Joe Biden

Mr. BIDEN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BIDEN. I thank the Chair. I seek recognition for the purpose of speaking on the issue of the arms embargo in Bosnia.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to argue again for lifting the illegal and what I believe to be immoral arms embargo against the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Actually, Mr. President, we should not even be in a position today of having to lift an embargo. In April 1992, when the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina was recognized internationally and granted admission to the United Nations, it automatically became covered by article 51 of the U.N. Charter, which grants every State the elemental right of self-defense. Inexplicably, however, the Bush administration was asleep at the switch and failed to act to abrogate the illegal embargo. For 3 years, Mr. President, I have repeatedly advocated lifting this unfair and illegal embargo. I would prefer that the timing of the lift be responsive to the wishes of the Bosnian Government which, after all, is the aggrieved party. The aggrieved party is literally fighting for its life. Not only am I frustrated and angry at the current situation, I am also disturbed that our country, which has been the beacon of hope to freedom-loving people around the world, should even be contemplating refusing to give the Bosnians the tools with which to defend themselves. How much more, Mr. President, do the Bosnians have to suffer? They have been invaded across an international border by troops equipped and assisted by the fourth largest army in Europe. Against the Bosnian Serbs with sophisticated, modern weapons including planes, tanks, rocket launchers, and heavy artillery, the Bosnian Government forces have fought with small arms and dogged determination. Although recently they have been able to capture a few heavy weapons, and reportedly have been covertly supplied with modest defense weaponry, the Bosnian Government forces are still vastly underarmed compared to the Serbian aggressors. Mr. President, let me repeat the phrase that I just used: Serbian aggressors. There is no moral equivalence in this conflict. The Government of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, one of the successor states of the former Yugoslavia, gave absolutely no provocation to the Bosnian Serbs, who have torn this small country apart. On the contrary, in 1991 and early 1992, while Serbs and Croats were fighting in neighboring Croatia, the Bosnian Government strove to retain the multireligious and multiethnic fabric of its own State. But unscrupulous demagogic politicians like Milosevic in Serbia and Karadzic in Bosnia, in order to implement their vicious racist ideology, exploited fears and successfully widened existing religious and socioeconomic divisions. From this incitement came the centrally planned murder, rape, and vile ethnic cleansing that have so revolted the civilized world. Mr. President, let us not tolerate criminals cynically wrapping themselves in religious garb. The Bosnian Serbs' behavior has absolutely nothing to do with Orthodox Christianity. French President Jacques Chirac forcefully made this point at a dinner of European Union leaders when he reportedly rebuked the President of Greece, an apologist for the Bosnian Serbs. He said, ``Don't speak to me about any religious war,'' Chirac said. ``These are people without any faith, without any sense of law. They are terrorists.'' Yet somehow Western European statesmen have criticized the Bosnian Government forces and chastised them for trying to break the blockades of Sarajevo and Bihac. Imagine the impertinence, Mr. President. Sarajevo has been blockaded for 38 months, more than 3 years. Its long- suffering population has been shelled and sniped at, and denied water, food, medicine, electricity, and gas. Mr. President, they literally string blankets and sheets across the narrow streets of the old parts of Sarajevo. When I was first there, I thought it was an unusual way of drying their laundry. I asked, ``why are they hanging sheets and blankets there?'' I was told that they are hanging there for only one reason--to thwart the Bosnian Serbs from sniping at Moslem, Croatian, and Bosnian Serb children. That is why they are there. No one denies this. Sniping at children is the Bosnian Serbs' calculated plan, which they carry out nearly every day. Senator Dole and I went to visit a hospital in Sarajevo. The only people there were children from ages 6 to 20 who were the victims of sniper fire--not random fire, not what they are doing with random shelling--sniper fire. So there is, in fact, a campaign of terror going on. And so here you have Sarajevo and Bihac, Sarajevo blockaded for 38 months, shelled and sniped at, the target of terrorist activities. And so now, when outgunned Bosnian Government forces try to break the siege, which contravenes the U.N. resolution, not to mention basic human rights, what is the reaction of the most advanced industrialized democracies? Well, Mr. President, in mid-June, we got a taste of their reaction at the G-7 summit in Halifax. The world's wealthiest nations, the United States included, called upon all parties, even those who have been under siege for 38 months, to display the greatest restraint. Is that not nice? This callous declaration surely set a new standard for arrogance, for blaming the victim. I would ask the well-fed gentlemen of the G-7 if they could look into the face of an undernourished, weakened Sarajevo mother who gets shot at, literally shot at, while running to fetch a plastic jug of water for her children, and tell her that her government's army should display the greatest restraint. Mr. Akashi, a great world citizen, a top U.N. diplomat in the Balkans, in deliberate violation of his own organization's declaration, announced on June 9 that UNPROFOR, the U.N. protective forces, henceforth would act only if the Bosnian Serbs agreed. Keep in mind that the Bosnian Serbs have Sarajevo, Bihac, and other cities under siege. Mothers literally cannot go to get water because all the water has been cut off. The gas and electricity