. This admiral, probably one of the two or three most visible people known by name in Japan, because he is head of the Pacific Fleet, instead of him getting off of his ship, getting in a car and going to wherever the hell that family or the relatives of that child lived, and begging the forgiveness on the part of this Nation for something in the nature that occurred back when Attila the Hun came down into Japan and raped and pillaged centuries ago, instead of doing that, this fellow says--if this is true, this guy should be disciplined. If any one of us said this, it would be enough, in my view, for the voters to never vote for us again. If it were a Cabinet Member, we would probably dismiss them. We have had Cabinet Members dismissed for less insensitive things than this. He says--if this is true, because what the press says is not always true; so that is the one caveat that I will make--but if he said, ``I think that it was absolutely stupid, I've said several times,'' Macke said, ``for the price they paid to rent the car they could have had a girl.'' I realize I am accused, rightfully so, by my colleagues on occasion of being a little too emotional, but I want to tell you, if that were my daughter and that admiral said that, I would go find the son--I would go find him. I would look for him. I would--it would not be right; I would be wrong; it would be a violation of law--but I would find him and rip his ears off, if I could, or get killed in trying.

Mr. BIDEN. I will yield to my friend from Arizona.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, it is carried by the AP Wire Service. Date: The 17th, today, 19:22 hours, Eastern Standard Time, Copyright 1995. All rights reserved, AM----

Mr. BIDEN. Again, I will publicly apologize--I want to make this caveat. [[Page S 17332]] If he did not say this, then this is unwarranted, what I am saying. But I just do not think that after all the time and all the effort we have made here, the men in the Senate--not just the women in the Senate--the men in the Senate, the people on this floor, to deal with the Violence Against Women Act, which is all about changing attitudes-- and my friend, the Senator from the State of Arizona, I know how he feels about these things. I know how he votes on these things. I know how the Senator from Mississippi and the Senator from Iowa feel about this. We have tried very hard to change attitudes, attitudes about women and whether or not women are property, whether or not women are ``our woman,'' whether or not we men have a right to ever touch them. That has been a central debate in this Nation. And to have one of the highest ranking military officers of the United States of America saying--in command of thousands of young, impressionable men--that his response to this tragedy, instead of being an instinctive gut-wrenching anger and empathy, is, ``They could have gotten a girl.'' Why would he do this? That is simple. Unfortunately, we know a fair number of people think like this. ``This is kind of dumb. If they wanted sex, they could have gotten and bought it in Okinawa for the price they rented the car. That is a reasonable calculation, is it not?'' And until recently, the last decade or so, that was kind of an accepted notion. ``We should think of these things logically.'' Well, my God, it is absolutely--I mean, all the debates that we have had on the floor, all the times--and, Mr. President, if there is anyone who is guilty of ``hoof in mouth'' disease, if there is anyone who has stuck his foot in his mouth more than this Senator, if there is anybody that has made more verbal faux pas than me, I do not know. I challenge anyone to think, in 23 years, of any time I have gotten up on the floor and criticized someone like this for misspeaking, because I am a champion at it, I have made a career of it, unfortunately, but, thank God, never on something like this, never on something that has affected someone, affected the representation of the philosophy of a nation.

Mr. BIDEN. I will be glad to yield.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I will not take any more time--I see the Republican leader--except to say it was not--I cannot take credit or blame for bringing this to the attention of the Senate. It was the Senator from California. But let me just say, to look at it the other way around, let us assume that Japanese troops--let me give it an analogy. When the Prime Minister of Japan made a reference several years ago that the reason why we were not productive is because of race relations with our black population, this country, understandably, was in a furor. And it ended up being one of the elements to bring down that Prime Minister in his own country. Let me just ask the rhetorical question--and I will yield the floor after I do--what do we think we would do if a 12-year-old girl was driven to a cornfield in any one of our States by three Japanese servicemen stationed in the United States of America, was brutally raped, and one of the Japanese sailors saying, ``I did it,'' in open court, and then the commander of the Japanese fleet, sitting off of San Diego, said in an interview with American reporters, that ``This was stupid on the part of the Japanese sailors. All they had to do was, for the money they had to rent a car in San Diego, they could have went and gotten a girl and had her''? Can you imagine the indignation of this Nation? There would be every other Senator on the floor of this Nation demanding a public apology and action taken against that admiral. I just think sometimes we do not understand that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. We do not understand how people feel. We never put ourselves in their shoes. And I will say, if we had a problem with United States-Japanese relations before, as a consequence of this rape, just what are they now? Purely in terms of the United States naked self-interest in the relations with Japan, what has this guy done, if this is true? I think it is deplorable. I do not know--I am not as certain as my friend from Iowa what the appropriate action is--but I just think as a Nation, we should be publicly apologizing to the people of Japan and we should be publicly vilifying anyone who says things like this. I yield the floor. Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. I will be brief. I know the Republican whip wants to speak. Mr. President, I do not want to repeat what I said last night. I agree with Senator Boxer, Senator Snowe, and Senator Harkin about the fact that we should not be getting paid. I will not elaborate. I think it speaks for itself. It is clear.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I would like to comment on three items. One, I compliment Senator Boxer and Senator Snowe for their initiative to treat us like everyone else; that is, if we are working and other Federal employees are working, and they are not getting paid, we should not get paid. Most of the public in our home States do not realize that all of us have voted for that already. We voted for that twice already. Unfortunately, the House of Representatives has either inadvertently or, in fact, refused to bring that up. I will not make a judgment about that. But we have been on record for some time. I think it makes good sense. I just depart from one comment made by one of our colleagues who supported this initiative. I do not think the Congressmen and Senators are smug about this. The truth about this much of this is artificial. I have been here for 23 years and although we have never had this extent of a crisis, we have shut down for a couple of hours or a day. In every case, it has been standard operating procedure that everybody is made whole. The Federal employees-- everybody is made whole. So I do not think most of our colleagues thought that this sort of stupidity would go on as long as it has. Therefore, I do not think my colleagues sat there and said, ``By the way, I know people like the stenographer here, who is working, and I know he is not getting paid, and I do not care; ha, ha, ha, he is not going to get his paycheck.'' I do not think anybody thought about that. I want to make this clear. Sometimes, in our zeal, we make it sound like this place is a little more heartless than it is. The truth is that there is an artificial element to this and, in all probability, nobody is going to end up losing a cent in this --unless this does go on for weeks or a month, which none of us wish to happen, and I think probably none of us believe will happen. Now, sometimes we do stupid things. Sometimes ego and pride and politics and partisanship get in the way and everybody wakes up one morning and says, ``My Lord, how did we get here?'' I am hopeful that will not happen. That leads me to my second point. My second point. I have great respect--and I mean this sincerely--for Senator Dole, the majority leader. I have served with him and next to him for 23 years now. You cannot be around somebody that long and not get some sense of the man, the person. I do not know anybody who is smarter in this place, and I do not know anybody who is a better legislator in this place, or that I have had any better relationship or dealings with than him. I make one distinction in what he said. When he said the President is not bound in any real way if he were to sign the continuing resolution that the Senate sent to him, and he then mentioned the CBO figures, Congressional Budget Office figures--and he did accurately say the President, in the past, had mentioned Congressional Budget Office figures. But whether the President said it in the past or not, we all say things that turn out not to make so much sense sometimes--at least I have. [[Page S 17197]] The truth of the matter is that it is important for the public to know not whose figures are right, but just to understand the debate. There is a fundamental difference in the outcome of a balanced budget and in how much you have to cut to get to a balanced budget, based upon how rapidly the economy grows or does not grow. Now, the figures are infinitesimally small when you say them. For example, the Congressional Budget Office says the economy will grow, on average, over the next 7 years, at 2.4 percent per year. And along comes the Office of Management and Budget in the executive branch, and they say, no, the economy, over the next 7 years, will grow, on average, 2.6 percent per year. The public up there says, ``What is the problem? What difference does it make which number you accept?'' Well, I am not saying who is right. By the way, you know that old joke, I say to the former Governor of Missouri, now the Presiding Officer--I am sure he has asked a lot of economists about the impact of what happens in his State. But it reminds me of that joke that used to go like this: Give me a one-armed economist because every economist you speak to, no matter who they are, in their estimates, they say, ``On the one hand'' it could be this, and ``on the other hand'' it could be that. I would love to find a one-armed economist who would only tell me this is what is going to happen. Well, back to the central point, the difference between a 2.4 and 2.6 growth rate in the economy over 7 years is almost one-half trillion dollars more that would have to be cut from the Federal spending. Right now if you said to me, I am sitting there and I say ``OK, I am President''--I am not President obviously--``I am President.'' You say to me, ``OK, I will agree to balance the budget in 7 years,'' and I look out there, and I say, ``All right.'' By the way, what is the magic? Why did we not say 5 years? Why did the Republican Party not say 5? Why did the President say 10? Why did we not pick 6? The truth is, it is of little relevance in terms of a goal. It is a practical relevance in terms of how much you cut and how rapidly you cut. But back to the central point. I am sitting there as President. You come to me and say, ``I have good news. We have signed on to 