Joe Biden

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, there is a stretch of coastal plain in northeastern Alaska which has been called North America's Serengeti. Nestled between the towering 10-thousand foot peaks of the Brooks Range and the frigid Arctic Ocean on the North Slope of Alaska, lies the Arctic Coastal Plain, the 1\1/2\-million-acre crown jewel of the 19- million-acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. According to the Fish and Wildlife Service, the coastal plain area is the biological heart and the center of wildlife activity in the refuge. This pristine and complex Arctic ecosystem is habitat for a complete spectrum of wildlife, including polar and grizzly bears, wolves and snow geese. A 160,000-member porcupine caribou herd has used the coastal plain as a calving area for centuries. In all, more than 200 animal species call the refuge home. Tragically, the bill before us today threatens to permanently mar Alaska's Coastal Plain by permitting destructive oil and natural gas exploration. Under a broad pretext of jobs, economic development, and international security, some want to enable gigantic energy interests to irreparably harm the sanctity of this area. What will be taken can never be replaced, and we ought not allow exploration to occur. The State of Alaska has been blessed with abundant natural resources, and on the whole we, as a nation, are stronger for much of the enormous development which has occurred there. Depending on who you ask naturally, the prospects for a substantial oil find on the coastal plain vary. Nineteen percent, Forty percent, the estimates, by definition, are inexact. Proponents of development believe that under the tundra lies the next Prudhoe Bay discovery, the next North Sea field. Fueled by projections of a skyrocketing demand for oil by the developing world, energy interests are waiting with bated breath. Yet, of the more than 1,100 miles of northern Alaska's coastline, the coastal plain is the only 125 miles closed to development. Isn't this a small, justifiable sacrifice. Isn't there a point where we draw the line and protect a unique area because there is value beyond the price per barrel. Let us assume for the moment that perhaps there is some merit in development, and let us further use Prudhoe Bay as a case study of likely consequences. Though for the most part drilling in the bay is reasonably managed, oil spills still average 500 annually--that is nearly 10 spills per week. This activity seems to also be having an impact on the surrounding wildlife. An article in the October 21 edition of the Anchorage Daily News noted that a new State caribou survey has found a sharp decline in the central Arctic caribou herd indigenous to the area. The cause is unknown, however, recent research by the University of Alaska has found that caribou living near the oil [[Page S 16088]] fields have far fewer calves than those away from the facilities. If this is in fact the case, the adverse effects of oil activity would be magnified in the coastal plain. What will exploration bring? Hundreds of miles of roads and pipelines leading to dozens of oil fields, blocking wildlife migration. Toxic wastes leaking into the soil. Rivers and streambeds robbed of millions of tons of their gravel to construct roads and runways. According to Interior Department estimates, oil exploration would likely result in a decrease or change in distribution of 20 to 40 percent in the caribou population, 50 percent in the numbers of snow geese, and 25 to 50 percent in the muskox populations. And after the oil has dried up, after the companies have gone, what will be left? The footprint of industrial development: abandoned drilling equipment scarring the landscape; toxic contamination; lost wildlife; a horizon permanently altered. I have heard proponents argue that opening the coastal plan is a critical step toward decreasing our growing dependence on foreign oil. Yet, many of these same proponents are now moving a bill through the Congress to start exporting the oil presently extracted from Alaska's North Slope. Mysteriously, this concern about our dependence on foreign oil also seems to evaporate when it comes to investment in research and development of alternative fuels, such as solar and wind energy. Protection of our wilderness should not be a Democratic issue, or a Republican issue. In fact, the entire National Wildlife Refugee System, or which the Arctic Refuge is a part, was begun in 1903 by one of the greatest conservationists in our history, President Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican. The coastal plain was part of the original wildlife refuge established by President Eisenhower in 1960. Regrettably, red ink bleeding from Alaska's budget and the power of a few special interests have polarized this debate. Every American has a stake in our National Wilderness Areas, in the preservation of the environment in which we all live, Every acre offering the possibility of oil ought not be drilled, every mountain offering the possibility of gold ought not be mined, every mile of wilderness ought not be stripped bare just because its value can be quantified, just because revenue can be raised. Due to the fragile and complex interconnection of ecosystems, our future is inextricably linked to nature's vitality. If the scale is tipped too far by overdevelopment and we lose our balance, no amount of money will enable us to restore what we have lost. We must remember that we are but visitors in this land, existing by the good grace of Mother Nature--a lasting, sustainable society for all future generations depends upon it.

Mr. BIDEN

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

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the motion be dispensed with.

