Joe Biden

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, it is my understanding--I ask unanimous consent I be able to proceed to speak in morning business for 20 minutes.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry, are we in morning business?

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Now, further, I ask my friend from Idaho, what if the authorization bill did claim to set out criteria [[Page S1181]] and procedures for the responsible Federal agency but those criteria said in effect, ``Federal agency, do what you think is right if the Appropriations Committee does not fund the full amount set forth in the authorization bill.'' Would a point of order lie in that circumstance?

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Idaho for his answers. I do appreciate them.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. Mr. President, yesterday, or maybe even the day before yesterday, I responded to an assertion that I thought was overbroad--not made by the Senator from Idaho but by another Senator--as to what was within the constitutional authority of the Congress to delegate or not delegate in terms of legislative power. Mr. President, I got into this discussion about the constitutional issue and separation of powers issue, of how much we could and could not delegate and whether or not particular sections of this legislation, in fact, exceeded the constitutional authority we had to delegate power. Before I begin this colloquy, I want to thank the Senator from Idaho and his staff for spending the time with me and going through it. Mr. President, this bill adds a new section to the Budget Act, section 408(C). That section, as I understand it, provides that a simple majority point of order shall lie against any authorization bill that imposes a mandate unless the authorization bill provides for the possibility that the Appropriations Committee may not appropriate the estimated cost set forth in the authorization bill to pay for the mandate. Section 408(C) provides that the authorization bill must deal with that eventuality by designating a responsible Federal agency and by establishing criteria and procedures for that agency to scale back the mandate to match the funds that the Appropriations Committee has provided, or to declare the mandate to be in effect. Now, let me ask my friend from Idaho, what would happen under this provision, and the provision I am referring to is section 408(C), if an authorization bill imposed a mandate, named a responsible Federal agency to implement the mandate, but did not provide any criteria at all for the agency to use in scaling back the mandate or declaring it ineffective? Would a point of order in section 408(C) lie in that case?

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the answer is yes. As this colloquy has helped show, at least from my perspective, section 408(C) provides that authorization bills that impose a mandate and delegate authority to a Federal agency shall include criteria and procedures to guide the Federal agency's actions. To the extent that an authorization bill contains such criteria and procedures, it increases the likelihood that the delegation of authority is constitutional. To the extent that such a bill lacks appropriate criteria and procedures, it increases the likelihood that the delegation is unconstitutional. The Senate could, of course, vote to overrule any point of order raised on this basis. But that does not necessarily mean that the delegation is constitutional because the Senate overruled a point of order. The ultimate question of constitutionality is for the courts to decide. Of course, ultimately, all these questions of the constitutionality of a delegation of authority through an executive agency are through the courts. I am satisfied that the attempt has been made in the legislation to meet the constitutional requirements. I thank my colleague, the Senator from Idaho, for making these points clear to me. As far as I am concerned, on this point, I have no further concern.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, if I may respond, the answer is yes. I do not think it is necessary, but it would not do any damage to the section. Again, I do not want to take too much time, but if you look at the case law here, the real issue is not whether or not we can delegate authority, it is how much authority can we delegate and with what specificity do we delegate. So to the extent that we demand specificity, it increases the prospect that whatever authority is delegated is constitutionally permissible. That is why I said in my colloquy with my friend from Idaho that to the extent that an authorization bill contains such criteria and procedure, specific criteria and procedure, to the extent it does, it does not make it constitutional, it increases the prospects that it will be constitutional. To the extent that it lacks specificity, it diminishes the prospect that it would be held to be constitutional. So neither the Senator from Idaho nor I, I believe, are asserting that this does not have the potential to raise a constitutional question, but merely to suggest, and I would refer --maybe what I should do before this bill is finished is refer to some of the case law that I think indicates that it is likely--likely--that the Court would, in fact, rule that we have not delegated authority beyond what we are constitutionally permitted to do. And to relate to the degree of specificity, I have no objection. It is not my bill, so it is presumptuous of me to suggest what should and should not be added. I have no objection it be added. I think it strengthens it marginally without in any way weakening the intent of the legislation.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Idaho for his overly generous references to my legal abilities. In the event that the next election does not turn out as I wish, I hope everyone listened to it. And I wish it were true, although it is not warranted. I appreciate the sentiment.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. I object.

