Joe Biden

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor an extraordinary man in American history. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., without exception, led a fearless life dedicated to the cause of human rights and world peace. His example inspired a generation of Americans to rise above what had been two centuries of injustice and inequality and usher in a new day of enlightenment and freedom. For that great gift, for having imagined what America ought to be and setting us on that course, we will forever be in his debt. Had Dr. King been spared on that fateful day in 1968, he would have turned 74 years of age this month. He would have watched his children, Martin, Dexter and Yolanda, grow into strong and responsible adults. He would have watched a generation of young people mature into adults, struggling to keep the spirit of his dream alive. He would have seen the birth of an entirely new generation, charged with carrying America's torch into a new century. Had Dr. King lived, he would have witnessed, and undoubtedly experienced, countless changes in America and the world . . . but would he believe we had truly arrived at the ``promised land'' he spoke of in his ``I Have a Dream'' speech? Or would he find some unfinished business? What would he say? Would Dr. King still speak of the ``debilitating and grinding poverty'' that disproportionately affects minority communities? In America today, like America of the 1960s, disproportionate numbers of minorities live in dilapidated housing with low or no income. They have far too few resources to feed their families, to clothe their children, or to pay the price of higher and higher rents, and certainly not enough to afford a down-payment for a home of their own. Too many seniors have to make the unfair and unacceptable choice between heat and prescription drugs. And too few of them have the retirement savings of which they had dreamed. And in these sorry economic times, there is no safety-net, children can't support their aging parents. What would Dr. King say? We live in the richest Nation in the world, yet certain current economic policies sometimes neglect working-class men and women and turn a blind eye to the poorest among us, all in the name of stimulating our economy. If we want to boost the economy, we should first boost the vast majority of Americans who can't spend because they don't have an opportunity to earn. Our focus should be on providing equal access to professional and educational opportunities, and not on dispensing one-way tickets to low-paying jobs with dead-end possibilities. If we are concerned about our country's economic health, we should be concerned about economic opportunities for all. What would Dr. King say? Last year, hate crimes climbed by more than 17 percent, and offenses targeted specifically against Muslims jumped 1,600 percent. Just this month, as the Nation prepared itself to honor the memory of Dr. King, racial threats were mailed to more than 30 African-American churches and businesses in Kansas City, MO. And, sadly, Kansas City is no different than many cities in America. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 9,730 hate crimes were reported in the United States in 2001, that is more than 26 hate crimes a day. And it is not counting the untold numbers of crimes that go unreported, nor the numbers of crimes against individuals solely because of their gender or sexual orientation or disability, all of which are not captured under current Federal law. Hate crimes are not simply crimes against individuals; they are crimes against whole communities and have marked the demise of great nations. To paraphrase Dr. King, ``history is cluttered with the wreckage of nations and individuals'' that tolerated ``this self- defeating path of hate.'' And yet Congress in its infinite wisdom has failed to pass basic legislation that would strengthen the ability of Federal, State and local governments to investigate and prosecute hate crimes; failed to remove unnecessary obstacles to Federal involvement in the prosecution of bias-motivated crimes; and failed to give law enforcement the tools it needs to ensure that every American can live in an environment free of terror. And what would Dr. King say of our efforts to make it possible that every American child attend college and receive the benefits that flow from a college education? Four decades after Ole Miss and the University of Alabama admitted their first minority students, some are arguing that universities cannot seek to promote a diverse campus atmosphere by considering race, among many other factors, in assembling its student body. I was disappointed when the President announced to the nation that he would authorize the U.S. Government to oppose the undergraduate and law school admissions policies of the University of Michigan. The administration had an opportunity to send a powerful message to the Nation, namely that, partisan politics aside, the attainment of diverse student bodies at America's universities is in our greatest national interest. I disagree with his decision. The President's reason for opposing the Michigan admissions system was because it mandated racial quotas. It does not. As the university's president, Mary Sue Coleman, noted in her response to President Bush's misstatement, the university's admissions system ``is a complex process that takes many factors into account and considers the entire background of each applicant. . . . We do not have, and never had, quotas or numerical targets in either the undergraduate or Law School admissions programs. Academic qualifications are the overwhelming consideration for admission to both programs.'' No, this debate is not about quotas. Rather, it is about educators' judgments about how best to teach and stimulate the curiosity of America's college students. It is about how to nurture critical thinking, how to ignite students' intellectual imagination. I have said it many times before, but now I have the social science data to back it up: the greatest benefactor of a diverse student community is not the individual student who gets some plus-factor on his admissions application; it is the wider college community that gains immensely from learning in an environment with different types of people, with different types of life experiences. And anyone who would suggest that an individual's race does not contribute to one's life experience would be sadly mistaken, because, even in the 21st century, diversity matters. This debate is about how to make America's promise real for all her children. Tellingly, when asked about the lawsuits against the University of Michigan, Dr. King's widow, Coretta Scott King, noted quite poignantly that affirmative action is ``an important part toward eliminating discrimination.'' She is right. To the extent that Whites and minorities sometimes experience life differently, in other words, to the extent that there are Black-White gaps in poverty rates, in income levels, in access to quality health care, in life expectancy, in rates of imprisonment, in any number of life indicators, those gaps narrow considerably when minorities have increased and equal access to educational opportunities. Quite frankly, the road that led me from the small town of Scranton, PA, to the hamlet of Claymont, DE, and eventually to the hallowed Halls of the Senate, while rocky and sometimes uncertain, was always paved with possibility. The challenge, my friends, is to make sure every child, no matter their race or ethnicity, no matter their gender, no matter their families' socio-economic status, has a chance to travel a road, not necessarily free of obstacles, but certainly full of possibility. We must be vigilant in ensuring that the road for all our citizens is paved with possibility. In 1957, when Dr. King and a group of others formed the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, they chose as their motto: ``To save the soul of America.'' Our charge today is no less urgent. We have to make America what it ought to be. And to do that, we start where our Founders started, by awakening in our hearts that spirit of revolution, of freedom, of democracy out of which America was born, by remembering that America's promise is only as strong and as real to you as it is to all. Dr. King said it best: ``Injustice anywhere is a threat everywhere. . . . Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.'' My friends, ``either we go up together or we go down together.'' The questions are really quite simple. I stand with Dr. King's vision, which calls on us today to make sure that we do all we can to close the gaps in education and economic prosperity. When Dr. King died that dark day in 1968, honestly a part of me and a part of every American died, too. Riots erupted in 125 cities around the country, including in my home State of Delaware, where the National Guard occupied Wilmington for 10 months, reportedly the longest occupation in the country. But out of that horror and the anguish that followed, a clarion call was heard. We emerged from the riots a stronger and better nation, and with a stronger faith in what is good and right about America. To my beloved countrymen, I say that, in this season marking Dr. King's birth, we must remember his legacy. We must continue to raise our voices, continue to speak for the least among us, continue to fight for what is good and right about America.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, this afternoon the President's Commission on Opportunity in Athletics recommended changes to Title IX. While the changes they proposed are not as sweeping as feared, by a tie vote they included in their report a provision that could weaken current compliance requirements for women and girls in sports. While I commend the Commission for rejecting some of the more radical changes considered, I would implore President Bush and Secretary Paige to reject the notion of making any changes that diminish the protections of Title IX, including the so called ``50-50'' compliance provision. As you know Title IX has had an enormous influence on all aspects of education, but particularly in the realm of women's and girls' sports. Since enactment the number of female college athletes has increased nearly five fold from fewer than 32,000 prior to enactment to over 150,000 today. At the high school level almost 3 million girls are playing competitive sports today compared to fewer than 300,000 prior to passage. But this isn't just about the numbers. Girls who participate in sports are less likely to take drugs, drink alcohol, smoke or become pregnant than their non-participating peers. They are also more likely to graduate. Through their participation in sports, women and girls are provided opportunities for leadership, teamwork and competition, gain a more positive body image, and are accorded contact with adult role models in their communities. And yet, even with gains and achievements, more needs to be done. In Division I schools women represent 53 percent of the student body, but receive only 43 percent of the total athlete scholarship dollars, 32 percent of the recruiting dollars and 36 percent of the operational budgets. And for every dollar at a Division I school spent on women's sports, almost two dollars are spent on men's sports. We've come a long way, but we should not turn the clock back now. I submit today a resolution that not only recognizes the importance of Title IX and a continued need for Title IX protections, but also calls on the Administration to reject any changes weakening current regulations and interpretations of this very important law.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today the Senate expresses its appreciation and best wishes to one of the great unsung heroes who make this institution work. Art Rynearson, the Senate's Deputy Legislative Counsel, is retiring after over 26 years of exemplary service to this body. Art has been a backstage participant in many historic foreign policy decisions of the Senate, assisting the Foreign Relations Committee to draft both legislation and resolutions of advice and consent to ratification of treaties. His actions were rarely recognized or noticed by the public, but his contributions were essential. Art's job was to ensure that our legislation clearly expressed the intent of the committee and that it meshed properly with existing law. He accomplished that through marvelous attention to detail and a complete absence of partisanship. During the past 6 years, during which I have served as either the chairman or ranking member of the committee, Art has borne a heavy burden--working on such matters as the Chemical Weapons Convention, NATO enlargement, and major legislation to restructure America's foreign policy agencies. The committee owes him a great debt. It is not overstatement to say that the Senate could not function without people like Art Rynearson. Every day--and many a night--he was there, unfailingly courteous and professional, ready to assist the committee's members and staff to draft and refine legislation for consideration by the committee and the Senate. His knowledge of foreign relations and immigration law, gained through his many years of service, will not be easily replaced. I know that I speak for all of my colleagues on the Foreign Relations Committee in saying thank you to Art Rynearson. We wish him and his wife, Mary, every happiness as he begins his next stage in life.