has been cut off. So they go to a public fountain, a spring, and are shot at, murdered cold-bloodedly--in cold blood. And Akashi says on June 9, that by the way, we, the U.N. forces, will take no action on any matter unless we first check with the snipers, the Bosnian Serbs. Now, is that not wonderful? Is that not wonderful? But if the Bosnian Serbs do not agree, then the United Nations will not act. What is the Bosnian Government, having been criticized for trying to break the siege, supposed to do? They are under siege--no water, no food, no electricity, in a campaign to kill their children. And their government is told not to act unless the United Nations first talks to the Bosnian Serbs. Well, Mr. President, the criticism of the Bosnian army for attacking to break the siege would be laughable if it were not so utterly grotesque. Nonetheless, some West European governments have criticized the United States for our advocacy of the victimized Bosnian Moslems. Perhaps the following piece of counterfactual analysis might be helpful to our friends in London and Paris. What if, Mr. President, a Moslem-dominated Bosnia and Herzegovina had attacked a peaceful, Orthodox Christian Serbia, carried out barbaric atrocities against Orthodox Serbian civilians, and then proudly announced that its policy of so-called ethnic cleansing had been successful--would Christian Europe then be sitting idly by, conjuring up excuse after excuse for not halting the cruel and cowardly aggression? I think the answer is self-evident. Bigotry, sad to say, spreads more easily than tolerance. So we must not allow ourselves to fall into the trap of labeling all Serbs--in Bosnia, Serbia, or elsewhere--as racists. Nearly 200,000 Serbs, sometimes referred to as the forgotten Serbs, continue to live in the territory under the control of the Bosnian Government. When I first visited Bosnia several years ago, I met with the Council of Leadership of the Bosnian Government, four of whom were Serbs. The army was 28-percent Serbian. It was a multiethnic country--the army and the Bosnian Government made up of Serbs, Croats, and Moslems, all of whom were Bosnians. So I want to make it clear that not all the Serbs, by any stretch of the imagination, in fact, are like the aggressors. I might add that when I visited Belgrade over 2 years ago and met with a group of about 75 leaders from business, academia, and other walks of life, including the press, two things were clear: First, the vast majority of the people living in Serbia did not know the truth. Second, if they did they would not support either the ethnic cleansing by the Bosnian Serbs or the actions taken by their own government. I felt they did not support what Karadzic was suggesting. But all they had was a totally government-controlled television outlet, like the old Communist days in Yugoslavia. So all they saw on the news were Bosnian Serb children being slaughtered and even hung up on racks like chickens. All pure propaganda, not true. The world acknowledges this now. Milosevic did it to enrage his population, to play on centuries-old fears and divisions, and it worked. But the vast majority of the Serbian people are good, honorable, and decent, but they do not know the truth. In the Government-controlled portion of Bosnia, there is an organized Bosnian Serb political opposition to Mr. Karadzic and his fellow thugs in Pale. There are many Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian Croats serving in the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina, including the Government army's deputy chief of staff who is a Bosnian Serb. Indeed, there are thousands of decent, moral Serbs in Sarajevo, Belgrade, and elsewhere whose personal values rise above the primitive, provincial racism of Karadzic, Milosevic, and company. Despite the almost unbelievable privations endured by Sarajevans, the Bosnian capital's Moslem, Orthodox, Catholic, and Jewish citizens are still living together, hoping against hope that their sophisticated city can receive the basics--food, water, and medicine--currently denied them by the Serbian bullies in the hills who cowardly snipe at their children and indiscriminately lob shells at innocent civilians. I have already outlined the legal basis and moral imperative for giving the Bosnian Government the means to defend itself. Now I would like to address the tactical arguments often given against lifting the arms embargo. Some critics assert that the Bosnian Serbs would react by overrunning the eastern enclaves of Srebrenica, Gorazde, and Zepa. I would remind those critics, first of all, that the Serbs have been attacking Gorazde for weeks without success. More importantly, the U.N. Security Council has called for defense of the safe areas with air power, if necessary, and with vigorous American leadership, NATO could do so. A second criticism is that lifting the arms embargo would induce UNPROFOR to pull out. But I regret to say, Mr. President, that UNPROFOR troops have become the world's most expensive hostages and have ceased to be able to carry out their mandate. UNPROFOR has publicly abandoned its attempt to protect Sarajevo from bombardment of heavy artillery. On June 17, a U.N. spokesman admitted: ``The policy of weapons-collection points has now been abandoned.'' Moreover, the United Nations is manifestly unwilling to honor its commitment to use all necessary means--that is what the U.N. resolution says--all necessary means to bring supplies to the desperate civilian populations of Sarajevo, Bihac, and the eastern enclaves. Mr. President, UNPROFOR is now mainly in the business of protecting itself, which I do not blame it for doing, but that is all it does. It has outlived its usefulness and should be withdrawn, independent of whether or not we lift the arms embargo. Another frequently heard criticism of lifting the arms embargo unilaterally is that it would cause a rift in NATO. Mr. President, in case anyone is not looking, there is already a rift in NATO, and it is going to get bigger as the American people think over why we spend $110 billion a year, every year, for NATO. For what purpose? For what purpose? If they cannot affect events in Bosnia, for what purpose are our American taxpayers spending $110 billion a year? Mr. President, I step back to no man or woman in this Senate in being a supporter of NATO. I respectfully suggest that I have been one of its strongest advocates for more than 20 years. But it seems to me that if we do not move and do something, NATO will be split and fractured more than by our unilaterally lifting an arms embargo. NATO will be signing its own death warrant by a continuation of its ineffectual response in Bosnia, hobbled as it is by incomprehensible U.N.