Mr. BIDEN. I compliment the Senator from Iowa. Put bluntly, there is no legitimate reason not to be for this amendment. None. Zero. None. I challenge anyone to tell us why this amendment does not make sense. Going after fraud should be our top priority, our first priority. The bill makes progress but it does not go far enough. At least it is not what the Gingrich bill in the House does which makes it easier for health care providers to engage in fraud. Literally, not figuratively. Last, the point made by the Senator, there is $18 billion in Medicare fraud a year and $16 billion in Medicaid fraud a year. I see no legitimate rationale for not tightening this up unless there is some outrageous special interest that thinks it would benefit from it. I see none. Prosecutors want it. Prosecutors ask for it. I held a hearing in my State where I had the top prosecutors from Philadelphia and the top prosecutors from the State of Delaware. They point out that the House bill, which set them back decades--this bill would not do much. Our bill would make a significant impact on their ability to deal with health care fraud. I thank my colleague for his leadership and allowing me the minutes.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. I wish to thank my colleague from Maine. As an original cosponsor of her amendment, I would like to point out two things very quickly. One, this was an oversight in the first place. It was never intended that this drug should not be covered. And No. 2, it is vitally important to the health and safety of millions of Americans. I think it is a good amendment, and I am glad she is introducing it.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, one thing all Americans say they care about is to get a college education for their children. This amendment will allow--it costs $35 billion, roughly $5 billion a year, and it would allow a $10,000 per year deduction--maximum deduction--for the cost of college tuition for couples making up to $120,000, or individuals up to $90,000. This is a genuine benefit for the middle class, and we do exactly what the Republican bill does. The way in which we get the money is restrict the growth of tax expenditures.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I know my friend has put a whole flock of kids through college, and so I know his commitment to college. Let me just say very briefly my amendment restricts the growth of tax expenditures in those areas. It does not in fact freeze them. No. 2, tell middle-class taxpayers that R&D is more important for corporations, which I support, than freezing--even if you were to freeze--than it is to be able to send their kid to college. Ask the average middle-class American taxpayer what is a better investment. Who is going to do the R&D if we do not get these kids to college? Lastly, I say to my friend, the $500 cap on student loan interest is worthwhile and is necessary but it does not compare to $10,000 that a middle-class family would be able to deduct. They need help now. They need help now, Mr. President, and this is the most direct and immediate way to do it. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleagues.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, this goal is straightforward. It is simple and I think consistent with what I heard everyone over the last 2 years talk about. We all stand before this body, in both parties--I do not question the motivation of anyone in either party--and we always talk about the need to give immediate relief to middle-class taxpayers. Admittedly, in this bill there is some relief for middle-class taxpayers in the tax portion, and that is the $500 child care tax credit. I would argue--I will not take the time now--the additional cost to middle-class families as a consequence of the cuts in Medicare and Medicaid will offset that, but that is a different question. One of the things we also talk about is the goal and dream of every American family, whether it is the richest businessman or poorest welfare mother, and every middle-class family, and that is providing for the education for their children. Frankly, as the Presiding Officer knows, it is getting harder and harder for middle-class families--and I mean that in a broad range, people making from $30,000 to $90,000 individually or up to $120,000 as a family--to be able to afford a college education. I would like to take a look at what is happening here, very quickly, in the limited amount of time that I have. This is what has happened since 1980. The orange represents the cost of public college tuition. I want to make sure we understand now I am talking about State universities. I am not talking about private universities, whether the Syracuses or the Harvards or the Yales or the Georgetowns of the world, which are a great deal more expensive than the cost of public tuition and fees. And I am not even talking about room and board. I am not even talking about that--just college tuition and fees. Since the 1980's the college tuition and fees for public universities have increased 236 percent. The median household income in America has gone up 82 percent. If you go back to 1980 you can see how every single, solitary year the gap is widening, in what I do not know anyone would disagree with is the ultimate middle-class dream most American families have, like the one my father had, he never went to college: give my son and my daughter a college education. When I went to school, this gap was not so wide. If you take a look at what has happened in terms of, again, income for median families, middle-income families, in 1980, 4.5 percent of median household income was what it cost to send someone to college. Now that is almost doubled, it is 8.4 percent. That is for one child. The bottomline is it is getting incredibly difficult for middle-class families, or any family to send their child to college. So the result is, in 1980, as I said, it took 4.5 percent of the median household income to pay for tuition and