Mr. BIDEN. The reason I objected was I thought--more appropriately, I would like to reserve the right to object, but since the minority leader asked for a quorum call--I assume to talk with the majority leader--that is why I objected. I have no intention of objecting, if they can agree, and I would just like to point out, as back in the bad old days when I was chairman of the committee, this floor never agreed to the amendments from the Judiciary Committee on a bill. So it is a practice that maybe we should establish, but in my experience in 6 years as chairman of that committee I can never remember one single occasion when I came to the floor where we routinely agreed to the committee amendments from the Judiciary Committee. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield for 2 seconds?

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, during a too short ministry among us of Martin Luther King, Jr., he spoke very eloquently, with great insight and I believe with profound wisdom, on many aspects of American life. He taught us about the promise of equality and about the meaning of community and about the greatness of our human potential. But of all the many things that Dr. King taught us--and we just memorialized his birthday the beginning of this week--of all the things he taught us, one in particular has held much meaning for me, particularly in recent months. And that is the standard he set for human behavior and the qualities he identified as being the true measure of humanity. Dr. King challenged us, in his words, to ``rise above the narrow confines of our individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity.'' He reminded us that one of the true standards of success is ``the quality of our service and relationship to humanity,'' not, as he put it, ``the index of our salaries or the size of our automobiles.'' Dr. King's standard for humankind, set by him, was a very high one. To take responsibility not only for ourselves but for others as well, to take our guide--more as our guide a moral and rich vision of ourselves and the community of man. In this way he challenged us to become the guardians of our most precious American legacy, and that is the promise that each of us deserves: an opportunity to fulfill our potential, whatever that potential may be. And that is what I would like to speak to this morning, and about why I am concerned that this Nation, and some of our leadership, is turning away from that promise. The richness of Martin Luther King's vision has long inspired many Americans but today I find I need, and I believe our country needs, his inspiration even more. For today we hear increasingly from those who speak of human potential, not with hope but with hopelessness; whose voices do not celebrate the strength of community, but echo the fear of diversity; and who would abandon the fundamental American principle of equal opportunity to the long discredited notions of superiority and inferiority. Today we hear from those who confuse the lack of opportunity with the inability to achieve. Let me say that again. I think today we are hearing from too many people who confuse the lack of opportunity a person has with the inability of that person to achieve. Today, we have a new chorus of voices whose sense of community extends no further than those just like themselves and who dismiss the potential of others who are different from themselves. Today those voices are drawing support from a book called ``The Bell Curve,'' the new intellectual sophistry, engaged in, as it has been over the past two centuries in this country, to justify an agenda that is abhorrent, in my view, to American principles. This book attempts to persuade us with the language of science to forget about hope, to forget opportunity, to [[Page S1134]] forget the power of new challenges and the promise of an inspired mind; to forget, indeed, the very principles on which this Nation was forged. ``The Bell Curve'' tells us that our genes guide us toward a life of fulfillment or condemn us to a life of emptiness, and that we can do nothing to change our destiny. This book, written by the conservative social critic Charles Murray, and the late Harvard psychologist, Richard Herrnstein, essentially asserts three propositions. And I acknowledge in the brevity of time I will not do full justice to the propositions. The first of those propositions asserted is that intelligence can be captured by a single quantitative measure, expressed as an IQ score. That is the basic premise. That we can determine the intelligence of a person by an IQ score test. Second, that intelligence is genetically based and effectively unchangeable. And third, that intelligence, more than any other factor, determines job performance, dependency on welfare, rates of birth and illegitimacy, crime, and other social behavior. They are the three basic assertions in this book, among others. In other words, these modern day Social Darwinists posit that differences in what various races achieve result from genetic makeup alone, not from environmental factors, and that they cannot be changed. Think about the consequences for this country if we adopt that proposition. So the authors argue society should stop trying to help anybody who is not a member of their so-called intellectual or cognitive elite-- that is the phrase they use: the intellectual and cognitive elite. The science of ``The Bell Curve,'' I believe, and I will at a later date speak to this, has been widely and convincingly attacked on many levels by other