-controlled rules of engagement. Some critics claim that lifting the arms embargo would automatically lead to spreading of the conflict to other parts of the Balkans. Mr. President, this assertion flies in the face of the facts by ignoring the example of the deterrence policy already employed by the United States on Serbia's southern border. There, an outstanding success story of the Clinton administration's Balkan policy has been the sending of several hundred American troops to join the Nordic U.N. contingent in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Combined with our warning to Milosevic not to even dream of attacking, this action--not the existence of the arms embargo--is what has kept Belgrade's hands off the fledgling Macedonian State. He knows we mean it there and he has not moved. We should extend the warning to Milosevic that any intervention of his army in the conflict in Bosnia, either to aid the Bosnian Serbs after the lifting of the embargo or to harass the evacuation of UNPROFOR troops, would result in massive, disproportionate retaliation against Serbia proper. Finally, some opponents of lifting the embargo foresee a dire precedent for unilateral embargo-breaking elsewhere, such as those currently in effect against Iraq and Libya. The line goes, ``If we unilaterally lift the arms embargo against Bosnia, won't our allies lift the arms embargo against Iraq and Libya?'' But surely, Mr. President, one can point out even to the most disingenuous foreign politician that there is a world of difference between sanctions against Bosnia, the victim of international aggression, on the one hand, and an embargo against Iraq, a notorious international aggressor, on the other hand. We can and should use our considerable leverage against countries who would threaten deliberately to ignore this obvious and fundamental distinction. In conclusion, Mr. President, in actuality, opponents of lifting the illegal arms embargo against Bosnia ignore a much more ominous precedent than breaking the U.N. sanctions. The geostrategic reality of the future is that the primary danger to peace will much more likely come, not from nuclear missiles, but from regional crises, often in the form of ethnic conflicts and oppression of minorities. In that context, therefore, the more dangerous precedent would be to reward an aggressor for his cold-blooded invasion, vile ethnic cleansing, murder, rape, pillage, and starvation by blockade. Europe, unfortunately, has other potential Milosevics and Karadzics. That is the sad reality to which we must adjust as we prepare to enter the 21st century. That, Mr. President, is not feel-good idealism. It is nuts- and-bolts realpolitik, and we should begin to practice it. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, our securities laws have served this country well for more than 60 years. Remember, the 1933 and 1934 securities acts were borne out of the 1929 stock market crash. Yet, the bill we are debating would topple our well-founded securities laws. I oppose the so-called Securities Litigation Reform Act--not because I do not think we need some reforms--but, because by supposedly discouraging frivolous lawsuits, this legislation would discourage legitimate suits too. Let us be honest. Most corporate executives and plaintiff lawyers are responsible. What we should do is target and penalize those who abuse the system. But, we should not close the courthouse door to the many, in an attempt to reform the abuses of the few. In an effort to fix abuses, this legislation strips safeguards that protect millions of average Americans whose pensions are invested in security plans. The result of which will be to let white collar criminals go free. I fought for 7 long years in this Chamber to pass a tough, smart, balanced crime bill. And I stood on this floor with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle as we debated who could be tougher on crime. Yet, here we stand today, debating a bill to give white collar crooks in three-piece suits a free ride. This so-called Private Securities Litigation Reform Act is about white collar crime. This is about law and order. The financial losses victims suffer can wipe them out. I realize that securities laws are complex, but the devastating impact of this legislation is simple: It impacts our senior citizens--with 3 out of 4 seniors relying on investment income to meet some of their day-to-day living expenses. It impacts police, firefighters, teachers, and labor and automobile union members whose pensions are invested in securities. Whether you live in a small town or a big city, if you are a small or large investor, this legislation affects you. I have several major concerns with this legislation. First, investors would have to prove that a corporation made a falsehood with a clear intent to deceive. That's incredibly tough to prove. Under current law, investors must show that unreasonable or reckless predictions of a corporation's performance misled investors. If this bill becomes law, however, companies could get away with making misleading, even fraudulent, statements about their earnings. Second, accountants, auditors, lawyers, and underwriters are given a free ride--they can escape liability even if they go along with a fraudulent scheme. Some have compared that to giving the driver of a getaway car immunity from prosecution for an armed robbery. Third, the bill fails to modestly extend the statute of limitations for investment fraud suits, which currently is too short. Instead of a 1- to 3-year statute of limitation, we should give defrauded investors 2 to 5 