fees. I am not talking, now, about room and board. Today it takes 8.4 percent, almost double, just for tuition and fees for a public university. Education is one of the best investments we can make in American society. I have voted for investment tax credit for businesses. I voted for tax credits for them buying machinery and all of those things which make sense in my view. I can think of nothing that makes more sense than encouraging American families to invest in a post-high school education for their children. It seems to me it is about time they should get a break. Mr. President, to reiterate, this motion to recommit is simple. It instructs the Finance Committee to include in the budget reconciliation bill a tax deduction of up to $10,000 for the costs of a college education. Let me tell you why this is important. In my years of public service, I have found that no matter what differences may divide us, there is always one constant thing that unites us. We all have the same dream. Think about it. No matter who you talk to--black or white, rich or poor--every American family dreams that their children will go to college. It was my dad's dream for his children, and it was, and is, my dream for my children. It remains the dream of every middle-class American family. But, that dream is now at risk. This last summer, a poll was conducted of undergraduate students and parents with children in college. Of those surveyed, 87 percent--nearly 9 out of every 10 Americans--believe that the cost of college is rising so fast that it will soon be out of reach for most Americans. It should be no surprise why the overwhelming majority of Americans believe that. At the rate we are going, it is true. It is getting harder and harder for middle-class Americans to afford a college education. It makes you begin to wonder what exactly the word public means when you say ``public higher education.'' A college education is slipping out of reach of middle-class Americans. And, if they still want to fulfill the dream, it means that more and more young people must borrow more and more money to go to college. One more statistic--and perhaps the one that boggles my mind the most. Of all the money ever borrowed under the Federal Government's guaranteed student loan program, 22 percent of it has been borrowed in the last 2 years. Let me say that again. The guaranteed student loan program has been with us for 30 years. And, of all the money borrowed during that time, almost one-fourth of it has been borrowed in just the last 2 years. We are saddling the next generation with enormous debt before their adult lives even begin. And, I am not talking about the abstract terms of the Federal debt. No, this is saddling the next generation with individual, personal debt. When today's college students walk down the aisle at graduation, they are handed not only a diploma, but a big i-o-u. And, for too many, it is either that, or no college at all. So, I have a very simple proposition. We should give a tax deduction of up to $10,000 per year for the costs of a college education. Under my motion to recommit, this tax deduction would be limited to single taxpayers with incomes under $90,000 and to married couples with incomes under $120,000. And, it would be paid for by limiting the growth--not cutting, just limiting the growth--in tax expenditures. Mr. President, education is one of the best investments we as a society can make. It is one of the best measurements of future economic well-being. And, it is more important now than ever before. Previous generations could make a solid middle-class living with only a high school education. No more. In fact, there was an interesting point made in a Wall Street Journal article last week. Working families save primarily by investing in human capital--that is, education. Yet, when businesses invest in machine capital, they are not taxed. Middle-class families, when they invest in education, are taxed to the hilt. Education is treated as consumption, not investment. And, as a Nobel Prize economist once put it, the tax code treats machines better than it does people. It is time for that to change. From the establishment of the land-grant university system in the late 1800's to the GI bill at the end of World War II to the creation of the Pell Grant and Guaranteed Student Loan programs in the 1960s, the Federal Government has been committed to seeing that young people desiring to go to college would not be turned away because of the cost. It was a national goal to see a college education within reach of every American. Now, as that goal begins to slip out of reach for many middle-class families, it is time to renew our commitment to ensuring access to a college education for all Americans. I urge my colleagues to support this proposal. I reserve the remainder of my time if I have any.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. I yield my time. Fraud is a problem. This bill does not address it. Mr. ROCKEFELLER addressed the Chair.

Mr. BIDEN. I will be necessarily brief, Mr. President. Mr. President, I find it fascinating to hear none of my Republican colleagues stand up and say the Medicare system is bad. They say things like it is antiquated and outdated, but it serves the senior citizens well. How in the heck can that be done? How can it be antiquated, outdated, and serve the senior citizens well? The second thing I would like to say is in response to my friend from Georgia talking about Ozzie and Harriet. Let me tell you how Ozzie and Harriet are going to work under this proposal. They are going to find out that their mother and their father on Medicare are going to pay $800 or $900 a year more come the year 2002. Then when grandmom and grandpop come to Ozzie and Harriet, because they have the same middle- class values as the Senator from Georgia and I do, and mom says, ``Ozzie, I tell you what, these Republicans gave me a choice; I can pay $800 more or I can go into one of these HMO things, but I do not get