Joe Biden

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, if the Republican leader will yield for a moment, reserving the right to object. I am confident the reason why the list is growing is because no one has seen the bill. It has not been printed in the Record. There have been several of us who have seen the bill. Our colleagues have not seen the bill. Their staffs have not seen the bill. So I am absolutely confident that a significant portion of the amendments that are being added are being added in the blind. They just want to make sure that the bill does not do what it is rumored to do in the press. I think this is one of those cases where we should not spend a whole lot more time trying to narrow it. If we can get a list now, great, do it, but I am confident that the Senator from Utah and I, over the period of the remainder of the day and during the recess, will be able to go a long way to narrowing down that list as our colleagues get a chance and their staffs get a chance to read this bill, which is not in the Record yet. We always spend time weighing bills around here. This is a 150-page bill that no one has seen other than me, and I have not read it yet. I got it at 6 o'clock last night. I am not being critical of anyone, but that is just by way of explanation. I do not think amendments being added are added for any other reason than to protect some issue Members are concerned about in this legislation. I beg your pardon, it is in the Record. I stand corrected, it is in the Record as of last night. Based on the last vote, 15 to 20 people are gone. That is the only point I make. I am sure we can work that through.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. I rise to support Senator Lieberman's amendment on emergency wiretap authority. Quite frankly, Mr. President, this amendment would add to this bill the President's proposal in the President's original bill to extend authority for emergency wiretaps-- which are already available, I might add, for organized crime cases--to terrorism crimes. And I am sure people looking at this debate are probably thinking: Wait a minute. Senator Orrin Hatch is arguing against this on civil liberties grounds, and Biden being for this--I was going to facetiously say something, but I will not say it. This is no time for humor. At any rate, the reason I am for this bill--and I have a pretty long record and history here of being as vigilant in the civil liberties of Americans and constitutional rights as anyone in this body--is that I do not see a lot of distinction between crimes of terrorism and organized crime. It is kind of basic to me. If the justification exists for organized crime, why would it not exist for crimes of terrorism? Now, let me explain first what probably my friend from Connecticut has already explained--I apologize if I am going over old ground; I will be brief--what an emergency wiretap is and how limited an emergency wiretap is. In almost all cases, the Government has to get a court order to initiate a wiretap, under stringent standards set out in current law. The emergency wiretap authority allows the Government to initiate a wiretap without a court order in emergency situations involving, one, immediate danger of death or serious physical injury to any person; conspiratorial activities threatening national security; or conspiratorial activities characteristic of organized crime activities. Only the top three Justice Department officials--the Attorney General, Deputy [[Page S7602]] Attorney General, and Associate Attorney General--can organize an emergency wiretap. Now, if it stopped there, I could see why a lot of people would say, even with that, that is still too dangerous, and there is still too much exposure for Americans of their civil liberties. But even in those emergency situations, the law requires the Government to seek judicial approval of the wiretap within 48 hours. So it is not like there can be an emergency wiretap placed on the authority of the top three Justice Department officials, the top three, and left on and then the information used. Within 48 hours, they have to get a court order or cease and desist. That is the second requirement. First, it has to fit the criteria of immediate danger, death, and so on, which I read. Second, within 48 hours, there has to be a court order. Third, if when they go for the court order, the judge disagrees or declines, the wiretap has to end, and any evidence that has been gotten in that 48 hours cannot be used. It is sort of an exclusionary rule, if you will. It cannot be used. So Senator Lieberman's amendment, consistent with what the President asked for, would add to the list of emergency situations the following: Conspiratorial activities characteristic of domestic or international terrorism. It seems to me no less broad than conspiratorial activities characteristic of organized crime activities. Now, the consistent position for my friends to take here, if they are going to take on the amendment of the Senator from Connecticut, would be to amend the existing law to strike conspiratorial activities characteristic of organized crime. I doubt whether they would want to do that. So I am kind of at a loss that if they think that is a good idea, why not conspiratorial activities characteristic of domestic or international terrorism? Is someone going to tell me that they are more at jeopardy or less at jeopardy from the Gambino family than we are from some bunch of screwballs running around in the woods who are planning on blowing up a building? When is the last time the Mafia blew up a building? They are not good guys; they are all bad guys. But I do not quite understand the logic here. I do not understand the logic. Of course, a wiretap is a powerful and intrusive investigative tool. We have to be careful to guard against its abuses. There are several statutory restrictions that prevent the abuse of emergency wiretaps, none of which would be changed by this amendment. Now, there is much more that I am inclined to say, but I will not. I will conclude by saying, if a wiretap is authorized and the Government then goes to court within 48 hours, if the order is not granted, the interception is treated as a violation of title III and is inadmissible in trial. This provision, in my view, works no great expansion on the wiretap statute. The Government is still required to get a judicial order. But it is simply allowed to get an order after the fact when there is an emergency situation. The amendment simply extends the emergency wiretap authority to terrorism offenses and, surely, terrorism is as great a threat as organized crime. This is a narrow and sensible amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it. Let me emphasize that the amendment does not expand the list of offenses which can be investigated using a wiretap. By the way, most Americans--and I know my friend was a distinguished prosecutor and attorney general of his State. He knows full well --but even most practicing lawyers do not know--that you cannot, under the Federal law, get a wiretap for all felonies. You cannot get them for every crime. Most people think that if the FBI has reason to believe any felony is being committed, they can go get a wiretap. That is not true. They cannot even ask for a wiretap for certain crimes. This does not expand the list of things for which they can have an emergency wiretap. Nor does it expand the list that a judge, when it is 48 hours later and we say, ``Judge, make this real,'' the judge cannot say, ``Well, it is not covered as subject matter for wiretap under the law now, but I will let you do it because the change of the law allows it.'' It does not do that. It does not expand offenses which can be investigated using a wiretap. All it does is allow an emergency wiretap for those domestic and international terrorist offenses which involve violent acts and acts dangerous to human life. The wiretap must then be approved by the court. Quite frankly, I do not see how it could be construed to cover a simple political demonstration, as my friend from Utah fears. What I fear is that we are not making a false distinction between acts of terrorism and organized crime. I do not hear anybody suggesting that if the Gambino family gets together for a picnic, we are worried about whether or not an emergency wiretap may impact on their right to have a picnic. I do not hear them saying that. If a bunch of wackos get together talking about the Federal Government, and the Government has reason to believe they are preparing for or engaging in acts of violence, why not them, too? To put it in crass terms, if we can mess up the Gambino picnic, we should be able to mess up the screwball picnic, if there is evidence-- if there is evidence--that there is a likelihood of a violent act or violent crime to be committed. I do not know who we are protecting, but it does not seem to make any sense to me. No safeguards that exist now are being reduced. We are adding an additional category, the category seems reasonable to me. I compliment the Senator on his amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for just a matter of 3 minutes so I can speak to a subject unrelated to what we are discussing now.