7 years.'' Great. That is what I say. ``I can do this in 7 years.'' But the numbers they gave us are that we have to balance everything based upon the economy only growing this fast. Mr. President, what that means is those cuts, that $1 trillion in cuts you were going to find to balance it over 7 years, you have to find $1.5 trillion. And you say, what does that mean? That means I either have to give no tax cut at all or that means I have to make major cuts in Medicare, or that means I have to make significant cuts in education. And for what? For the want of 1 year? For the want of 2 years? I lay you 8 to 5, which is what is disturbing me, the American people are way ahead of all of us--the President, the Speaker, the leadership, Democrats, Republicans. They no more believe that we are going to balance the budget in 5 years than 7 years or 7 years than 8. They do not care if it is done in 8 years or in 6 years. They just want to know we are serious and we made a decision. The glidepath of this Government spending over the next decade is going to be this way--down, and real numbers, real cuts, real changes. That, I agree, there is a mandate to both parties on that. But do you think anybody who sits home and says, ``Well, I have been thinking this over. I listened to that debate in Congress, and my grandchildren are going to be put in serious jeopardy if we do this in 10 years instead of 7. This means the health and welfare of my granddaughter.'' Do you believe anybody thinks that? What they are sitting home saying is ``God, all those guys and women down there, all they do is talk. They keep promising balanced budget amendments. I do not believe they will do it any time.'' That is what they really say about us all. The truth is, I have been here 23 years. I have never seen a time-- and I say this with total sincerity--where the overwhelming majority of the Members of this body have done anything other than agreed we have to balance the budget, and mean it. I introduced a balanced budget amendment in 1984 that got nowhere. I am a Democrat that voted for the constitutional amendment to balance the budget. I have introduced on four occasions--four occasions--entire plans to balance a budget, knowing I am not President and I am not the leader, but for illustrative purposes. I tried with Senator Grassley back in the 1980's to freeze all Government spending, including Social Security, including everything. The truth is the last election did one thing. I do not know whether it really made you guys a majority party for long. I do not know. We will find out. I know one thing it did. What it did was it made sure that there was nobody left on the left in my party who, in fact, said we do not care about moving the budget toward balance. These folks mean it. We all mean it. The public knows we mean that. I think they look at us and say, ``You are all being kind of childish.'' For example, I bet--and I should not say this because I do not know whether the Senator from Missouri, the Presiding Officer, would agree-- I bet I could find 20 Members at least on the Republican side of the aisle if I were in charge of this outfit--and I am not--we could sit down and say, ``Here is the deal. You guys want a balanced budget in 7 years and you want CBO numbers. I want a balanced budget, too, but I do not want to cut as much Medicare as you do. I do not want to cut as much as you do, and I do not want to give as big a tax break as you want.'' So we can make a deal, make a deal. We will split the difference between the CBO figure of 2.4 and the OMB figure of 2.6. Take 2.5--that is $250 billion. And make another agreement. Agree I will go for a bigger cut in Medicare. I say we only need to do $89 billion. That is all we need--not $270 billion. I will split the difference with you on that. You have to make a deal on taxes, too. As much as you want to help wealthy folk, and I want to help them, too, tell them to wait until the end of the line. We will not give them anything. We will not raise their taxes, but we will not give them a tax cut. Just those gross numbers--by the way, also make a deal, satisfy the President. Do not do this in 10 years. Do it in 8 years. Do not do it in 7--you give a year, we give up 2 years. Do you think the American public will go home and say, ``Boy, they all sold out. Boy, they all do not mean this. Boy, that is ridiculous. Boy, my grandchild is now in real jeopardy. Boy, my child's future I borrowed against now another 18 months''? I think they would say they are finally acting like mature adults. I respectfully suggest, to go back to the original point I made, the majority leader said, what difference does it make whether it is CBO or OMB? Let me tell the difference. That is like saying to me, ``Joe, you got to forge this creek, the Ardent Creek. You have to forge it, and it is 43 feet wide where the rapids are, and you have a hook at the end of the rope.'' It makes a difference whether you give me a 48-foot rope or you give me a 38-foot rope whether I can get across that creek. If you give me a 38-foot rope, I cannot make it without getting awful wet and put in danger. Give me a 48-foot rope I can throw that sucker across, hook it around the tree, and have no problem bringing myself across. That is the fundamental kind of difference between these numbers. These numbers are real. They make a difference. I might add, the DuPont companies of the world, the Fortune 500 companies of the world who all of us say are better at estimating what will happen than we, they all say the growth rate will be about 2.9 percent per year. They say we will have $1 trillion difference from what the Congressional Budget Office says. Let me say, if you ask whether I accept a DuPont Co. economist or a Federal bureaucrat's economist, I tell you where I go, this Democrat. If you ask whether I take an economist from Maryland National Bank or from the Chrysler Corp. in my State, I know which I would take. I would take the private sector