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, as President Bush prepares to address the Nation on the state of the Union, we stand, to state the obvious, at a precipice of a momentous decision: War, war with Iraq. The American people, and the world, for that matter, are waiting to hear what the President's decision is and his rationale for it. They are waiting to hear a clear explanation of why war may be the only remaining alternative and what will be expected of them not only in winning the war but what will be expected of the American people for us to win the peace. A generation ago, I and my entire generation learned a very important lesson. That lesson was: No matter how brilliant or how well thought out a foreign policy may be, it cannot be sustained without the informed consent of the American people. To date, there has been no informed consent. That is not a criticism; it is just an objective observation. For the President, to date, has not had the requirement, in the hope of avoiding war, to inform the American people in detail of what the consequences of war will be and what will be expected of them. To date, the American people only know that Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator, who has used weapons of mass destruction against his own people, and that he is the man who invaded Kuwait, and we expelled him. They are not sure as to whether or not he is an imminent threat; that is, a threat to those security moms, not soccer moms, who are in their living rooms and are worried about the health of their children and the safety of their homes. The American people are confused, I would respectfully suggest, by the President's talk and the administration's talk of a new doctrine of preemption, and whether or not this is the basis upon which we are arguing we should act, or that we are acting to enforce, essentially, a peace agreement, a peace agreement signed by Saddam Hussein at the end of the Kuwaiti war that said: In return for me being able to stay in power, I commit to do the following things. They are under the impression--the American people--because of the signals being sent by the Secretary of Defense and his civilian subordinates, that this war will be short, essentially bloodless, and, just as in 1991, Johnny will come marching home again in several weeks, if not several months, after a decisive, bloodless military victory. The American people are assuming we will lead a very broad coalition of other nations and have the world behind us in our effort. They further assume, contrary very much to the hard evidence, that the defeat of Saddam Hussein will be a major setback for Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations. In short, they are under the assumption that one of the reasons we are moving against Saddam is that we will literally make terrorists' actions much less probable in the United States of America than they are today. For why else would we use all this power we have assembled in the gulf to go after Iraq rather than using all this power to go after Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and in northwestern Pakistan where he most probably is according to our intelligence community? They put it together. Obviously, the President would not take 250,000 forces, invade, if we must, Iraq, if he didn't think that would materially affect what I, as an American man, or woman thinks is the greatest threat to me, another 9/11. They also assume, contrary to any hard evidence, that Saddam Hussein is months away from developing a nuclear weapon that could strike American soil, for which he has no capacity, nor in any reasonable prospect in the future would he have any capacity to send a nuclear weapon airborne from Iraq to the United States. Lastly, they seem to think the financial cost of this war will be manageable and not cause any further economic disruption, for why else for the first time in American history is the President of the United States calling for war, the possibility of war involving 250,000 American troops, at the very same time he is going to call, tonight, for a $650 billion tax cut? That has never been done in the history of the United States of America. Obviously, they think the President wouldn't do that unless this was going to be pretty costless, this war. In short, I don't think the American people have been told honestly what will be expected of them and what additionally may be asked of them if things don't go so well. I think they will go well. I am one who has not been happy in the way we have proceeded, who thinks this war will be prosecuted in a way that will absolutely, to use the expression younger people use, blow the mind of the world in terms of our military prowess. But it may not. Why is it so critical to inform the American people? Why, beyond their democratic right to know, is it so vital? I will answer that by telling you a story. On December 8, 2002, I was in Qatar being briefed by General Franks, witnessing the preparation for war, and the war games were being carried on. There were assembled in this secure room--a gigantic hangar with a movie screen literally larger than the size of the wall behind the Presiding Officer, probably somewhere around 30 feet high and 40 feet wide--200 generals. I have never seen so many stars in my life, other than when I was a little kid lying on my back looking up on a crystal clear night in the middle of the summer. I was asked, after being briefed by these warriors, whether or not I would address the assembled crowd, all active military personnel planning this war. These men and women to a person were ready to go and were secure in their knowledge that they would successfully complete their mission if asked to by defeating Saddam Hussein, if ordered to do so. What they were unsure of was us, the politicians, and whether we were willing to tell the American people exactly what was likely to be asked of them and were the American people willing to continue to give them the support they were going to need over a long haul, not the short haul? And it will be a long haul, regardless of how quickly and successfully we wage this war. For those fighting men and women in this room know it is going to be necessary to stay in Iraq for a long time, to have tens of thousands--I predict over 75,000 American forces remaining in Iraq a minimum of a year and a half and, I predict, 5 years after we secure victory. And they wanted to know whether or not the American people knew that, for they don't want to be over there a year from now when the debate comes up and it is between another $20 billion to stay in Iraq and $20 billion for education or for a tax cut. We have no right to put them in that squeeze again, as happened a generation ago. They also wanted to know if Saddam, as some suggest--and I am revealing nothing; I am not speaking from classified reports--and his 120 to 150,000 Republican Guard, the only ones we are really worried about, their capacity, if they retreat to Baghdad, a city, a city of 5 million people, are the American people prepared to continue to support our military when they see the inevitable happen? Innocent women and children being killed. We know what will happen. We know if they retreat to Baghdad they will retreat to hospitals, apartment complexes, and our fighting women and men, if this happens--and it is not sure it will--would have to go door to door. They were worried that the response would be the same response that occurs seeing Israelis knocking down a building or seeing a child killed in the crossfire. They are worried they will become the bad guys, particularly, as I said, if the Republican Guard falls back to a city of 5 million people. Imagine going house to house in Philadelphia or Houston, routing out 2, 5, 10, 20, 50, 70,000 fighters. I told them that I believed this generation and the American people would pay whatever price and pledge its support to them, but only if they had informed consent. But that has not been done yet, and it must be done. For while it is reasonable to expect the best, it would be irresponsible not to prepare for the worst. Iraq could lash out against Israel, Saudi Arabia and/or Kuwait in an effort to start a wider war. It could use weapons of mass destruction against our troops or its neighbors. It could destroy its oil fields and those of its neighbors. It could start giving away its weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. It could create a humanitarian nightmare among the Kurds in the north and the Shia in the south, denying them food or medicine, even using chemical weapons against them, as Saddam has done in the past, and as I saw for myself when I met the survivors a month ago in northern Iraq. Maybe none of these unintended consequences will occur, but there is a decent chance that one or more will. We must put every chance on our side and prepare the American people for what is bad as well as what is good. Hopefully that will be done tonight or sometime soon by the President, but not after the fact. The world, our allies, also are waiting for a clearer explanation of why war. I just returned from the World Economic Forum and found myself confronted with the most uniform and significant anti-American sentiment I have ever encountered in my career of 30 years dealing with foreign leaders abroad. Not a single American diplomat, elected official, American journalist, businessman or labor leader would disagree with the assessment I just gave you. It raises several questions that need to be answered. Why do they feel this way? Why should it matter? And if it does matter, what should we do about it? Why? There are multiple reasons, and my pointing them out to a predominantly non-American audience of hundreds if not thousands of world leaders was not always appreciated the last 4 days, let alone agreed with. Let me give you some of the reasons why they feel the way they do, not all of which are legitimate, by any means. There is a lack of strong leadership in the respective countries that has been unwilling to tell their people the truth about Saddam Hussein and the commitment their country and the world made to deal with him when he sued for peace over 10 years ago. There are selfish economic motives on the part of some of our allies with regard to their favored position with regard to oil or telecom and scores of other areas. Another reason is the resentment of America's predominant position as the world's most powerful military and economic nation as well as our cultural dominance, from Coca-Cola to rap music to English on the Internet, all of which they resent in the same way we would all resent if tomorrow our States predominantly said, we are going to switch to a different language because a predominant number of people in our State speak that language. This is compounded by the belief that the President is being pushed by the right wing of his administration to further leverage this predominant position into an even more dominant position relative to the rest of the world. It is also compounded by an inability to contribute much in the way of a fight, either by augmenting our military strength or their own, as well as a seething resentment at our unwillingness to use the forces they offered us in Afghanistan after declaring that an article 5 breach had occurred under our NATO treaty. With regard to Iraq specifically, many don't see Saddam as a credible threat to them. Their people don't believe our assertions. They say he no longer has the weapons of mass destruction that we know he has. They believe in the aftermath of victory, we will not stay until there is a stable Government in Iraq--as we have not stayed in Afghanistan sufficiently--and they believe the resulting power struggle within Iraq, in their region, will have disastrous consequences for their Governments because they have all heard this administration say it will not be engaged in nation building. And they all know, and everyone knows, we are going to have to be engaged in nation building after we win the war. All of this is compounded by the obvious discussion within the administration: The announcement of a new doctrine of preemption that has yet to be explained to us, let alone them; the appearance of a great power being petulant when a President stands before the world and says ``I am growing impatient, I am getting tired''; the apparent contradiction in the rest of the world's mind of the treatment of the threat from North Korea, which has weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear, has a record of proliferation, and has violated international agreements, and we are talking to them; whereas, Iraq, which has no nuclear weapons--we cannot find the weapons of mass destruction, and there is scant evidence of similar proliferation--they say we speak