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

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, for the benefit of my colleagues who are still here and those who are still left standing after 20-some votes today, I will be mercifully short. I will take about 15 to 20 minutes to make this opening statement on the bill. [[Page S7484]] Today, to state the obvious, the Senate turns to consideration of the counterterrorism legislation. Earlier this year, I, along with Senator Kohl and Senator Specter, introduced the President's original counterterrorism bill which responded to our experience with the World Trade Tower Center bombings 2 years ago. Since that time, our attention to the threat of terrorism has been heightened by the tragedy in Oklahoma City, which teaches that the threat of homegrown terrorism must be taken every bit as seriously as the threat of terrorism from abroad. Before the two tragedies occurred--that is, Oklahoma City and the World Trade Tower--many in America had thought ourselves immune from the bombs and other mass killing devices that were employed elsewhere, in other parts of the world. Americans enjoy freedoms unlike those of any other people in any other country on the planet. For decades, we have enjoyed those freedoms innocently and without fear here at home. We have always understood that freedom brings certain risks. The challenge before the Senate now, as we consider this legislation, is to improve our responsiveness to the risk, to the threat of terrorism, without losing the very freedoms we hold dear, without allowing the terrorists to succeed by forcing us, in order to deal with them, to give up the very freedoms they do not cherish but we do. Responding to this risk means standing against those who seek to destroy our democratic form of government, whether they come from the left or the right, from home or abroad. Incidents like Oklahoma City's bombing have no place in our free and democratic society, which allows full expression of all types of political views through legitimate means. There is simply no excuse, ever, in this country for turning to violence in a society where all the airwaves are open, uncensored newspapers exist, regular and free elections of the people's representatives take place, and we have a first amendment that guarantees the right of the people to be ignorant as well as informed; to be stupid as well as bright; to say outrageous things as well as informed things. So there is no excuse to turn to anything but the airwaves to deal with that issue. Mr. President, the Oklahoma City bombing and earlier bombing of the World Trade Center demonstrate clearly that the United States must respond seriously to those, whether foreign or domestic, who kill and seek to make their point through killings and mass killings of Americans. These events demand that we examine our current laws and practices to ensure that we are doing everything that is necessary and appropriate to guard against the threat. Mr. President, let me suggest that the overall point I wish to make at this juncture is that it is arguable by some that in other societies where there is no expression or outlet for one's frustration, anger, or cynicism, that they resort to physical force. If there is any country in the world where there is no justification to resort to physical force, it is this country. As I said, all you have to do is listen to some of the talk radio shows and some of the people that call in, and some of us on the floor--myself included--and you will know we even protect the right to be stupid and say crazy things. So there is certainly no need for anybody to suggest that they have to react to their frustration by the use of force. But the events in New York City and, most recently, in Oklahoma City, demand that we examine our current laws and practices to ensure that we are doing everything that is necessary to appropriately guard against threat. We have to take strong action to counteract terrorism, both foreign and domestic. There are steps we can take and should take, and the President has proposed a number of them in his bill. Of course, at the same time, we should not, in the heat of the moment, pass legislation that we and the American public will later regret. Our freedoms and our Constitution are simply too valuable to be put at risk in a hurried rush to respond to a terrible tragedy. Those of us working on the President's proposal over the last month have done so with an eye to ensuring that all of our constitutional protections remain fully intact. The President's original bill, introduced in February, laid out a core set of terrorist proposals. The Republican substitute bill, as the chairman of the committee has indicated, is built largely around these proposals. I might add, humorously, it continues to be built. We just got the final copy of a bill that is 160 pages long. So I am assuming what I am about to say is accurate. It was accurate as of a few hours ago. But I am told there are additional changes made in the Republican bill. The Republican bill is comprised primarily of, as I understood it 2 hours ago, measures from the terrorism bill that Senator Kohl and Specter and myself introduced on behalf of the President in February. There are a few new proposals by the President, in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing, and several proposals were added by Senator Dole, plus habeas corpus provisions added by Senator Hatch and Senator Dole. We tried to reach agreement with Senator Hatch on many of the provisions of this bill, and I continue to believe that most all of us here can agree on the core terrorism provisions. Unfortunately, in my view, the Republican substitute does not include several provisions sought by the President of the United States after the Oklahoma City bombing, which focused on domestic terrorism. While I agree that a few of the provisions in the President's bill need further work, several of those rejected by the Republican bill are reasonable and limited expansions of the law, which would greatly enhance our ability to fight terrorism without damaging our civil liberties. But for reasons that will be explained, I am certain, they were not included by the Republicans in their bill. I expect that these needed provisions, which I will outline in a moment, will be offered as amendments to the Republican substitute, and I hope that all my colleagues will support their addition to the bill. But, first, let me outline the key terrorism proposals from the President's bill that are contained in the Republican substitute. These provisions include the following: A new offense to assure Federal jurisdiction over all violent acts, violent acts which are motivated by international terrorism. This provision will cover gaps in current Federal law. For example, a terrorist who commits mass murder on a private or State-owned property may now be subject only to State court jurisdiction, not to Federal jurisdiction, not to the FBI, but the local police. This new provision that the President had in his proposal, and the Republicans included, carries a new death penalty, complementing the terrorism death penalty in last year's crime bill. Parenthetically, I might note that the person or persons who get convicted of the World Trade Center bombing for having killed people cannot get the death penalty under Federal law. But the person or persons convicted in the Oklahoma City bombing will get the death penalty or can get the death penalty because of the crime bill we passed last year. Had we defeated the crime bill, there would be no death penalty for whomever is convicted in Oklahoma City. The Republican bill will also implement an international treaty to require a detection agent to be added to plastic explosives. That was in the President's bill. It will enhance the Government's ability to obtain consumer credit report and hotel and motel vehicle records in foreign intelligence investigations. It does not change the law governing such information as it relates to domestic investigations. It also gives the Government greater ability to exclude from entering into the United States those aliens who are involved in terrorist activity--a power the President does not now presently possess. But, unfortunately, the Republicans dropped some very important provisions from the President's terrorism legislation. Among those provisions sought by the President that were dropped by the Republican substitute, and which will be subject to amendments to this bill, are two limited changes in wiretap authority. I believe that the two changes make sense. I suspect, I have not been one who has been very ready to limit civil liberties. I have jealously guarded the civil liberties of folks, and I have interfered with efforts to change--such as the exclusionary rule-- change rules which may, in my view, limit the civil liberties and constitutional rights of Americans. But I believe, notwithstanding my 23-year record here in the Senate on those issues, that we can change the wiretap law, giving the police more authority, without violating the civil liberties of Americans. The changes do not affect the basic requirement built into our present law to protect legitimate privacy interests or--put another way--the basic protections, including a requirement that the Government must show there is probable cause. And by must show I mean they have to go to a judge and say, ``We want to do this, and we have probable cause to believe that a crime is being committed, or a crime has been committed, and we want you to give us authority to do a wiretap.'' So the basic protections include a requirement that the Government must show there is probable cause to believe that a criminal violation occurred, and a current requirement that the Government must minimize the intrusion of the civil wiretap by turning the wire off whenever a conversation has nothing to do with the commission of a crime. I want to make it clear. The extension of wiretap authority that I and Senator Lieberman are going to seek, that the President wants, starts off with two basic requirements that are now in the Federal law: A, there has to be probable cause; and, B--most of my colleagues understandably do not realize this--under Federal law now, if a Federal court gives an FBI agent and the FBI authority, a warrant, to tap someone's phone, they must engage in minimization procedures. So if they are to tap the phone because they think someone is engaged in racketeering, prostitution, or whatever--murder, anything--and the person picks up that phone and calls his daughter at school and starts talking about her latest lacrosse game, they must turn off the wiretap. They are not allowed to keep the wiretap on 24 hours a day. We do not change that. So the protections built in stay built in. One of the changes, though, sought by the President but not included by my friend from Utah in his bill, is to allow emergency wiretaps which are now available in organized crime cases to be obtained for domestic terrorism offenses. Quite simply, if we can use this tool of emergency wiretaps against the Mafia, I do not understand why we ought not be able to use it against domestic terrorists. But for some reason, my friends on the Republican side have not included that in this bill. I hope it is an oversight, but I do not think it is. We will have an attempt to correct that. The Republican substitute also does not include a provision on what is called a multipoint, or roving, wiretap. Let me take a moment to explain what these multipoint wiretaps are. Right now, most wiretap orders identify both the person whom we want to listen in on, and a telephone number from which we expect that person to call. That is the line that they are allowed to go tap. Current law permits the Government to get a multipoint wiretap, allowing the Government to tap any line it sees the subject using when the Government can prove that the subject under surveillance is changing phones with the intent to thwart surveillance. So the way it goes now is, let us say the FBI gets a wiretap on John Doe's home, and John Doe decides that phone may be tapped. So he does not use that phone. He always goes to the same phone booth on the corner. And he often makes calls from his mother's home. Well, if they can show a judge that John Doe is using those, and perhaps other phones with the intent to evade possible detection of what he says on his phone, they can get a multipoint tap. They can tap all three of those phones. But in order to do so, they have to prove that he is doing that with an intent to avoid, to thwart the surveillance. Because of the proliferation of mobile telephones, the President wants to eliminate the intent requirement to allow the Government to obtain multipoint wiretaps where the subject may not know he is under surveillance but is, nonetheless, changing phones rapidly with the effect, if not the intent, of thwarting the surveillance. For some reason, my Republican friends do not include that in this bill. The President wants it. The FBI wants it. I think it makes sense. We are going to try to put it back in. I have long shared the concern that wiretaps are an intrusive law enforcement tool. When Congress first