Joe Biden

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, Senator Levin's amendment will shift funds from extra, untested interceptor missiles to programs that will detect and stop the most urgent threat facing our country: the risk posed by terrorists with weapons of mass destruction. Not only is that the most urgent threat, it is also a much more likely threat than the possibility that a rogue state, such as North Korea, will lob a missile at the United States and risk being annihalated by us. Who will send a missile with a return address and face sure destruction? Not a nation-state. Terrorist groups, with no return address, from no state against which the United States could retaliate, are not deterred by our massive nuclear arsenal. Many experts believe that terrorists would be capable of creating a nuclear weapon if they took possession of fissile material. Even the simpler gun-type design, the type of bomb exploded at Hiroshima, could kill up to a million people if detonated in a large city. Two years ago, I asked the heads of our nuclear laboratories to show us how terrorists could build an atomic weapon with parts available on the open market--other than the fissile material. A month later, they returned to the Senate and showed us the weapon they had made, minus the fissile material. I cannot go into details, but all of us knew instantly that this was within the capabilities of a sophisticated terrorist group. You don't have to be a great power to cause great damage--if you have the fissile material. Terrorists are also known to be interested in radiological material for a so-called dirty bomb, also known as a radiological dispersion device. An attack with a dirty bomb would not cause many fatalities, but it could render large areas uninhabitable and cause long-term economic and psychological damage. These weapons could be smuggled in a suitcase, or in a shipping container entering one of our ports. Clearly, then, the threat of terrorist weapons of mass destruction is urgent. But where is the sense of urgency in responding to this threat? We have a bill before us today that proposes to spend $10 billion on missile defense--against the less likely threat. The amendment by my colleague, Senator Levin, redresses the balance by taking just 5 percent of that amount--$515 million that is essentially unnecessary at this time to buy 10 more untested interceptors for the administration's scarecrow ground-based missile defense system--and applying it instead to urgent, unfunded homeland security needs. Senator Levin's amendment will take the money saved and apply it to detecting, intercepting, and stopping the use of weapons or mass destruction by terrorists. It also shifts funds to programs to keep fissile material out of the hands of terrorists. Just a few weeks ago, the Senate passed amendment to this bill sponsored by our colleague, Senator Pete Domenici. I cosponsored the amendment, which authorizes a program to accelerate U.S. efforts to remove, secure, store, or blend down fissile and radiological material. Senator Domenici's amendment complements the Global Threat Reduction Initative that the Secretary of Energy announced on May 26, to repatriate Russian and American highly enriched uranium or HEU, from research reactors around the world, to repatriate the spend fuel, and to convert those reactors to use low enriched uranium instead. Too often, HEU provided by the Soviet Union or the United States sits at poorly guarded research facilities that are a dangerous temptation to thieves or terrorists. The Global Threat Reduction Initiative reportedly will cost $450 million. Senator Levin's amendment provides $211 million or it. In addition, the Levin amendment will provide funds for nuclear weapons detectors at major seaports; technology to detect chemical, biological, and radiological materials at a distance; and technology to detect and stop low-flying aircraft, such as crop-dusters, that terrorists might use to disperse weapons of mass destruction across a wide area. The Levin amendment will help address the most urgent threats to our Nation, but it will not delete funds for the 20 untested interceptor missiles that the administration plans to field in October. It will simply prevent the Defense Department from spending more money on 10 additional missiles before we know if the first 20 even work. That is a sensible approach and one that is consistent with ``fly before you buy'' laws that require operational testing prior to full- rate production, as well as with recommendations of the General Accounting Office. We need to set our funding priorities to respond to the most urgent threats we face. The Levin amendment is a step in the right direction, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, in a few months, the administration will announce that a national missile defense has been fielded in Alaska. Nobody in this body will be fooled by that announcement. We know smoke and mirrors when we see them, and that is what the so-called ``rudimentary'' missile defense will be. The Bush campaign will say that he kept his promise to defend America against an attack by intercontinental ballistic missiles, but they won't admit that it doesn't work. And they won't mention the price, both in dollars and in the diversion of high-level attention from the truly pressing threats to our national security. For those reasons, it is absolutely vital that we approve the amendment offered by Senator Reed of Rhode Island. No complex weapons system should be deployed with as little evidence as we have today that the system could ever succeed in wartime. It is astounding that the President's desire to field a system by this October takes precedence over the need to ensure that the system will work. The administration's pursuit of missile defense has been anything but smooth. First, it put on hold the program inherited from President Clinton. Then it decided on a defense remarkably similar to that one, but with a requirement that a so-called ``Alaska test bed'' be made operational by October 2004. After a test failed in December 2002, the administration actually reduced the number of intercept tests to be conducted before deployment, in order not to delay the deployment date. It has not conducted a single intercept test since then, let alone one using the intended booster, the actual kill vehicle, the planned radar, the space-based infrared satellite that would be vital to the success of this system, or anything approaching a realistic test geometry or target set. Very little, if any, of this will be accomplished before the administration claims its schedule-driven success. General Kadish has already said that the next test might be delayed until the fall. Mr. Thomas Christie, Director of the Pentagon's Office of Operational Test and Evaluation, wrote in his most recent annual report: Delays in production and testing of the two booster designs have put tremendous pressure on the test schedule immediately prior to fielding. At this point, it is not clear what mission capability will be demonstrated prior to initial defensive operations. In February, the General Accounting Office wrote: No component of the system to be fielded by September 2004 has been flight-tested in its deployed configuration. Significant uncertainties surround the capability to be fielded by September. Two months ago before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Mr. Christie agreed with Senator Reed's statement that: At this time, we cannot be sure that the actual system would work against a real North Korean missile threat. The Union of Concerned Scientists has noted that, given the limited capabilities of the Cobra Dane radar in Alaska and the SPY-1 radar on a ship in the Pacific Ocean, this system would leave Hawaii essentially undefended. In fairness, there is a precedent for the administration's approach. It is a very old and famous precedent. You can find it in Chapter 1 of Don Quixote by Miguel de Cervantes. Don Quixote checks out his old helmet, which he has been restoring: In order to see if it was strong and fit to stand a cut, he drew his sword and gave it a couple of slashes, the first of which undid in an instant what had taken him a week to do. The ease with which he had knocked it to pieces disconcerted him somewhat, and to guard against that danger he set to work again, fixing bars of iron on the inside until he was satisfied with its strength . . . So far, so good. This is what we do whenever an interceptor fails to hit its target in a flight test. My guess is that this is what the Missile Defense Agency did after the December 2002 test. But note what Don Quixote does next: . . . and then, not caring to try any more experiments with it, he passed it and adopted it as a helmet of the most perfect construction. Does that sound familiar? The Missile Defense Agency did about the same thing: they decided to do fewer intercept tests, rather than more, and to defer nearly all of those tests until well after this missile defense ``helmet'' is fielded. So let's give the Pentagon credit where credit is due: they are downright literary. I do wonder, though, whether they ever got beyond Chapter 1. If they had read Chapter 11 of Don Quixote, they would have discovered that his helmet was demolished in its first encounter with an enemy. That is why Don Quixote ended up putting a barber's washbowl on his head. There is a clear lesson here, and it is a lesson that Cervantes understood fully 400 years ago. Testing is not a one-time exercise. After you make your corrections to the system, you have to test again. and the reason for testing is so as not to field a system that will fail. The administration will say that it is employing ``spiral development,'' under which weapons are deployed in an initial configuration that is then improved through regular upgrades. That concept assumes, however, that the initial configuration is at least workable. In missile defense, it is not clear that we have even made it to the barber's washbowl. To declare that a system protects the American people when none of its real components has been tested realistically is really to deceive the American people. The decision to decrease near-term testing in order to maintain a deployment date weeks before the next election demonstrates neither realism nor wisdom. The administration's fixation on missile defense has also blinded it to the opportunity costs of its pursuit of that goal. As Richard Clarke later reported, the administration was so focused on missile defense and the ABM Treaty in 2001 that it paid too little attention to the growing threat of al Qaeda terrorism. It also put on hold, throughout 2001, our important nonproliferation programs in the former Soviet Union, which help to keep Russian weapons, materials, and technology out of the hands of rogue states or terrorists. In the wake of September 11, when the administration was given a choice of spending $1.3 billion on missile defense or on countering terrorism, it still opted to spend the funds on missile defense. The difficult situation in which we find ourselves today regarding North Korea may be yet another result of the administration's missile defense fixation. The administration inherited a mixed, but hopeful, situation from President Clinton: North Korea's spent nuclear reactor fuel, except for enough to make one or two nuclear weapons, which had been illegally reprocessed in the 1980s, was being safely canned and stored under U.S. and IAEA observation. American access to a suspect underground site had created an inspection precedent that might be enlarged upon in other agreements. Negotiations were proceeding on a deal to end North Korea's long-range missile sales. And while North Korea was engaged in an illegal uranium enrichment program, that was apparently still at an experimental stage. But the administration refused to build on President Clinton's work. It delayed any engagement with North Korea throughout 2001, insulting South Korea's President and undercutting our own Secretary of State in the process. There were persistent rumors that administration officials viewed missile defense, rather than negotiations, as the real answer to any North Korean threat. The North Korean threat was, in turn, a widely cited justification for pursuing a national missile defense and withdrawing from the ABM Treaty. So here we are in 2004, and what do we have? The North Korean missile threat is still uncertain, since there have been no further flight tests of long-range North Korean missiles. But if North Korea ever does field an ICBM, there is a much better chance now that it will carry a nuclear weapon. Four years ago, we guessed that North Korea had one or two nuclear weapons; now we reportedly think they have at least eight, with perhaps more on the way. Has this administration's policy made us safer? It doesn't look that way to me. What has happened, however, is that the stakes in missile defense have gotten higher. If faulty missile defense were to let a North Korean missile through with a high explosive warhead, or even a chemical weapons warhead, that would be one thing. But if a missile gets through with a nuclear weapon, then say goodbye to Honolulu or Seattle or San Diego. That gets back to the matter of realistic testing. it is one thing to have ``spiral development'' of a new bomb, or even a new airplane. The loss of life in the ``learning by doing'' phase will be tragic, but limited. It is quite another thing to tell the American people to put their trust in a ``rudimentary'' missile defense that could well permit the destruction of whole American cities. The Reed amendment won't stop missile defense. All it does is redress the balance, a little, between feckless deployment and desperately needed testing. Whether we like our missile defense program or not, we should all vote in favor of testing it. If we need a missile defense, then we need one that does more than raise a ``Mission Accomplished'' banner in Alaska. It is time to stop acting like Don Quixote and start heeding the wisdom of Cervantes. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Reed amendment.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I can't think of a more important amendment we are going to vote on than the Reed amendment. I am a principal cosponsor. I believe it is overdue. I hope to the Lord we go ahead and do the right thing here and support this amendment.