with two different voices--the feeling that the administration has acted, without serious consultation, unilaterally in unceremoniously withdrawing from further negotiations, from international structures, such as climate control, criminal courts, ABM, and others. Isn't the only thing that matters whether we make it work in the long run, which is what they hear from some in this administration? Won't it all disappear when we succeed, as we hear some in this administration say, because everybody loves a winner, right? Wrong. It matters what other nations think because our most basic immediate interests cannot be fully secured without a longer term cooperation with these other nations because we must convince them and not coerce them. Let me give a few examples of what our most immediate vital interests are. Crushing international terror: How can you do that without cooperation from the intelligence services from Jakarta to Berlin, from Paris to Beijing, from Moscow to Rio? Preventing North Korea from escalating its nuclear programs and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and doing so without a war: How can we succeed without the cooperation of Russia, China, Japan, and South Korea, other than through war? All of this leads to the perception that some within the administration argue that it is better to go it alone. They have a belief that is the President's position. I don't believe it is his position, but what do they hear? They hear the theories proffered by some in the civilian Defense Department saying, if we move in the face of world public opinion, the rest of the world knows we will mean business and the more we do it alone, the more we will impress upon the rogue nations that they better change or they are next. They also hear us saying that Europe is tired, indecisive, and ultimately unwilling to do what is necessary to keep the peace and commands too much of our resources and attention, particularly, as the Secretary of Defense said, ``old Europe,'' France, and Germany. They keenly resent these characterizations. I think this is an inaccurate description of where President Bush is, but I do believe, though, that his choice of words and failure to clearly explain his choices and basis for action when we do act has been dangerous to our standing in the world, which leads me to a second question. Why should it matter what our standing is--what the rest of the world thinks of us? I believe it matters a lot. Preventing a nuclear war on the subcontinent between India and Pakistan matters. But as we announced a unilateral pronouncement of a ``new'' doctrine of preemption--whatever that means is yet to be explained--that leads to the conclusion in India and Pakistan that if we can act preemptively, why can they not act preemptively against one another? Conveying our values to the rest of the world so as to diminish the misunderstanding of our motives runs constantly into some of the assertions that come from some in this administration. Let me get right to it, Mr. President. It matters what other nations think, and it matters that although we can force other nations to do things, it matters how we do it. Here is an example. There is a new Government in Turkey--newly elected represented by an Islamic Party. That Islamic Party recently won the election, and the Prime Minister is a guy named Gul. The real operator is a guy named Erdogan. They were leading this Islamic Party and they have decided they want to have Turkey remain a secular state and they want to be integrated into Europe with regard to the EU. It is very much in the interest of the United States of America--very much--that that happens. We do not want an Islamic state; we want a secular state looking west. So what is the problem? We can offer $5 billion and essentially buy the support to allow us to launch from Turkey. But if we do that in the absence of a worldwide consensus that what we are doing is right, we may meet our immediate goal and lose a heck of a lot. Here is an example. Right now, in Turkey--which I recently visited and I know the Presiding Officer knows this--over 85 percent of the Turkish people are unalterably opposed to a war with Iraq and unalterably opposed to Turkey cooperating with us in being able to successfully prosecute that war. So what happens if we go to war and we launch from Turkey with the support of the new Islamic leadership without having changed the minds of the people in Turkey and/or the world, to suggest that this is not merely us, but that it is sanctioned by the world that we do this? Well, the roughly 35 to 40 percent of this Islamic Party that is radical Islamic will play to its populist instincts and cause incredible trouble for the existing administration in Turkey and, I believe, force them to move away from their commitment to a secular state. So that old biblical proverb, what does it profit a man if he gains the world and loses his soul--paraphrasing it--what does it profit us to move prematurely on Iraq from Turkey if the end result is that we radicalize a government that is represented by the Islamic Party. What have we gained? I will answer the third question, and then conclude. So what should we do? I have argued that out of our self-interest it matters what other nations think. So what should we be doing? I begin by saying, given where we are now, coupled with Saddam Hussein being in material breach--that is a fancy phrase for saying not explaining what he has done with the weapons of mass destruction we know he has--those two things may force us to choose between the better of two not-so-pleasant options. The option I would choose in this circumstance, if we do not get world support, is that Saddam is in material breach of the latest U.N. resolution. Yesterday's damning report by the U.N. inspectors makes clear again Saddam's contempt for the world and it has vindicated the President's decision last fall to go to the U.N. The legitimacy of the Security Council is at stake, as well as the integrity of the U.N. So if Saddam does not give up those weapons of mass destruction and the Security Council does not call for the use of force, I think we have little option but to act with a larger group of willing nations, if possible, and alone if we must. Make no mistake about it, we will pay a price if that is the way we go. We will have no option, but we will pay a price, a price that could be significantly reduced if from this moment on we act, in my humble opinion, more wisely. What should we be doing from this point on? I will be very brief now and expand on this later. One, we should lower the rhetoric. We should not appear to be the petulant nation, wondering why the rest of the recalcitrant world will not act with us, showing our impatience. It does not suit a great nation well. It would not suit my father well, were he alive. It does not suit someone of stature well--and we are a nation of stature. Two, we should make the case not only privately to our partners by sharing more proof of Saddam's crimes and possessions, but also to our people and in turn to the whole world. Legally, he is in breach, but going to war based on that legal breach will cost us in ways we would not have to pay if we go to war with the rest of the world understanding that there is something there beyond the failure to account. The third thing we should do is give inspectors more time, for their very presence in Iraq diminishes the possibility of sharing weapons of mass destruction with terrorists or continuing their quest for nuclear weapons. Inspectors are not a permanent solution. We know from our experience of the last decade that Iraq will try to make their mission impossible. We also know that sustaining a massive deployment of troops is expensive and hard on our men and women in uniform. But right now the inspectors are helping us build support for our policy, both at home and abroad, and we should let them keep working in the near term. The fourth thing we should do is articulate clearly and repeatedly not only the legal basis for our action, if we must move, but our commitment to stay until we have a stable Iraq, and that means the following: The President should state clearly tonight, we are not acting on a doctrine of preemption, if we act. We are acting on enforcement of a U.N. resolution that is the equivalent of a peace treaty which is being violated by the signatory of that treaty, and we have a right to do that and it is the world's problem. It is not what we hear out of the civilian Defense Department, this cockamamie notion of a new doctrine of preemption which no one understands. Two, our objective has to be clearly stated as eliminating weapons of mass destruction and not the destruction of Iraq, for that is the President's purpose. Thirdly, we will in fact participate in nation building; we will seek U.N. support and we will tell the American people what we are asking of them and why, for they have no idea now what is expected of them. They do not know what the costs will be to remove Saddam and they should. They do not know how many troops will have to stay in Iraq to secure the country, and we have estimates, and what it will take to get a representative government that lives up to its international obligations. Can we count on our friends and allies to share the burden? Can we afford to attack Iraq, fully fund homeland security, cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans, and finish the unfinished war on terrorism in Afghanistan and other places? These questions should never be excuses for inaction, but they must be answered if we want the American people's support and we want to avoid the mistakes of the past. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my good friend, the senior Senator from Iowa, Senator Grassley, to introduce the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act. This legislation arises out of a hearing Senator Grassley and I held in the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control in December 2001 on the proliferation of Ecstasy and other club drugs generally, and the role of some promoters of all-night dance parties, known as ``raves'', in distributing Ecstasy to young people. Our bill provides Federal prosecutors the tools needed to combat the manufacture, distribution or use of any controlled substance at any venue whose purpose is to engage in illegal narcotics activity. Rather than create a new law, our bill merely amends a well-established statute to make clear that anyone who knowingly and intentionally uses their property, or allows another person to use their property, for the purpose of distributing or manufacturing or using illegal drugs can be held accountable, regardless of whether the drug use is ongoing or occurs at a single event. While my legislation is aimed at the defendant's predatory behavior, regardless of the type of drug or the particular place in which it is being used or distributed, one problem that we are facing currently involves so-called ``club drugs'' and raves. According to a report which the Partnership for a Drug Free America will release in the near future, teens who report attending a rave are seven times more likely to have tried Ecstasy than teens who report not attending a rave. I find this statistic quite troubling. Despite the conventional wisdom that Ecstasy and other club drugs are ``no big deal,'' a view that even the New York Times Magazine espoused in a cover story, these drugs can have serious consequences, and can even be fatal. Just last month we got some encouraging news: after years of steady increase, Ecstasy use is finally beginning to decrease among teens. That said, the rate of use remains unacceptably high and we still have quite a bit of work to do to counter the widespread misconception that Ecstacy is harmless, fashionable and hip. At the Drug Caucus hearing, witnesses testified that rogue rave organizers commonly go to great lengths to portray their events as safe so that parents will allow their kids to attend. They advertise their parties as alcohol-free events and some even hire off-duty police officers to patrol outside the venue. But the truth is that some of these raves are drug dens where use of Ecstasy and other ``club drugs'', such as the date rape drugs Rohypnol, GHB and Ketamine, is widespread. But even as these promoters work to make parents think that their events are safe, they send a different message to kids. Their promotional flyers make clear that drugs are an integral part of the party by prominently featuring terms associated with drug use, such as the letters ``E'' or ``X''--street terms for Ecstasy, or the term ``rollin''', which refers to an Ecstasy high. They are, in effect, promoting Ecstasy along with the rave. By doing so, unscrupulous promoters get rich as they exploit and endanger kids. Some supplement their profits from the $10 to $50 cover charge to enter the club by selling popular Ecstasy paraphernalia such as baby pacifiers, glow sticks, or mentholated inhalers. And predatory party organizers know that Ecstasy raises the core body temperature and makes the user extremely thirsty, so they sell bottles