gave the FBI authority to use wiretaps in criminal investigations, we placed special protections directly in the statute precisely to protect legitimate privacy interests. I will detail how these protections work in practice when we get to the amendment on this subject. In my view, the changes sought by the President are limited and reasonable, and we should add those provisions back to the bill, the provisions deleted by the Republican proposal. A second area the President has asked the Congress to address is that of adding so-called taggants to explosives. What are taggants? Taggants are microscopic particles that are added to the explosive during the manufacturing process. Those particles survive the explosion when that explosive is detonated, and can later be used, if necessary, to trace where and when the explosive materials were purchased. That just seems to me to be a pretty logical thing to do. It does not affect the ability of the explosive to function. But, if it does function, some of these are like little pieces of microscopic plastic. The investigators can go in with, in effect, a magnet, pick up these particles from the dust of the explosion, identify through those particles where that explosive was purchased, when it was purchased, and when it was made. That gives them an investigative tool then to go trace, just like they trace a bullet in a gun. They shoot a gun; the bullet is in the wall. The investigator takes the bullet out of the wall and tries to trace the manufacturer of the gun, to trace the purchaser, to trace the owner, and so forth. This is the same principle. But for some reason, folks do not like that idea. The President seeks a study to identify the most effective and cost- efficient ways to tag explosives during the manufacturing process. Then it gives the Secretary of the Treasury the authority to promulgate regulations requiring chemical manufacturers and other manufacturers to use taggants and to make the violation of that regulation, when they are promulgated, a violation of the law, a crime. The President's proposal also requires a study of whether fertilizers and other readily available materials can be used to build bombs that can be rendered inert. I was at a conference with General Rose, a British general, who is in charge of the U.N. military force in Sarajevo, in Bosnia. We were meeting on the issue of Bosnia when the god-awful news came about Oklahoma City. We immediately cut off our meeting, and we repaired to the television. As General Rose and I and others sat there watching the horror on the screen, General Rose, a British general, turned to me and said something that startled me. Just looking at the building, he said, ``That's a fertilizer bomb.'' And I said, ``I beg your pardon?'' He said, ``That bomb, that building was blown up by fertilizer.'' And I thought, how in the Lord's name could he know that? And about 3 hours later on the television, investigators came on and said that it was a fertilizer bomb that caused this damage. So I asked him how did he know that? He said he could tell by the jagged way in which the building was ripped apart from his experience in Northern Ireland. And he said, you know what we did in England with this because the IRA was using these kinds of bombs? We reduced the amount of nitrogen in fertilizer and we added a requirement to fertilizer that an inert material--that is, something that will not affect the effectiveness of the fertilizer--an inert material can be added to fertilizer to make it impossible, or diminish the possibility that it can be used to blow up something. Now, it seems to me that makes sense. Unless someone can prove to me that by adding this inert subject to the production of fertilizer, you are going to render the fertilizer useless for its The Republican substitute includes a study of taggants and whether or not fertilizer can be made inert, but it does not grant authority for regulations requiring taggants, and this is an issue that has already been the subject of significant study. The Republicans rejected the President's request to move from the theoretical to the real and authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to require the inclusion of taggants in explosives. My question is why? Why? Why will they not include that? Well, Senator Feinstein and I will have an amendment to reinstate the President's language in his terrorism bill. In my view, it is time to act and require the ATF, the agency with expertise and jurisdiction over explosives, to gather the best information and promulgate the necessary regulations. Finally, the Republican substitute does not include a proposal to allow the use of the military to assist in investigations of biological and chemical weapons. The President proposed a narrow exception to what is called the Posse Comitatus Act, a narrow exemption to permit law enforcement to use the unique expertise of the Defense Department in combating biological and chemical weapons in terrorism similar to what the law now permits with regard to nuclear material. Right now, we can use the military in a domestic situation where nuclear material is involved, an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act. The Posse Comitatus Act, for people listening, is a fancy name, but it merely says we do not want the military having arrest power in the United States of America. The military is to fight enemies foreign, not domestic. And that is a good thing. We all agree with that. We are one of the countries in the world that does not have the military dictating the day-to-day operations of the country. I do not want to change that. But the military has the expertise on nuclear weapons, the military has the expertise on biological weapons and the expertise on chemical weapons, and it seems to me we should provide a similar exception for them to be able to be involved in domestic investigation where it affects biological agents and where it affects chemical agents, just as we do now allow them to be involved where it involves nuclear material. Negotiations among interested parties on the Armed Services and the Judiciary Committees have occurred over the last few days, and we are nearing a bipartisan agreement on this, I hope. If, however, an agreement is not reached, the distinguished Senator from Georgia, Mr. Nunn, and I plan to offer a proposal to permit the use of the military in these limited circumstances of biological weapons and chemical weapons. We must be in a position to respond immediately should we ever, God forbid, have an event like that which occurred in the Tokyo subway. And to be ready to respond, we should avoid wasted duplication of setting up a new bureaucracy to be able to handle chemical and biological weapons, and we certainly should avoid any more delay. So we will have an amendment, if an agreement is not reached, to provide an additional exception to the Posse Comitatus Act as it relates to chemical agents and biological agents. Now, habeas corpus. The distinguished Senator from Utah and I have been debating habeas corpus for as long as we have been here, and in his opening statement--I may be mistaken, but I would estimate 40 percent of his statement related to habeas corpus, or a large portion that I heard. And so he includes habeas corpus in this proposal. Now, the President asked that this be kept, to use the parlance of the Senate, a clean bill; that we deal with terrorism. Well, that is not going to happen. And although habeas corpus as explained by Senator Hatch has little to do with fighting terrorism, we are going to have to debate it anyway. Now, the Republican provision to reform habeas corpus procedures would require Federal courts to defer to State court decisions even when the State court has made an incorrect decision on habeas corpus. This provision is what everyone around here knows as the full and fair rule. The need for habeas corpus reform is clear. All of us want to end the delay and abuse in habeas corpus and all of us have supported provisions in the past that would limit a prisoner's right to appeal, would allow a very narrow window in which a habeas corpus petition could be filed, and would place strict limits on when that petition had to be filed. However, the Republican proposal goes much further. The standard proposed in the Republican substitute would direct a Federal court to defer to a State court decision as long as it is not unreasonable. In other words, if reasonable minds could disagree, the State court decision would stand in Federal court even if it is incorrect. Now, this is a dressed up version of what is known around here as the full and fair rule. Reasonableness is a highly deferential standard, one never before used in habeas corpus. And current law permits Federal courts to make a merit-based decision and to correct harmful State court errors. I believe we must reform habeas corpus, and I believe we can reform habeas corpus to adopt limits on the number of petitions and the time limits on the petitions such as those contained in the Republican substitute, but without stopping Federal courts from correcting serious State court errors in interpreting the United States Constitution. In addition, the Republican substitute changes current law which mandates appointment of a lawyer in Federal habeas corpus cases to make such appointments discretionary, not mandatory. I support limiting a prisoner's right to petition. I support limiting prisoners to one habeas corpus petition and giving them a very short period within which it must be filed, but I cannot fathom why we would deny that same petitioner a lawyer at the same time. Such a step serves neither efficiency nor justice. Now, I noted that the habeas corpus provision in the Republican bill is not directly related to terrorism in that it applies primarily to prisoners who are prosecuted in State courts. It is particularly inappropriate, in my view, to work such a devastating change in the law on a bill which is designed for a very narrow purpose, for which the Senate is working to move quickly. Now, when we get to the debate on habeas corpus, we will have what has become known around here as ``dueling charts.'' I will show that the Biden habeas corpus provision would not allow those outrageous examples that the Senator uses where a petitioner sat on death row 2, 5, 10, 12, 18 years after having committed a heinous crime and avoiding the death penalty for that period as a consequence of filing petitions. We want to allow only one bite out of the apple. But I want to make a point. My friend from Utah made an impassioned statement tonight about how it would be horrible if we find and convict the murderer, the man or woman, or men or women, who murdered those people in Oklahoma and that person was able to avoid execution by filing repetitive petitions. Well, his proposal has nothing to do with that. So I will have an amendment that says: Limit their habeas corpus changes to Federal court matters. For example, all the horror stories the Senator pointed out tonight, none of them have to do with somebody who has been tried in Federal court. If you have been tried in a Federal court--which this bill says, by the way, the terrorism bill says, the only purpose of it is to say you do these bad things, you go to a Federal court, you go to a Federal judge, you have the Federal FBI investigate you, you go to a Federal prison, you have a Federal executioner. That is the only reason for the bill. That is why we are doing it. So if the Senator is as concerned as he appears to be about these exorbitant delays, let us apply it to Federal court. Now, the reason I am going to offer that amendment is not that I think his idea as to how he wants to limit it in Federal court makes much sense, but just to prove that this is a sham. This has nothing to do with it. I will have a chart tomorrow, or whenever we get to this, showing all the prisoners in Federal court sitting on death row who are filing Federal habeas petitions. What he is talking about is a need to remedy the State court problem. And I am willing to do that; I have been trying to do it for 10 years, but not on this bill. [[Page S7487]] Why are we getting into this debate on this bill? But I will leave that for another moment, another day, another hour to debate it, because we have debated it before. Finally, the Republican substitute contains two very controversial provisions from the administration's proposal that I believe are troubling. The first is that it includes a provision that I must acknowledge the President's included, a provision to create new deportation procedures for aliens in the United States who are alleged to be terrorists. In the administration's bill, the Government could, in some circumstances, use secret information, not disclosed to the defendant, not disclosed to the defendant's lawyers, in order to make a case. We have never had such a procedure in history, to the best of my knowledge, in America, where someone can bring a charge against an individual, go into a Federal court, have the prosecutor meet alone with the judge and say: ``Judge, these are all the horrible things that the defendant did. We're not going to tell the defendant what evidence there is that he did these