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

Mr. BIDEN. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President. Is the Biden amendment in order at this moment?

Mr. BIDEN. Further parliamentary inquiry: Is there a copy of the amendment at the desk?

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask that we proceed to amendment No. 3379.

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

Mr. BIDEN. He would be able to do the same thing with this bill if he used his ingenuity, would he not?

Mr. BIDEN. But it doesn't have to any more than the last Senate bill had to stay a Senate bill. I have been here 32 years. I may not be in the No. 2 position in my party, as my friend was, but I don't need an education on how we do this. This is malarkey, as they say--this argument being made about the Constitution. Let me move on, if I may. My friend references President Reagan, and I might note that I voted for the Roth-Kemp tax cut. Then I watched President Reagan and voted with him when he raised taxes three times after that because he was a responsible fellow. He raised taxes three times after that out of necessity. I also was here--and we talked about World War II. The President says this is the equivalent of World War II. My friends talk about World War II. We raised taxes through the ceiling in World War II. I don't know whether they didn't teach the same history in Oklahoma and Iowa as they did in Delaware, but we raised taxes in World War II. Also, this notion about all these other programs--the Senator, because he is so busy and has extensive responsibilities on his side of the aisle, did not have an opportunity--he didn't miss much--to hear my speech on the front end. There are two purposes in my doing this: One is to unite this Nation, for everybody to get in on the deal. Many other people are being asked to sacrifice. You know, this is a war. People are dying. Some people are sacrificing. People are having their incomes radically changed-- those in the National Guard and Reserves. They are contributing at the office. The other part is--I will say this again, and I said it last time-- would any wealthy American--and I hope every one of my kids becomes a wealthy American. By most people's standards, based on my salary, most people think I am wealthy. I don't have stocks, bonds, debentures, and savings accounts. I am not bragging about that, but that is a fact. Most Americans think I am wealthy based on the salary I get paid. But I say to the top 1 percent out there, call me, give me your name, and tell me you are not willing to pay 1 percent higher for the next 5 years in order to make sure these kids sitting here don't pay. War is different than education. Part of the purpose of a leader, when you go to war, is to unite the Nation, share the responsibility, engage in the sacrifice. The other point I will make is that my friend from Iowa talks about the fact that this tax cut generated economic growth. I don't disagree with that. But the real question is, is taking one-tenth of 1 percent of the total tax cut going to stop economic growth? Is the Senator making that argument? Well, if he is right, this is a bad idea. One- tenth of 1 percent is the total cost of the total tax cut of this amendment--$25 billion, one-tenth of 1 percent. That is going to bring this economic growth to a screeching halt? Give me a break. Let's talk about the small business people. I didn't make the assertion that all small business people are sitting back clipping coupons. I am not saying that. I just tell you what the facts are. The facts are, as the Senator knows, that small business owners have to be in the top 1 percent of wage earners to fall into this bracket. Only 2 percent of all the small business owners in America fall into this bracket. That does include some people with passive incomes participating in investment and small businesses. This is not the hands-on, mom-and-pop business owners by any stretch of the imagination. If you look at only sole proprietor returns, those with hands-on owners, they are less than 2 percent. So I can understand my friend disagreeing with me. That is a logical position he takes. He may believe that it is unfair to have them pay 1 percent more and not ask people making $100,000 to pay 1 percent more. I can understand that. That is just an honest disagreement. I can understand my friend from Oklahoma in his argument on why are we taxing corporations more. That makes sense, too. We can do that. If he wants to go that route, I will help him. There are other ways to do this. I tried to pick the most painless, unifying mechanism I could find to do a responsible thing: make sure these kids in the blue suits don't pay for this war. They are still going to pay for the war, by the way. We have already spent over $200 billion on this war. I am not complaining about that. I am arguing that we need more troops. My Lord, all these specious arguments: My God, the mom-and-pop grocery store owners are going to be put in jeopardy by this amendment; this is going to slow down economic growth; this is unfair. Then the irony is that my friend from Iowa, who always says he is not a lawyer--as I pointed out to him, he is smarter than any lawyer on that committee. Be careful of this good old boy from Iowa, who says: Golly, gee whiz, I am not a lawyer. He knows more hard case law than anybody I know on the Senate floor. Yet he stands up there straight faced and says: You know what, this $25 billion tax increase--and it is--paid for by the top 1 percent is bad for the economy, but I, Chuck Grassley, am out there making sure corporations pay more. I am finding loopholes and closing them. I congratulate him. Guess what it means. It means you are going to have more people pay more taxes. Is that going to slow down the economy? When my friend takes out of the tax stream or adds to the tax stream by shutting loopholes that do not belong in the law, guess what. More money is coming to the Government. More money than $25 billion I am talking about. He is a very bright guy. So let's be logical. Let's set up a little syllogism here. If his thesis is my $25 billion is going to slow down the economy, $25 billion now is in the hands of people out there, or will be over the next 5 years out in the hands to be spent by Americans, what about the $25 billion, $35 billion, $100 billion he is looking to take out of the economy over the next 5 years that will be spent by corporations, being spent by, maybe unfairly, but being spent--that is not going to slow down the economy, but my $25 billion is? Again, to use the expression of my granddaughter, give me a break. I may not be the brightest candle on the table, but I am a relatively logical guy. There is no logic in the argument. So, look, there are three good reasons to be against Biden: One, you ideologically think this is a bad idea because somehow you think--and I am being a little facetious--that the top 1 percent of the American public pays too much of a burden and is put upon, and to add anything else on them is just unfair to the rest of the American public. OK. Got it. It is a straightforward argument, logical. The second logical argument is, if there is any merit to it: You ought to spread this out, Biden. If, in fact, you are going to add to the deficit by paying for Medicare or the prescription drug bill--which I voted against and which a lot of you voted for; it cost a lot more than you promised it was going to cost, raising the deficit, spending that I did not vote for--it is better to say unless you are going to pay for this spending, you should not pay for it with revenues. OK. I got it. It is a straightforward argument. Or lastly, one might argue: Psychologically this is dangerous because after cutting taxes, to now raise them for 5 years by 1 percent for 1 percent of the population, it is going to inject some uncertainty. I don't know what that means. That could be an argument one could make. With all due respect, you cannot make the argument mom and pop are going under; mom and pop are slowing down; that the loss of revenue is going to stifle economic growth; that this portion of the population is put upon; that this is no different than education or health care or highways, because it is. It is war. By the way, when I introduced this proposal on a larger measure--$87 billion--a while ago, according to the national polls, 56 percent of the Americans polled on the last version of this amendment said pay for the war from the tax cut. This is all about values. This is about value differences. And the value that I am espousing--and I am not being so moralistic to suggest that I know it is superior to the value my friends are proposing, but it is a different value. I value the necessity of a greater sense of national unity and a greater contribution from all sectors of the economy in winning this war. I value the notion that when we are clearly able, without doing any harm to the economy or being unfair to any one segment, that we should pay, when we can, rather than make our children and grandchildren pay. The difference between war and education is on education we made a judgment that we should have an educational system, and we do not control the population. So as children are born, the responsibility to keep a commitment we made exists. It is not elective. War, in this case, was elective. I elected to go to war. That is not a societal responsibility that rests with a generation that has not even come of age yet; it is a responsibility of ours, just as World War II was the responsibility of the greatest generation in the history of mankind, the World War II generation. They did not say: Make my son, Joe, make my daughter, Valerie, make my son, Jim or Frank, pay for this war. They valued responsibility. They stepped up to the ball. As to the idea that this even calls for any serious sacrifice, if that is the case, my Lord, we have lost our bearings. I have seen not one scintilla of evidence that this will slow economic recovery; that this is a burden upon a group of people who strongly resist taking on the burden; that this is, per se, unfair. This is something I believe--and I cannot prove it because I have not conducted any national poll--that if the people who will be affected by this, again, whose average income is $1 million a year, who have to have a taxable income of $320,000 a year even to get in the game, and if they are small business, 98 percent of them will be not affected one single little way by this, my guess is, if they know it is really going to pay for the $25 billion needed next year for the war, they would pay it, proudly pay it, and rightfully should pay. My dad, who passed away long ago, used to have an expression. My dad was, I guess, probably like the mom or dad of Senator Grassley and Senator Nickles and others, a generation that had a different view. My dad's table was a place where you had dinner, you sat down, and two things were demanded. One, you had to have good table manners, and the other was you had to engage in conversation. Our table was a table where you sat down and had conversation and incidentally ate, rather than sat down, ate, and had incidental conversation. It was the one place the family got together with certainty every night, and friends were always included. I will never forget my father in a discussion with my uncle, Bill Scheen, talking about a particular tax. My dad looked at him and said: Bill, there is no price too high to pay to live in this great country. I am not asking for a big price. I am just asking for people to do what in their heart they know is right. I understand my friends, what they have not said--and I may be wrong, but I suspect part of their concern about this amendment, because at least four Members on that side have come up to me and said: I would like to vote for this, Joe, but here is my fear--I give my word this is true--this is my fear: My fear is this would be a foot in the door. If you make this argument and it has catches, I am paying for the war, then your guys are going to come back and say: Look, we ought to raise taxes on the wealthiest corporations to pay for health care, or to pay for whatever. I think that is a legitimate concern on the part of my Republican friends. I understand that. Maybe that is the reason why, not the people who have spoken but some of the people who have spoken to me, who share my concern about not passing this on to these kids are not going to vote with me. I think it is a shame. I just cannot think of how we are able to communicate to the American people that we are in mortal combat for what will be an extended period of time with an enemy that does not wear a uniform but has the capacity to do overwhelming harm to us but that there is no need to rally the entire Nation to contribute a little bit at the office in order to win that war. Again, the example I gave of what if the President had said go out and pay the tuition of two or four people in your neighborhood, for those of you who can afford it, that is not going to help the war. If anyone thinks that is what I meant, they missed the whole point. The point is, we should use this time of crisis to unite the country, to talk about the things where we can help one another, where it is not paid for, where it is not unfair. That is the point I am trying to make, and I guess I am not being articulate enough because I do not think a lot of my friends get it. It is probably my fault because maybe I am not explaining it well enough, but just to make sure everybody understands, how does one convince people that this is as tough a deal as it is if, in fact, we have this incredibly large tax cut? How does that square? It is like my saying to my kids, when they ask me can they go to a summer camp, and my saying I cannot afford to do that, and I drive up the driveway the next day in a brand new Lexus; it is tough times, kids, I cannot afford to send you to that college, you are going to go to the State university, and we buy a summer house. I mean, how does one do that? By the way, this war is going to cost us a couple hundred billion dollars more before this is over. Well, I have said all I want to say. I wish I could have said it better but I think this is fair. I think it is equitable. I think it is necessary, and I hope my colleagues will see it that way. I understand if they do not. I reserve the remainder of my time, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN. If my colleagues are finished responding, I am prepared to yield back the remainder of my time and at whatever time appropriate, vote on the amendment.