guy. What I am told is--and I may be wrong, but I do not think I am--I am [[Page S 17198]] told the blue chip analysis, that is taking all the blue chip companies who have analyzed what the growth rate is going to be, the consensus is it is going to be about 2.9 percent per year. I will tell you what. If we agree to their numbers, I can balance the budget and not cut Medicare and not hurt education and not make the changes I do not want to make and I can do it in 5 years. This makes a difference. It makes a difference what numbers you pick. Like I said, it is like that rope. You tell me I have to get across a 40-foot creek with rapids and if I slip in the rapids I go over the dam, and you give me a 30-foot rope, I have a problem. You give me a 50-foot rope, I can do it. So the difference here is the length of the rope we are giving the President. I will conclude by saying the Presiding Officer is the only Republican in the Chamber--and by the way I am not suggesting anybody else should be in the Chamber. All reasonable people are home at 10 minutes to 10 at night, and I do not know why I am doing it, because I am not sure that the four people in here, who are kind enough to be listening to me, are listening. But I would respectfully suggest the following. The reason why a guy like me is a little bit suspect of the insistence on the CBO numbers is--I will be real blunt with you --I believe this is more than about balancing the budget. I believe this is about eliminating programs, or drastically changing programs that the Republican Party, understandably and defensibly, historically has not liked. But it can be cloaked in balancing the budget now. Because if you give me the 30-foot rope, I have to get rid of education. I cannot pull education across that creek with me on my back. I cannot take Medicare across that creek with me on my back. I cannot take a lot of things across there--baggage that some of my friends on the Republican side, and some Democrats, do not think we should be doing anyway. So I think what the President should do--presumptuous of me to suggest what the President should do. But, if the President called up and asked me tonight, Joe, what do you recommend about this? I would pick up the phone and I would call Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich and I would say, Fellows, look, come on down. Let us have a cup of coffee. And I would promise Newt could sit at the head of the table. I would let him sit behind my desk. And I would say, Here is the deal. Let's make a deal. Let's split the difference on the numbers, not between the private sector, but the two Government bureaucrats who said what the numbers were. Split the difference and let us split the number of years. I will take off 2, you add 1. And let's get back to work, and then let us fight about the details, which is what appropriations bills are about. I hope we do that. I am not suggesting my particular formula, I say to the Presiding Officer. I am not so presumptuous as to say that is the only way to do it. But I do know one thing. Legislation is the art of compromise, not weakness, compromise, because we have very divergent views. I have come to know a bit more about the Presiding Officer. He and I have divergent views on a number of issues, but I truly respect him. And I think he respects me. There is no reason why we could not work--I have to give something. You are never going to agree with my philosophy. I am never going to agree with yours, on the whole. So we have to give something. I do not mean to paint it--I would like it if the Senator from Missouri and I could settle this, but I know neither one of us are in the position to do this. But the larger point is simple. I think it is time for us to sort of--I was going to say act like grown-ups. That implies they have not been. I think it is time to say, OK, everybody has made the point. Let us get back to work. Let us split the difference on these things. Because the truth of the matter is, if the President agreed to an 8-year balanced budget with CBO numbers, or OMB numbers, does anybody believe that means he is less committed to getting to a balanced budget? He locks himself to a balanced budget on those terms. So the issue is not if. The issue is how. I think we could settle this quickly. I hope we will do it. My colleagues are here. I will not do it tonight, but I was going to make a statement, and I will do it tomorrow, on a third point. That is Mr. Helms'--and I love Senator Helms--outrageous, in my view, holding up of the START Treaty and holding up the Conventional Weapons Treaty. But I will save that for another moment. Maybe the Senator would be on the floor, because I would rather deal with him on the floor. As my colleagues know, I never say anything that references another Senator without telling him first. It is nothing derogatory, but I hope he will reconsider. We are about to lose the START Treaty, and that is the thing that eliminates all those Russian missiles that could be aimed at us again. My colleagues are waiting to speak. I thank my colleagues and I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I am pleased to see that Senator Simpson has proposed to remove the so-called Istook amendment from this bill. This is a bad idea. It is unconstitutional, and raises a host of important questions for which we have heard no adequate answers. It is clear to me right now that it must be stripped from this continuing resolution. I fully agree with my friend and colleague from the Judiciary Committee, the distinguished Senator from Wyoming, that there is no way this proposal will pass the Senate, and there is no reason for this proposal to be under debate here today. We have not had a single hearing in the Senate on the impact of this radical rewriting of the laws covering the speech and freedom of association of [[Page S 16879]] thousands of charitable, non-profit organizations--not to mention the millions of other organizations that would be