years. That's reasonable--and it would give victims more time to file suit so that a guilty party does not dodge liability. Finally, this bill wipes out joint and several liability--leaving crime victims holding an empty bag and unable to get their money back. We hear a lot of rhetoric about the attack of the vulture lawyers-- preying on corporations, stockbrokers, and accountants. But what about vulnerable investors? Some unfounded lawsuits are filed. Some lawyers do make too much from a suit--leaving defrauded investors too little. But, this massive bill--pushed through with such little examination, without a proper hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee to assess its impact on our judicial system--is not the answer. Let us protect the small investor--not let white collar criminals go unpunished. If we pass this bill, mark my words, we will be back here in 2, 3, 4 years undoing it. There will be another Orange County-- another huge insider trading scandal--millions of defrauded Americans, parents, hard-working men and women--who will have no recourse and no hope for reimbursement if we let this bill become law. There is a way to deal with the abuses in securities litigation. I am a cosponsor of a bill introduced by Senators Bryan and Shelby, S. 667, the Private Securities Enforcement and Improvements Act of 1995. In response to the criticism that securities litigation suits are initiated by professional plaintiffs, the Bryan-Shelby bill would require plaintiff class representatives to certify their complaints, outline their interest in the pending litigation, and list any securities suits they might have filed in the prior 12 months. The Bryan-Shelby bill also would require that multiple securities class actions brought against the same defendant be consolidated and that a lead counsel be agreed upon by the various plaintiffs, or appointed by the court if no such agreement can be reached. I believe these new requirements for certification of complaints and the new case management procedures would improve the securities litigation process, without resorting to the extreme measures in the Dodd-Domenici bill, which will shut the courthouse door to millions of valid claims. The Bryan-Shelby bill also includes a reasonable extension of the statute of limitations for securities liability actions and would restore liability for aiding and abetting if an accountant or lawyer knowingly or recklessly provided substantial assistance to another person in violation of the securities laws. Mr. President, I commend my colleagues, Senators Sarbanes, Bryan, and Boxer, for leading the effort to improve the Dodd-Domenici bill. Unfortunately, however, we were only able to get a couple amendments approved. I appreciate my colleagues support--on both sides of the aisle--for my amendment that will maintain a civil RICO action against anyone who has been criminally convicted of securities fraud, thereby tolling the statute of limitations for such a RICO action until the final disposition of the criminal case. I urge my colleagues to vote against S. 240. To supporters of this bill, I say, OK, you have the Nation's attention now. Let's go back to the drawing board and draft a more reasonable approach based upon the Bryan-Shelby bill to curb the relatively small number of frivolous securities lawsuits without dismantling the entire existing securities litigation process.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to commend the House Appropriations Committee for its vote yesterday to restore the moratorium on off-shore oil and natural gas drilling. A bipartisan coalition of coastal State members led the successful fight to rightly reverse the subcommittee's recommendation to lift this needed ban. Mr. President, our Nation's coastline is perhaps our most beautiful and cherished natural resource. With the Fourth of July weekend fast approaching, many American families are planning to head to the beech to escape the heat, walk along the boardwalk, and swim in our oceans. When they look out to sea, the only sight should be the Sun melting into an endless horizon. They do not want to see gigantic oil and gas drilling rigs and most importantly they do not want to expose their children to pollution. Mr. President, for 14 years the Congress has stood behind the off- shore ban, which strikes a fair balance between the need for development of natural resources and environmental protection. Yesterday, the full Appropriations Committee recognized the necessity of this balance and I again commend committee members of both parties for their foresight. I remain deeply concerned, however, that there may be yet another attempt to lift the ban as the appropriations bill moves through the legislative process. I will watch this situation closely and will oppose vigorously any attempt to open our shoreline to needless exploitation.

Mr. BIDEN

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

Mr. BIDEN. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I have been here a while. When I first got here 23 years ago, I learned a lesson from Russell Long. I went up to him on a Finance Committee day and asked to have an amendment accepted, and he said yes. I proceeded to speak on it half an hour and say why it was a good amendment. And he said, ``I changed my mind. Rollcall vote.'' I lost. He came later and he said, ``When I accept an amendment, accept the amendment and sit down.'' I will take 30 seconds to explain my amendment because it is about to be accepted. I thank my friend from Pennsylvania for allowing me to move ahead. He is always gracious to me and I appreciate it. There is a carve-out in this legislation, carving out securities fraud from the application of the civil RICO statutes. I think that is a bad idea. But I will not debate that issue tonight. I have an amendment that is before the body that says such a carve- out exists, except that it shall not apply if any participant in fraud is criminally convicted; then RICO can apply, and the statute does not begin to toll until the day of the conviction becomes final. Keeping with the admonition of Russell Long, I have no further comment on the amendment.