Mr. BIDEN. I yield back the time. Amendment No. 3352, As Amended

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am very pleased to be a cosponsor of this amendment with Senators Reed, McCain, Hagel, Corzine, and Akaka. I understand that we have accepted the Senator from Virginia's amendment paying for these additional 20,000 soldiers in the supplemental. While I think the Army would be better served by an end strength increase that is not subject to repeated supplementals, I am pleased that we are all in agreement that we need more troops today. I think it is very simple. Soldiers provide stability. Without adequate numbers of boots on the ground, you can't get security and stability. That is true in Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, and the Balkans. As Senator McCain and I have both said repeatedly, we need more troops in Iraq to achieve stability. If we had put more troops into Iraq after major combat operations, the situation might be very different. I don't believe it is too late. I still think that additional troops are needed. I also believe that it is my obligation to back that up with some relief for those soldiers serving today. We shouldn't have to keep issuing ``stop-loss'' orders, forcing soldiers to stay in the Army. Let's give the Army what it needs. What my colleagues and I hoped to accomplish was to reassure today's soldiers and their families that they will not have to keep looking at extended deployments and stop-loss orders. Instead, we want them to know that we are committed to making the Army large enough to do the missions America is asking it to do. Some of our colleagues believe that the need for additional soldiers is temporary. I disagree. It is true that the Army is planning a major restructuring. This may mean future efficiencies, but we don't know that yet. Like any other major change, more resources are needed during the change. In this case, more soldiers are needed as the Army moves to a more capable brigade structure. I would rather plan for the clear needs of the next decade in the regular budget. I don't think we should be relying on supplementals to provide the right sized Army. If I and my colleagues are wrong, then we can revisit these numbers and cut end strength like we did in the beginning of the last decade. I would rather take the cautious approach and err on the side of our soldiers and their families. I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment which takes us closer to that goal.

Mr. BIDEN. May I have 10 seconds on the Reed amendment?