caught in its net. It adds new, unexamined restrictions on the activities of this country's most valuable and honored local and national charitable organizations. From my own State of Delaware, I have heard from the YMCA, from the Boys' and Girls' Clubs, from the Delaware Nature Society, from Delaware Easter Seals, the Delaware Chapter of the Multiple Sclerosis Society, from Mothers Against Drunk Driving, from virtually all of the non- profit organizations that serve my State. Madam President, all of them have told me that this proposal would strike at the heart of their most critical functions--to administer, at the local level, grants to keep our kids off drugs, or to educate the public about life-threatening diseases. The Istook provision threatens these groups with legal action if they run afoul of an Orwellian web of restrictions, spending rules, reporting requirements--limits on whom they can associate with, and what they can say. Madam President, this proposal would create a thought police of private citizens--who, for a 25 percent share of the treble damages levied against, say, the Mothers Against Drunk Driving, would have the incentive to drag them into court to prove that they did not purchase-- with their own funds--office supplies from a business that spent 16, instead of 15, percent of its own funds for political advocacy the previous year. This proposal extends the long arm of Federal Government restrictions to the very local charitable organizations we are told should really be doing the jobs now done by Federal bureaucrats. What hypocrisy, Madam President! On the one hand, we are told that decentralized, local, community-based groups should take up the burden of supporting those hit hardest by cuts in Federal assistance programs. But on the other hand, it is those very groups that this proposal would threaten if they trip over any number of arcane reporting requirements or ambiguous limits on ``political advocacy.'' And let us not kid our selves, Madam President--this is intended to trip them up. That is why they removed Veterans from the coverage of the bill--because enough of us complained about it. That is a clear admission that the bill will hurt non-profits. The problem is that they have only protected one group--not all of the others equally deserving of protection, instead of the vindictive harassment of this proposal. The groups still affected by this proposal are those who have been chosen to fulfill public policy goals through grants to engage in outreach, education, and other activities. Those grants purchase a service--from the Boys' and Girls' Clubs, from the YMCA, from the Easter Seal Society--to promote public policy goals. Those goals include healthier, drug free kids, cleaner air-- goals that are indeed well-served by local, decentralized groups. Take one example of how this could work. Imagine a local non-profit group in Dover, DE, like the Big Brothers and Big Sisters--a group that receives Federal grant funds and engages in the activities restricted under this proposal--advocating and encouraging others to advocate for policies that help children. Anyone looking for a 25 percent share of the treble damages--three times the amount of the grant--would have the incentive to find some shortcoming in the reporting, some illegal association, some proscribed expression on an issue of public policy, that would expose the group to litigation. The burden of proof would be on them to prove that they were in compliance. Imagine what well-funded corporate interests could do with a few well-placed lawsuits that kept those pesky non-profits tied up in court and in legal costs instead of engaging in government-restricted ``political advocacy.'' Today's Wall Street Journal chronicles the fight between Beer Wholesalers and Mothers Against Drunk Driving, focusing on the impact of the Istook proposal on non-profit groups. I am sure we can imagine many other ways this provision could be used to chill the advocacy work of groups that some people might find inconvenient. Madam President, the American people certainly want reform in the way we do business around here. But this is not what they want--a tool in the hands of powerful special interests to silence non-profit charities. This is a nightmare, a page out of the play book of every petty, small-minded despot who tried to stamp out inconvenient opinions. It puts every organization of any kind--every business that receives anything of value from the Federal Government--on notice that they not only are under restrictions on their own political activities, but must monitor the activities of those they do business with. It recruits a thought police with a financial incentive to seek out every misstep by every local chapter of every national charity. Madam President, this proposal has no business on this bill. It has no business on the floor of the Senate today or any other day. Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep sorrow, my shock, and my anger over the cowardly assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. Yitzhak Rabin will be remembered as a man of extraordinary courage and unusual vision who lived in a time when both of these traits were scarce. I first met Yitzhak Rabin when I called on Prime Minister Golda Meir during my first visit to Israel in 1973. As two individuals who shared a commitment to Israel's well-being, our paths crossed on numerous occasions over the course of the next 23 years. I saw him for the last time in October when he came to Washington to commemorate the 3,000th anniversary of King David's entry into Jerusalem. Yitzhak Rabin was a man who did not mince words--a quality which earned him the respect and trust of a country which has a reputation for toughness. To anyone who encountered [[Page S 16758]] him, it was immediately evident that his overriding concern was for the security of his fellow countrymen. He was born into the small community of Jews in Palestine, which later formed the