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

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

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my strong opposition to efforts by some in the House of Representatives to remove the current moratorium on offshore oil and gas drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf. Last Tuesday, the House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee voted to lift this 14-year-old ban without soliciting any input from the coastal states directly affected. The full committee will have an opportunity to reverse this misguided action this week, and I call on them to reinstate this prohibition. Mr. President, lifting this moratorium is short-sighted and unnecessary, and threatens to litter our coastline with mammoth drilling rigs. This will only increase the likelihood of oil and gas spills and other environmental disasters. We faced this battle roughly 20 years ago in Delaware when oil and gas interests wanted to drill in the Baltimore Canyon off the coast of the Delmarva Peninsula. This is clearly one instance where Federal law is necessary and effective and we ought to keep the ban. Mr. President, I am terribly concerned that this move is yet another part of an overall antienvironmental agenda now being advanced. Whether it is the air we breath, the water we drink or the food we eat, there are increasing attempts to do away with reasonable health and safety protections. Lifting the ban on offshore drilling--at a time when world oil supply and prices remain stable, and when the Republican budget proposal includes billions in oil sales from the north slope of Alaska--is unnecessary, misguided and just plain wrong. Just one oil or natural gas spill, similar to the tragic Valdez accident, could permanently destroy miles and miles of pristine State beaches and boardwalk. Such an accident could also easily erase the decade of progress made in restoring the fragile ecosystems of the Chesapeake and Delaware Bays. Due largely to concerns over these environmental risks, the Congress, in 1982, struck a fair balance between the need for expedited exploration and development, and the need to protect coastal environments. This policy has been effective and has enjoyed bipartisan support. Oil and natural gas extraction in the most abundant areas has continued and even increased, generating tens of billions of Federal revenue, while the sanctity, beauty and safety of our coastlines has been preserved. A fair balance. Yet now, in total disregard for the interests of coastal states, and ``States rights'' which is so often invoked and embraced, the House is attempting to upset this balance. Mr. President, this is a perfect example of the proper role for Government in ensuring the safety of our environment and the health of our citizens. At a bare minimum, coastal states should have the authority to extend the moratorium to the Outer Continental Shelf adjacent to the States' coastline. That is why I have joined with the distinguished Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer] in introducing legislation enabling States to reimpose this needed drilling restriction on their Outer Continental Shelf waters. Yet, I remain terribly concerned that a more comprehensive approach, covering all of the Outer Continental Shelf, as we have had in the past, is what is needed. Mr. President, I intend to fight vigorously to ensure the continued sanctity of our coastal communities and remain committed to the ban on offshore drilling.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 274, I voted ``nay.'' It was my intention to vote ``aye.'' Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote. This will not change the outcome of the vote. I have checked with both leaders.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New York. What I am about to say, I say standing next to my good friend from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, who has worked tirelessly on this bill, with which I disagree, but I want to make a very brief statement. I strongly support the position taken by the Senator from Pennsylvania. This litigation makes numerous precedent-setting changes in the country's judicial system. While my colleagues in the Banking Committee had a chance to examine the changes the bill would make to our Nation's security laws, it seems to me that we may have skipped a very important step. The so-called Securities Reform Act makes significant revisions to the Federal rules of evidence relating to mandatory rule 11 sanctions and rule 26 discovery proceedings, and yet, it has not been referred to the Judiciary Committee. I hold myself partially responsible for that. In truth, I say to my friend from Connecticut, I should have been hollering for this in my committee before this time. I was mildly preoccupied with other things before the committee. To tell you the truth, it was called to my attention by my friend from Pennsylvania, and I realize this is a serious mistake, in my view, and that we have not had this before the Judiciary Committee. In the past, bills that have made changes to the Federal rules of evidence were referred to the Judiciary Committee to enable the committee with expertise to review the work on this legislation. This bills is no different. Similarly, limiting joint and several liability, restricting the statute of limitations, changing the rules of class action suits in favor of large investors, are all judiciary-related issues. Yet, the Judiciary Committee never had a day of hearing on any of these specific issues. If the bill becomes law, companies could potentially get away with making misleading, even fraudulent, statements about their earnings. Yet, to win a class action suit, you would have to prove a falsehood was made with a clear intent to deceive. That is an incredibly tough standard. I will admit some frivolous lawsuits are filed. Some lawyers do make too much from a suit, leaving defrauded investors with little. But I do not believe this massive bill is the answer. So in order to protect the small investors, it seems to me that we should at least look at the significant changes in the rules of evidence. If this bill passes, I make the prediction to us all here, we will be back in two, three, four years undoing it, after another Orange County or another insider trading scandal, or after millions of people are defrauded with some other scam that occurs. Quite frankly, I think we would be wise to take a close look, with a specific time for referral, if need be, to the Judiciary Committee, to look at these changes in the rule of ethics. I do not profess to have expertise in the securities industry, but we do know something about the rules of evidence and the shifting burden of truth. I thank my colleague for his indulgence, and I thank the Senator from Illinois. I thank the Senator from Connecticut for not getting up and saying, ``Why, Joe, did you not do this earlier?" I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. The Senator from Montana essentially answered the question I was about to ask--that we could not do that on this bill. I