experts, intellectuals, psychologists, and psychiatrists. First, many scientists have pointed out that it is widely disputed whether there is such a thing as intelligence quotient, IQ, a single figure that can quantify intellectual capacity, let alone measure creativity or originality or other productive talents. Second, critics of ``The Bell Curve,'' the scientific critics, have pointed to all of the existing evidence that IQ scores can be improved, that they are not fixed, that they are not immutable. I ask the parents who may be listening, go look at the IQ test your children took when they entered first grade or second grade. Then, if they have had a good education, look at the IQ test they take as they enter high school. You will find a difference. It is changeable as a consequence of opportunity and exposure and education. Indeed, even ``The Bell Curve'' authors acknowledge that improved nutrition--improved nutrition, not education--raises IQ: Nutrition. Finally, scientists have rebutted the notion that IQ scores are a predictive of a life of accomplishment. They have identified ``The Bell Curve'' psychometrics as the latest incarnation of the discredited pseudoscience of eugenics. Remember back in the 1920's? I remember studying this when I was in undergraduate school. There was a school that talked about whether or not--all you had to do was measure the circumference of the skull and you could determine whether or not someone had an intellectual capacity that was inferior or superior. While these so-called researchers measured the circumference of a skull in a similarly perverse effort to justify racial discrimination in the 1920's, we now have those who have a different way of doing the same thing. That is, just measure the IQ and you have a determinative of everything that is going to happen to that young child. You young pages here, if we measure your IQ and you have a high IQ and cognitive ability--and I am sure you all do--then in fact you are marked for success. If you have an average IQ or lower IQ, you are in trouble according to the authors of ``The Bell Curve.'' But it seems to me that exposing the weakness of the authors' science, which I have not done fully and I will over a period of the next 6 months, while necessary, is not sufficient. It seems to me that Dr. King taught us that what is wrong with the conclusions of the authors of ``The Bell Curve'' goes far beyond the errors of their scholarship or the weakness of their science. It seems to me that the basic premise of what we all celebrated in Dr. King's birthday this week is that Dr. King teaches us that the view of humanity purveyed by those who speak the language of ``The Bell Curve'' is bankrupt because they ignore the very characteristics that Dr. King knew mark the true measure of humanity. The definition of human value was richer by far than mere IQ, or even of intelligence more broadly conceived and measured. Dr. King told us that: Everybody can be great. Because anybody can serve. You don't have to have a college degree to serve. You don't have to make your subject and your verb agree to serve. You don't have to know about Plato and Aristotle to serve. You don't have to know Einstein's theory of relativity to serve. You don't have to know the second theory of thermodynamics in physics to serve. You only need a heart full of grace. A soul generated by love. Dr. King's words teach us to think more broadly of human achievement: To think about those achievements that depend on generosity, on thoughtfulness, on sacrifice, on respect for others; To think about those that depend on creativity and originality: the most inspired painting, the most soothing melody, the most piercing wit, the most graceful dance, the most insightful social commentary, the most unexpected athletic achievement. In other words, we must be guided by the very things that make life most worth living, when we seek to measure human achievement. Is not the acknowledged reality of achievement more important than the mere abstraction of I.Q., particularly when we recognize that statistical abstraction--by its very nature--lends itself all too readily to misconstruction in the service of narrow-minded mischief. Of course, achievement built on talent, discipline and a sense of moral obligation can not be weighed and measured on an arithmetical scale. Indeed, as each generation finds new ways to outperform the last, we learn how futile it is to place limits on human accomplishment, and how foolish we would be to forget that our potential is as great as our imagination. In this way, Dr. King spoke to the first fallacy of ``The Bell Curve''-- The notion that human intelligence, much less human worth, is so narrow and pinched as to mean only what can be measured by an I.Q. score. Even more importantly, Dr. King warned us that ``intelligence is not enough''; rather, he said, we must strive for what he called ``intelligence plus character.'' Because, as he reminded us, ``the most dangerous criminal may be the man gifted with reason but with no morals.'' King saw that intelligence divorced from morality is worth little. As an undergraduate at Morehouse College, he wrote that the segregationist former Georgia Governor, Eugene Talmadge, possessed one of the better minds of Georgia, or even America * * * he wore the Phi Beta Kappa key. By all measuring rods, Mr. Talmadge could think critically and intensively; yet he contended that I am an inferior being * * *. ``What did he use all that precious knowledge for?''