of water for $5 or $10 apiece. Some even shut off the water faucets so club goers will be forced to buy water or pay admission to enter an air-conditioned ``cool down room.'' After the death of a 17-year-old girl at a rave party in New Orleans in 1998, the Drug Enforcement Administration conducted an assessment of rave activity in that city which showed the close relationship between these parties and club drug overdoses. In a two year period, 52 raves were held at the New Orleans State Palace Theater, during which time approximately 400 teenagers overdosed and were treated at local emergency rooms. Following ``Operation Rave Review'' which resulted in the arrest of several rave promoters and closing the city's largest rave, overdoses and emergency room visits dropped by 90 percent and Ecstasy overdoses were eliminated. State and local governments have begun to take important steps to crack down on rave promoters who allow their events to be used as havens for illicit drug activity. In Chicago, where Mayor Daley has shown great leadership on this issue, it is a criminal offense to knowingly maintain a place, such as a rave, where controlled substances are used or distributed. Not only the promoter, but also the building owner and building manager can be charged under Mayor Daley's law. The State of Florida has a similar statute making such activity a felony. And in Modesto, California, police officers are offering ``rave training classes'' to parents to educate them about the dangers associated with some raves and the club drugs often associated with them. At the Federal level, there have been four cases in which Federal prosecutors have used the so called ``crack house statute'' or other Federal charges to go after rogue rave promoters. These cases, in Little Rock, AR, Boise, ID, Panama City, FL, and New Orleans, LA, have had mixed results, culminating in two wins, a loss and a draw, suggesting that there may be a need to tailor this Federal statute more precisely to the problem at hand. As a result, last session I proposed legislation which would do just that. I am reintroducing it today and I am pleased to have Senator Grassley once again as the lead cosponsor. I might note that the legislation is also included in the Democratic leadership crime bill. After I introduced this legislation last year, a great deal of misinformation began circulating about it. I want to make the record clear. Simply stated, my bill provides technical corrections to an existing statute, one which has been on the books for 16 years and is well established. Critics of my bill have asserted that if the legislation were to become law ``there would be no way that someone could hold a concert and not be liable'' and that the bill ``holds the owners and the promoters responsible for the actions of the patrons.'' That is simply untrue. We know that there will always be certain people who will bring drugs into musical or other events and use them without the knowledge or permission of the promoter or club owner. This is not the type of activity that my bill would address. The purpose of my legislation is not to prosecute legitimate law-abiding managers of stadiums, arenas, performing arts centers, licensed beverage facilities and other venues because of incidental drug use at their events. In fact, when crafting this legislation, I took steps to ensure that it did not capture such cases. My bill would help in the prosecution of rogue promoters who not only know that there is drug use at their event but also hold the event for the purpose of illegal drug use or distribution. That is quite a high bar. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the Coalition of Licensed Beverage Associations, COLBA, be printed at the end of my statement. COLBA, who initially expressed concerns that my bill would make their members liable for the actions of their patrons, has endorsed my legislation because they realized that my bill was not aimed at responsible party promoters. I am confident that the overwhelming majority of promoters are decent, law abiding people who are going to discourage drug use, or any other illegal activity, at their venues. But there are a few promoters out there who are taking steps to profit from drug activity at their events. Some of these folks actually distribute drugs themselves or have their staff distribute drugs, get kickbacks from drug sales at their events, have thinly veiled drug messages on their promotional flyers, tell their security to ignore drug use or sales, or send patients who need medical attention because of a drug overdose to a hospital across town so that people won't link emergency room visits with their club. What they are doing is illegal under current law. My bill would not change that fact. Let me be clear. Neither current law nor my bill seeks to punish a promoter for the behavior of their patrons. As I mentioned, the underlying crack house statute has been on the books since 1986, and I am unaware of this statute ever being used to prosecute a legitimate business. The legislation simply amends the current ``crack house statute'' in two minor ways. First, it clarifies that Congress intended for the law to apply not just to ongoing drug distribution operations, but to ``single-event'' activities, such as a party where the promoter sponsors the event with the purpose of distributing Ecstasy or other illegal drugs. After all, a drug dealer can be arrested and prosecuted for selling one bag of drugs, and the government need not show that the dealer is selling day after day, or to multiple sellers. Likewise, the bill clarifies that a ``one-time'' event where the promoter knowingly distributes Ecstasy over the course of an evening, for example, violates the statute the same as a crack house which is in operation over a period of time. Second, the bill makes the law apply to outdoor as well as indoor venues, such as where a rogue rave promoter uses a field to hold a rave for the purpose of distributing a controlled substance. Those are the only changes the bill makes to the crack house statute. It does not give the Federal Government sweeping new powers as the detractors have asserted. Critics of the bill have also claimed that it would provide a disincentive for promoters to take steps to protect the public health of their patrons including providing water or air conditioned rooms, making sure that there is an ambulance on the premises, etc. That is not my intention. And to underscore that fact, I plan to remove the findings, which is the only place in the bill where these items are mentioned, from the bill. Certainly there are legitimate reasons for selling water, having a room where people can cool down after dancing, or having an ambulance on hand. Clearly, the presence of any of these things is not enough to signify that an event is ``for the purpose of'' drug use. The reason that I introduced this bill was not to ban dancing, kill the ``rave scene'' or silence electronic music, all things of which I have been accused. Although this legislation grew out of testimony I heard at a number of hearings about the problems identified at raves, the criminal and civil penalties in the bill would also apply to people who promoted any type of event for the purpose of drug use or distribution. If rave promoters and sponsors operate such events as they are so often advertised as places for people to come dance in a safe, drug-free environment then they have nothing to fear from this law. In no way is this bill aimed at stifling any type of music or expression it is only trying to deter illicit drug use and protect kids. Last year people criticized the bill's title, the ``RAVE Act'', because they thought it was unfairly targeting raves. Although I do not believe that I was unfairly targeting anybody, I have changed the title to the ``Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act of 2003.'' In addition to amending the crack house statute, the legislation also addresses the low penalties for trafficking gamma hydroxybutyric acid, GHB, by directing the United States Sentencing Commission to examine the current penalties and consider increasing them to reflect the seriousness of offenses involving GHB. Currently, GHB penalties are simply too low. In order to get five years for a GHB offense, you have to have more than 13 gallons of the drug, equivalent to 100,000 doses and a street value of about $1 million. According to the DEA, big-time GHB dealers distribute approximately one gallon quantities of the drug, the penalty for which is currently only between 15 and 21 months. These cases simply aren't being prosecuted at the Federal level because the penalties are so low. The Sentencing Commission needs to take a look at this problem and consider raising the penalties for this dangerous drug. But the answer to the problem of drug use at raves is not simply to prosecute irresponsible rave promoters and those who distribute drugs. There is also a responsibility to raise awareness among parents, teachers, students, coaches, religious leaders, etc. about the dangers of the drugs used and sold at raves. The DEA is already doing some of this through its club drug awareness campaign, where DEA agents are holding conferences with local women legislators to get information out about the dangers of these substances. The legislation provides funds to the DEA to continue this important work. Further, the bill authorizes nearly $6 million for the DEA to hire a Demand Reduction Coordinator in each state who can work with communities following the arrest of a significant local trafficker to reduce the demand for drugs through prevention and treatment programs. It is the unfortunate truth that some raves are havens for illicit drugs. Enacting the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act will help to prosecute the promoters who seek to profit from exploiting and endangering young lives and will take steps to educate youth, parents and other interested adults about the dangers of Ecstasy and other club drugs associated with raves. I hope that my colleagues will join me and support this legislation.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my good friend, the senior Senator from Iowa, Senator Grassley, to introduce the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act. This legislation arises out of a hearing Senator Grassley and I held in the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control in December 2001 on the proliferation of Ecstasy and other club drugs generally, and the role of some promoters of all-night dance parties, known as ``raves'', in distributing Ecstasy to young people. Our bill provides Federal prosecutors the tools needed to combat the manufacture, distribution or use of any controlled substance at any venue whose purpose is to engage in illegal narcotics activity. Rather than create a new law, our bill merely amends a well-established statute to make clear that anyone who knowingly and intentionally uses their property, or allows another person to use their property, for the purpose of distributing or manufacturing or using illegal drugs can be held accountable, regardless of whether the drug use is ongoing or occurs at a single event. While my legislation is aimed at the defendant's predatory behavior, regardless of the type of drug or the particular place in which it is being used or distributed, one problem that we are facing currently involves so-called ``club drugs'' and raves. According to a report which the Partnership for a Drug Free America will release in the near future, teens who report attending a rave are seven times more likely to have tried Ecstasy than teens who report not attending a rave. I find this statistic quite troubling. Despite the conventional wisdom that Ecstasy and other club drugs are ``no big deal,'' a view that even the New York Times Magazine espoused in a cover story, these drugs can have serious consequences, and can even be fatal. Just last month we got some encouraging news: after years of steady increase, Ecstasy use is finally beginning to decrease among teens. That said, the rate of use remains unacceptably high and we still have quite a bit of work to do to counter the widespread misconception that Ecstacy is harmless, fashionable and hip. At the Drug Caucus hearing, witnesses testified that rogue rave organizers commonly go to great lengths to portray their events as safe so that parents will allow their kids to attend. They advertise their parties as alcohol-free events and some even hire off-duty police officers to patrol outside the venue. But the truth is that some of these raves are drug dens where use of Ecstasy and other ``club drugs'', such as the date rape drugs Rohypnol, GHB and Ketamine, is widespread. But even as these promoters work to make parents think that their events are safe, they send a different message to kids. Their promotional flyers make clear that drugs are an integral part of the party by prominently featuring terms associated with drug use, such as the letters ``E'' or ``X''--street terms for Ecstasy, or the term ``rollin''', which refers to an Ecstasy high. They