agree that that would be a significant and important change. Granted, it only comes out of the mass transit fund, which, right now, is in surplus. But it does not come out of the highway money. I would rather see a half-cent come out of that 2 cents going to the highway fund. But it is very important. I want to respond very briefly to the four basic points the Senator made. I will really focus on one. He talked about this being--that we are robbing Peter to pay Paul. That is a judgment for Peter to make, whether he wants to give it to Paul. ``Governor Peter'' can decide whether or not he wants to suggest that it go to Paul. If Governor Peter wants it to stay where it is, you do not have to rob anybody. It stays where it is. This notion of the need for bridges and repairs, obviously, if the States conclude the bridges are more important to them than Amtrak, then they will make that judgment. We are only talking about one portion of the highway trust funds that go into the State, which rough cut is about 25 percent of the moneys that the States get, that is the only portion they could use. No. 3 is this notion of disruption. I have great admiration for my friend from Montana, and I mean that sincerely. He knows that if you can paint a picture for someone that makes the proposition look a little ridiculous, it is very compelling. His idea of going 150 miles an hour through Montana to the border of Idaho and getting off the train and getting on this chugalug train that is going to take you through Idaho, is a very disruptive picture. That is why Senator Roth placed in the legislation this compact that no Governor is going to in fact decide to divert money to Amtrak from their highway trust fund money if in fact they know that train is going to stop at the Idaho border. So the reason for the compacts are allowing the States of Washington, Idaho, Montana, and the Dakotas, to sit down and say, does it make sense for us all to do that? If they cannot get it done, they are not going to do it. It is a very colorful picture to paint of this train speeding and going through Coeur d'Alene, ID, and then coming to a screeching halt. It is not realistic and not likely to happen. I will end by saying that my friend from Montana has been very, very helpful in the past regarding the need to set up a dedicated fund for Amtrak, just like there is one for highways, recognizing the national need. The point, though, is that if the States conclude that it is better to use that small portion of their highway funding for Amtrak, and if they want to do that in conjunction with other States in their region, we should allow them. We allow them to do that for bicycle paths now, Mr. President, and we allow them to do that for walking paths. We allow them to go out and buy buses, and we allow them to make capital investments for other means. The only thing we do not allow them to do is deal with it with regard to intercity rail service. I was intrigued by the Senator's remarks, and I am heartened by his commitment to taking a half-cent of the gasoline tax, which is now going in one [[Page S 8768]] direction but will revert to the way in which he suggested--coming up with $600 million for capital for Amtrak which, by the way, would meet Amtrak's capital needs on a yearly basis. He is correct, it would essentially put them in the black. They would be able to run in a very efficient way and increase service, not diminish service. I thank him for his suggestion. I look forward--if he is still willing--to working with him on the reconciliation bill to do that. In the meantime, I think this does not create the inconvenience he suggests would be created. In large part, the most compelling argument he made is disruption, and I think Senator Roth was farsighted in laying out in the legislation the compact capability for States, and that is the reason for that provision of the legislation. I thank my colleagues and yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield 2 minutes?

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I would urge adoption of the Roth-Biden [[Page S 8788]] amendment and ask for a voice vote on that now.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I wonder whether the managers of the bill are willing to have a voice vote on adoption of this amendment now.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise to speak to this amendment. Mr. President, my colleague from Delaware and I are often suspect when it comes to Amtrak since we are such daily users. So I want a full disclosure to acknowledge that, if I had my way, we would be dealing with Amtrak in a way far beyond what this amendment does. I think we should be setting up a trust fund for Amtrak. I think we should be dealing with it very differently than we are. But, Mr. President, the amendment that the Senator from Delaware, Senator Roth, and I have is much more modest in its approach, and it is not designed to be a long-term solution for Amtrak's financial problems. They are going to have to come from the internal restructuring which Senator Roth referred to that is already under way and from a clearly defined, in my view, dedicated source of funds to support its capital needs the way we provide capital for highways and airports in other systems. I would just like to note for the record that we subsidize airports and highways on a per passenger basis considerably more than we do Amtrak. It is not even close. And the single most environmentally sound thing we could do and, from a safety standpoint, the single most significant thing we can do is have a real passenger rail service system in the United States. I might add there is not one single passenger rail service system in the world that is self-sufficient; not one in the whole world. But that is another argument. We are not here today to correct the problems of Amtrak. We are here to try to deal with an inequity that exists that in effect prejudices Amtrak in a way no other means of transportation, including pedestrian paths and bike paths, are prejudiced. I believe there has been some misunderstanding about the proposal which Senator Roth and I have, and possibly we will see some of that in the debate today. But let me begin by briefly explaining what this amendment will not do. It will not spend a dime of additional money. It will not spend a dime of additional money, State or Federal. It will not require any State in the Nation to spend any funds on Amtrak. There is no mandate, no requirement. It will not change any formula for the allocating of transportation funds among the States. It will not affect the amount of annual Federal transportation funds that States now receive. It will not do any of those things. So that your State, for Senators who are listening and the staffs who are listening, will not in any way be affected in terms of the amount of money, percentage of money, source of money that is now received. But let us look at what it will do. Mr. President, the bottom line is that this amendment simply permits the States to use funds they already qualify for in a way that is not currently permitted. Under this