--King asked. ``To accomplish what?'' ``To accomplish what?'' Thus, Dr. King spoke to the second fallacy of ``The Bell Curve.'' The notion that intelligence uninformed by morality can create a worthy woman or man. Only an immoral person, no matter how intelligent, could ever think it acceptable to judge another on the basis of his or her membership in a group. King taught us that no one has the right to say that another's fate should be--or can be--enslaved by the color of his or her skin, or by the nature of his or her religious beliefs, or by the origins of his or her ancestors, or by the wealth of his or her family. Dr. King understood that there are real differences among individuals. But for him, those differences reflected the richness of the human condition, they were an accepted part of the greater community of man-- not a [[Page S1135]] reason for division, and never an excuse for relegating whole groups of people to a permanent underclass. He urged each of us, whatever our talents, to accept responsibility for ourselves and to strive for excellence. He said: If it falls to your lot to be a street sweeper, sweep streets like Michelangelo painted pictures, like Shakespeare wrote poetry, like Beethoven composed music; Sweep streets so well that all the host of heaven and earth will have to pause and say, ``here lived a great street sweeper, who swept his job well. Of course, he also know what artificial barriers could do to limit individual achievement. He knew that the street sweeper was dealt his hand not solely by the configuration of his DNA, but was the product of a complex tangle of forces shaped by families, by communities, by social and economic systems--and by government. Dr. King's great struggle, first for civil rights and later for economic justice, was itself a testament to his conviction that people of all races, colors, creeds, and religions deserve an equal chance to achieve their potential--an equal chance, a level playing field. And so we come to the third fallacy of ``The Bell Curve'': that all people stand today on a level playing field, free to reach their potential, because implicit in the book and those who are espousing its principles is that there is already a level playing field. The reality, of course, is that we have not yet achieved a society where all people enjoy equal opportunity. Instead we remain a society where too many minds are stifled by poverty, paralyzed by violence, stunted by poor education, starved by poor nutrition, and diseased by unsanitary housing. We need only look around us to see how much such deprivation costs us as a society, and we need only listen to Martin Luther King to understand that we can not--indeed, we must not--promise anyone an easy way out. Dr. King never promised to make it easier on anyone--he sought equal opportunity for all people, but he knew it was up to each individual to seize the challenge. By assuming personal responsibility, by preparing for the hard work opportunity demands, by striving for excellence in every endeavor, and by dedicating achievement always to moral ends. Martin Luther King was by no means an easy taskmaster--but he challenged our society as a whole as much as he challenged each of us as individuals. He knew--and this is the crux of his teaching--that personal responsibility and the drive for excellence can develop and succeed only in the context of equal opportunity. Ask yourselves: if your personal achievement was limited or blocked by prejudice or by policy. Would you push as hard as you could to get ahead? Would you be able even to imagine your potential achievement? Maybe the people on this floor can answer yes to that question. But I ask it another way. How many of you know people you grew up with, if you did not grow up in affluent circumstances, who are still behind, the exception being a person who makes it here or its comparable place in our society when they come from limited means? Why are there so few? Is it because we are so special, or is it because the human condition is impacted upon and one's potential is impacted upon by what is expected of them and what they are exposed to? When individuals are stereotyped by personal prejudice or by prejudicial statistics, bleak expectations become a sober reality. And the natural talents we all possess in some measure rarely blossom in the shadows of such a circumstance. Do not think for a moment that ``The Bell Curve'' is merely an idle academic debate. The authors do not hesitate to convert their conclusions into policy recommendations, and there are many today eager to act on that advice. Indeed, their recommendations sound all too familiar to anyone listening to the current debate on education, on aid to pregnant women and children, and on efforts to respond to job discrimination, among other issues. In short, ``the authors of the Bell Curve'' view all programs designed to level the playing field as doomed to fail, because intelligence--or more precisely, i.q.