to see Dr. Jones anymore,'' do you think Ozzie is going to stand there and say, ``Hey, Mom, tough.'' Ozzie is going to reach in his pocket, like all the Ozzies in this Chamber, and say, ``Don't worry, mom. Even though I can't pay my taxes, even though I can't get my kid to school, I am going to increase my taxes, in effect, 800 bucks to pay for you and 800 bucks to pay for dad because I know your median income is about $18,000, so I will take care of it for you.'' This is a tax increase for middle-class people who care about their parents. And wait until we get to Medicaid, when Ozzie and Harriet get the phone call midyear and mom says, ``Hon, they tell me I got to come home; it's June. I gotta come home from the nursing home.'' Watch what happens then to decent, honorable, middle-class people who are being crunched on the one hand by their children with the cost of a college education and the cost of maintaining their standard of living, which is slipping from them, and on the other hand, having to pick up the costs for mom and dad. The last point I would like to make is one of the reasons to send this bill back, and that is, fraud, although Senator Roth did much better than our House Members did. Everyone acknowledges there is about $34 billion a year in fraud in Medicare and Medicaid. This bill hardly touches the problem. This is the case, I might add, because health care providers do not like us dealing with fraud. I have been working to combat health care fraud for over 3 years now--ever since I first introduced a health care fraud bill in the U.S. Senate and held hearings on health care fraud in the Senate Judiciary Committee. I found in those hearings--and it has been reported elsewhere ever since--that fraud in the entire health care sector accounts for up to 10 percent of all health care spending. The same, unfortunately, is true for Medicare. The General Accounting Office estimates that fraud in the Medicare Program will total up to $18 billion this year alone. Medicaid fraud is another $16 billion. Now, the vast majority of doctors and other health care providers are honest professionals. But, a few dishonest manipulators are ripping off the taxpayers and threatening the integrity of Medicare and Medicaid. A few cynical criminals are preying on those who need health care the most. Going after these crooks and thieves who are defrauding the system must be our top priority. If this motion to commit is adopted--and I hope it will be--the first place we should try to find savings is in Medicare fraud. Later in the debate, Mr. President, I will be joining Senator Harkin and Senator Graham in offering an amendment specifically on Medicare fraud--and I hope my colleagues will support that as well. According to one estimate, for every dollar we spend fighting Medicare fraud, we save $10. One example of this: in 1994, in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, the Justice Department recovered almost $7 million in fraudulent Medicare and Medicaid payments--more than what it cost to run the entire Justice Department office in that district. This is an excellent return on our investment. So, before we raise costs to senior citizens--before we impose draconian cuts on benefits-- we need to root the robbers out of Medicare. Let me say up again that the Senate bill is much better than the House bill on this front. The House bill would make it much more difficult to prosecute health care fraud. The House bill would change the standard of proof in a civil fraud case from ``knows or should know'' to ``deliberate ignorance'' or ``reckless disregard.'' The House bill would change the standard for enforcing the Federal antikickback laws. The current standard prohibits kickbacks when one of the purposes is ``to induce'' referrals. But, the House bill would prohibit kickbacks only ``for the significant purpose of inducing referrals.'' Fortunately, these provisions are not in the Senate bill. But, let me mention one thing about the Senate bill that troubles me from the fraud perspective. The Senate bill would repeal all Federal safety protections for seniors in nursing homes. Last week, in Delaware, I held a forum on Medicare fraud. At that forum, Federal prosecutors said that elimination of nursing home standards would create a significant problem in both the investigation and prosecution of patient abuse. In addition, Mr. President, I believe the antifraud provisions in the Senate bill could be--and should be--stronger. We need to guarantee that there will be funding to fight fraud--so that there are more investigators and prosecutors in the field to go after the crooks. We should collect the costs of our investigations from those who are found guilty. And, we should require the guilty to pay restitution to the victims. We need to strengthen the penalties for those found guilty of health care fraud--including increased fines for those who violate the antikickback laws. And, we should provide rewards for consumers and patients who uncover fraud. So, Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will support the motion to commit--so that fraud can be made the top priority in achieving Senate savings. And, I hope my colleagues will later adopt the Harkin-Graham- Biden antifraud amendment. Now is not the time to make it easier for the crooks and con artists to get away with ripping off the American taxpayer. Instead, we need to renew and strengthen our efforts to fight Medicare fraud.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Kentucky makes a very valid point. I, for one, think there is justification for Kentucky having another judgeship. Frankly, one of the things the Senator from Utah and I talked about earlier in the process--not today, but in the year--was this notion of whether or not we need an additional judgeship bill, period, nationwide. And the answer is we do.

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

Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield before he withdraws?