proposal, States will be given the discretion to include intercity rail service, which is another way of saying Amtrak, among the transportation options available to their citizens. Current restrictions on the use of Federal transportation funds will be removed, and Governors around this country will be able to use those funds that they now get under the present formula as they see fit, including supporting intercity rail service provided by Amtrak if that is what they choose to do. In very congested areas, particularly in the urban corridors along the east and west coasts, but also in other areas, adding some more highways is simply not an economic option. For example, in our State of Delaware, were Amtrak to shut down, the idea of building another I-95 through our State--our State is not wide enough to take another I-95. We cannot handle another system that is that large in terms of our air quality, in terms of our land resources available to us, and in every other way. It makes no sense. By the way, I might add, I will put in the Record at a later time what the effect on my State and the Northeast corridor would be if there were no Amtrak and what the effect would be on [[Page S 8765]] the airports of the east coast were there no Amtrak. The fact is that this option is not only an option that should be made available to States with a great deal of congestion--keeping an Amtrak route open on an existing rail right of way is much more cost effective, safer and cleaner than buying land and constructing even one more lane on a major interstate highway. The interstate highway is already there. It is called the right of way that Amtrak has. There is already a rail bed. And what is happening now because of cost containment, we are cutting the number of trains we put on that rail bed. We are cutting them, reducing the number of people who can use that mode of transportation and putting them on highways or in planes, both of which cause additional congestion. The increased flexibility provided by this amendment is fully consistent with the major goal of the National Highway System bill before us today and with so-called ISTEA, the landmark legislation that calls for a National Highway System designation. Mr. President, the need for this enhanced State flexibility is clear. In recent months, under the leadership of Amtrak's president, Tom Downs, Amtrak has undertaken, as Senator Roth has said, a major downsizing and restructuring to reduce and eventually eliminate its dependence on Federal operating subsidies. Now, again, I wish to make it clear I do not think it should have to do as much as it is doing. I think it is counterproductive. But the fact is they are given a mandate. They are told, by the way, this all ends in a year certain. And Downs has gone out there and done what he has had to do. He has fired thousands of employees. He has cut the number of trains going into various States. He has reduced costs. This is a mandate set out in both the House and Senate budget resolutions, which, I might add, I voted against, but it is there. That is likely to be the law. The first stage of this progress made by Mr. Downs was announced last December with major route eliminations taking effect in April. And President Downs heard from an awful lot of folks on this floor saying: Why did you cut the train out of my State? Why did you cut it out of my State? Why do I not have this access? And the answer is because we decided that we are not going to have the national rail transportation system that we should have. We are cutting the budget. Well, he did his part. He has cut and eliminated routes. Frequency reductions on selected routes throughout the country will be completed by this coming October. That is a euphemism for saying if you have three trains coming through your State now, you may have one coming through your State by October. These steps have reduced by 20 percent the route miles previously served by Amtrak. And as a result many commuters across the country find themselves with little or none of the Amtrak service that they once had depended upon. All of a sudden Governors who thought this was a good idea and even some of my colleagues in the Senate who thought it was a good idea are realizing how important Amtrak was to them. The Governors of those States where these cuts took place 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 as an important component of the modern national transportation system and in some States particularly their tourism. That is why States are seeking ways to use the funds, the CMAQ funds referred to earlier, to meet congestion mitigation and air quality goals, to support Amtrak rather than to deal with having to build more highways. Under current law, that is not an option. Under current law, they are not allowed to do that. I have here, Mr. President, a letter from Governors Dean of Vermont, Thompson of Wisconsin, Engler of Michigan, and Carper of Delaware, which I will not repeat. It was already put into the Record by my colleague from Delaware. Mr. President, among the authors of this letter are Governors who have already committed their own State's general revenue to support intercity rail routes at the same time they have surpluses in Federal transportation programs that are prohibited because they are prohibited from using Amtrak services. In other words, their citizens pay into the highway trust fund x amount of dollars. They get them back. Because they do not want to build more highways, they cannot use them so they have to send them back to the trust fund, not to the taxpayers, not to those folks--back into the trust fund. And they say, why can we not use that money to meet the needs in our State, the transportation needs and the air quality needs, et cetera? States that have confirmed the importance of Amtrak runs include California, Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Vermont--the list goes on. Mr. President, virtually every advanced industrial nation in the world has found intercity passenger rail service to be essential. All of our major competitors and trading partners provide some level of financial support to assure that the benefits of passenger rail, which include less congestion and less construction of highways and airports, are available to them. There are tourists here listening to this today from other countries. One of the often heard marvels is, well, I was in Paris; I was in Tokyo; I got in a spotless train that went 190--in one case 300--miles per hour and it got me from A to B, and it was economical, and it could, and it worked, et cetera. Why does the greatest nation in the world not have that? Well, the greatest nation in the world does not have that because we have devalued intercity rail service. Our amendment today does not solve the overall problem, but it does provide those Governors that I mentioned and others the means, if they choose, to support Amtrak routes important to their States. With the tools provided by this proposal, States will be empowered to make more efficient decisions about the mix of transportation services that best meet their citizens' needs. Now, if