--is the only thing that matters, and it can not be changed, according to them. Government--or private organizations, for that matter--are simply incapable of making a difference and shouldn't even try. Now, I believe that a number of Federal programs originally intended to level. The playing field are in need of reform. For 22 years here, I have tried to get rid of some, voted against others, and am prepared to jettison still others that I thought had a chance but have shown not to work. Some have had unintended, detrimental consequences; all would benefit by a sharp look at what is working and can be maintained or expanded, and at what is not working and should be jettisoned. But that is beside the point to the authors of ``The Bell Curve,'' because their attack is aimed at the very concept that Government should try to ensure equal opportunity to all our citizens. The authors argue that we should end, not reform, but end such efforts by Government. The authors say their recommendations are intended to prevent what they see as the inevitable end of the road we are on, a ``custodial'' state, something like a ``high-technology Indian reservation,'' where the permanent underclass is minimally fed and housed. To their credit, the authors say they want to avoid this nightmare vision, but what they recommend is obviously insufficient on a practical level and entirely unacceptable on a moral one. First, the authors suggest that we abandon our efforts to create the equality of condition among all people that our Founding Fathers believed was a self-evident human heritage. Indeed, they suggest we return to ``an older intellectual tradition,'' unburdened by our historic American belief that ``all men are created equal.'' Instead of trying to ensure equal opportunity so that every person has a fair chance of success, they say we should simply focus on improving the fabric of family and community. They suggest that we return a wide range of social functions to neighborhoods or municipalities, to improve our sense of community. They propose that we should simplify Government regulations that make it more complicated for people to function--rules governing education, taxes, Government assistance, to name a few. They recommend reforming the criminal justice system to make it simpler to know what is a criminal offense and what is the sanction for it. And they suggest reemphasizing the unique legal status of marriage, as the only relationship with legal benefits, as well as legal obligations. I do not necessarily quarrel with these practical recommendations; it seems to me that some of them may well be worth pursuing. What I do quarrel with--and vehemently so--is the idea that we, as a society, should give up what has been a bedrock principle of our Nation: that all men are created equal, and thereby abandon any idea that Government has a role in seeing that no one is denied an equal opportunity to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Government cannot manipulate people's heredity, and it should not attempt to do so, but I believe a moral government can--and must-- pursue policies that treat every person as a resource. If low IQ's are the problem, why not try to raise them, through better nutrition, which the authors of ``The Bell Curve'' acknowledge does make a difference? If the fabric of families is torn, why not focus on programs that enable them to mend themselves-- Programs that keep children from going hungry, that help young people get off and stay off drugs; That keep the streets safe so local businesses can flourish and families can get to and from work and school; Programs that help new factories open and train and retrain our workers for new jobs. As we consider this challenge, we should remember what Martin Luther King never forgot--that opportunity is not a substitute for personal responsibility. New ideas are being proposed that build on the twin pillars of opportunity and responsibility, and new programs are being tested in communities across the Nation, such as housing and transportation programs that help minorities move out of ghettos and buy their own homes. If the positive effects of Head Start fade out several years after children leave the program, why eliminate Head Start rather than improve the rest of the education system to extend its success? If answers tried in the past have failed, it means we should try new answers, not give up on the problem. As a government--and as a society--our policies must have a moral dimension: They must respect the value of each individual, and never dismiss anyone or any group of people as unworthy of a fair chance. Shredding the social safety net will not avert a crisis; in my view, it only propels us ever faster toward crisis. It will swell the divisions between rich and poor; it will lead to more racial animosity and ethnic hatred; it will sacrifice the dream-- the very American dream of Martin Luther King, who foresaw a day when his four children would, in his words, Live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. He spoke of a ``beloved community,'' his vision of an America living in racial harmony, where individuals judge each other on individual merit and achievement; where values triumph over charts, graphs, and stereotypes; where all people are nourished and expected to succeed. This is a vision of a moral society--the kind of society our forefathers saw as their bequest to the Nation--and it stands in stark contrast to the custodial state envisioned in ``The Bell Curve.'' Fulfilling Dr. King's vision of a beloved community, founded on both individual responsibility and equal opportunity--a community that rewards achievement and places barriers before no one--has always been and remains today the foremost challenge for American society. Martin Luther King understood that better, perhaps, than any other American of this century, and we can offer him no greater memorial today--we can offer ourselves no greater assurance of maintaining our American heritage--than by rejecting both the arguments and the conclusions of ``The Bell Curve'' in favor of that ``beloved community'' for which Martin Luther King, Jr., lived and died.