are, in effect, promoting Ecstasy along with the rave. By doing so, unscrupulous promoters get rich as they exploit and endanger kids. Some supplement their profits from the $10 to $50 cover charge to enter the club by selling popular Ecstasy paraphernalia such as baby pacifiers, glow sticks, or mentholated inhalers. And predatory party organizers know that Ecstasy raises the core body temperature and makes the user extremely thirsty, so they sell bottles of water for $5 or $10 apiece. Some even shut off the water faucets so club goers will be forced to buy water or pay admission to enter an air-conditioned ``cool down room.'' After the death of a 17-year-old girl at a rave party in New Orleans in 1998, the Drug Enforcement Administration conducted an assessment of rave activity in that city which showed the close relationship between these parties and club drug overdoses. In a two year period, 52 raves were held at the New Orleans State Palace Theater, during which time approximately 400 teenagers overdosed and were treated at local emergency rooms. Following ``Operation Rave Review'' which resulted in the arrest of several rave promoters and closing the city's largest rave, overdoses and emergency room visits dropped by 90 percent and Ecstasy overdoses were eliminated. State and local governments have begun to take important steps to crack down on rave promoters who allow their events to be used as havens for illicit drug activity. In Chicago, where Mayor Daley has shown great leadership on this issue, it is a criminal offense to knowingly maintain a place, such as a rave, where controlled substances are used or distributed. Not only the promoter, but also the building owner and building manager can be charged under Mayor Daley's law. The State of Florida has a similar statute making such activity a felony. And in Modesto, California, police officers are offering ``rave training classes'' to parents to educate them about the dangers associated with some raves and the club drugs often associated with them. At the Federal level, there have been four cases in which Federal prosecutors have used the so called ``crack house statute'' or other Federal charges to go after rogue rave promoters. These cases, in Little Rock, AR, Boise, ID, Panama City, FL, and New Orleans, LA, have had mixed results, culminating in two wins, a loss and a draw, suggesting that there may be a need to tailor this Federal statute more precisely to the problem at hand. As a result, last session I proposed legislation which would do just that. I am reintroducing it today and I am pleased to have Senator Grassley once again as the lead cosponsor. I might note that the legislation is also included in the Democratic leadership crime bill. After I introduced this legislation last year, a great deal of misinformation began circulating about it. I want to make the record clear. Simply stated, my bill provides technical corrections to an existing statute, one which has been on the books for 16 years and is well established. Critics of my bill have asserted that if the legislation were to become law ``there would be no way that someone could hold a concert and not be liable'' and that the bill ``holds the owners and the promoters responsible for the actions of the patrons.'' That is simply untrue. We know that there will always be certain people who will bring drugs into musical or other events and use them without the knowledge or permission of the promoter or club owner. This is not the type of activity that my bill would address. The purpose of my legislation is not to prosecute legitimate law-abiding managers of stadiums, arenas, performing arts centers, licensed beverage facilities and other venues because of incidental drug use at their events. In fact, when crafting this legislation, I took steps to ensure that it did not capture such cases. My bill would help in the prosecution of rogue promoters who not only know that there is drug use at their event but also hold the event for the purpose of illegal drug use or distribution. That is quite a high bar. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the Coalition of Licensed Beverage Associations, COLBA, be printed at the end of my statement. COLBA, who initially expressed concerns that my bill would make their members liable for the actions of their patrons, has endorsed my legislation because they realized that my bill was not aimed at responsible party promoters. I am confident that the overwhelming majority of promoters are decent, law abiding people who are going to discourage drug use, or any other illegal activity, at their venues. But there are a few promoters out there who are taking steps to profit from drug activity at their events. Some of these folks actually distribute drugs themselves or have their staff distribute drugs, get kickbacks from drug sales at their events, have thinly veiled drug messages on their promotional flyers, tell their security to ignore drug use or sales, or send patients who need medical attention because of a drug overdose to a hospital across town so that people won't link emergency room visits with their club. What they are doing is illegal under current law. My bill would not change that fact. Let me be clear. Neither current law nor my bill seeks to punish a promoter for the behavior of their patrons. As I mentioned, the underlying crack house statute has been on the books since 1986, and I am unaware of this statute ever being used to prosecute a legitimate business. The legislation simply amends the current ``crack house statute'' in two minor ways. First, it clarifies that Congress intended for the law to apply not just to ongoing drug distribution operations, but to ``single-event'' activities, such as a party where the promoter sponsors the event with the purpose of distributing Ecstasy or other illegal drugs. After all, a drug dealer can be arrested and prosecuted for selling one bag of drugs, and the government need not show that the dealer is selling day after day, or to multiple sellers. Likewise, the bill clarifies that a ``one-time'' event where the promoter knowingly distributes Ecstasy over the course of an evening, for example, violates the statute the same as a crack house which is in operation over a period of time. Second, the bill makes the law apply to outdoor as well as indoor venues, such as where a rogue rave promoter uses a field to hold a rave for the purpose of distributing a controlled substance. Those are the only changes the bill makes to the crack house statute. It does not give the Federal Government sweeping new powers as the detractors have asserted. Critics of the bill have also claimed that it would provide a disincentive for promoters to take steps to protect the public health of their patrons including providing water or air conditioned rooms, making sure that there is an ambulance on the premises, etc. That is not my intention. And to underscore that fact, I plan to remove the findings, which is the only place in the bill where these items are mentioned, from the bill. Certainly there are legitimate reasons for selling water, having a room where people can cool down after dancing, or having an ambulance on hand. Clearly, the presence of any of these things is not enough to signify that an event is ``for the purpose of'' drug use. The reason that I introduced this bill was not to ban dancing, kill the ``rave scene'' or silence electronic music, all things of which I have been accused. Although this legislation grew out of testimony I heard at a number of hearings about the problems identified at raves, the criminal and civil penalties in the bill would also apply to people who promoted any type of event for the purpose of drug use or distribution. If rave promoters and sponsors operate such events as they are so often advertised as places for people to come dance in a safe, drug-free environment then they have nothing to fear from this law. In no way is this bill aimed at stifling any type of music or expression it is only trying to deter illicit drug use and protect kids. Last year people criticized the bill's title, the ``RAVE Act'', because they thought it was unfairly targeting raves. Although I do not believe that I was unfairly targeting anybody, I have changed the title to the ``Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act of 2003.'' In addition to amending the crack house statute, the legislation also addresses the low penalties for trafficking gamma hydroxybutyric acid, GHB, by directing the United States Sentencing Commission to examine the current penalties and consider increasing them to reflect the seriousness of offenses involving GHB. Currently, GHB penalties are simply too low. In order to get five years for a GHB offense, you have to have more than 13 gallons of the drug, equivalent to 100,000 doses and a street value of about $1 million. According to the DEA, big-time GHB dealers distribute approximately one gallon quantities of the drug, the penalty for which is currently only between 15 and 21 months. These cases simply aren't being prosecuted at the Federal level because the penalties are so low. The Sentencing Commission needs to take a look at this problem and consider raising the penalties for this dangerous drug. But the answer to the problem of drug use at raves is not simply to prosecute irresponsible rave promoters and those who distribute drugs. There is also a responsibility to raise awareness among parents, teachers, students, coaches, religious leaders, etc. about the dangers of the drugs used and sold at raves. The DEA is already doing some of this through its club drug awareness campaign, where DEA agents are holding conferences with local women legislators to get information out about the dangers of these substances. The legislation provides funds to the DEA to continue this important work. Further, the bill authorizes nearly $6 million for the DEA to hire a Demand Reduction Coordinator in each state who can work with communities following the arrest of a significant local trafficker to reduce the demand for drugs through prevention and treatment programs. It is the unfortunate truth that some raves are havens for illicit drugs. Enacting the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act will help to prosecute the promoters who seek to profit from exploiting and endangering young lives and will take steps to educate youth, parents and other interested adults about the dangers of Ecstasy and other club drugs associated with raves. I hope that my colleagues will join me and support this legislation.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep concern about a deadly attack that occurred last August in West Papua, Indonesia, and to call on the Government of Indonesia to cooperate fully with U.S. law enforcement authorities to ensure that those responsible are brought to justice. Ted Burgon of Oregon and Rick Spier of Colorado were gunned down along with an Indonesian, Bambang Riwanto. Eight Americans were injured: Nancy Burgon, Saundra Hopkins, Ken Balk, and Taia Hopkins, all of Oregon, Patsy Spier of Colorado, Francine Goodfriend of Illinois, Steven Emma of Florida, and Lynn Poston, of Washington State. The victims, school teachers from the International School and their families, were associated with the Freeport-McMoran mine in West Papua. I speak to this issue because the bill before us restores funding for International Military Education and Training programs for Indonesia. Before we do that, I think we need some answers. Mr. President, there is troubling evidence that members of the Indonesian military may have been behind the attack. It occurred less than half a mile from an Indonesian military outpost. Hundreds of rounds were fired at the teachers and their vehicles during the ambush, which lasted 45 minutes, but the military was very slow to respond and failed to apprehend any of the assailants. The Indonesian police promptly began an investigation. They collected evidence, interviewed witnesses, and reconstructed the ambush. The senior police official in charge said last December that there is evidence that soldiers from the army's strategic reserve force were involved in the shooting. This same senior police official also reported last November that a witness to the ambush reported seeing members of the Indonesian army's special forces participating in the attack. The motive? The Army may have hoped to blame the murders on West Papuan rebels who have been fighting a low level insurgency for years seeking independence from Indonesia. Bottom line: The police report on the murders concludes, quote: ``there is a strong possibility that the case was perpetrated by members of the Indonesian National Army Force, however, it still needs to be investigated further.'' Well, guess what happened? After they pointed the finger at the military, the two senior police officials on the case, General Raziman and Assistant Senior Police Commissioner Sumarjiyo were mysteriously transferred, removed from all responsibility for investigating the murders. The investigation was handed over to the Indonesian military itself! Not surprisingly, the