the Governor of a State says, ``I do not want any part of any Amtrak service,'' fine. That is up to the State. Let them make that choice. Mr. President, this amendment would help those States and others maximize the effectiveness of their transportation dollars. Specifically, it makes Amtrak an eligible use for funds from the following areas: The surface transportation program. Right now those funds may be used for most kinds of roads and highways as well as for capital costs, for bus terminals, for carpool projects, for bicycle and pedestrian facilities, for hiking paths, for bike paths. They can use the highway funds for all those things, but they cannot use it for Amtrak passenger rail service. Our amendment would add intercity rail to that list, consistent with the aims of the program to support a fully integrated transportation network. This amendment also makes intercity rail an eligible use for the so-called CMAQ funds. This program--congestion mitigation and air quality is what the acronym stands for--this program is designed to help urban areas come into compliance with the Clean Air Act requirements. Mr. President, Amtrak can cut down on congestion and carry the same number of people with less pollution than 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 in support of Amtrak services. Logically, it may require coordinated efforts among a number of States to make a regional passenger railroad possible. Those States could use the funds from the program I just listed or make use of bonding authority under the compact to support intercity rail services. In every instance, this proposal is consistent with the goals of the ISTEA, so-called ISTEA. And in an important sense, this amendment simply removes the inconsistencies in the earlier legislation. When ISTEA was enacted in 1991, Mr. President, the major premise of that legislation was to remove inefficient and unnecessary hurdles in the way of our national transportation policy. Fundamental to that landmark legislation was the realization that all of the [[Page S 8766]] components of our transportation system, all of the various transportation modes, must be allowed to work together, each making its own appropriate contribution according to what the States believe are needed to do that. In the end, ISTEA provided unprecedented flexibilities to States and localities to make use of Federal transportation funds to provide the mix most appropriate for local, State and regional transportation needs. The amendment we are offering here today extends the irrefutable logic of that approach to intercity rail service making it eligible for Federal transportation funds. By opening up more options to State and local officials, by relieving congestion on our highways and in our airports, this amendment is fully consistent with the goals of ISTEA. I urge my colleagues to keep in mind that the very highway interests who argue against this amendment argued against all those other changes as well. And I want my colleagues to please keep in mind, when they vote on this amendment, what this amendment does not do. It does not add a dime of additional money to State or Federal funds. It will not require the States to spend a single dime on Amtrak. It will not change any formula allocating transportation funds to your State. And it will not affect the amount of annual Federal transportation funds that your State will receive. It will merely give your State greater flexibility. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of the time. Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.

Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield on that point?

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I think the automobile manufacturers--my father having been an automobile salesmen his entire life--are honorable, decent people who know their self-interest, and I respect them for that.

Mr. BIDEN. We are a donor State. We like that opportunity. Lastly, the list from the cement manufacturers to the highway people, it seems like 100 years ago when I first got here in 1973 and was on the committee that the Senator is now the ranking member. Then every one of those interests were against anything that had to do with transportation other than highway. They always will, they always were, they always will be, and they always have. They were [[Page S 8771]] against the ISTEA provision that is related to transportation other than highways. They are against anything that does not lay cement, macadam, or concrete. It is real simple. Do not blame them. It is all there, the naked self-interest which is the way this place runs. OK, but the idea that they are against this, they never have been for anything at all progressive that related to any mode of transportation other than laying concrete, so help me goodness. I yield the 10 seconds I probably have left.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, everything my friend from Montana said up to a moment ago was basically correct when he said how are the donor States going to feel having another way to spend more money? No more money can be spent for this amendment, No. 1. No. 2, we are a donor State. We are for it. No. 3, the idea that somehow there are other ways to spend the money meaning that we are going to be taking money from one State and spending it another State is not accurate. I do not think he meant to say that. He may have left that impression.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. I am very concerned that Federal, State, and local law enforcement have adequate spectrum availability, and would like to work with the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the managers of this bill to ensure that this vital issue is addressed in the conference on this legislation. The reason this is so important is twofold. First, in this era where Federal, State, and local law enforcement often work together we need to maintain spectrum space so that these, and other public service agencies, can communicate with ease and with the most advanced technology available. If we develop better technology to allow the police to talk to each other without the bad guys listening in, we must have the spectrum available to use this technology. Second, we must work to ensure sufficient spectrum space for the myriad technological advances being made in the area of secured communications. I have heard several of the law enforcement leaders in my home State of Delaware raise these key points. So, I believe this is a practical problem that we face in Delaware and around the Nation. We do a disservice to law enforcement and to the American people if we do not provide these public servants with the many benefits of our rapidly advancing telecommunications industry. I look forward to working with my friend from Utah on this important effort.

Mr. BIDEN. I want to acknowledge and thank my colleagues for their efforts on this issue. In particular, Senator Hatch and the managers of this important legislation, Senator Pressler and Senator Hollings not only for their support of this effort, but also their support of law enforcement.