Mr. BIDEN. So we do need additional judges, in my view. I am not referencing any particular Senator when I say this. And I mean this literally: Not referencing any particular Senator. But we are getting into the field, the time and space, where it is going to be hard to get judges moving through here at all. As some will remember, when President Bush was in his last year, last days in the Presidency, I, along with the Senator from Utah--we pushed through literally another 17 or 18 judges in the last 4 or 5 days of the session. I hope that spirit exists here. But in fairness, both President Bush and President Clinton suffered from the same problem. They took too darned long in getting a lot of their nominees up here for us. But we are where we are now. I cannot speak and do not intend to speak for the Senator from Utah. I expect that had things moved more quickly we may have been in a position to be pushing the judgeship bill overall. My guess is that the political reality would be that we are not likely to get that done until the next election settles, whether or not we will get it done. That is a long way of saying I think on the merits the Senator from Kentucky is correct about the need in Kentucky. I would add in addition to that that the Senators from several other States are in very difficult shape. For example, in the southern district of Florida, they could use a handful more judges just to get their docket up and running to be able to handle civil cases because they have so many criminal cases; in southern California, in Texas, in New York. So there are a lot of places we need extra judges. I compliment the Senator from Kentucky for making the case for his State. The whole purpose of my speaking these 5 minutes or so is to make the point for the Record. On the record, for the Record, the Senator from Kentucky has a case. I believe he is correct. I will tell him I will do all I can immediately to try to get him an additional judge. But he knows the system as well as I do, and, quite frankly, better than anyone that I know. I would not want him to bet the mortgage on--he probably does not have a mortgage anymore--but I would not want him to bet the farm or the house on us getting this done very quickly. But I support him, and I think he is substantively correct.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, thank you very much. I would like to thank my colleague from California for her leadership in bringing about what I think is a workable piece of legislation. I would like to thank Senator Moynihan, who is not here. In 1983, he started this process. He argued we should be doing this, and we are finally getting there. With regard to the last point made by my colleague from Connecticut about the peace process, I have had the view for the past 24 years that the only way there will be peace in the Middle East is for the Arabs to know there is no division between the United States and Israel--none, zero, none. I argue that is why we are where we are today, because we did not relent under the leadership of this President and others. We made it clear that no wedge would be put between us, thereby leaving no alternative but the pursuit, in an equitable manner, for peace. Those familiar, and all are on this floor, with the Jewish people know the central meaning that the ancient city of Jerusalem has for Jews everywhere. Time and again, empires have tried to sever the umbilical cord that unites Jews with their capital. They have destroyed the temple. They have banished the Jews from living in Jerusalem. They have limited the number of Jews allowed to immigrate to that city. And, finally, in this century, they tried simply to eliminate Jews. (Mr. KYL assumed the chair.)

Mr. BIDEN. They may have succeeded, Mr. President, in destroying physical structures and lives. But they have never succeeded in wholly eliminating Jewish presence in Jerusalem, or in cutting the spiritual bond between Jews and their cherished capital. After the horrific events of the Holocaust, the Jewish people returned to claim what many rulers have tried to deny them for centuries: The right to peaceful existence in their own country in their own capital. How many of us can forget that poignant photograph of an unnamed Israeli soldier breaking down in tears and prayer as he reached the Western Wall after his army liberated the eastern half of the city in the Six Day War? Those tears told a story. A story of a people long denied their rightful place among nations. A people denied access to their most hallowed religious sites. A people who had finally, after long tribulation, come home. Mr. President, it is unconscionable for us to refuse to recognize the right of the Jewish people to choose their own capital. What gives us the right to second-guess their decision? For 47 years, we, and much of the rest of the international community, have been living a lie. For 47 years, Israel has had its government offices, its Parliament, and its national monuments in Jerusalem, not in Tel Aviv. And yet, nearly all embassies are located in Tel Aviv. I think this is a denial of fundamental reality. Mr. President, are we, through the continued sham of maintaining our Embassy in Tel Aviv, to refuse to acknowledge what the Jewish people know in their hearts to be true? Regardless of what others may think, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. And Israel is not just any old country. It is a vital strategic ally. As the Israelis and Palestinians begin the final status negotiations in May 1996--negotiations, I might add, that were made possible through the leadership of President Clinton--it should be clear to all that the United States stands squarely behind Israel, our close friend and ally. Moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem will send the right signal, not a destructive signal. To do less would be to play into the hands of those who will try their hardest to deny Israel the full attributes of statehood. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of the amendment offered by the Senator from North Dakota. We are fast approaching the culmination of this session--the culmination of a year of significant debate on the course of the Federal budget. This amendment goes to the heart of that debate--how should we bring the budget into balance, and how should the burdens of that process be shared among the people of this country? As one who voted for a balanced budget amendment, and as a cosponsor of a balanced budget plan, I share the conviction that deficit reduction should be among the top priorities of this Congress. But we should not let the urgency of that task blind us to our fundamental principles, or to the other, equally important responsibilities we face. As I have explained here before, Mr. President, balancing the budget is essential, not as an end in itself, but a means of restoring healthier growth to our economy, and as a means of promoting the basic principles that first led me to the Senate. I won't revisit here the clear and convincing reasons for fundamental change in our Federal budget. But while I am