core of the nascent State of Israel. He went on to play a key role in the war of independence; commanded the army that unified the city of his birth; served in key Government posts; and, in perhaps his finest hour, he drew upon the lessons of half a century of defending his people to pursue the path of peace which promises to secure the future of the nation he helped create. Yitzhak Rabin's ability to distill the fundamental choices facing his nation was a quality born of his unique experience as a soldier and a statesman. He articulated in stark terms the reasons why Israel's long- term security hinged on the success of the peace process. He viewed the status quo as unacceptable, because it meant continued violence into the indefinite future and possibly the eventual loss of Israel's Jewish character. He saw that possibility clearly and he believed Israel had to reject it in favor of a path of enlightened self-interest--pursuing an agreement on the basis of land for peace, preserving Israel's Jewish character, achieving normalcy with long-hostile neighbors, and securing Israel's long-term survivability. Mr. President, many are now suggesting that this terrible assassination was the isolated act of a madman. I wish it were true. But I think that all of us know better. This act was not perpetrated in a vacuum. It occurred against a backdrop in which a culture of hate and violence was being promoted actively by people who should have known better and behaved more responsibly. The extreme rhetoric was not confined to Israel. Unfortunately, some in this country added their voices to the alarmist cries. There is a lesson in this for all of us. For while words alone do not kill, they can encourage others to do so. Those who employed hyperbolic rhetoric for the sake of political gain must bear some measure of responsibility for creating a climate in which a cold-blooded assassination could be contemplated as a patriotic and pious act. I hope that those who irresponsibly stoke the fires of hatred will use this slaying of a great man to look deeply within themselves and change their ways. Mr. President, this is in many ways Israel's most difficult and emotionally wrenching hour since here creation 47 years ago, because the assassin's bullet was aimed not only at Yitzhak Rabin but also directly at the very heart of the democratic process in Israel. It is a commitment to democracy that has distinguished the Israeli nation from its neighbors in the Middle East and has been the enduring foundation of the long, traditional friendship between Israel and the United States. As one of the founders and defenders of the independent State of Israel, as its Prime Minister, and most of all as a devotee of democracy, Yitzhak Rabin personified the process that made possible the progress toward peace in the Middle East. He also understood how violence could threaten both the process and the peace--just moments before he was shot he spoke against violence, which he said had recently taken, in his words, ``* * * A shape which damages the framework of fundamental values of Israeli democracy.'' It was that framework of democratic values the assassin was out to destroy--and it is designs of just such antidemocratic violence which Israel and the friends of Israel must deny in memory of Yitzhak Rabin. I believe that we have already begun to erect that memorial. I believe that this assassination, as deeply as it has shaken us personally, will serve to reinforce the bonds of friendship between Israel and the United States. I believe that we will summon the resolve to successfully complete the unfinished journey on the path of peace embarked upon by Yitzhak Rabin. I believe that his last and greatest gift to his people, to all the peoples of the Middle East, and to the entire world will come to pass, and he will not have died in vain. And I will remember him as a friend, as a great soldier and statesman--and not as a man who lost his life to violence, but as a man of peace who renewed the life of his Nation.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the Leahy-Kassebaum amendment puts me in a difficult position because it combines two separate issues. On one hand, I have consistently supported efforts to reverse the so- called Mexico City or International Gag Rule policy and therefore support reinserting the Kassebaum language that overturns the Mexico City policy. On the other hand, I have consistently opposed United States funding for the U.N. Population Fund while the organization continues to operate in China. The amendment before us would strike a restriction on UNFPA funding that I have supported. Of course, I must vote yes or no on the entire amendment. I cannot vote for part and against part. Therefore, upon reflection, I will vote in favor of the amendment. International family planning programs provide important services that lead to healthier families and help to prevent high population growth rates, environmental degradation, and the need for abortion. We can and we should continue to prohibit U.S. tax dollars from being used for abortions. But, I believe that the U.S. Government should not be dictating what nongovernmental organizations do with their own funds in their work to provide family planning services around the globe, as long as they do not use any Federal funds for abortion. Nevertheless, I would like to make it clear to my colleagues and constituents that my vote today does not represent a change in my position on U.S. funding for the U.N. Population Fund at this time. We must continue to do all that we can to pressure the Government of China to cease any program of forced abortion or sterilization as a means of population control. Ms. SNOWE addressed the Chair.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Reserving the right to object. Can the Senator put his statement in the Record--he will not change the outcome of the vote--so I can catch a 6 o'clock train and get home?

Mr. BIDEN. I have no objection.