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, with regard to amendment No. 3379, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Carper, Clinton, Corzine, and Feinstein be listed as cosponsors.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, my amendment is quite simple and straightforward. It is no different in its intent than the amendment I offered when the President some months ago requested $87 billion for the reconstruction of Iraq, as well as the support of American forces. The bottom line is it says we should stop borrowing to cover the cost of our mission in Iraq and Afghanistan. If this mission is as important as the President says it is--and I believe it is--then we should pay for it. We should not make my kids pay for it. We should not make my grandchildren pay for it. We should pay for it. Before I get into the details of the amendment, because it relates to my finding the money to pay for the $25 billion asked for in this authorization by the President, let me remind people what the state of the Tax Code is now relative to the highest bracket. In the year 2001, the highest bracket of individual taxpayers was 39.6 percent. With President Bush's tax cut that was passed, that bracket, along with others, was reduced from 39.6 percent to what it will be and what it is in 2004, 35 percent. So it has come down from 39.6 percent to 35 percent. The way the Bush tax cut proposal works, when it became law--and I see the chairman of the Finance Committee here who, as the old joke goes, has forgotten more about the Tax Code than I am going to know--is that top bracket will stay at 35 percent in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010. In the taxable year of 2011, under the present status of the Tax Code, it will go back to 39.6 percent. I realize there is a move in the House and among many here to ``make the tax cut permanent'' so the 35-percent tax bracket would remain in 2011, 2012, 2015, 2018, and so on, but right now, unless it is made permanent in the taxable year 2011, it will go back to what it was in 2001, 39.6 percent. One other statistic, to be in this top tax bracket, the people in the 35-percent tax bracket, which used to be 39.6, have on average a taxable income of a million dollars a year. Now, obviously, there are people in there making a billion dollars a year, but no one is in that bracket unless their taxable income is $319,000. That means after all of the deductions are taken, after all of the things one is able under the law to deduct, so one is likely to have an income of closer to $450,000 or $500,000, they end up with a taxable income of $319,000. OK? So it is taxable income. That is after one deducts for medical costs they are able to deduct, deduct for their children, for all the things one is entitled to deduct, and people in that category can deduct for a lot of things that average folks do not get to deduct. So what does my amendment do? How do we have $25 billion so that these bright young pages--and I am not being solicitous; I am not joking--sitting down at the base of the podium there, whose average age is probably 16 or 17 years old, how do we act responsibly enough to say that they should not be paying for this war, that those of us who voted for it, my generation, those who are paying taxes now, should pay for it? What happens with this $25 billion? It is essentially paid for by the deficit. This all goes to the deficit. This is going to be paid for. It is going to be added. I predict before the year is over--and I do not claim to be an expert on our budget, but I have been around long enough that I think I am pretty knowledgeable--this year's deficit will end up being closer to $600 billion than $500 billion. Everybody knows it is going to be over $500 billion. So why are we going to ask them, why are we going to ask my granddaughters, who range from age 3 to 10, to pay for this war, when we are fully capable of doing it? One might say: OK, Biden, how are you going to pay for this war? Are you going to take money away from education? Are you going to take money away from things that affect these kids? No. I am going to ask my colleagues shortly to do what I think every patriotic American is fully prepared to do. At the United Way they talk about, this guy gave at the office, but what do we give at the office in this war? What are any of you people, and what am I, giving at the office? None of us are in Iraq. We are not in the military. We are not getting shot at. We are not away from our families. We are not that National Guardsman or Guardswoman who is taking a pay cut of 30, 40, sometimes 50 percent to serve their country right now. I mean, this is never a healthy thing for a nation. We are in the midst of a war when the bulk of America is not asked to do anything about it. There are very few people sacrificing for this war. Like our grandparents or our parents, no one has asked us to put tape over our headlights when we drive at night or use ration cards or have to pay higher taxes to support the war. There is no draft. So what happens? Well, there are a lot of patriotic, young women and men--and some not so young, meaning in their thirties and forties--who are over in Iraq right now. What are we doing? The idea that if we ask the wealthiest Americans among us to contribute to the war effort, that they are unwilling to do that is preposterous. I sometimes get mad at some in my party--not those on the Senate floor but some in my party--and some liberal commentators. What frustrates me sometimes is they assume that only poor, middle-class people are patriotic; that they are the only ones willing to make sacrifices for their country. I am here to say that wealthy Americans, the wealthiest among us, the wealthiest 1 percent, are as patriotic as the lowest 1 percent. In the last time out, when I tried to do this--and I will get to the detail in a minute--to pay for the $87 million, I happened to be with a group at an exclusive country club in Wilmington, DE. We are a wealthy little State. We have some very wealthy people in our State. All States do, but as a percentage we have some very wealthy people. I happened to be with a group of them for an outing. We got to the time that we had the buffet, and it was outside. A couple started asking me about the war. The next thing I know, as every Senator knows and as every staffer has observed their Senators being engaged, all of a sudden it was like a roving press conference. It went from 1 press person to 2, to 5 to 10 to 15, and all of a sudden there was a group of people standing around. Before I knew it, literally, standing outside on this beautiful evening, on this patio of this magnificent club, there were no fewer than 40, mostly men, who are among the wealthiest--not literally the wealthiest, but some were probably in the top 20 or so in my State-- some of the wealthiest people in my State, and they are asking about the war. I said: Let me ask you all a question--and in fairness I want to acknowledge, maybe they were intimidated because no one wanted to be the one to say, no, do not count me in, but I said I am going to go down to the Senate, and I am going to offer an amendment that would require you people right here on this outside patio to give up 1 year of the 10 years of your tax cut to pay for this war. Does anybody here think that is unfair? I give my word, my honor as Biden, not one person raised their hand. Then people started to chime in. They said, no, it is fair. They started talking about what other people are doing. When have we ever gone to war when we simultaneously have suggested, as we have gone, to say this is going to be a long, tortuous undertaking to fight terror, and at the same time any President in the past, some 200-plus years, has said: And by the way, as we go, I am going to give you the biggest tax cut in the history of the United States of America? Now, again, try to be objective about this. Let's assume--I do not, but let us assume for the sake of argument that we badly needed this tax cut in order to spur on the economy. Let me accept that as a given for the sake of this debate. I asked these people: Does anyone here think if the top 1 percent of the people paying taxes in America were to forego 1 year of the tax cut that, in fact, that would slow the economy? The economy would stall? Sputter? Assuming they were the reason it was growing. I didn't hear anybody tell me that. I have not heard any reputable economists tell me that. So here I am, back on the floor again, finding it fascinating, absolutely fascinating--and I expect this will be voted on party lines again--why the overwhelming number of my colleagues, for whom most of these wealthy people likely vote, are unwilling to do what the wealthiest among us are fully willing to do. This time around what I am suggesting is even less ``painful.'' In order to come up with $25 billion to pay for this piece of the war in Iraq and in Afghanistan, you know the only thing you have to do? You have to say: In the year 2005, the tax cut for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans, who in fact cannot have a taxable income less than $319,000, will go back up from 35 percent to 36 percent. The 1-percent solution. I can't fathom any wealthy person in America, even at the low end-- and, by the way, the average income of this top 1 percent is over $1 million. I can't fathom a single one of these people not having enough patriotic instinct to say: No, no, no, no, I am unwilling. I am unwilling to pay, in the year 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010, 1 percent more than I would otherwise have to pay. What does that mean? Does it mean 1 percent less investment in their portfolio? Does it mean they buy a Lexus instead of a Mercedes? What does it mean? What does it mean? While we are