encouraged by the powerful consensus behind balancing the budget, Mr. President, I am concerned about the shortsighted priorities and the lack of fundamental fairness that characterize the budget plan that is now taking shape in this Congress. We will debate that budget plan on the floor of the Senate this week. The amendment of the distinguished Senator from North Dakota represents what should be simply common sense. But unfortunately, Mr. President, common sense seems to be in short supply these days. The amendment says simply that we should limit any tax cuts to families with incomes under $250,000, and use the savings to reduce the cuts that are planned for Medicare. I believe that there is a real need for tax relief--in a perfect world, perhaps we could spread tax cuts around a little more. But there can be no argument that families with middle incomes have seen their paychecks stuck for years--with no reward from the substantial gains in productivity that our national economy has made. Those working families spend more of their waking hours running faster just to stay in place. Mothers and fathers strain for a few minutes with their kids, with each other--never mind a moment for themselves. Because their wages haven't gone up, they have to spend more hours working every day just to keep up with growing expenses. Chief among the costs that are growing faster than the average family's income are health care and education. For most middle Americans, Mr. President, those are not luxuries to be deferred or cut back--they are costs that must be met by cuts in family time, in savings, in things that we used to consider essential and that increasingly are beyond reach. So we should do what we can to cut the costs of health care and education for Americans. Incredibly, the budget that is shaping up now does exactly the opposite. In their search for the funds to give tax cuts to people with incomes over $250,000, the Republican majority is increasing the costs of health care and education for the average American family. And, by itself, the tax bill just reported by the Finance Committee would actually increase the tax burden on the majority of Americans, Mr. President, those with incomes of $30,000 or less. Can't we at least put a cap on the unfairness in that plan? And, as the Republicans' own Congressional Budget Office has certified, Mr. President, their plan does not balance the budget. It continues to borrow from the Social Security surplus in the year 2002 to cover up a glaring $98 billion deficit. This is unconscionable, Mr. President, and it is unnecessary. We can reach the goal of a balanced budget, provide tax relief for the middle class, and restore some of the excessive cuts in Medicare that are part of the Republican budget plan. With Senator Bradley, I cosponsored earlier this year a budget plan that would have permitted up to $100 billion in tax relief for the middle class, including help with higher education expenses. That plan would have balanced the budget by 2002, without borrowing against the future obligations of the Social Security system. I also supported Senator Conrad's plan, that would have balanced the budget without raiding the Social Security system. We apparently cannot pass a budget this year that will not continue the charade of using Social Security surpluses--needed to meet its future legal and moral obligations--to cover up annual deficits in our operating budget. But, by supporting the amendment now before us, we can still restore some fairness to tax relief, and we can reduce some of the damage that will be caused by the exorbitant increases in Medicare costs in the Republican plan. This amendment simply expresses the sense of the Senate--a statement of our priorities--that we should limit any tax cuts to those who really need it, and that we should use those savings to reduce the hit on Medicare that the Republicans have planned--a hit that will be used to pay for tax cuts for those who don't really need it. I think those are the real priorities of almost all Americans--even those who may not directly benefit from the tax cuts. Most Americans share the goals of deficit reduction--because it will help all Americans. Deficit reduction will free up more of our scarce saving for private investments by homeowners, entrepreneurs, and corporations-- investments that will create jobs and sustain a growing economy. For those who are now well off, who will share in the benefits of a growing economy at least as much as anyone else, a tax brake now to sustain those whose incomes have been stuck for years is scarcely grounds for resentment. This amendment recognizes that we must use common sense and fairness as we search for ways to reduce the deficit and restore balance to our country's finances. So I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment, that will put the Senate on record sharing the priorities of most Americans--doing what is right and what is fair while we do what is necessary.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, a serious family emergency in Pennsylvania has required me to leave this afternoon on the spur of the moment. Had I been present, I would have voted against the amendments offered by Senator Simon and Senator Dodd, and in favor of final passage of the bill. [[Page S 15326]]

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, one of the greatest pleasures of our service in the Senate, is that we have the opportunity to call the Nation's attention to acts of extraordinary service and sacrifice by our citizens, and to record those acts as a part of our proud and uniquely American history of leadership by the People. On more occasions than any of us can count, Mr. President, our praise and thanks have been earned by members of a group who truly embody the highest ideals of citizenship and service--our Nation's firefighters. During this National Fire Prevention Week, I am especially proud to pay tribute to a firefighter from my State, Capt. Robert J. Lewis of the Talleyville Fire Company. On June 30 of this year, the Talleyville Fire Company was dispatched to help battle a house fire in Brandywood, a community just north of Wilmington, DE. There was heavy smoke coming from the attic, and the firefighters immediately went to work with handlines directed to the upper floor of the house. An engine crew from the nearby Claymont Fire Company was assigned to search the main attic. In the course of that search, Claymont Firefighter Greg Denston was caught when fire broke through the wall, engulfing the attic in flames and leaving little chance of escape by way of the staircase. In the course of working his way to the attic, Firefighter Denston had lost his helmet, and his protective mask had become dislodged when the flames broke through the wall. He alertly activated his personal safety signal device, hoping that someone would hear his call for help. Rescue Capt. Robert J. Lewis did hear, Mr. President, and he responded. Captain Lewis found a Claymont Fire Company helmet at the bottom of the attic staircase. He fought his way through heavy smoke and intense