horrible things. We're not going to let the defendant know what that evidence is. We're not going to let the defendant's lawyer know what it is. We're not going to let the defendant's lawyer answer these questions. You and me judge''--me, the prosecutor; you, the judge--``let's deport him in a secret hearing, using secret evidence. Let's walk out of this courtroom, out of your chambers, walk out and say, `OK, Smedlap, you're deported. We find you're a terrorist. You're out of here.'" And Smedlap looks and says, ``Hey, tell me who said I was a terrorist. How do you know that?'' We say, ``Oh, no, we can't tell you. We know you did it, and we can't tell you how we know.'' Now I think that is about as un-American as it gets. Now what we will hear is--and I think the President is dead wrong on this--but what we will hear is, ``Well, look, these folks are not American citizens. They are not entitled to the same privileges as American citizens in a courtroom.'' Well, that is technically true. But, my lord, I do not want to be part of anything that establishes that kind of Star Chamber proceeding. Technically, they may be right; philosophically, it is dead wrong. But it is interesting, my Republican friends do not include taggants. They do not include additional wiretaps. But they include this. I mean, who, as my little daughter used to say, ``Go fish.'' How can you figure that one out? I cannot, anyway. Our judicial system generally requires that a defendant be given evidence that is to be used against him so that he can prepare a defense. Unseen, unheard evidence simply cannot be defended against and it creates the possibility of erroneous decisions. The Republican substitute, unlike the prior version of the Republican bill, moves back toward allowing what the President wrongheadedly put in his bill, in my view. The bill also includes a radically revised version of an administration proposal to bar fundraising within the United States for organizations which the Secretary of State designates as terrorists. The President's proposal guarded against first amendment concerns by allowing persons to send funds to designated organizations if it could be shown that the funds were going to a legitimate purpose, for humanitarian effort or for political advocacy only. For example, the substitute bill revises this proposal. First, it changes the Presidential determination to one made by the Secretary of State and then subjects the determination to searching judicial review. While this addresses some of the first amendment concerns in the administration's proposal, it is also problematic because Presidential designations of this sort are not usually litigated in Federal court. Second, the substitute eliminates any opportunity for persons to make donations for proper purposes, in my view increasing the first amendment concerns on that aspect of the bill. In conclusion, Mr. President, let me say that I would have preferred to have come to this floor on a bill that was wholly bipartisan without controversial and irrelevant provisions, but the majority has not chosen to proceed that way. I would also, frankly, have preferred to have seen the bill we are considering in advance of the day we are considering the bill on the floor. But, in fairness to my Republican friends, they have been working hard to put it together to try to meet the deadline to get it in before the recess. But, nonetheless, it puts us in a difficult position. Having received a final version of the bill at only about 6:30 tonight, I have not been able to review it carefully to see whether any of my concerns have already been addressed in the bill--maybe some of the things I have said now have been addressed by this new version--or whether or not additional concerns have been raised by the new bill. It is my hope and belief that, with certain changes, the substitute offered today by my Republican friends can become a true pro-law- enforcement, pro-civil-liberties, counter-terrorism, bipartisan bill. It is my hope and belief that all Senators will listen to the director of the FBI, the Attorney General of the United States, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the President, and not to groups who believe violence, not voting, is the means to change the system--not that anyone is listening to anyone who is advocating violence, but those who do not think we should expand the ability of law enforcement to look more closely at those groups who believe violence and not voting is the means to change the system. All Federal law enforcement is part of a team of brave men and women who protect the lives of all Americans from terrorist attacks. Let us stand with law enforcement as we consider this bill, and give them the tools that they badly need. Even as we protect our constitutional freedoms, we can make this legislation a truly effective tool in fighting terrorism, the threat that comes from distant shores as well as those that come from the American heartland. We have a duty to protect law-abiding Americans and that is what this bill must do. In conclusion, I believe we can enter into a time agreement on most of the amendments that we will have and hopefully we can move quickly, after the recess, to finish and to complete this bill. Because, as I understand the majority leader, he is looking for a couple of amendments to be brought up tomorrow--whether that means one, two or five, I do not know--but several amendments tomorrow, which we are ready to do. We will give time agreements on those amendments and then we will move back to the bill when we come back. Again, I thank my Republican colleague, the chairman of the committee, for the areas in which we have cooperated. I look forward to vigorous and substantive debate on those areas where we do not agree. But ultimately we will produce a bill. I thank the Chair and thank my colleagues. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, we have reached an important point in dealing with the budget deficit. The Senator from New Mexico has proposed a deficit reduction budget that is real. The Senator from Nebraska and the Senator from the State of North Dakota and Senator Bradley and I, although they are different plans, have introduced proposals that are real, genuine reductions in working on a balanced budget and moving to a balanced budget within 7 years. But there is a big difference here. I believe the one we are about to vote on is simply not fair. We can get there from here fairly. There is a fundamental difference in the approach taken by Senator Bradley and myself and the Senator from North Dakota, and others, and the Republican proposal, and that is, we put a lot less burden on the elderly, a lot less burden, or no burden, on college loans, a lot less burden on middle-class folks. We increase the burden on other elements of society. The point is, we do look at and do play a major part in dealing with closing tax loopholes. It is a big difference. It is a fundamental difference, but this is only the first round of the fight. This is a budget resolution that does not mean a darn thing other than as it guides us. It is not a law. It does not change anything. The President does not get to veto it or sign it. We now get into the hard stuff, the hard part. I am confident that as the American people understand the commitment on both sides to move to a balanced budget, they are going to be able to begin to weigh what the real costs are, and they are going to make a judgment whether or not cutting Medicare and Medicaid by $400 billion is a better way to go than closing $176 billion worth of tax loopholes. They are going to make those basic judgments. I think we will be back at it again. I compliment the managers of the bill for their diligent effort.

Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield me 2 minutes?

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. While the majority leader is still on the floor, I can say for the minority that I am confident we can agree on time agreements on all of the amendments I am aware of thus far. We are continuing to hotline this to see if there are any amendments other than the ones that I am aware of. I doubt whether we can get an agreement on a final passage time. But I would suggest that if we can get narrowed down time agreements tomorrow on each of the amendments, we should do all we can to lock it in. I thank the leader for honoring his commitment to bring this up. It was a bit beyond his control, having 50 some votes in the last 2 days. To the best of my knowledge, the House has not acted on this at all. Even if we passed a bill tonight, we are not in a position to be able to send it to the President or even go to conference. I do not think there is any damage done by not doing that. Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, we all know that years and years of Federal budget deficits are a real threat to the future of our economy. We know that they cut into the private savings and investment we need to provide for a better future. We know that they require us to borrow from other countries, increasing our exposure to the changeable winds of the global economy. And, Mr. President, we know that those deficits contribute to the perception that Government does not work, that it cannot do its own job, that we cannot get our own House in order. When I introduced my own balanced budget amendment over 10 years ago, and when I voted for the balanced budget amendment earlier this year, I did so in the conviction that regaining [[Page S7441]] control of our Federal finances must be at the top of our priorities. But I said when I cast my vote that, a crucial reason for my concern about the deficit is that its very real importance threatens to overwhelm our ability to make rational--and yes, compassionate--choices for the future of our country. By its sheer size and seriousness, the Federal deficit is driving all other policy choices. It is dictating the terms of debate as we consider what we can do about crime, health care, welfare reform, our decaying infrastructure, military readiness, and the place of our country in a changing world. Now, Mr. President, it is completely appropriate for us to subject every policy, every dollar we spend, to the strictest standards of cost effectiveness. That should be our standard, no matter what shape our books are in. But as I said when I voted for the balanced budget amendment, Mr. President, we must achieve that standard in a way that is fair, and that covers everything in the budget, including tax expenditures. And, Mr. President, we must understand that a shortsighted focus on the bottom line, on simply cutting spending without a thought for its impact on the future, can threaten our future just as surely as continued deficits. Mr. President, we must continue on the path we began 2 years ago toward lower and lower deficits--but we must also continue to commit our scarce resources where they can do the greatest good, for the greatest number of our citizens, over the long run. Unfortunately, Mr. President, the Republican budget plan is not fair, and it fails to meet our obligation to invest in the future. Therefore, I cannot support it. I regret that I cannot support that budget plan, that on paper--if a lot of heroic assumptions work out--aims at a zero deficit by the year 2002. But the refusal to accept amendments--amendments, Mr. President, that would not have changed that zero-deficit goal of a balanced budget by the year 2002--has left us with a budget plan that is not fair and that sacrifices our future for shortsighted savings today. And, I am sorry to say, Mr. President, it leaves us with a budget plan that puts the burden of deficit reduction on those who are least able to bear it. That unfairness, I believe, will have real economic costs that could be avoided by a more careful considered path toward the balanced budget goal. Let us remember, Mr. President, that the amendments that were rejected would not have increased the deficit--they would have continued the path toward a zero deficit--but they would have achieved that goal while maintaining our commitment to investments vital for the future of our economy and society. I supported an amendment by Senator Rockefeller to restore $100 billion in Medicare cuts, and I cosponsored Senator Johnston's amendment to restore two-thirds of the Medicare cuts. These amendments would still have eliminated the deficit by 2002. But, instead of tax cuts--tax cuts not for the middle class but for those who do not need them--these amendments would have preserved Medicare for those seniors on fixed incomes. Unfortunately, both Medicare amendments failed. And, the effect of the underlying Republican budget would be to increase the costs of Medicare for the average senior citizen by $900 in the year 2002. I believe this is neither desirable nor necessary to balance the Federal budget. In the same way, Mr. President, the Republican budget plan cuts $21 billion from a program to reward work that President Ronald Reagan called the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of the Congress, the earned income tax credit. Senator Bradley's attempt to restore that cut--to repeal that tax increase on the working poor--was