now saying, as I think the President probably has no choice, to the people who signed up volunteering in the military: No, no, you are staying another year because your patriotic responsibility is we need you. The President is probably right about that. Or he is saying to what will be approaching 40 percent of the forces on the ground being shot at or subjected to car bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan who are reservists and National Guard: You have to go twice. He is saying to the physician who is in the Guard, whose income may have been $150,000 or $200,000 whose pay as a colonel may be $80,000 but he still has the same mortgage payment, the same tuition payment, the same ``nut'' to pay, as they say: It's your patriotic responsibility. How can we in this country at this moment say we can ask that of those people and we can't say to people whose average income is $1 million: Do us a favor, pay 1 percent more to pay for this installment on the war? What have we become? Can you imagine that being said in 1943? No, no, no, no, don't ask it of them. Can you imagine that being said if the income tax had been in place in 1915 or 1916? Can you imagine that being the case in the Korean war? Can you imagine that? What is the second logical argument as to why this is a bad idea? If you all agree with me that these Americans are as patriotic as anyone else and that it could not possibly hurt them in any material way, then you have to say: Here is the deal. This will slow economic recovery. This is bad for the economy. I got a letter from the Chamber of Commerce saying this is going to hurt small business. My friend from Iowa is here, the chairman of the committee. As the old thing goes--in this case, it is true--he is my friend. The Chamber of Commerce says it is going to hurt small business. What they mean by that is there are some small businesses that pay their taxes as if they were individual taxpayers. Do you know how many of them pay at the top 1 percent? Of all the small businesses in America? For every 100 small businesspersons in America who claim and pay as individuals, 2 percent--t-w-o percent--of them are in this category where they would be affected. I am sure the Senator will be able to tell me--I suspect he is here to engage in debate--how taking 1 percent of the American individual taxpayers and asking them to pay 1 percent more in the next 5 years, and taking 2 percent of the small businesspersons in America and asking them to pay 1 percent more for the next 5 years, when each of them fall in a category where they have a taxable income of at least $319,000 a year--how this is going to slow the economy. I have said this to the President and I have said it publicly-- Senator McCain was on the floor earlier--what I am about to say. Senator McCain was on the floor earlier talking about the end strength amendment of Senator Reed. He said we need this. He said mistakes happen in war. That is why--and he went on from there. I believe, and I am confident, this President has made some very serious mistakes in the conduct of this war. I am also confident were I President I would have made mistakes. I am confident, had it been President Gore, he would have made mistakes. I am confident that Senator Kerry will make some mistakes if he is President. I don't think this President will be judged harshly for the mistakes he has made. But I do think history will judge him fairly harshly for the opportunities he has squandered. One of the opportunities squandered here is the ability to have united this Nation in common purpose after 9/11. Let me ask a rhetorical question. Can you imagine if immediately after 9/11, when the President had that big economic summit down in Crawford, TX, or near Crawford, with some of the most prominent, significant, and patriotic businessmen in America, and some of the most wealthy men and women in America--what do you think would have happened, as that broke up, if he said: By the way, I want to ask the following of all of you. I would ask each one of you in the spirit of unity and harmony in this country, when you leave this room after hearing me speak, I strongly urge you--I ask you to take out your cell phone and call your accountant at home and ask him to go out and find four of the most worthy young women and men, eligible for college, who are unable to pay for college for 4 years, and commit to pay their tuitions. Would any of my colleagues on the Senate floor think there would have been a single solitary man or woman in that room who would not have walked out, dialed up their cell phone, and said to their accountants, find those people? I mean it sincerely. I am not joking about this. I can't fathom that group of women and men not responding to the call for unity--not just to deal with the war on terror but to deal with healing and uniting this country. Nothing has been asked of these people, not because they have refused, not because they are unwilling, but because of an ideological disposition that somehow in any way to alter the tax structure beyond what we have just done is ipso facto wrong, bad, counterproductive. We are a slave to ideology on this floor. There is not a single person in here who can say this $25 billion because it is all fungible is not going to be added to the deficit. Why don't we pay for it fairly, honestly, and straightforwardly? When have we ever succeeded in the great noble causes of this country without engaging all segments of society? I would make the rhetorical point--I suspect you will not do this, but I will make you a bet. If you were to call your State's 10 wealthy people who fall into this category and ask them whether they would support having to pay at a 36-percent rate rather than a 35-percent rate to pay for the war, I am willing to bet you that 8 out of 10 or more of them will say, I am willing. I am betting--and I trust all of my colleagues would--if you do that, you will come and tell me you found in your State more than 2 out of 10 said they wouldn't do that, I will buy you dinner anywhere you want to go to dinner. It is on me. My financial disclosure statement shows, unfortunately, that I am one of the least well positioned in this body to pay for dinner. There is something wrong, there is something not sensible about failing to be more responsible. How can it be called responsible to say we are going to make these pages, these kids, pay the $25 billion? I don't get this. Every one of us, Democrats and Republicans, comes to the floor of the Senate and talks about the need for a culture of responsibility. I truly don't get it, other than ideology. I respectfully suggest that if, in fact, we do this to set a precedent that engages more people in the outcome of this war on terror--I am not making a populist argument--the group that is in the top 1 percent will get, out of the total tax cut of $1.8 trillion, $88.9 billion. Again, I am not making a populist argument. That may be arguably justified on the merits. But it is the idea that 1 percent can't give up 1 percent of $688.19 billion. It is not even 1 percent; it is actually $688.19 billion over 10 years--that they will not give up 1 percent for 5 of those years. It is the equivalent of asking them to give up one-half of 1 percent of that number when 99 percent of the American people pay--not all 99 percent; some don't pay taxes--but 99 percent of the American people get a tax cut of about $1.1 billion dollars. A couple of my Republican colleagues have said it is unfair to pick on the wealthy. It is not picking on anybody. I am trying to find the most equitable way to do this. What I am trying to do is make sure we are in a position to act responsibly, and it is not responsible to pile the debt upon our children for an endeavor we chose to undertake when it is fully within our power to pay for it without in any way being unfair to any single group of taxpayers and without having any rational argument that it will, in fact, negatively impact on the economy. Were I in my 27-year-old populist mode, I would say it is greed. But I have learned a lot in my 32 years here. It is that we have not asked. For every wealthy group of businessmen and businesswomen in my State that I have approached, I have yet to have one tell me there is something unfair or unequitable about this. I urge my colleagues. I will conclude this portion by saying I urge my colleagues to let us be responsible, what I define as responsible. It doesn't mean if you disagree you are irresponsible, but let us be responsible here. Let us pay for something we can easily pay for and not pile more debt for an elective judgment we made in this body--and I made it as well--to take on the dictatorship and the maniacal leadership of Saddam Hussein, to take down the Taliban, and to seek al- Qaida in its hovel. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. BIDEN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I am told by leadership staff that we have not been able to clear that at this moment on the Senate floor. So I would suggest the Senator withhold briefly until I find out why there is some doubt. I object, and I say to my friend from Missouri that I will find out why in a moment.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Oklahoma, he doth protest too loudly. I am not taking it out of the tax bill. This is good stuff on the Constitution, but I think my friend voted for the JOBS bill and just violated the Constitution, by his definition, because we had a revenue measure in there. It didn't get blue-slipped, and he apparently violated his oath, by his definition. I don't think he violated his oath at all. But the truth is this: In the JOBS bill, what did we do? We changed the Tax Code. So this is great rhetoric, and my friend from Iowa went through this whole thing about--

Mr. BIDEN. Yes.