Mr. BIDEN. That would be wonderful, Mr. President.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, following the admonition of Senator Long years ago, if the amendment is accepted, I have nothing to say.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the reconciliation bill promises to cut corporate welfare, save taxpayers' money and balance the Federal budget. Yet, tucked away, deep in the more than 2,000 pages of the bill, is a golden giveaway of billions of taxpayers' dollars to a powerful special interest lobby. Initially passed to encourage settlement of the West, the anachronistic 1872 mining law enables gigantic mining interests--many of which are foreign-owned--to purchase the right to mine Federal land for as little as $5 per acre. Literally, for the price of a McDonalds value meal you can buy an acre of Federal land, loaded with gold, silver, platinum and palladium. If this was not enough of a ripoff, the law does not require mining concerns to pay any royalties to American taxpayers for these minerals, an annual loss of roughly $100 million. The net effect of this law is simple: Foreign mining companies get the gold, and American taxpayers get the shaft. The sham reform contained in the bill does little to change the current situation. Though the bill requires that fair market value be paid, it only applies this standard to the surface of, what is often times, barren desert land. No consideration is given to the minerals, to the gold, silver and platinum, which are buried underneath the ground. It sounds good on its face--paying fair market value--but this alleged reform is nothing more than face-saving. Our conservative colleagues argue endlessly that we need to run the Federal Government, more like a business. But how could any business survive, even for a day, by opening its warehouse doors and giving away its products? On top of these fraudulent prospective changes, the bill's grand fathering provisions guarantee the status quo for over 200 claims currently pending with the Interior Department. These applications, involving over 130,000 acres of public land, 18 national parks, and more than $15 billion in precious minerals, would be granted without the rightful payment to the taxpayers who own the land. Again, billions of taxpayers' money is given away, just handed over due to this antiquated law. Just last month, Secretary of the Interior Babbitt was forced to sign away over 100 acres of land, containing 1 billion dollars' worth of minerals to a Danish mining conglomerate which paid an embarrassing $275--Federal couch change. This century-old practice has become eerily reminiscent of the Teapot Dome scandal during the 1920's. Unlike farmers and ranches who have a vested interest in preserving their land, miners have virtually no stake in using the land in an environmentally sound manner. After the gold is taken, the shaft is plugged, and the company abandons the land, often times we are left with dangerous, toxic abandoned mines, which require millions of taxpayers' dollars to clean up. In fact, the Superfund national priority list of hazardous waste sites contains 59 properties associated with mining. The cosmetic mining law reform in this bill is exactly the type of nonsensical policy that has angered many Americans and caused them to lose faith in Government's ability to improve the lives of ordinary people. It ought to be rejected: The pot of gold should be found at the end of the rainbow, not at the end of a patent application. Americans deserve better. eitc

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, a nation's budget reveals its fundamental values, its priorities, the problems that most concern its people. A budget can tell us a lot about how a nation's resources will be shared--which people, what activities will bear the tax burdens, and [[Page S 16089]] which people, which activities will be encouraged and rewarded. We are debating here today perhaps the most important budget plan in my public career. This is the first time we have committed ourselves to a 7-year budget plan, and the first time we have committed ourselves to a path which ends in a balanced budget. If--and this is a big if--we stick to it, this budget will control our actions through the end of this century and beyond. What statement does this document make about our country? What does this reconciliation bill say about our concerns, what does it say about our values? Mr. President, as we debate this bill we face a number of fundamental problems in our country. High on the list of worries of the middle- class men and women I talk to in my State of Delaware is the need to restore faith in the American dream--a belief that their own hard work will earn them a decent living today, that their mothers and fathers will enjoy a secure and dignified retirement, and that there will be a better world for their sons and daughters. And just as high on that list of Americans' concerns is a need to restore Americans' sense of fairness--a sense that we have a system that gives the average guy a fair shake, that does not turn its back on those who are less fortunate, a system in which the most fortunate meet their obligation to contribute to our shared needs. This is a value increasingly at risk today. How does this budget respond to those concerns, Mr. President? How does it reflect those middle-class values? I am sorry to say that this budget will give middle-class Americans more reason to worry about the future. It weakens the foundation of future growth by making it harder for our children to get the education they need to become part of a high wage, high productivity, world class work force. The lower, slower growth that is the inevitable result of this reconciliation bill will contribute to a further hollowing out of our middle class--an expanding gap between the few whose families can afford a more expensive ticket to a better future and those who cannot. A weakened middle class increases social instability, and leads to the very real concerns about the future that we now see in the polls, and in our streets. It threatens Americans' ability to control their own fate--no matter how hard they work, a