defeated. The Republican cuts in the earned income tax credit come with no thought about how they would affect the pressing need for real welfare reform. Now we all agree, Mr. President, that the central question in welfare reform is how to get people off the dole and back to work. But by increasing the tax burden on low-income working families, the cuts in the earned income tax credit will make work less attractive for the very families that are at the greatest risk of falling into the welfare system. The Republican budget says, ``cut first,'' Mr. President, ``and ask questions later.'' The Republican budget is shortsighted in other ways, Mr. President. It makes education more expensive, and cuts away at crucial supports for the research programs that have--up to now--kept our country in the lead internationally in the most critical factor needed for future competitiveness--knowledge. I cosponsored and supported amendments that would restore funding to student loan programs and to the funds available for medical and other research programs that could sustain our country's international leadership in the production of that knowledge. In all of these areas--providing health care, promoting work over welfare, supporting education, and research--I voted for amendments to the Republican budget plan. These changes would have achieved the balanced budget goal we all seek, but without the unwise and unnecessary cuts that will weaken the foundations for stronger economic growth. Those changes I supported, Mr. President, would have also assured that more Americans could participate in that future growth. Those amendments would have achieved the same balanced budget goal as the Republican plan, but in a way that shared the sacrifice more fairly now, and would provide a fairer distribution of the future benefits from that sacrifice. When I saw the many weaknesses in the Republican plan, Mr. President, I resolved to join with Senator Bradley in offering an alternative balanced budget plan that would achieve the benefits from eliminating deficits in ways that did not sacrifice fairness or the foundations of economic growth. As I said, Mr. President, among my first concerns was the unwise and unnecessary cuts in Medicare that are the real cornerstone of the Republican budget plan. Without those cuts, there is no Republican plan for balancing the budget. The Bradley-Biden amendment restores $175 billion of the Republican cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. Our plan would increase Medicare 8 percent annually over the next 7 years. However, it is our hope that we can reduce the cost of Medicare in that time through comprehensive health care reform--not with arbitrary cuts like those proposed in the Republican budget. By controlling the underlying growth in health care costs--which is the real cause of the increase in Medicare costs--comprehensive health care reform would be a benefit not only to Medicare recipients but to all Americans. And the offshoot is that down the road, we can save money in the Medicare Program--savings that we hope will not require cutting how much Medicare pays to doctors and hospitals, and even more importantly, savings that will not mean higher costs to senior citizens on fixed incomes. The irony is that Republicans have been using the annual report of the Medicare Board of Trustees to justify their draconian cuts in Medicare. But, the Republicans are ignoring the Board's recommendation to Congress to save the Medicare system as part of broad-based health care reform. But beyond the fact that the Bradley-Biden plan would honor our country's commitment to provide health care for our elderly, there are other, more fundamental differences between our program and the Republican budget. For example, we demand restraint in the growth of tax expenditures, among the fastest-growing reasons we continue to pile up deficits. Now, Mr. President, this plan imposes a hard freeze on domestic spending--no increase in the dollars spent--and then cuts an additional $15 billion. And this plan cuts an additional $10 billion from the current projections for defense spending. This is strong medicine for our persistent deficit disease. Unfortunately, we now must take such dramatic--and painful--steps in those areas. But in the name of fundamental fairness, Mr. President, how can we ask [[Page S7442]] the children, the poor, the elderly, of our country to sacrifice without demanding that those who have prospered under the current system, and have continued to prosper as deficits have built up over the years, to participate in restoring balance to our country's finances? Make no mistake, tax expenditures have the same effect on our deficits as any other kind of Federal program--they increase the gap between what we spend and what we take in. Why don't we examine them with the same critical accountant's eye that we must apply to defense spending, agricultural programs, education, health, and research? Incredibly, Mr. President, the Republican plan refuses to touch this rapidly growing drain on the Treasury, choosing instead to permit what will be a $4 trillion entitlement program between now and the year 2002 to go untouched. Let me repeat that Mr. President. Tax entitlements--exemptions, deductions, loopholes, call them what you will--will total $4 trillion between now and the year we seek to achieve a balanced budget. In their search for ways to reduce Federal deficits, the Republicans have taken on spending for children, for the elderly, for the working poor, for education, for scientific and medical research. But they won't touch tax expenditures that will cost the Treasury three times what it will take to balance the budget over the next 7 years. What Senator Bradley and I would do is subject those tax entitlements to the same scrutiny that we apply to the rest of the budget--no more sacrifice from that source than from others, but no less, either. All told, we would cut only $197 billion over 7 years from that $400 billion--a 5-percent reduction over the 7 years. Of course, not all tax deductions and exemptions have to be cut to achieve that modest goal. Our plan would not touch the home mortgage deduction, the deduction for State and local taxes, or the deduction for contributions to charities. Let me repeat that before I hear that those worthwhile and necessary items are at risk under our plan. They are not. We do not need to touch them to achieve our balanced budget goal in the year 2002. But we would slow the growth--not eliminate, but slow the growth--in such tax expenditures as the quick tax write-off for timber that will cost us $2.3 billion over the next 5 years. I believe that most Americans would agree that such programs-- programs that lose money from the Treasury as surely as any other-- could share some of the restraint needed to restore balance to the Federal budget. By cutting this and other tax breaks, we would save $197 billion that can be used to bring the Federal deficit to zero by the year 2002. By refusing to take on the huge tax expenditure budget, Mr. President, the Republican plan must find its savings by raising Medicare premiums by $900, by adding $3,000 to the cost of a student loan, and by increasing taxes by $21 billion on working families. These are cuts that the Bradley-Biden plan does not have to make, Mr. President, because it spreads the costs of deficit reduction more equitably, and thereby requires less sacrifice of those who can least afford it. In addition to sharing the near-term sacrifice more evenly, this plan also builds a foundation for future economic growth that will be more widely shared, as well. Our plan provides for full funding of student loans, and makes reckless cuts in our Nation's scientific and medical research unnecessary. It provides for prudent levels of investment in the equipment, the information, and the people who will lead our economy-- and the world's economy--into the next century. And, Mr. President, the Bradley-Biden plan permits--once a real deficit-reduction plan is in place and its benefits can be accurately predicted and scored by the Congressional Budget Office--it permits a $10,000 college tuition tax deduction for middle-class families. It helps to underwrite our competitive future, and it helps to underwrite a key element of the American dream. Mr. President, ours is a plan that would achieve the goal we all share--a balanced budget. But we should aspire to more, Mr. President-- we should dream of a better future, and we should take the actions now that are needed to make that dream a reality. Without continued support now for education, scientific and medical research, health care, public infrastructure, and other investments, we will be poorer in the long run, whatever shape our Federal finances are in. The Bradley-Biden balanced budget plan not only achieves the mundane, but essential, goal of restoring balance to the Government's books. It makes the investments necessary to keep alive our faith in the future.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, since I was elected to the Senate in 1972, one of my central themes has been to get special-interest money out of political campaigns. The first testimony I every gave as a U.S. Senator was before the Senate Rules Committee in favor of public funding-- instead of special-interest funding--of political campaigns. Unfortunately, we have not moved forward as much as I would have liked or as much as I have repeatedly advocated. And, what little we have done is now on the chopping block. The Republican budget would eliminate the only positive step we have taken in the last 20 years to clean up our political campaign system-- getting special-interest money out of the general election campaigns for President and limiting the amount Presidential candidates can spend. Now, the Republicans are trying to let the special-interest, big money back in. The Republican budget would repeal the Presidential campaign check- off system. It is a rather simple system. When you file your income taxes each year, you can check off the box at the top of the tax form to have $3 of your taxes go to finance Presidential campaigns. It is a voluntary system. No one has to check it off. No ones taxes are affected by the decision. And, the only money that goes to Presidential campaigns is the money that people check off voluntarily. In exchange for taking the money, Presidential candidates must limit how much they spend. A simple system. A voluntary system. And, yet the system has worked. No more special interest money in the general election, and no more runaway spending. In the last 20 years, very few people have accused Presidential candidates of being beholden to special interest. Less than 1 percent of the money in Presidential campaigns comes from PAC's--political action committees. And, once the Presidential primaries are over, the quest for money essentially ends. Candidates can spend their time debating the issues--not catering to special-interests. Meanwhile, spending has been held down. Consider this: in the 1992 Presidential election, President Clinton and President Bush combined spent less in constant dollars then President Nixon spent all by himself in the Watergate election of 1972--before there were spending limits and before there was the Presidential check-off system. What has been the result of all of this compared to the old system? Cleaner campaigns, fairer campaigns, more competitive campaigns, campaigns more focuses on the issues, and campaigns with limited spending. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the Kerry amendment, which I have cosponsored. It would keep the Presidential check-off system in tact. Now is not the time to return Presidential campaigns to the days of runaway spending controlled by special interests. This system is not broken. We should not break it. Amendment No. 1154 to Amendment No. 1153 (Purpose: To express the Sense of the Senate on use of the Presidential Election Campaign Fund in regard to sexual harassment)