Mr. BIDEN

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

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. As I read Morrison versus Olson and other separation of powers cases, the fact is that the judgment made by the Supreme Court as to whether we can or cannot delegate authority, any branch in the Federal Government may or may not delegate authority, relates not to whether they have set up procedures, but relates to whether or not the delegation of authority goes to the essence of the function of that branch. For example, we could not set in motion here, even if we wanted to, by legislation, a proposal that said the President of the United States of America shall, under the following circumstances, not only nominate but in fact confirm a Federal judge. We could not do that. We could lay out in great detail the circumstances under which a President could take over the whole responsibility of putting someone on the bench, and that would be an unconstitutional delegation of power under the separation of powers doctrine. Now, I would be very, very interested, because I know, and I mean this sincerely, how learned my friend is in the law. But I have made the serious mistake of teaching constitutional law on this subject for the last five semesters, and I have been forced to read all these cases. I am not suggesting that I have the book on this issue, but I am suggesting to you I have read no case where there is the ability for someone to conclude from reading the case that you can, if you set out proper procedures, delegate authority which is essentially legislative or for the President. The President could not turn around and say, ``By the way, I, by Executive order, from now on am asking the U.S. Senate to name who will be nominated for the Court and also move forward and confirm those persons.'' He could not do that. Now, again, I know everybody does not want to prolong the debate, but I think this is a critical question, and one that the Senator from Arkansas and the Senator from West Virginia, I believe, have suggested is easily reconcilable. For example, as I read the Budget Act, you could, in fact, have done what they did in the Budget Act. The Budget Committee retains the judgment of whether or not they will, in fact, conclude that something is within or beyond the budget resolution. They do not delegate it to an alphabet agency. They do not delegate it to another branch of Government. So I would be very anxious--and I am not trying to put the Senator on the spot--but I would be very anxious to hear now the case law that he thinks sustains his position, or give him time to do that. And this is not meant by way of just trying to be obstreperous or to embarrass. I truly do not know of any cases that sustain the assertion made by the Senator from Colorado.

Mr. BIDEN. May I ask the Senator from Colorado a question on that point?

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I know the Senator from West Virginia had the floor, and I would be guided by whatever he wishes. I can come back to this later or we could continue, whatever the Senator suggests. I have no preference in the normal order of things. I know there were other Senators here to speak on this and other issues, before me. Maybe what I should do with the Senator's permission is gather up, since I just walked on the floor and did not anticipate being involved in this debate, some of the case law to which I refer and come back and maybe continue this debate if the Senator from West Virginia thinks that is appropriate.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise this evening to urge the United States to vote at the United Nations against renewing the partial lifting of sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro in return for their alleged blockade against the Bosnian Serbs. The 100-day probation period for blockade enforcement expires tomorrow, January 12, 1995. A positive action in the U.N. Security Council is necessary to renew the waiver. The language of the U.N. resolution granting the waiver stipulates the need for effectively implementing the closure of the border between Serbia and Montenegro and the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. I repeat, effectively implementing--not trying in a half-hearted way or even trying with good intentions. Mr. President, the standard of effectively implementing simply has not been met. On November 18, 1994, I sent a detailed letter to Secretary of State Christopher in which I outlined my concerns on this issue. Yesterday-- nearly 8 weeks later--I finally received an answer from Assistant Secretary of State Sherman. I hope that this inexcusable tardiness in responding to my request and desire is not indicative of a desire on the part of the State Department to keep this vital issue out of the public eye. Mr. President, the contents of Assistant Secretary Sherman's letter have only increased my fear that the administration is allowing a new overall concept for Bosnia--with which I profoundly disagree--to dictate its interpretation of the facts on the ground. What about the stipulated U.N. standard of effectively implementing the border closure? Assistant Secretary Sherman writes: On the whole, looking across the 100-day period, we believe it legitimate to say that the border has been effectively closed in the sense that it has become steadily less porous as loopholes were identified and sealed. That, Mr. President, is a remarkably creative definition of ``effective