heat, and managed to get to the attic by way of the kind of fold-down stairs that can be hard to navigate under the best of circumstances. And these were surely the worst of circumstances. The attic was literally under siege by the fire. But Captain Lewis managed to locate Firefighter Denston and to pull him down the stairs, where several other firefighters helped get their injured comrade out of the house and on his way to medical treatment. Firefighter Denston was hospitalized for 7 days, and has continued his recovery at home. The hope of that recovery is only possible, Mr. President, because Robert Lewis answered the call for help, as firefighters do every day in cities and towns across America. Captain Lewis' professional instincts--and all firefighters are professionals--his professional instincts were perfect; he acted precisely as his training had taught him. But training can only teach you how to save a life. It cannot make you do it. The personal instinct that led Captain Lewis to act quickly and decisively--automatically, without pausing to weigh the pros and cons, putting his concern for another above his concern for his own safety-- that instinct comes from deep within. It is something hard to define, but it makes ordinary citizens into heroes every day. One American writer described it this way: ``There is a certain blend of courage, integrity, character and principle which has no satisfactory dictionary name but has been called different things at different times, in different countries. Our American name for it is `guts.' '' Training makes a professional; guts, Mr. President, make a hero. Capt. Robert J. Lewis of the Talleyville Fire Company did not become a hero on June 30, 1995. He was already a hero, as were his fellow firefighters, because they know that every time they answer the call they may be putting their lives at risk. And still they answer--without pausing to weigh the pros and cons, putting their concern for others above their concern for their own safety--each and every time. In recognizing Captain Lewis for his extraordinary service, we recognize all firefighters. They represent and summon the best in us-- the best of the American character--and we are grateful to them all.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, on September 29, I was unable to voice my opposition to the amendment proposed by Senator Inouye that reduced funding for international broadcasting. There are many programs and institutions worthy of support, but I believe it was self-defeating to augment one at the expense of another, which is one of the most valuable instruments of American foreign policy--Radio Free Europe/ Radio Liberty. I come to this issue with a good deal of experience as to the importance of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. The Radios, as they are commonly called, have set standards for objective journalism and analysis that are emulated and respected by news organizations and media across central Europe and the former Soviet Union. Many of the millions worldwide that listen to our U.S.-supported broadcasters live in countries where information and news continue to be controlled by the government. In these parts of the world, government information bureaus, government wire agencies, government radios and television channels continue to constrict the free passage of ideas. In an attempt to find offsetting funds in the bill, the sponsors of this amendment--naively and recklessly, in my opinion--would hobble an important instrument for promoting U.S. interests abroad. Last year, the Foreign Relations Committee, which authorizes funds for the Radios, debated and eventually agreed on a sensible plan to restructure and streamline the broadcasting programs. As we speak, Mr. President, U.S.-supported international broadcasting is becoming a more efficient and effective operation. The drastic cuts in this amendment, if left as is, will undermine the reform effort and will almost certainly force the elimination of important radio services around the world. Let's go over the International Broadcasting Act that this Congress enacted last year with bipartisan support as part of the State Department authorization bill. First, the act consolidated all the U.S. international broadcasting services and created a new broadcasting Board of Governors, which is now in place. Second, the plan called for reductions in Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty broadcasts to Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union by one-third. In the last year, over 1,250 jobs in programming, news gathering, broadcasting, and support services have been eliminated. Moving the headquarters of Radio Free Europe from Munich to Prague this fall, when completed, will reduce personnel costs by one-third. President Havel of the Czech Republic generously offered the Radios the use of the former Czechoslovak Parliament building at a symbolic fee of $12 per year. Overall, the plan will save well over $400 million by 1997. Moreover, Congress has directed that the funding of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty be assumed by the private sector by the end of the century. The radios are taking this seriously; indeed, the move to prague is a step on the path to privatization. The research arm of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty has already been privatized. Mr. President, the president's fiscal 1996 request for international broadcasting is 20 percent lower than the 1994 level. The committee appropriation of $355 million is $40 million less than the President's request and $30 million less than the amount authorized by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In other words, international broadcasting is already facing severe reductions that will force the elimination of language services and hours of broadcasting. This further cut to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty could irreplaceably damage our ability to broadcast to areas of the world where the United States has important national security interests. It is my firm belief that in the post-cold war world the United States must retain diversity and choice in the means by which it conducts its foreign policy. Gutting the radios--on top of the drastic cuts to State Department operations in the bill--would severely limit U.S. flexibility in promoting our goals overseas. Once again, Mr. President, allow me to explain to my colleagues why the freedom radios are still as important today as they were during the last 40 years. Leaders such as Vaclav Havel, Lech Walesa, and Boris Yeltsin have all testified to the valuable contribution of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty in the demise of communism in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Democratic government and market economies have not yet fully taken root in these parts of the world. The radios now offer a dual role: to provide a model of how an independent media should function, and to keep honest those who might seek to reestablish repression of the press. A survey of leaders of the former Soviet