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, this Republican budget sets the wrong priorities. The goal is right--steady movement toward a balanced budget--but how the Republicans propose to get there is wrong. More than half of all the cuts in this budget come from just two programs-- Medicare and Medicaid. Specifically, the Republican budget would cut $256 billion from Medicare over the next 7 years and another $175 billion from Medicaid, about $58 billion of which would come from long- term care for the elderly. This would be, without a doubt, the largest Medicare cut in history--three times larger than any previous cut. This was not part of the Republican Contract With America. In fact, some have forgotten about an earlier contract--the contract we made with the senior citizens of America--those who worked hard and played by the rules. Cutting health care for those who are at an age when they need health care the most is simply wrong. To cut Medicare as much as the Republicans are proposing violates the long-standing contract with America's seniors. And, why? So that the wealthy can be guaranteed a tax cut and so that rich billionaires can continue to renounce their U.S. citizenship in order to avoid paying taxes. I believe we should have a tax cut--one that is targeted to middle- class families for the cost of education. And, I will discuss that issue in more detail later. But, the Republicans in the House have already passed their tax cut. Families making less than $30,000 would get a tax cut of $124--less than 50 cents a day--while families making over $200,000 would get a tax cut of over $11,000. I am not saying we should raise taxes on the wealthy. And I am not saying that we should give a tax cut to everyone but the wealthy. But, Mr. President, do our richest 1 percent, or 5 percent, need a tax cut more than our retirees on a fixed income need protection against skyrocketing health care costs. I do not think so. I do not think we should provide a tax cut for guys like me--and I am the poorest one around this place--while we are increasing my mother's health care costs. And, I certainly do not believe that billionaires who renounce their American citizenship should have priority over the seniors who gave so much to this country. I know what the Republicans are saying. They are claiming that they are not cutting Medicare and Medicaid--only reducing the rate of increase. Technically, true. But, for those seniors whose costs go up because Medicare pays for less, is that not a cut? For those seniors who have less access to health care services because Medicare providers refuse to take new Medicare patients, is that not a cut? For those seniors who may no longer qualify for Medicaid nursing home care because Medicaid payments to States are restricted, is that not a cut? Call it what you want. The fact is, seniors will pay more--much, much more. Assuming that half of the Medicare cuts will come from seniors themselves, this Republican budget means that the average senior citizen will pay between $800 and $900 more in out-of-pocket costs-- premiums, deductibles, and copayments--in 2002 than they would otherwise pay. Over the course of the next 7 years, the elderly would pocket costs. That is on top of the average senior already expecting to pay about $25,000 in premiums, copayments, and deductibles for Medicare between now and 2002. The Republican budget would result in a 13- percent increase in out-of-pocket Medicare payments by America's seniors. And, on average, seniors already pay 21 percent of their income on health costs. I know what else the Republicans are saying. They are claiming that we need to cut Medicare in order to save it. They argue that Medicare will go bankrupt in 2002, and they just want to protect the program for posterity. Mr. President, this budget does not reform Medicare; it cuts Medicare. Not one single proposal has been offered to save Medicare. Instead, the budget establishes an arbitrary number of $256 billion and says that is how much is going to be cut regardless of the actual cost of medical services or the total number of people who qualify. Between now and the year 2002, the number of seniors eligible for Medicare will increase by 4 million--15,000 in my State of Delaware. The Medicare funds will not keep pace. Someone gets cut. If the Republicans were interested in saving Medicare, they would attack the causes of why Medicare is going bankrupt. But, they do not. If the Republicans were interested in saving Medicare, they would come to the table with the goal of saving Medicare. Instead, they want Democrats to come to the table after they have pulled an arbitrary number out of thin air. And, where have the Republicans been? We have known since 1985 that the Medicare trust fund would become insolvent near the turn of the century. And, yet, for 7 years, Republican Presidents Reagan and Bush never proposed saving Medicare from bankruptcy. In 1993, not one single Republican in either the House or the Senate voted for President Clinton's proposal to shore up the Medicare trust fund. And, last fall, Republicans were so concerned about saving Medicare that they forgot to include it as part of the Contract With America. Let us stop the charade. Republicans are cutting Medicare to balance the budget and to provide tax cuts to the wealthy. That is their priority. They are wrong. Democrats have alternatives that will achieve the same goal--a balanced budget in 2002--without taking this much from Medicare. For example, Senators Rockefeller and Lautenberg have an amendment to return part of any economic dividend that results from a balanced budget back to the Medicare and Medicaid Programs. We ought to adopt the Democratic amendments and fulfill the original Contract With America--the contract with America's seniors.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, there are many things I do not like about this Republican budget. But, one of the most outrageous parts of this proposal is the increased burden it would put on college students. Currently, students who take out loans to go to college do not have to pay interest on those loans while they are in school. The Federal Government pays it for them. This is known as the in-school interest subsidy. And, it has been a fundamental part of the student loan program since its inception 30 years ago. Without this protection--if the interest were to accumulate while an individual is in school--the cost would simply be prohibitive for many families. But, that is just what is about to happen. The Republican budget in the Senate would end the interest subsidy for graduate and professional students. That is bad enough. But the House-passed budget is even worse. it would end the interest subsidy for all students. This comes at a time when a higher education is increasingly important and at a time when the cost of that education is increasingly expensive. Studies show that a person with a college degree earns about $12,000 more each year than a person with only a high school degree. The unemployment rate for college graduates is 3 percent; for those with a high school diploma, it is 6 percent; and for those who are high school dropouts, the unemployment rate is 12 percent. And, yet, getting to college--opening up that door to economic opportunity--has become harder. During the 1980's, the cost of attending college rose 45 percent, while disposable income rose only 15 percent. Mr. President, we are not talking about deadbeats. We are not talking about those who default on their loans. We are talking about middle class students from hard-working middle class families. The average annual family income for those students who borrow money to go to college is $35,000. These are middle class students who have to borrow money to get to college, who work hard to get ahead, who are playing by the rules and just want a fair shot. The Republicans are turning their backs on these young people by raising the costs of college loans. The fact of the matter is this is a tax increase on college students. Already, for too many college students, when they graduate, they are handed not only a diploma but also a big IOU. This Republican budget makes the IOU even bigger. For example, a medical student could see his monthly loan repayment increase by more than $200 per month. A typical graduate student could easily see his or her loan increase by $5000. Already, few young doctors who have to borrow money to attend medical school can afford to be primary care doctors in underserved rural and urban areas. Already, few young lawyers who have to borrow money to attend law school can afford to be public defenders. Already, it is hard for graduate students to pursue degrees in math and science-- something we need desperately in this country for the Twenty-First Century--because, unlike doctors and lawyers, they do not have very many high-paying job alternatives. And, already, there are thousands upon thousands of undergraduate students who want to be policemen and teachers--but cannot because their loan repayment is too high. By removing the in-school interest subsidy, the Republican budget would only make it worse. Frankly, we should be moving in the opposite direction--making college more affordable. Higher education is clearly an investment in our country's future, and it is without a doubt in the national interest. We should encourage parents to provide a college education to their children by changing the tax laws to make it easier for them. I am cosponsor of a bill to allow Americans who send their kids to college to deduct up to $10,000 of the cost of that education from their taxes. That is a real investment. That is a real tax cut. That is a real benefit to the Nation and to middle class families. I disagree with some of my Democratic colleagues who argue that we should not cut taxes. We should. But, we should not cut taxes as proposed by the House Republicans--where the cuts overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy. we cannot afford not to provide--a tax cut targeted to middle-class families for the cost of an education. This budget does not do that. It fails to provide relief for families who pay for their kids to go to college, and it punishes those who must borrow to go to college. The Republican budget, instead of making a college education more affordable, makes a college education less affordable. Mr. President, 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 1960's, 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. And, no matter who you talk to--black or white, rich or poor--every American family has the same goal: that their children will go to college. It was my dad's dream for his children, and it was my dream for my children. It is the dream of the richest businessperson and the poorest welfare mother. It is the dream of every American parent. We have not always reached the dream. But, we have always tried, and we have never turned our backs. We should not now. But, I am afraid that the Republicans are about to. Balancing the budget is important, and it is important for our children. But, balancing the budget for future generations will be counterproductive if in the process we slash the programs like education that are an investment in our future.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, earlier this week an article in the Science Times section of the New York Times explored what it called ``the mystery of music.'' Scientists are attempting to find how and where the sense and art of music arise in the brain. It is a search in which much remains to be discovered, but it has already produced fascinating results, including the possibility that, even as it provides the child with a constructive source of pleasure and reward, early musical training may also enhance the ability to think and reason in terms of time and space. That possibility suggests, in turn, the significant role that music and musical education play in achieving the fundamental goals of our educational system. That suggestion lends a special emphasis to an innovative musical program inaugurated this spring at three Los Angeles-area high schools. This program, I believe, serves as an excellent model for improving education through the cooperation of the private and public sectors. ``Musicalympics,'' an artistic competition for high schools, was conceived by David Griffin, a Warner Brothers Records representative. Griffin enlisted the interest of Warner Brothers Records chairman, Danny Goldberg, who signed the record company on as the Musicalympics' founding benefactor, the first, Griffin hopes, of other corporate sponsors to follow. Similarly, he hopes to see this year's inaugural competition among the three high schools extended to other schools in the future. The thoughtful design of the competition and the solid professional backing it is receiving make its prospects good, I believe, on both counts. Each school participating in Musicalympics has created a team of student songwriters, musicians, choreographers, dancers, costume designers, set designers and production personnel such as television camera operators, lighting designers and recording engineers to pursue the creation of a musical performance from the writing of an original song to the final television production. Each school has been given a small cash stipend to underwrite expenses, and production professionals have guided the students in mastering technical production details. Professional Musicalympics television crews have visited each school periodically to videotape students preparing their productions. David Griffin is producing and directing a television documentary special which showcases the competition, which will end in a complete television performance of each school's production. The competition is being judged by Griffin, a Warner Records artist and other television professionals. The documentary will premiere early next month and the winning school will be announced before each school's participating students and invited guests, sponsors, contributors and other key supporters. Each participating student will receive a videotape of the finished television program, and all three participating schools will receive cash prizes, or musical instruments and recording equipment. Mr. President, the Musicalympics directly addresses a number of educational dimensions which concern the Nation today. In the first place, it offers an opportunity for interested students to participate directly in the creation of an original artistic performance; it provides those students with an intimate, personal perspective on the origin and nature of a production in one of the performing arts which are a chief feature of our culture. It helps these students develop the practical, hands-on skills that make such performances possible. It combines the resources of the private and public sectors to achieve a worthwhile goal few schools could manage on their own. It provides for both the participating students and their schools the challenge and the reward of disciplined teamwork focused on a constructive conclusion. And, finally, it takes broad theoretical and practical advantage of the fundamental, universal, and characteristically human creation and appreciation of music. Mr. President, I commend the founders and supporters of Musicalympics. This is a program that deserves scrutiny, encouragement and support.