implementing.'' I remember back in the early 1980's, we went from talking about tax increases to revenue enhancements. This ``effectively implementing,'' and he writes, ``On the whole, looking across the 100-day period, we believe,'' and the key point is ``that it has become steadily less porous.'' I assume that means therefore it has been effectively implemented, in their view. The fact is that the border is more than 300 miles long. It traverses some of the most rugged, mountainous country in Europe, and it would be difficult to police even with a large force of monitors. In actuality, however, Mr. President, fewer than 200 monitors have been deployed. Assistant Secretary Sherman admits the monitoring mission ``is still not staffed as fully as we would like.'' Most of the crossing points are not monitored 24 hours a day. Controls on so-called ant trade--carried on by private vehicles that smuggle in fuel for a Bosnian Serb war machine--are, quite frankly, laughable. Perhaps the most ridiculous piece of information is that along parts of the Montenegro-Bosnian border, the United Nations has been relying on the Yugoslav Army, that is the Serbian Army troops, to monitor the so-called blockade. Now, call me cynical, Mr. President, but I am uncomfortable with involving Mr. Milosevic's troops in the honor system. The ultimate proof of the ineffective closure of the border is that the Bosnian Serb aggressors have had no difficulty in securing fuel with which to continue their attacks, such as last month's offensive in the Bihac area. Even the price of fuel on the civilian market in Serbian-controlled parts of Bosnia has not risen appreciably, an indication that there are no serious shortages of fuel. It is still coming in. Mr. President, the whole blockade charade has proven once again that Mr. Milosevic is the shrewdest politician in the former Yugoslavia. Through his blockade gambit he hopes to weaken the Bosnian Serb leader Karadzic, but not significantly to hamper the Bosnian Serb Army. Our British and French allies and the Russians, eager for peace in Bosnia at any time, want to throw Milosevic a bone of renewed sanctions relief, perhaps even to lessen the sanctions further. Worst of all, it now appears the United States is sliding toward the appeasement position of the British and the French. Assistant Secretary of State Holbrooke, speaking 2 days ago in Sarajevo, indicated that we have retreated from holding the Bosnian Serbs at the ladder of the contact group's peace plank. Now, apparently, we see the plan only as a basis for negotiation. That is, we have prepared to allow the Bosnian Serbs to hold on to some of the fruits of their military aggression and the vile ethnic cleansing they have been undertaking. Mr. President, we should have none of this. The United States should vote against the extension of the U.S. sanctions waiver. Or, put another way, we should keep the sanctions on, the economic sanctions. Such a vote would not only be a moral statement but also a proper reaction to this nonexistent blockade that has provided cover for Milosevic and our European allies. Mr. President, although I do not have any real expectation that the administration is going to listen to me any more than they have listened to me in the past on this, or to Senator Dole or to Senator Lieberman or others, I do want the Record to show that there is no serious implementation of the blockade on the part of the Serbian Government; no cooperation from the Government of Serbia, Mr. Milosevic's government; no effective means to monitor whether it is underway; and no proof based upon the availabilities of the commodities that are supposedly being blocked, such as fuel for the war machine, that suggests that it is working, it is being tried, it is being implemented, it is effective. Therefore, it seems to me, Mr. President, the only logical and consistent vote we should cast in the United Nations Security Council tomorrow is one that eliminates the extension of the waiver and puts back in place the full economic blockade on Serbia. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their willingness to give me this time. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I also remember something Benjamin Disraeli said when a young member of Parliament walked up to him one evening--as you know, better than I, the Parliament meets in the evening. He walked up to Benjamin Disraeli, his party leader, and he said, ``Mr. Prime Minister,''--there was a particular bill on the floor--he said, ``Mr. Prime Minister, such and such a bill is on the floor tonight. I wonder whether you think I should speak tonight on this bill.'' And Disraeli looked at the young member and said, ``Sir, I think it better that the House of Commons wonder why you did not speak than why you did.'' And occasionally I think we are going to find Disraeli's admonition, not as it relates to this particular bill, I suspect we may find his admonition may be well placed in terms of how we conduct ourselves the remainder of this session. But I want to make it clear for the record, I am not referring to the Senator from Iowa or anyone in particular. But I just hope that on some of the legislative initiatives I have heard about, other than the one I have seen tonight, that we follow Disraeli's advice: Sometimes it is better not to speak than to speak. But I am going to break that admonition myself right now and I am going to ask unanimous consent that I be able to proceed for 10 minutes as if morning business.