Mr. BIDEN. The Senator did vote for the Senate bill, correct?

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today, regretfully, to discuss the faltering state of democracy in Russia. I say ``regretfully,'' because during my more than 31 years in the U.S. Senate, I have consistently striven to improve relations between our country and Russia. For example, a few years ago, despite severe U.S. budgetary constraints and significant foreign policy differences with Moscow, I introduced legislation that when enacted substantially increased funding for Muskie Fellowships for graduate students from Russia. During my time in the Senate--which has spanned the last decade of Brezhnev, the brief ruling periods of Andropov and Chernenko in the early 1980s, the lengthier and stormy tenures of Gorbachev and Yeltsin, and since 2000 the era of Vladimir Putin--I have always believed that a constructive relationship with Russia is in the best interest of that great country, and is a vital national interest of the United States. During the Soviet period our ties were based overwhelmingly on strategic considerations. Moscow and Washington had huge, redundant nuclear arsenals that, if ever used, would have ``made the rubble bounce''--that is, would have gone a long way toward destroying life on this earth as we know it. The focus of our diplomacy, particularly of our arms control negotiations, was to make that ultimate horror scenario impossible. But we had no illusions about making the Soviet Union a genuine partner in anything more than in that narrow strategic sense. Whether or not one fully concurred with President Reagan's memorable description of the U.S.S.R. as an ``evil empire,'' no one could have asserted that it in any way resembled a democracy, anchored by the rule of law, with civil liberties and human rights for all its citizens. In fact, after the signing of the Helsinki Final Act in 1975, the United States effectively utilized the so-called ``Basket Three'' of that document to publicly hold the Soviet Union accountable for its violations of human rights and civil liberties. Great hopes for change accompanied the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of 1991 and Boris Yeltsin's successor government in the Russian Federation. Although the lid did come off of the worst of state repression, Yeltsin's tenure was marred by widespread corruption, which discredited democratic reform in the eyes of many Russians. Yet Yeltsin, for all his failings, did successfully make the difficult personal transition from communist to democrat. Given time, Russia's political system held--and still holds--the promise of evolving into a genuine democracy. That potential, unfortunately, has not only not been utilized, it has been systematically stifled by Yeltsin's hand-picked successor, Vladimir Putin. In his 4\1/2\ years in power, Mr. Putin, an intelligent and street- smart former agent of the KGB, has developed a system known as ``managed democracy.'' Aside from the unintended irony of this oxymoronic construct, in practice it is long on ``managed'' and short on ``democracy.'' In essence, Russians are witnessing a rollback of the civil liberties they enjoyed during the 1990s. Both the 2003 parliamentary elections and the March 2004 presidential election were described as seriously flawed by international observers. The Putin government has selectively and ruthlessly utilized its prosecutorial powers to silence incipient rivals and thereby intimidate other potential opponents. The most celebrated case is that of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, former head of Yukos Oil, Russia's most modern, Western- like private company. Mr. Khodorkovsky's principal sin appears to have been his belief that a wealthy man had the right to engage in Russian political life as a potential alternative to Putin by funding independent, non-governmental organizations. The imprisonment and legal proceedings against Khodorkovsky have violated virtually every canon of fairness and legality. His trial on tax evasion charges, which opened on Wednesday in Moscow, was scheduled to be held in a cramped courtroom in a blatant move to restrict access to outside observers. In a speech late in May, President Putin delivered an ominous warning to Russian organizations that defend democracy and human rights for allegedly serving ``dubious'' interests and receiving financial support from the West. Putin has also used financial gimmicks to eliminate the major, independent national television stations in Russia, leaving only a handful with local audiences. Earlier this month the most popular and outspoken surviving Russian television journalist was fired. As a result of this repressive media policy, Russian viewers have long since been denied objective coverage of world events, especially of the brutal war being waged by their army in Chechnya. In that context, President Bush's answer last week to a question at a G-8 press conference in Sea Island, GA, is disturbing. The President said that the G-8 leaders were ``united by common values.'' He went on to explain: ``We do agree on a free press. We don't necessarily agree with everything the free press writes, but we agree on a free press.'' The ancient Greeks used irony as a rhetorical device by attributing a positive characteristic to negative reality. The Black Sea was called ``the peaceful sea'' precisely because, in actuality, it was so stormy. We moderns might call it ``the power of wishful thinking.'' I hope that is what President Bush was doing--subtly pushing Putin into behaving like a member of the G-8 club, to which Russia now belongs despite its mid-size economy, which, absent extraneous political criteria, would not qualify it for membership. For although the Russian newspaper scene is still vibrant, as I have just described, its electronic media are anything but free. And, as in the majority of other countries, most citizens of the Russian Federation get their news from television, not from newspapers. Some observers fear a crackdown on the print medium and perhaps even on foreign broadcaster journalists based in Russia. As for supposed overall ``common values,'' the most recent report on Russia in ``Nations in Transit 2004,'' published by Freedom House, shows Russia slipping from poor to very poor during calendar year 2003 in 5 of 6 categories: electoral process; civil society; independent media; governance; and constitutional, legislative, and judicial framework. The only category in which it did not fall was corruption, and there it remained mired at an extremely poor level. I hope, therefore, that Putin will not misconstrue President Bush's off-the-cuff answer in Sea Island as license to continue his own undemocratic domestic policies. As several American commentators and newspaper editorials have discussed, Russia's inclusion in the G-8 since the late 1990s is not irreversible. Its economy certainly does not qualify it for membership, and if it persists in violating the ``common values'' to which it pays lip service, the United States and its democratic allies may decide to return to the G-7 format. I hope it does not come to that. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to an incredible woman. There are a number of benefits that flow, as my friend, the Presiding Officer, knows, even from failed Presidential efforts seeking to get the nomination as he and I have both done. We meet some extraordinary people who put their lives on hold for you because they believe in what you are trying to do. There was such a woman who just passed away in Iowa, in Sioux City. Her name is Betty Strong. Theodore Roosevelt said: The most practical politics is the politics of decency. There was none more practical or more decent than Betty Strong, the matriarch of the Democratic politics of Iowa. She was a wonderful woman whose friendship and memory I will always cherish and whose friendship with her husband I still cherish. Anyone who knows Iowa politics--and I know the Presiding Officer knows Iowa politics at least from the Republican side of the effort-- knows the name Betty Strong. Senator Harkin and I have been reminiscing all day with wonderful stories we have about her. Time will not permit me to speak to all of these, but she was a master political craftsman. She understood grassroots organizational politics better than anyone. She was a community leader in the best sense of the word. She brought people together around the process and around the issues. She was a woman of uncanny insight and extraordinary good sense, basic honest judgment, and something that seems altogether too uncommon these days: a depth of good will, unmatched by anyone I have met in politics. We can find thousands of examples of strong, tough-minded, powerful women in our history who have left their mark, big and small, on our lives, from Helen Keller to Eleanor Roosevelt. All of them inspired a Nation. All of them gave us hope. But few have had as much of a personal impact as Betty Strong of Iowa, who just followed her heart, got involved, did what she wanted to do, and did what she believed was right for the community. She was tough, strong, and smart. She started in politics in the early 1950s at a time when back rooms were still smoke filled and the sound of a woman's voice was a cause for heads to turn. I can only imagine that Betty did not hesitate to cut through that smoke and speak her mind, even back in the 1950s, and when she did, I imagine she caused those old party bosses to turn their heads on more than one occasion. When she spoke, everyone listened. I know I did. Margaret Thatcher said: Success is having a flair for the thing that you are doing, and knowing that it is not enough, you have to work hard and have a sense of purpose. Betty was a success because she worked as hard as anyone I have ever had the pleasure to work with and she had a powerful sense of purpose. She absolutely loved politics as much as she absolutely loved Iowa. She loved the process, and everyone respected her for that. She was a rare woman who had the depth of an abiding commitment to the rough and tumble of organizational door-to-door politics. Boy, did she know how to work a room. You had to see her work. She could read people. She had, as my mother would say, the sixth sense about how to persuade and bring people to her side, how to convince them she was right. She was, indeed, a very persuasive woman. There was no doubt that when you were with her, you wanted to be on her side. But I don't think winning was Betty's real goal. It was not what drove her. I think she cared deeply about the fact that people need to be engaged and they contribute to making things better, they find a cause and take a side, they fight for what is in their heart and their gut, and they move the system in the right direction. For Betty Strong, it was community that mattered most. It was the democratic process she cared about, and she believed that it worked best when you have maximum participation. That is not to say that she did not have a deeply held set of values and beliefs that drove her politics; she did. First and foremost, she was a Democrat--a Democrat Democrator, as the folks in Alabama used to say: a Yellow Dog Democrat. She had the hash marks and battle scars of more than 40 years of engagement to prove it. If I had to categorize her politics, I would say she was an old- fashioned but practical FDR Democrat, an accomplished activist who fought on behalf of organized labor and through the Central Labor Council for the basic dignity of American workers. I remember how she welcomed my wife Jill and me to her home as she welcomed a host of Democratic candidates over the years. And she did not hesitate to make her opinions known. She did not hesitate to share her love and affection with you. But partisanship is not a word I think of when I remember Betty Strong. The word I think of is ``democracy.'' To watch her in action was to understand what Teddy Roosevelt meant when he said, ``the politics of decency.'' She was a decent person, as decent as any I have ever met in my public life. She was as engaged as she was engaging, as warm as she was tough, and as wise as she was shrewd. To see her build a coalition, to watch her rally support, was to realize that all she wanted to do was bring the best out in people. I first met her in 1987. I stayed in contact with her over the entire time until her death. She was a friend of mine, a friend of Senator Harkin's, and a friend of many of us here. I only wish we had more like her in both parties. You have them in your party, as I have them in mine. And, God, they are beloved. They are beloved people. But it seems like the generation is passing of the people who made the commitment she made. She knew all politics was local, but she also knew local politics made up what this Nation is. She was a nation builder. She was a great woman. I miss her. Our sympathies to Darrell and her family. I thank the Chair and I thank my colleagues for their graciousness. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by Senator Kennedy and Senator Feinstein to prohibit the use of funds for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator and for the development of new nuclear weapons concepts. Both the administration's policy of pre-emptive war and the suggestion, reportedly included in the Nuclear Posture Review, that it might use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries undercut U.S. non-proliferation pronouncements. And these policies form the context in which we must evaluate administration proposals for new nuclear weapons research. Moves to make nuclear weapons just another part of the U.S. arsenal of usable weapons send a strong and unmistakable message to other countries: the only way to deter the United States is to have nuclear weapons of your own. The President's agenda for a new generation of nuclear weapons is included in the bill before us today, which funds the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, the Advanced Concepts Initiative--which could include low-yield nuclear weapons--and the Modern Pit Facility. Funds for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, known as RNEP, or the bunker buster, are supposed to cover a ``study'' of turning existing nuclear bombs into earth penetrators. But what a robust study this is. The 5-year budget required by Congress and submitted by the Department of Energy funds the ``study'' at $27.6 million in fiscal year 2005, but the 5-year total balloons to $484.7 million. Last year, Congress passed amendments that required congressional authorization before later phases and developmental engineering of RNEP could take place. The price tag suggests that the administration sees RNEP as far more than a study; it is clearly looking ahead to the development and fielding of a new nuclear weapon. If so, the Congressional Research Service warns that the 5-year cost is far from the total price tag for this program. It is impossible to provide an estimate of total program cost because of the difficulty of the task at hand. The current nuclear earth penetrator, the B61-11, can penetrate only to 20 feet in dry earth. According to physicist Rob Nelson from Princeton University, even an extremely small bunker buster with a yield of one-tenth of a kiloton must penetrate 140 feet underground to be contained. It is hard to imagine the technical feat required to penetrate into hardened targets to the depth necessary to prevent massive fallout from a nuclear weapon with the RNEP's yield, which is said to be far in excess of 5 kilotons. In fact, preventing the spread of fallout from an RNEP is impossible--and tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of casualties could result from the nuclear fallout from such a weapon. U.S. nuclear tests from the 1960s and 1970s illustrate the point. The 1962 ``Sedan'' test exploded a 100-kiloton weapon 635 feet underground. It produced a gigantic cloud of fallout and left a crater a quarter mile in diameter. To destroy a deeply buried target, an even larger weapon would be needed--and an RNEP would be lucky to penetrate more than 50 feet underground. The fallout would be immense. The bill before us also includes $9 million for the Advanced Concept Initiative that could lead to the development of new nuclear weapons, including low-yield nuclear weapons. This program raises further concerns: Will the new weapons require a resumption of nuclear testing, leading others to test as well? Will the new weapons erode the current gap between nuclear and conventional weapons, which helps to make nuclear war ``unthinkable'' and to deter other countries from developing such weapons? The Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator and low-yield nuclear weapons are not like regular nuclear weapons. Regular nuclear weapons are designed to deter an adversary; the massive destruction and civilian casualties they cause make nuclear weapons unlike even other weapons of mass destruction, with the possible exception of smallpox. But these nuclear weapons are different. They bridge the gap between conventional weapons and the city-busting weapons of the cold war. They offer the lure of a better way to destroy point targets. Supporters of new nuclear weapons argue that they, too, could deter an adversary, and that is true. All nuclear weapons have a deterrent function. But the deterrence benefits that low-yield weapons provide are far outweighed by both the risk that they will actually be used and the dangerous signal that they send to other countries--whether intentionally or not--that we intend to fight nuclear wars. These nuclear weapons blur the distinction between nuclear and conventional war. They begin to make nuclear war more ``thinkable,'' as Herman Kahn might have said. But Herman Kahn's book was ``Thinking About the Unthinkable.'' He understood that nuclear war was unthinkable, even as he demanded that we think about how to fight one if we had to. Looking at the foreign and defense policies of the current administration, I fear that they have failed to understand that vital point. They want to make nuclear war ``thinkable.'' And that failure of understanding could lead to bigger failures: a failure to understand how to keep other countries from developing nuclear weapons; a failure to view nonproliferation as a vital and workable policy objective; and perhaps even a failure to avoid a nuclear war, which would do horrible damage to our country. Building bunker busters and low-yield nuclear weapons is not a path to non-proliferation. Neither is a program to do R&D on such weapons, while Defense Department officials press our scientists to come up with reasons to build them. Neither is a program to test those weapons--which would surely be necessary to develop new low-yield weapons; and which would just as surely be the death knell not only of the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty, but also of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Consider what the administration has said regarding nuclear weapons: The Nuclear Posture Review of December 2001 spoke of reducing U.S. reliance upon nuclear weapons. But it also reportedly listed not only Russia and