weaker, slower growing economy will mean smaller wages and salaries, a bleaker future. As unwise, as reckless as this bill is in its threat to our current and future standard of living, Mr. President, it is unconscionable in its abandonment of our commitment to our parents' generation. It raises the cost of getting old in America, Mr. President. This reconciliation bill is a dark cloud over what should be the golden years of the generation that made us into a world power, that passed on to us the richest, most powerful country in the history of the world. How do we repay their hard work and sacrifice on our behalf? This bill raises the cost of Medicare and Medicaid, and removes nursing home standards that demand basic human decency. It cuts more than $270 billion from Medicare over the next 7 years. Already today, seniors pay an average of 20 percent of their income for health care. This plan, will increase the premiums of a senior couple an additional $2,800 over the next 7 years. This reconciliation bill continues to dump the burden on a middle class that is already getting clobbered. For more than a decade and a half, the median income in this country has been stuck in neutral-- along with housing, the costs of education and health care are squeezing everything else out of middle-class budgets. This bill increases health care costs of the retired parents of hard- working middle-class families. What are they going to do when grandma and grandpa come home and tell them that they will have to pay more out of their own fixed incomes to visit their own doctor? Will they turn their parents away? We all know the answer to that question, Mr. President--thank God, those middle-class families are going to remember their parents' sacrifices for them and for this country, and they are going to reach into their pockets and cover the new costs imposed by this bill. At the same time, they are going to have to pick up the tab for more expensive college loans. It is the old squeeze play, Mr. President, and guess who is in the middle? The saddest thing about this reconciliation bill may well be the missed opportunity it represents. I voted for the balanced budget amendment. I support not one, but two different budget resolutions that could have brought us to a balanced budget by the year 2002, the same target at which this reconciliation bill is aimed. So I wish I could vote for a plan that would reach that goal. There are many possible plans, many possible paths to that goal. Some of those paths to a balanced budget would leave us a stronger, more competitive, and fairer country. This one will not. The question is not whether we should balance the budget. The question is not whether there must be sacrifice and change in the way we do business here. And for me, there is no question that we should make room for tax cuts, though more carefully drawn and targeted than those here before us today. The question is how should we share the burden of the necessary sacrifice among the American people, and how should we allocate the necessary spending cuts to assure stronger, faster economic growth in the future. This reconciliation bill has the wrong answers to those questions, Mr. President. It dumps the burdens of deficit reduction on those least able to bear it--deepening, not healing, the growing rifts in our society. And its short-sighted priorities--raising the cost of education, reducing health care and nutrition to the poorest children-- weaken our ability to respond with a healthy, smarter workforce to the challenge of international economic competition. I tried, along with a lot of my colleagues, to fix this bill. I offered an amendment that would give a $10,000 tax deduction to help middle-class families pay for the rising costs of a college education. I tried to reduce the fraud in the Medicare system--to save money that could have prevented some of the worst cuts this bill will impose. I supported many other attempts to restore some fairness, some common sense, some more balanced priorities to this bill. Those attempts were defeated. We are left with this fatally flawed bill. And a final point, Mr. President. As someone who voted for the balanced budget constitutional amendment, I might be moved to overlook some flaws in a plan that offered real promise of bringing the Federal deficit down to zero. Unfortunately, this plan uses a bunch of budget gimmicks too long to list here to maintain an appearance of budget balance that may well never become a reality. Most disturbing to me is the fact that only by counting the surplus in the Social Security System will this plan bring the deficit to zero in the year 2002. Without counting Social Security funds as part of the Federal Government's everyday income, something that is not permitted under our current budget laws, the Republicans' own Budget Office has told them that this budget will be out of balance by $105 billion in 2002. But there are other problems, Mr. President--such as the heavy ``back loading'' of the spending cuts. This budget saves the real pain for the 6th and 7th years of this plan--a point when virtually no one here today would have to face the need to cut over $200 billion each of the last 2 years. Let us hope there will be more enthusiasm for those choices then, than there appears to be now. This bill's gimmicks include asset sales--to make the books look better in the short run, but that will leave us poorer in the future. Again, this is a practice that should not be allowed under budget law, but it is in here nonetheless. So this reconciliation bill does not express the values of the Americans I know, the values of the people of Delaware. It does not embody the principles of mutual obligation, of family continuity that the Americans I know share. It is an affront to any notion of family values. It does not address middle-class Americans' valid concerns about the [[Page S 16090]] future of our economy, and it does nothing to help us build the well- paid, high-productivity work force that will allow us to take control of our destiny. Because I know we can do better, Mr. President, and because the American people deserve better, I will vote against this bill.