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, while the Senator from Pennsylvania is on the floor I want my colleagues to know that in the good old days, when I was chairman of the committee and the Democrats were in charge, the Senator from Pennsylvania shared the same view. I want the record to show that this is nothing new the Senator from Pennsylvania is suggesting. I have read some accounts that suggest that because the Senator from Pennsylvania may have other aspirations, this is propelling his interests. I want to vouch for the fact that I know that not to be true. The fact of the matter is that when Waco occurred, shortly after Waco, the Senator did repeatedly talk to me about it and thought that, although I believe that we did have oversight hearings and everybody had an opportunity to ask about Waco--and a few did--that the Senator thought then, thinks now, and is totally consistent, whether he is seeking another office or not, in his view that this issue should be ventilated. For those of us on this side of the aisle, this has been a little like watching a family quarrel. Both the Senators are my friends but I do not think I have a closer friend in the Senate than the Senator from Pennsylvania, and because a number of press people have come to me, and my colleagues have come to me, to ask me about issues relating to motivation--I can assert with absolute certainty, without any equivocation, that there has been absolutely no change in the intensity of the interest of the Senator from the time the matter occurred when I was chairman of that committee to the time I am the ranking member of that committee. I just want that to be made clear, notwithstanding the fact I voted the other way. I voted to table the Specter amendment because of my consistent view as to how this should be handled. The Senator may be right in terms of the value of the ventilation and when, and sooner than later. I have a slight disagreement with him on when. But I do not have any--any--any doubt, and I can confirm for my colleagues and anyone who is listening, that there is an absolute, total, unequivocal consistency to his position on this from the moment the tragedy in Waco occurred through this day. I just want the record to reflect that. Not that anyone in particular has suggested otherwise, but I get a number of inquiries because people are looking to make press outside this institution. I just want the record to reflect it. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to praise President Clinton for his determination to push forward our national agenda with the Russians at this week's summit in Moscow. It is no secret that recently several items of dispute have arisen to cloud the relationship between Russia and the United States. In response, there have been scattered voices calling on the President to cancel his trip. Mr. President, such a course would have been a profound mistake, and I am gratified that our President had the wisdom and maturity to stay the course. Russia, both in spite of and because of her current difficulties, remains fundamentally important to this country. We must remain engaged with the world's other major nuclear power and continue to strive to bring her into a European security system of democratic countries. Moreover, British Prime Minister Major, German Chancellor Kohl, and French President Mitterrand all will be attending the ceremonies marking the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II and honoring the heroic sacrifices that the Russian people made in the victorious struggle against nazism. In that context it is unthinkable that But President Clinton's attendance at the Moscow summit in no way signals tacit approval of Russia's brutal behavior in Chechnya. On the contrary, President Clinton will make clear, as he has done in the past, that while we support the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation, we strongly condemn Russian attacks on civilians in Chechnya. The President will, I trust, also call on President Yeltsin to extend the current cease-fire in Chechnya and make it permanent. Mr. President, another area of profound difference with the Kremlin is the proposed sale of a Russian nuclear powerplant and delivery of nuclear technology and training to Iran. Even though, legally speaking, Moscow is correct that its proposed sale falls within international guidelines, I am convinced that Iran has embarked upon a program to build nuclear weapons and, hence, that the sale would be a reckless and counter productive act. Although it is highly unlikely at this point that Russia can be made to back down totally, President Clinton--on site, face-to-face with President Yeltsin--will be able to press for important adjustments such as preventing the sale of a gas centrifuge plant, which would significantly increase the danger of Iran's being able to produce weapons-grade enriched uranium. Also, the President may push for an agreement whereby spent nuclear fuel would be returned from Iran to Russia. I have been dismayed at recent bellicose statements by Senior Russian officials against NATO expansion. In Moscow, President Clinton will make crystal-clear to President Yeltsin that Russia does not have veto power over any actions of NATO, including the alliance's enlargement. In addition, President Clinton will reiterate that NATO has always been a defensive alliance and that binding qualified Central and East European democracies into the alliance's comprehensive security system will enhance stability in the region and thereby be a gain, not a danger, for Russia. The President might pose the rhetorical question to Yeltsin whether Russia would prefer that there be potential isolated loose cannon countries in the middle of Europe or fully integrated members of a defensive alliance led by the United States. The answer is surely the latter. In Moscow, President Clinton will be able to urge President Yeltsin to sign Russia up formally as a member of the Partnership for Peace so that it can participate on an ongoing basis in a range of discussions with NATO. There are other crucially important outstanding issues to discuss with the Russians at the Moscow summit. President Clinton will undoubtedly urge that Russia continue its budget austerity and privatization programs and other economic reforms. Several arms control issues will certainly be on the agenda, including prospects for ratification of START II, crafting a joint strategy in support of the indefinite extension of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, demarcation between antiballistic missiles and tactical missile defense, and holding to the terms of the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty. President Clinton will, I am certain, explain in Moscow that cooperation on the issues I have enumerated would strengthen Russia's case for membership in important international bodies such as the Group of Seven Advanced Industrial Nations. On the other hand, threatening to curtail economic and technical assistance to Russia because of disagreements with Russian policy, as some in the majority party in Congress have advocated, would be ``shooting ourselves in the foot,'' since such a move could only serve to harm the transitions to a free-market economy and true political democracy in Russia that are very much in the United States national interest. Mr. President, the way to move forward in our emerging relationship with the new Russia is not to sit pouting on the sidelines. Rather, it is to engage the Russians in open, frank, even contentious dialog. Americans can be proud that we have a President thoroughly versed in all these highly complex matters and able to bring the full weight of the Presidency to bear in face-to-face negotiations. I know that all Americans join me in wishing President Clinton every success in his vitally important mission.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago, terrorists destroyed the Federal building in Oklahoma City, took hundreds of lives, and destroyed the lives of thousands of others. Federal, State, and local investigators continue the search for those responsible for that heinous act. In the weeks since the attack, there has been renewed focus on S. 390, the President's comprehensive counterterrorism bill I introducing in February with Senators Specter and Kohl. Today, I am pleased to join with Senator Daschle and others in introducing expanded counterterrorism legislation, which contains additional proposals to assist law enforcement in the fight against terrorism. As I said in February, I believe we must take strong action to counteract terrorism. Now, in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing, it is clear that we must focus our attention not just on foreign terrorists, but on domestic American terrorists as well. There are steps we can take, and this bill combines them. We should ensure that law enforcement has the tools and resources it needs to effectively investigate and prevent terrorist acts, whatever their origin. At the same time, we should not, in the heat of the moment, pass legislation that we--and the American public--will later regret. Our freedoms and our Constitution are simply too valuable to be put at risk in a hurried rush to respond to this terrible tragedy. Several important provisions in this bill come from S. 390, introduced earlier this year. For instance, the bill expands the circumstances in which we can prosecute crimes committed overseas which affect our interests. It also prohibits persons from raising funds for foreign terrorist organizations, implements treaties on plastic explosives, and takes a number of other important actions. New provisions in this bill add to that effort by providing enhanced authority to obtain records in foreign counterintelligence investigations through letter requests from the FBI. This allows access to records such as consumer credit reports and hotel/motel records. Because foreign counter-intelligence investigations may not involve a criminal prosecution, a grand jury subpoena may not be an option in these cases. This bill now also revises current wiretap laws to provide authorization for wiretaps in connection with any felony if the Department of Justice certifies that it is connected to foreign or domestic terrorism, and it allows for emergency wiretaps in terrorism investigations. The bill also alters the standards to obtain a so-called roving wiretap--targeted at a person moving from phone to phone or using pay phones. In addition, the bill allows use of the military to investigate offenses involving chemical and biological weapons. And it allows the Department of the Treasury to promulgate regulations requiring explosives manufacturers to use methods making the explosives traceable, known as taggants. While I believe many of the provisions now under consideration in this bill are useful and desirable, I do share some of the concerns about the bill. Specifically, I want to examine closely the need for and the full scope of the additional authority sought for law enforcement in wiretapping and in collecting records, particularly where domestic groups are targeted. As I said in February, I am also concerned about the alien terrorist removal provisions, which would allow secret evidence to be used to deport a person. Our judicial system generally requires that a defendant be given the evidence to be used against him--so that he can prepare a defense. Unseen, unheard evidence simply cannot be defended against, and raises the possibility of erroneous decisions. I also believe we should look closely at proposals which would ban fundraising for organizations which the President designates as terrorist. The first amendment rights of association and free speech are at the heart of our system of government. While we should not allow people to knowingly support terrorism, we also must ensure that legitimate political activities are not curtailed. We must examine these and other issues closely before acting on terrorism legislation. But I do believe we should act. Americans enjoy freedoms unlike those in any other country on the planet. But freedoms bring responsibilities. Incidents like the Oklahoma City bombing have no place in our free and democratic society, which allows full expression of all types of political views through legitimate means. There is simply no excuse for turning to violence in a society with open airwaves, uncensored newspapers, and regular and free elections of the peoples' representatives.