military concluded that the armed forces had nothing to do with the killings. Mr. President, this is the same military that denied all culpability for gross violations of human rights over 25 years in East Timor and Aceh. The same military that has armed, trained, and protected militant Islamic groups associated with grotesque, religiously motivated attacks on innocent civilians elsewhere in Indonesia. Mr. President, it is essential that the United States secure the full support of Indonesia--a nation of 200 million people, most of them Muslims--in the war on terrorism. Indonesia itself has been the target of terrorists, as we witnessed last year in the terrible bombing on Bali that left hundreds dead and injured, many of them Australian tourists. It is appropriate that in the wake of 9/11, the United States has sought ways to strengthen our ties to Indonesia, including considering the resumption of normal military training for the Indonesian Army. Civilian authorities in Jakarta and some officers within the military are trying to end the culture of impunity that has prevailed for the past 30 years. I think it is in our national interests to establish appropriate links to the Indonesian armed forces to improve their professionalism, enhance intelligence sharing, and help prevent future terrorist attacks in Indonesia or elsewhere. But that does not mean we should turn a blind eye to continuing abuses by the Indonesian Army. We will not be doing ourselves or the Indonesian people any favors if we ally ourselves with those who may themselves be responsible for criminal acts. Before we jump to restore IMET funding for Indonesia, I hope that President Bush will give us his assurance that we are getting the full cooperation of Indonesian authorities. The FBI should have full access to all the evidence and to the witnesses to the attack. An independent investigation should be launched of the possible Indonesian military involvement. These are American citizens we are talking about. Victims, perhaps, of a cynical effort to manipulate United States public opinion and convince our government to increase aid to the Indonesian armed forces as part of the war on terrorism. We need to get to the bottom of what happened.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, on October 7, 2002, the President of the United States said something very important about United Nations inspections in Iraq. He said: ``Clearly, to actually work, any new inspections . . . will have to be very different. . . . To ensure that we learn the truth, the regime must allow witnesses to its illegal activities to be interviewed outside the country--and these witnesses must be free to bring their families with them so they are all beyond the reach of Saddam Hussein's terror and murder. And inspectors must have access to any site, at any time, without pre-clearance, without delay, without exceptions.'' The President was right on the money about inspections. This is how to get the information the world needs on Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. Inspections are vital to stripping him of those banned weapons. The United Nations responded properly to the President's challenge. On November 8, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1441, which provided: . . . that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC's or the IAEA's choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi government.'' The inspectors are given unprecedented authority. But how are they to implement it? Where will those weapons scientists and their families go, once they've told the truth about Saddam's weapons programs? They can't go home again. And at least in the short run, there will be no safe haven in the region for people who reveal Saddam's most terrible secrets. Maybe some can go to Europe, although both al Qaeda cells and Saddam's agents have operated there. Maybe some can go to Canada, or to South America. If the United States wants the world to show resolve in dealing with Saddam Hussein, however, then we must take the lead in admitting those people who have the courage to betray Saddam's nuclear, chemical, biological or missile programs. We have a large country in which to absorb those people, and, for all our problems, we have the best law enforcement and security apparatus to guard them. What we do not have is an immigration system that readily admits large numbers of persons who were involved with weapons of mass destruction, have aided a country in the sop-called ``axis of evil,'' and are bringing their families. I introduced legislation last October, therefore, to admit to our country those personnel, and their families, who give critical and reliable information on Saddam's programs to us, to the United Nations, or to the International Atomic Energy Agency. On November 20, the Senate passed an amended version of that bill, S. 3079, with the strong support of the Administration; but there was not enough time for the House of Representatives to act on the legislation. Two months have passed since inspections were resumed in Iraq. The new inspectors are gaining experience, as well as actionable intelligence from the United States and other countries. They are beginning to find unreported weapons; and every weapon destroyed is a weapon that will never be used to cause mass destruction or to attack U.S. forces. But inspectors have had a hard time getting truthful information from the Iraqis they interview. Saddam Hussein terrorizes his people, including his weapons scientists, so effectively that they are afraid to be interviewed in private, let alone outside the country. They know that even the appearance of cooperation could be a death sentence for themselves or their families. To overcome this obstacle, and to discover and dismantle Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, UNMOVIC and the IAEA must interview relevant persons securely and with their families protected, even if they protest publicly against this treatment. Hans Blix may dislike running ``a defection agency,'' but that could be the only way to obtain truthful information about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. The protests of those interviewed can actually be helpful, as they prevent Saddam from knowing which of his personnel may be willing to tell the truth once they and their families are given a secure environment. The United States must help UNMOVIC and the IAEA to create that secure environment. So, today I am re-introducing the Iraqi Scientists Immigration Act. I am joined by my esteemed colleague on the Judiciary Committee, Senator Specter of Pennsylvania, who co-sponsored the original bill, and also by the chairmen of the Foreign Relations Committee and the Judiciary Committee Senator Lugar of Indiana and Senator Hatch of Utah. I have been assured, moreover, that the Administration remains eager to see this bill enacted. This bill is not political. Rather, it is a bipartisan effort to help the President succeed in forcing Iraq to destroy all its weapons of mass destruction capabilities. I urge my colleagues to support quick action on this legislation. Iraqis will not come forward unless we offer protection to them and their families. Those who are willing to provide truthful information will merit our protection. And their information will help disarm Saddam Hussein; it will save lives if we have to go to war; and it could even help us to disarm Saddam without a war. Current law includes several means of either paroling non-immigrants into the United States or admitting people for permanent residence, notwithstanding their normal inadmissibility under the law. These are very limited provisions, however, and they will not suffice to accommodate hundreds of Iraqi scientists and their families. The legislation that I am re-introducing, the ``Iraqi Scientists Immigration Act of 2003,'' will permit the Attorney General, on a case- by-case basis in coordination with the Secretary of State and the Director of Central Intelligence, to admit a foreigner and his family if such person: has worked in an Iraqi program to produce weapons of mass destruction or the means to deliver them; is willing to supply or has supplied critical and reliable information on that program to an agency of the United States Government; may be willing to supply or has supplied such information to United Nations or IAEA inspectors; and will be or has been placed in danger as a result of providing such information. The Attorney General will also have the authority to give legal permanent resident status to persons who provide the promised information. Finally, this legislation will be limited to the admission of 500 scientists, plus their families. If it works and we need to enlarge the program, we can do so. The important thing to do now is to give our country the initial authority, and to give United Nations inspectors the ability to reassure Saddam's nuclear, chemical, biological and missile experts that they and their families will be protected if they help the world to bring those programs down. President Bush, other world leaders, and the inspectors in Iraq are trying to disarm a tyrant whose arms programs make him a danger to world peace. And they are trying to do this without going to war, even as we prepare to wage that war if necessary. We owe it to the inspectors to give them every chance to succeed. We owe it to the President to give him the tools he needs to help those inspectors. We owe it to Iraq's people and its neighbors to do everything we can to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction programs. And we owe it to our own people to do all we can to achieve that end peacefully, and with international support. This bill is a small, but vital step toward those ends. I urge my colleagues to give it their immediate attention and support. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, on October 7, 2002, the President of the United States said something very important about United Nations inspections in Iraq. He said: ``Clearly, to actually work, any new inspections . . . will have to be very different. . . . To ensure that we learn the truth, the regime must allow witnesses to its illegal activities to be interviewed outside the country--and these witnesses must be free to bring their families with them so they are all beyond the reach of Saddam Hussein's terror and murder. And inspectors must have access to any site, at any time, without pre-clearance, without delay, without exceptions.'' The President was right on the money about inspections. This is how to get the information the world needs on Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. Inspections are vital to stripping him of those banned weapons. The United Nations responded properly to the President's challenge. On November 8, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1441, which provided: . . . that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC's or the IAEA's choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi government.'' The inspectors are given unprecedented authority. But how are they to implement it? Where will those weapons scientists and their families go, once they've told the truth about Saddam's weapons programs? They can't go home again. And at least in the short run, there will be no safe haven in the region for people who reveal Saddam's most terrible secrets. Maybe some can go to Europe, although both al Qaeda cells and Saddam's agents have operated there. Maybe some can go to Canada, or to South America. If the United States wants the world to show resolve in dealing with Saddam Hussein, however, then we must take the lead in admitting those people who have the courage to betray Saddam's nuclear, chemical, biological or missile programs. We have a large country in which to absorb those people, and, for all our problems, we have the best law enforcement and security apparatus to guard them. What we do not have is an immigration system that readily admits large numbers of persons who were involved with weapons of mass destruction, have aided a country in the sop-called ``axis of evil,'' and are bringing their families. I introduced legislation last October, therefore, to admit to our country those personnel, and their families, who give critical and reliable information on Saddam's programs to us, to the United Nations, or to the International Atomic Energy Agency. On November 20, the Senate passed an amended version of that bill, S. 3079, with the strong support of the Administration; but there was not enough time for the House of Representatives to act on the legislation. Two months have passed since inspections were resumed in Iraq. The new inspectors are gaining experience, as well as actionable intelligence from the United States and other countries. They are beginning to find unreported weapons; and every weapon destroyed is a weapon that will never be used to cause mass destruction or to attack U.S. forces. But inspectors have had a hard time getting truthful information from the Iraqis they interview. Saddam Hussein terrorizes his people, including his weapons scientists, so