China, but also North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Libya as potential enemies in a nuclear war. It spoke of possibly needing to develop and test new types of nuclear weapons, gave that as a reason for increasing our nuclear test readiness, and said that nuclear weapons might be used to neutralize chemical or biological agents. And in the run-up to the Iraq war, the administration proclaimed a doctrine of preemption against any potential foe that acquired weapons of mass destruction. Now, if you were a North Korean leader, or an Iranian or Syrian one, which part of those reports would you act on? The part that reduces reliance on nuclear weapons? Or the part that names you as a possible target for nuclear preemption? So far, we have one positive answer--from Libya, which is giving up its WMD program. But from North Korea and Iran, the response is much more disturbing. The Washington Post reported last month that a new National Intelligence Estimate would likely conclude that North Korea has approximately eight nuclear bombs, instead of two; and that its secret uranium enrichment program would be operational by 2007 and produce enough weapons-grade uranium for another six bombs per year. Iran was accelerating its nuclear weapons program, when disclosures and IAEA inspections exposed it and disrupted Iran's efforts. It pursued two means of uranium enrichment--centrifuges and lasers--and experimented with separating plutonium. Even countries that are our friends and allies worry about--and react to--these U.S. policies. Just last week, Brazil's new Ambassador reiterated his country's intent to limit the access of the International Atomic Energy Agency to Brazil's uranium enrichment plant. One rationale he used was Brazil's unhappiness that the Bush administration would consider using nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries. How shall we stem the spread of nuclear weapons? For a while, it seemed as though the administration's approach would be to declare war on every adversary that dared to go nuclear. But do we really intend to go to war with North Korea, if the price is the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of South Korean civilians? In fact, we appear now to be withdrawing half our ground combat forces from South Korea to send them to Iraq; and there are rumors that those forces will not return to Korea. Do we intend to go to war with Iran, when we cannot guarantee security in Iraq? The list of countries that we accuse of having weapons of mass destruction is long. Will we take them all on? And what do we do when Indian officials cite our Iraq war arguments as justification for a possible attack on Pakistan that could risk a nuclear war? Is this the world we want? Nobody ever said that nonproliferation was easy. I don't have a silver bullet; and I don't expect the President to have one, either. But you have to keep your eye on the ball. When conservatives opposed the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty, they said that countries would build nuclear weapons for their own strategic reasons. That is right. It means that if we want to prevent proliferation, or roll it back, we have to affect those strategic calculations. Nonproliferation policy gives us a framework for those efforts. The Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty gives us international support, and affects the calculations of countries whose neighbors sign and obey the treaty. The Nuclear Suppliers Group buys more time, by restricting exports of nuclear or dual-use materials and equipment. But in the end, it still comes down to other countries' strategic calculations. For lasting nonproliferation, we must treat the regional quarrels that drive countries to seek nuclear weapons. We were able to do that with Argentina and Brazil. As South Africa moved away from apartheid, we were able to do that there, as well. We are making a real effort to help India and Pakistan step back from the brink, and we must continue that effort. But we also have to address security concerns in East Asia, including North Korea's concerns, if we are to keep that whole region from developing nuclear weapons. And we have to pursue peace in the Middle East. Nor is there really an alternative to working with the international community. We don't have the ability to inspect sites in Iran; the International Atomic Energy Agency does have that ability. Its inspections have revealed much about the extent of Iran's nuclear program and have made it harder for Iran to pursue that program. We cannot close down proliferation traffic all by ourselves. The case of North Korea shows how much we need the help of other countries. The cooperation of other countries, especially including Russia and China, is essential. That is why the Proliferation Security Initiative is so important, as is our adherence to international law in implementing that initiative. Those are the paths to nonproliferation. They are long and difficult paths, and we do not know whether we will succeed. But we can see where we want to go, and we can see how working those issues will help get us there. Building a new generation of nuclear weapons will only take us on the opposite path. So I urge my colleagues to support the Kennedy-Feinstein amendment to prohibit funding for those counterproductive weapons.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, in the early 1950s, at a time when political backrooms were still smoke-filled and the sound of a woman's voice was still a cause for heads to turn, Betty Strong involved herself in politics in her home State of Iowa and did not hesitate to speak her mind. She turned many heads and made folks in Iowa listen in those days and folks have been listening to what she has had to say ever since. A strong and rare woman, she had a deep and abiding commitment to the rough-and-tumble of the political process and will long stand as an inspiration to all of us, to every American who believes in the great idea of representative democracy, to all those whose values and dreams are represented by a political party and by the process through which we elect our representatives. She held firm her deep beliefs. She was, first and foremost, a Democrat. In fact, Betty Strong was the grande-dame of Democrats in Iowa. She was an organizer who knew how to bring people together for a cause, a woman who understood the issues, knew the process better than almost anyone, and felt with every fiber of her being that she had not only the right but the duty as a citizen to fight for what she believed was right and fair and just. She fought on behalf of organized Labor and through the Central Labor Council for the basic dignity of the American worker, and for a host of causes in her community, and did not hesitate to make her opinion known, did not waver when it came to bringing about the changes necessary to elect those who agreed with her. But partisanship was not what we should remember when we remember Betty Strong today. To watch her in action was to understand what America is all about. To see her build a coalition, to rally support, to bring out the best in her community to rise to an issue, to support a candidate, to lay out a platform, to build consensus, was truly a lesson in the best of the American political dynamic. And, every four years without fail, she was in the vanguard of the unique process we have come to understand as the Iowa Caucuses. I first met her in 1987 when I entered the Iowa Caucuses, and I can say without hesitation or equivocation: I will never forget Betty Strong. She was with me then and her memory will remain with me always. I wrote her a letter in 1988 thanking her for her help and for her lifelong service, and I am honored to know that the letter hung on her living room wall all these years. I will long be beholden to Betty for her commitment, for her support, for her help, for the extraordinary grace she showed me and the dignity with which she lived her life and fought for the causes to which she was so committed. Iowa has lost a great woman and I would ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the lasting contribution that Betty Strong made to that fundamental Tip O'Neill-notion that all politics is local. Today we mourn her loss and offer to her family and all of her friends in Iowa and across America, the thanks of a grateful Nation.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a mayor of Wilmington, DE, who created a revolutionary government and was beloved by all. Mayor John E. Babiarz Sr. was a legend in his native city of Wilmington. He was first elected to office in 1948, then served as president of city council before being elected to Mayor in 1960. His reign was made all the more remarkable because he was the city's leader throughout the turbulent 1960s. He was a voice of calm and reason when Delaware's Governor ordered the National Guard to patrol the streets of Wilmington in 1968 after Martin Luther King Jr.'s death. Despite the troubled times in which he served as mayor, he will be forever remembered and credited with creating a revolution toward a modern form of government for Delaware's largest city and corporate hub. He changed the old commission form of government into a modern, merit political system. On a personal note, I owe my start in politics to the integrity, guidance, and friendship of Mayor Babiarz. He was a confidant and a friend. Mayor Babiarz' best friend in life was his wife of 65 years, Adele. She and their two sons, John Jr. and Francis, were the joys of his life. Wilmington has truly lost one of its greatest native sons.