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago, terrorists destroyed the Federal building in Oklahoma City, took hundreds of lives, and destroyed the lives of thousands of others. Federal, State, and local investigators continue the search for those responsible for that heinous act. In the weeks since the attack, there has been renewed focus on S. 390, the President's comprehensive counterterrorism bill I introducing in February with Senators Specter and Kohl. Today, I am pleased to join with Senator Daschle and others in introducing expanded counterterrorism legislation, which contains additional proposals to assist law enforcement in the fight against terrorism. As I said in February, I believe we must take strong action to counteract terrorism. Now, in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing, it is clear that we must focus our attention not just on foreign terrorists, but on domestic American terrorists as well. There are steps we can take, and this bill combines them. We should ensure that law enforcement has the tools and resources it needs to effectively investigate and prevent terrorist acts, whatever their origin. At the same time, we should not, in the heat of the moment, pass legislation that we--and the American public--will later regret. Our freedoms and our Constitution are simply too valuable to be put at risk in a hurried rush to respond to this terrible tragedy. Several important provisions in this bill come from S. 390, introduced earlier this year. For instance, the bill expands the circumstances in which we can prosecute crimes committed overseas which affect our interests. It also prohibits persons from raising funds for foreign terrorist organizations, implements treaties on plastic explosives, and takes a number of other important actions. New provisions in this bill add to that effort by providing enhanced authority to obtain records in foreign counterintelligence investigations through letter requests from the FBI. This allows access to records such as consumer credit reports and hotel/motel records. Because foreign counter-intelligence investigations may not involve a criminal prosecution, a grand jury subpoena may not be an option in these cases. This bill now also revises current wiretap laws to provide authorization for wiretaps in connection with any felony if the Department of Justice certifies that it is connected to foreign or domestic terrorism, and it allows for emergency wiretaps in terrorism investigations. The bill also alters the standards to obtain a so-called roving wiretap--targeted at a person moving from phone to phone or using pay phones. In addition, the bill allows use of the military to investigate offenses involving chemical and biological weapons. And it allows the Department of the Treasury to promulgate regulations requiring explosives manufacturers to use methods making the explosives traceable, known as taggants. While I believe many of the provisions now under consideration in this bill are useful and desirable, I do share some of the concerns about the bill. Specifically, I want to examine closely the need for and the full scope of the additional authority sought for law enforcement in wiretapping and in collecting records, particularly where domestic groups are targeted. As I said in February, I am also concerned about the alien terrorist removal provisions, which would allow secret evidence to be used to deport a person. Our judicial system generally requires that a defendant be given the evidence to be used against him--so that he can prepare a defense. Unseen, unheard evidence simply cannot be defended against, and raises the possibility of erroneous decisions. I also believe we should look closely at proposals which would ban fundraising for organizations which the President designates as terrorist. The first amendment rights of association and free speech are at the heart of our system of government. While we should not allow people to knowingly support terrorism, we also must ensure that legitimate political activities are not curtailed. We must examine these and other issues closely before acting on terrorism legislation. But I do believe we should act. Americans enjoy freedoms unlike those in any other country on the planet. But freedoms bring responsibilities. Incidents like the Oklahoma City bombing have no place in our free and democratic society, which allows full expression of all types of political views through legitimate means. There is simply no excuse for turning to violence in a society with open airwaves, uncensored newspapers, and regular and free elections of the peoples' representatives.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak of a triple commemoration of horror. April 1995 marked the anniversary of both the first and the most recent genocide of the 20th century. The first, of course, was the massacre of 1.5 million Armenians in 1915. The most recent was last year's slaughter of the Tutsis of Rwanda. Chronologically between these two grisly events stand the decimation of the Ukrainian people by Stalin's collectivization, the Jewish Holocaust, the killing fields of Cambodia, and most recently the unspeakable ethnic cleansing of Bosnia's Moslems. The precedent for this inhuman chain was the Armenian genocide, the world's failure to prevent it, and the inability to ensure that it not be denied by future generations. From 1915 to 1923, 30 percent of the Armenian people were massacred by the brutal hand of the Ottoman Turks, beginning with the Armenian intellectual and religious elite on April 24, 1915. Armenian men who had already been conscripted into the Ottoman Army were put into work battalions and then murdered. Other Armenians--mostly helpless, elderly, women, and children--were driven on forced marches into the desert. Many of those who withstood unimaginable suffering finally succumbed to starvation or illness. Sadly, the Armenian massacres have been labeled the ``forgotten genocide'' as a result of a concerted effort to rewrite history. Some who should know better assert that the horrid events were merely a regrettable sidelight of war, not genocide. Mr. Chairman, we must not let unseemly quarrels over semantics cloud our moral vision or distract us from the fundamental point: The world must not allow human beings to be killed because of their race, religion, or ethnic group. It matters little whether or not in every case of genocide in this century the perpetrators had a master plan for annihilation. The crucial, horrifying truth is that Armenians were killed because they were Armenians; Jews were killed because they were Jews; Gypsies were killed because they were Gypsies; Tutsis were killed because they were Tutsis; and Bosnian Moslems were killed because they were Moslems. In the 1930's the international community should have been alerted by Hitler's cynical comment, ``Who today remembers the extermination of the Armenians?'' Just as Hitler saw lack of historical memory of the Armenian genocide as a signal that he could carry out with impunity his demented genocide of Jews and Gypsies, so too must the Hutus in Rwanda have been emboldened by the world's failure to stop the vile ethnic cleansing in Bosnia. On this 80th anniversary of the Armenian genocide; the 50th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, Buchenwald, and other Nazi death camps; and the first anniversary of the Tutsi genocide, I stand here to tell you that this chain must be broken once and for all. We must not only remember and honor the martyrs, but must also solemnly swear: ``This will never happen again.''

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. I would like to point out that in the Dole-Daschle compromise we are cutting the international broadcasting account by $35 million. The Senator from Iowa proposes to cut $40 million from RFE/RL in addition to what we are about to cut. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator give me 5 seconds?

Mr. BIDEN. Let me clarify this for the Senator. At the beginning of this administration, the President proposed terminating RFE/RL. That decision was reversed in the spring of 1993. And that summer, the President proposed consolidating all U.S. sponsored international broadcasts. Congress accepted it. And we ordered budget cuts. We cut the costs. The reason it is $175 million, $100 million more that the request for Fiscal 1996, is that it costs more--in the current fiscal year--to reduce the size of the radios. That is what it cost under German law to reduce the operation. We are bound under German law. When we lay off people and fire people under German law, we are required to pay this severance pay. That is the reason why it is more money this year and drops to $75 million next year. Thirdly, I point out to my friend from Iowa, he did vote for and we did vote for Radio Free Asia. We authorized the establishment of a new service last year, and began appropriating money last year. We did it because there is censorship in China and the other communist countries in Asia; because there is a gerontocracy in Beijing that does not let people express their points of view. We did do that. So he is ahead of himself without even realizing it. We did in fact vote and have voted to guarantee that where there is censorship in the world, we will be involved to the extent that we can. So, Mr. President, if we do not send troops, and we are not going to send money, and we are not going to send information, and we are not going to send access to the truth, what the heck are we going to do? I resent the fact that this is being pitted against public television. The reason public television is cut is not because of Radio Free Europe. When we reach the point----

Mr. BIDEN. I do not say this with any rancor, but it is clear the Senator from Iowa is correct; he is uninformed on this issue. The reason he is uninformed on the issue, Radio Free Europe or Radio Liberty, the administration is not opposed. I will submit the letter for the Record. I ask unanimous consent it be put in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Pennsylvania yield me 2 minutes?

Mr. BIDEN. We have.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today, I and Senator Hatch are introducing a joint resolution to express the concern of the Congress regarding some recent remarks that inaccurately malign the integrity of the Nation's law enforcement officers. It has been my privilege to work closely with our Nation's State and local police officers throughout my career. And, whether I have been dealing with officers who protect citizens in one of Delaware's smallest towns or those who patrol our Nation's largest cities, I have been impressed by the level of honor, commitment and integrity they have consistently upheld. Indeed, the evidence is that vast majority of our Nation's law enforcement officers are conscientious public servants who have a job where they must literally be willing to lay their life on the line everyday they go to work. Let me be clear, I do not being to claim that there are no ``bad apples'' among the Nation's 540,000 police officers--as in every profession, there are ``bad apples'' who violate the law. But, this does not justify any sweeping indictment of the ethics of the entire police profession, any more than a case of malpractice by a doctor justifies sweeping criticism of the entire medical profession. Because I believe it is simply unfair to make allegations about a whole profession based on the actions of a tiny minority and because I have enjoyed such a close and, I hope, mutually respectful relationship with our Nation's police officers, I am introducing this legislation so that the Congress is on record as recognizing the integrity of our Nation's police profession. I am happy to be joined by Senator Hatch on this measure, and I look forward to other Senators joining us in this effort. The morale of our Nation's police officers is dependent upon the respect they feel from all of us, such is the case for any profession. This resolution is but one of many chances the Senate will have this year to indicate our confidence in our Nation's police. Later this year, I expect that the Senate will be faced with legislation that will nullify the provisions of the Violent Crime Control Act of 1994 that will add 100,000 more police to our streets. Those who believe that our Nation's police do not live up to the highest ethical standards may oppose this effort to add 100,000 officers to their ranks. But, those of us who know that the overwhelming majority of our police meet these high standards, must protect this effort to add 100,000 state and local police to America's neighborhoods. I admit that the resolution I introduce today offers but some small measure of rhetorical support. The real support for our Nation's police will be shown by continuing our commitment to add 100,000 more officers to the ranks of those who protect us all. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.