empire by the open media research institute found that nearly three-quarters of the respondents felt strongly that Western radio broadcasts were still needed. Some 25 million listeners still tune in to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. The radios provide critical information to the people of the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe about the events in Chechnya and the former Yugoslavia. As you know, controlling the media and spreading disinformation are key strategies of the Bosnian Serb leaders, and in several new democracies there is only partial news freedom. While Voice of America tells America's story, the radios act as surrogate media in the absence of free and independent media in the former Soviet empire, in Cuba, and now in Communist Asia. They fill the information gap--in the local languages--where governments deny citizens the fundamental right spelled out in article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: ``To seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.'' Mr. President, Congress has already authorized a plan to restructure and economize the radios. The Appropriations Committee has subjected the programs to further spending reductions. I believe that additional cuts for U.S.-sponsored international broadcasting would be contrary to American interests abroad, and I urge that the amendment be dropped in conference.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment by the distinguished Senator from New York. This amendment preserves trade adjustment assistance--job training and job placement help for workers who have lost their jobs as a direct consequence of U.S. trade policies. We here in Congress pass the laws that put out Nation's trade policies into effect--the policies that are negotiated by Presidents with our trading partners. We have the responsibility to assure that those trade policies benefit all Americans. Now, Mr. President, at times I have supported expanded trade as one of the ways to promote our Nation's economic interests. I am convinced that we must open the markets for American products and services around the world. Those new markets are our best hope for a growing economy with growing incomes and expanded job opportunities. I believe that without expanding world markets we will end up fighting over a stagnant or shrinking economy. But at the same time, there is no automatic guarantee that growth will benefit all Americans--in fact, economists will tell us that there will be losses as well as gains as jobs shift from low-growth to high-growth industries. That is why we must have the ability to help those who will pay part of the price for progress--those whose job loss can be traced to changes in our trade policies. That is why we must preserve the trade adjustment assistance training programs. These are men and women who have played by the rules--who have worked by the rules, Mr. President--and who, through no fault of their own, find their work is no longer needed. They have raised their families, built our neighborhoods and cities--they have done all a country can ask of them, and more. But today, these men and women can find that their job security is dependent on trade policy made here in Washington. Our decisions to participate in trade agreements can expose their industries to increased international competition. How can we turn our backs on their plight? Trade adjustment assistance not only helps these people deal with the transitions that are increasingly part of our rapidly changing international economy. This assistance makes good economic sense because it lowers the costs of economic adjustments--costs in wasted hours of unemployment and underemployment, in depressed communities, towns, and regions. By helping to move workers displaced by trade into new jobs faster, into jobs that best fit their skills and work experience, we reduce the costs of economic adjustment and increase the benefits for everyone. I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting this amendment. It is the fair thing for us to do, it is the responsible thing for us to do, and it makes good economic sense.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. I object.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution designating October 19, 1995 as ``National Mammography Day.'' Over the course of the past 2 years, I have introduced joint resolutions that designate October 19th as a special day to encourage women to get mammograms as part of the early detection process in the fight against breast cancer. Both times the joint resolution has been signed into law by President Clinton. This year, the House of Representatives is no longer considering commemoratives. Nevertheless, I feel that the Senate should go on record to continue to educate and raise the consciousness about the importance of early detection and the value of mammography. Mr. President, according to the American Cancer Society, national figures on breast cancer indicate that, in 1995 alone, 182,000 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer. Forty-six thousand women will succumb to this disease. My home State of Delaware still ranks among the worst in breast cancer mortality, with an estimated 570 new breast cancer cases and over 150 breast cancer deaths. Although a cure for breast cancer may be some time away, early detection and treatment are crucial to ensure survival. Studies have shown and experts agree, that mammography is one of the best methods to detect breast cancer in its early stages. Mammograms can reveal the presence of small cancers up to 2 years before regular clinical breast examinations or breast self-examinations [BSE], saving as many as a third more lives of those diagnosed with the disease. With 50 percent of the breast cancer cases occurring in women over age 65, no women can be considered immune from the disease; in fact, 80 percent of the women who get breast cancer have no family history of the disease. Mr. President, the resolution I am submitting today sets aside 1 day in the midst of ``National Breast Cancer Awareness Month''--to encourage women to receive or sign up for a mammogram, as well as to bring about greater awareness and understanding of one of the key components in fighting this disease. Once again, I am pleased to sponsor this resolution, and invite all of my colleagues to join me in this effort.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise to point out that the most important change in the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill just happened in the most quiet of ways. The Senate has just restored the funding for next year's installment of the 100,000 COPS Program. This important program has already funded 25,891 State and local police officers devoted to community policing. This bill now continues the 100,000 COPS Program. The program is continued due to the addition of an amendment I offered that eliminated the law enforcement block grant and restored the 100,000 COPS Program. I am gratified that the amendment offered by Senator Hollings and myself has been adopted by the Senate.