effectively that they are afraid to be interviewed in private, let alone outside the country. They know that even the appearance of cooperation could be a death sentence for themselves or their families. To overcome this obstacle, and to discover and dismantle Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, UNMOVIC and the IAEA must interview relevant persons securely and with their families protected, even if they protest publicly against this treatment. Hans Blix may dislike running ``a defection agency,'' but that could be the only way to obtain truthful information about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. The protests of those interviewed can actually be helpful, as they prevent Saddam from knowing which of his personnel may be willing to tell the truth once they and their families are given a secure environment. The United States must help UNMOVIC and the IAEA to create that secure environment. So, today I am re-introducing the Iraqi Scientists Immigration Act. I am joined by my esteemed colleague on the Judiciary Committee, Senator Specter of Pennsylvania, who co-sponsored the original bill, and also by the chairmen of the Foreign Relations Committee and the Judiciary Committee Senator Lugar of Indiana and Senator Hatch of Utah. I have been assured, moreover, that the Administration remains eager to see this bill enacted. This bill is not political. Rather, it is a bipartisan effort to help the President succeed in forcing Iraq to destroy all its weapons of mass destruction capabilities. I urge my colleagues to support quick action on this legislation. Iraqis will not come forward unless we offer protection to them and their families. Those who are willing to provide truthful information will merit our protection. And their information will help disarm Saddam Hussein; it will save lives if we have to go to war; and it could even help us to disarm Saddam without a war. Current law includes several means of either paroling non-immigrants into the United States or admitting people for permanent residence, notwithstanding their normal inadmissibility under the law. These are very limited provisions, however, and they will not suffice to accommodate hundreds of Iraqi scientists and their families. The legislation that I am re-introducing, the ``Iraqi Scientists Immigration Act of 2003,'' will permit the Attorney General, on a case- by-case basis in coordination with the Secretary of State and the Director of Central Intelligence, to admit a foreigner and his family if such person: has worked in an Iraqi program to produce weapons of mass destruction or the means to deliver them; is willing to supply or has supplied critical and reliable information on that program to an agency of the United States Government; may be willing to supply or has supplied such information to United Nations or IAEA inspectors; and will be or has been placed in danger as a result of providing such information. The Attorney General will also have the authority to give legal permanent resident status to persons who provide the promised information. Finally, this legislation will be limited to the admission of 500 scientists, plus their families. If it works and we need to enlarge the program, we can do so. The important thing to do now is to give our country the initial authority, and to give United Nations inspectors the ability to reassure Saddam's nuclear, chemical, biological and missile experts that they and their families will be protected if they help the world to bring those programs down. President Bush, other world leaders, and the inspectors in Iraq are trying to disarm a tyrant whose arms programs make him a danger to world peace. And they are trying to do this without going to war, even as we prepare to wage that war if necessary. We owe it to the inspectors to give them every chance to succeed. We owe it to the President to give him the tools he needs to help those inspectors. We owe it to Iraq's people and its neighbors to do everything we can to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction programs. And we owe it to our own people to do all we can to achieve that end peacefully, and with international support. This bill is a small, but vital step toward those ends. I urge my colleagues to give it their immediate attention and support. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of all those who breathe and I want to thank the sponsors of this amendment for their efforts. I say that half in jest, because I get the feeling that those who are trying to weaken our clean air laws often forget why we passed them in the first place--so we all can breathe cleaner, healthier air. I certainly support the most efficient and effective regulations we can devise to curb pollution, and I agree with the statement that the New Source Review Program could use some reform, but we must not lose sight of the fact that these rules are designed first and foremost to protect public health. The Bush administration has shifted priorities from protecting the public to protecting polluters from doing their best. The Bush administration is protecting special interests, rather than protecting our environment and the public health. That is unacceptable and threatens to reverse the progress we have made as a nation to protect our citizens from health threats in the workplace and environment. This is a serious issue for the people in my state of Delaware. We live in a region that is in non-attainment with the Federal ozone standard. Bottom line, we don't meet the current health-based standards. But not all of our air pollution comes from industry in Delaware. We could do everything right and still not be in compliance. What our neighbors do and what industries do in other parts of the country affects us and our ability to breathe clean air. If power plants in Pennsylvania, Maryland or even West Virginia and Ohio aren't required to do all they can to reduce harmful emissions, we pay the price in higher respiratory illnesses and premature deaths, particularly among children and the elderly. To me, that is all the more reason that we should be tightening the rules, reducing emissions from coal-fired power plants, instead of making it easier for the utility companies. But you know what is so surprising to me, what I just can't understand--the administration has no data to even suggest that these changes will improve air quality, nor have they conducted any analysis, studies, anything. Show me that the changes will not cause a deterioration in the quality of our air. Show me that children and the elderly will not have to worry about being outside in the summer. Show me that states like Delaware will benefit. And we, my colleagues in the Senate and I, have asked . . . repeatedly! That is why this amendment is so important. This amendment does two things. First, it would prevent the implementation of the rule changes prior to September 15, 2003. Second, it simply asks for a rigorous analysis of the air pollution and public health impacts of the proposed rule changes. The National Academy of Sciences would be tasked with completing this study by August 15, 2003. Sure, it would have made sense to do the analysis before the changes were published in the Federal Register, but it is not too late. I want to share briefly a success story from my state of Delaware where we helped pioneer the Plantwide Applicability Limit, or so-called PAL permit. PAL is an innovative approach where separate process permitting requirements are consolidated in exchange for greater pollution reductions. This allows flexibility for plant process expansion and modification while saving businesses time and money. And it works. One permit Delaware helped pioneer was at DaimlerChrysler's Newark Delaware Assembly Plant, where the Dodge Durango is manufactured. The plant focuses primarily on vehicle coating--painting--and assembly of parts produced at other DaimierChrysler facilities to produce finished vehicles. Years ago, when it wanted to start producing the Durango, the plant had to build a new state-of-the-art paint shop in a new building. Permit applications for this new process triggered New Source Review requirements for non-attainment areas. Working with the EPA, one of the first ever PAL permits was issued to the plant in 1996. And, the permit, the first of its kind for the automotive industry, was issued in 99 days. The plant continues to operate under this flexible permit and, as an added benefit, has saved Chrysler $13 million in increased productivity and pollution prevention. This was a win-win situation. Chrysler won with a permit that gave them flexibility to meet production needs and Delaware citizens won through reduced air pollution. Not surprising, Delaware does not believe it could repeat the pollution prevention performance of the PAL permit it issued under the new rule and is opposing the reform proposal. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Give us 6 months to find out. Send the right message. Let's not forget that these rules are designed to protect public health, not to protect industry from fulfilling its civic duty. Let's not reverse the progress we have made over the past three decades.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, may I ask the Senator from Nevada a question about what he just stated?

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Nevada, what confuses me about what the Senator from Pennsylvania said, and others have said, and is disturbing, our friends on the other side of the aisle have an incredible definition of what constitutes security. The idea that we would at this moment cut the end strength of the U.S. military, there would be 100 out of 100 Senators in opposition on the floor. The idea that we are like those soccer moms we talk so much about, they are no longer soccer moms, I suggest. They are security moms. They are literally worried about whether or not in their children's schoolyard, in their shopping center, in their daily routine, they and/ or their family might be a victim of terrorism. If this war is a war the President talks so much about, with good reason, a war on terror, I assume we are saying the same thing. A war on terror is not a war that is only being conducted by special forces overseas, but the war on terror is in the United States. What is the greatest concern Americans have? It is that something is going to happen as happened on September 11. I ask this of these friends of ours on the other side of the aisle. I think they mean well. They talk about the fact they do not want to grow government. I ask, How are you going to combat terror in the United States of America, in Washington, DC; in Omaha, NE; in Wilmington, DE; in San Francisco, CA; how are you going to confront terror, combat terror? How are you going to make our nuclear powerplant that is right across the river from tens of thousands of Delawareans secure? How are you going to make sure there are no Americans subject to poison gas attacks, the water supply being polluted, chemical agents, or, God forbid, biological weapons. The only way to do that, it seems to me, is with more defense. What is the defense? That is homeland defense. The defense is the FBI, local law enforcement; the defense is domestic surveillance, domestic operations. My friends keep saying they do not want to grow government. What the devil are they talking about? They just cut 1,100 FBI agents. They shrank government. If tomorrow they took this similar percentage of U.S. Marines and cut them, we would say: My God, what are they doing? They are crazy. A U.S. marine, I ask my friend from Nevada, who is going to confront a terrorist on the Mall in Washington, DC, or at a nuclear powerplant in Nevada or Delaware, who will confront that person? Who will track them down? Is it a marine? A special forces person? No, it is going to be a law enforcement officer. These fellows have, unintentionally, I hope, emasculated law enforcement. They have cut the COPS Program that put 100,000 cops on the street. They eliminated that. They transferred, necessarily, 570- some FBI agents out of violent crime strike forces toward terror. They have reduced the coverage in the States. They have now cut another roughly 1,100 FBI agents, eliminated any help for local law enforcement. They ballooned--as a consequence of that, in part--the budget of all these States, and they proudly stand here and say: We are not going to grow government. I raise my hand; I want to grow government to fight terror. I want to grow the number of FBI agents. I want to grow the number of CIA agents. I want to grow the number of police officers. I want to grow the ability to defend my family from a terrorist attack on a nuclear powerplant in my region, all of which are exposed now. They are exposed. I hope my friends, when they come to the floor, will explain to me why an increase in the deficit to maintain the end strength of the FBI is less worthy than increasing the deficit over 10 years by half a billion, counting interest, to give people a deduction, no taxes, on their dividends.

Mr. BIDEN. I was only talking about the dividends.

Mr. BIDEN. If the Senator will yield briefly--and I will yield the floor--I appreciate the response. I have no doubt and I do not disagree with anything the Senator has said overall, but I am just suggesting that I wonder how any Members will explain at home, if, God forbid, one of our nuclear powerplants is blown up; if, God forbid, sarin gas is released in the tunnels under New York City; if, God forbid, any number of other things I could mention, which I won't because they will frighten people, happen, I wonder how any Member will explain how we justified, in the name of not growing government, reducing the number of what I call domestic defense officials, the number of FBI agents, the law enforcement agents, the number of people who, in fact, have as their primary responsibility, the security of our people. A government's first and foremost responsibility is security. It is not tax equity, it is security. Security. I am here to say we are skating perilously close to a disaster line here for failing to step up to the plate. My last comment is I made a speech on September 10 to the National Press Club making the same argument I am making now. It was at that time thought to be somehow a little bit of--we can't afford it. The argument I made on September 10 at the National Press Club was we were ignoring domestic security and international terror at our peril and I laid out what we were not doing. Let me say to you, I will be back on the floor again and again because I do not want my children or my grandchildren saying to me: Where were you during the war, daddy? Put it another way: Where were you when we were fighting terrorism, or supposed to be fighting terrorism? Why were you cutting law enforcement, cutting the FBI? Why were you cutting the very agencies that were designed to protect our security, that mom in her living room, her child in her school, her husband on the subway? Where were you? I think we are misguided, in terms of the majority view on this floor. I want to grow government to defeat terror. I want to do it with people with guns. I want to do it with people with might. I want to do it with people with intelligence capability. I want to stop it before it happens. You cannot convince me you can do a better job with fewer people. I thank my friend.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor Senator Harkin's amendment to restore full funding to the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program, a program which is used to fund crime and drug prevention programs in communities nationwide. The bill before use today cuts the Byrne grant program by $500 million, in essence eviscerating it. I have trouble understanding why anyone would choose to decrease funding for a program that strives to improve the criminal justice system and increase public safety. Cutting this program has real consequences in my home State of Delaware. There, Byrne grant money goes to fund a wide range of significant drug abuse and prevention programs, juvenile crime initiatives and other criminal justice projects, including: Delaware's Key and Crest programs, which help criminal offenders get off of drugs and decrease there chance of re-offending once they are released from jail; drug treatment services for criminal offenders in drug court programs; drunk driving patrols in Dover, DE; and drug prevention programs such as ``Heroin Hurts'' which educates teens about the dangers of the deadly pure heroin available in my State. The Byrne program is distributed as a block grant to each State, based on a State's population. Delaware typically receives almost $2.5 million per year. It's critical funding, funding that secures the hometown and that helps keep our kids safe and drug-free. I could go on about the good Byrne has done in Delaware. We have used Byrne funds to create eight community-based crime prevention programs around my State. In New Castle County and Dover, these programs offered training and services to adults and youth in high crime areas. Another project identified hate crime hotspots throughout New Castle County and increased police services through a specialized hate crime unit to those areas. We have used Byrne funds to train prison officers, to improve our criminal justice records, and to expand the Delaware State Police's crime mapping project. Byrne is an incredibly flexible law enforcement program. It's amazing to me that we would propose to eliminate it in this bill. I will fight this cut, and I am pleased to stand with my friend from Iowa in offering this amendment to restore Byrne funds. Mr. President, I cannot fathom why my colleagues are doing this. This is the single most popular, effective program that has existed in helping State law enforcement. Everybody on that side knows that. It has all the Republican attributes. It is flexible. It is one of those programs that the States like very much. The Presiding Officer from South Carolina knows how it works in South Carolina, and in this rush to be able to make room for these cockamamie priorities, what are we doing? We are cutting FBI agents. We eliminate the Violent Crimes Task Force. The FBI cannot function in the States on ordinary crimes such as bank robbery and interstate car theft. We cut another 800 FBI agents, or thereabouts, under this proposal. We are cutting the COPS program. I think my colleagues have it backwards. I think this is the most cockamamie idea I have heard in a long while. This narrow definition of a constitutional national defense is going to come back to bite us.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor Senator Harkin's amendment to restore full funding to the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program, a program which is used to fund crime and drug prevention programs in communities nationwide. The bill before us today cuts the Byrne grant program by $500 million, in essence eviscerating it. I have trouble understanding why anyone would choose to decrease funding for a program that strives to improve the criminal justice system and increase public safety. Cutting this program has real consequences in my home state of Delaware. There, Byrne grant money goes to fund a wide range of significant drug abuse and prevention programs, juvenile crime initiatives and other criminal justice projects, including: Delaware's Key and Crest programs, which help criminal offenders get off of drugs and decrease their chance of re-offending once they are released from jail; Drug treatment services for criminal offenders in drug court programs; Drunk driving patrols in Dover, DE; Drug prevention programs such as ``Heroin Hurts'' which educates teens about the dangers of the deadly pure heroin available in my State. The Byrne program is distributed as a block grant to each state, based on a State's population. Delaware typically receives almost $2.5 million per year. It's critical funding--funding that secures the hometown and that helps keep our kids safe and drug-free. I could go on about the good Byrne has done in Delaware. We have used Byrne funds to create eight community-based crime prevention programs around my state. In New Castle County and Dover, these programs offered training and services to adults and youth in high crime areas. Another project identified hate crime hotspots throughout New Castle County and increased police services through a specialized hate crime unit to those areas. We have used Byrne funds to train prison officers, to improve our criminal justice records, and to expand the Delaware State Police's crime mapping project. Byrne is an incredibly flexible law enforcement program. It's amazing to me that we would propose to eliminate it in this bill. I will fight this cut, and I am pleased to stand with my friend from Iowa in offering this amendment to restore Byrne funds.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I rise today to, quite frankly, compliment and add to the comments of my friend from West Virginia, Senator Byrd--although I will not be as eloquent--who spoke today on Iraq and Korea and national security policy. Before I do, there was an intervening comment exchange that was made on the floor earlier relating to the Michigan University cases. I rise at this moment not to speak on whether or not the merits of the Michigan cases or the merits of the Michigan admissions policies are constitutional or unconstitutional. My instinct, in what little I know about it, is that it seems to be constitutional because there is a two-pronged equal protection test that has to be met; and that is, does the University's consideration of race as one of many factors in making admissions decisions constitute a compelling Government interest, and if it does, is it narrowly tailored. It appears, from what I have read in the press, that it is. But I want to respond in the next 2 minutes to something my friend from Pennsylvania, my neighbor, Senator Santorum, said. He talked about this point system. I just want to remind everyone how the University of Michigan's policy works, which is like many other universities. Under the University's undergraduate admissions process, every applicant can get up to 150 points in seeking admission. My assumption is, what the university does, it reviews all of the applications from applicants. No one gets 150 points, necessarily, but there are methods by which you can get up to 150 points. Madam President, 110 of the 150 points are strictly related to academic criteria. They relate to GPA, the school you went to, the high school you went to, the curricula you took, your SAT scores, et cetera. Forty points are up for grabs, and they relate to nonacademic factors. It is possible for a minority to get 20 points because of his minority status. People are pointing to that as saying that is unfair. Well, forget the constitutional detailed arguments for just a moment, because we will have plenty of time to make those on the floor. I want everyone to remind themselves what the rest of the University of Michigan policy allows. If you are the son or daughter of alumni, you get 4 points. If you come from an underrepresented county within the State of Michigan, you can get up to 16 points. If you are a Michigan resident, you get 10 points. If you are from an underrepresented State, you get 2 points. Let me translate this. And I do not mean this as a criticism of anybody else's State. The most competitive, the most difficult place to gain admission, the most difficult geographic States to gain admission to the most elite colleges are Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York. It is harder to get into competitive colleges if you're a resident of those States. If you are from Mississippi or Alabama or Alaska and have the same scores as students from these northeast states--like my son or daughter from Delaware, and my nephew from Pennsylvania--and everything else is equal, the child from Mississippi or Alabama or Alaska will get into the school before the child from Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, or Maryland. That's because--rightly or wrongly--the academic standards in these latter States are considered to be higher, and the competition is more intense. So that is a literal fact of life. You say: OK, well, why in God's name would some child who does not have quite the same marks, or has the same marks, from the Midwest or Alaska or the Deep South have an advantage over a child from a New England State or a mid-Atlantic State? The reason is not to benefit the child. It is to benefit all the other students in the university. Because we have made a judgment, historically, in this Nation that it is better for my child to go to school with someone from Alaska, Mississippi, South Carolina, North Carolina--all across the Nation--than it is to go to school with everybody being from Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware. It has been a judgment educators have made. And the more elite the university, the more diversity, geographically, they seek. It is the same way, I might add, that Rhodes Scholarships are, in fact, awarded. It is a heck of a lot harder to get a Rhodes Scholarship as a resident from New York State than it is from South Dakota. That is a fact--a fact. It is the competition pool. Why? More money per pupil tends to be spent in those richer States than in the States that are not as wealthy. So what have we done? In everything we do about education, we seek, as a goal, not to reward the student, the diverse student who is coming in, but the goal is to reward the student body that is there to expose them to diversity. It is good that my middle-Atlantic State daughter is in a school with people who talk to you like this--you know what I mean--like y'all do in the South. It is a good thing. She should be exposed to that. It is good your southern son or daughter knows and has someone in class that talks like they are from Brooklyn. It is a good thing. Some may disagree, but that has been a national consensus. Like geography, race is one of those factors colleges do and should consider. The only generic point I want to make to people, as a Senator who opposes quotas--that is not hyperbole; I oppose quotas; and I have a 30-year voting record about that--but what is good for the goose is good for the gander. All of you who tell me this is a level playing field, give me a break. If your daddy happened to go to that school, it is not wrong that you get a preference. But at least admit you are getting a preference. Stop this game, this silly little game. If, in fact, you come from a State that is poor, stop pretending to me that it is a level playing field for a kid from Mississippi to get to Harvard versus a kid from Westchester County, NY to get to Harvard. Give me a break. Let's stop being phony around here. I am not suggesting anybody is phony. I am just trying to inform those of you who have not had a chance to think of this how things actually work, how they actually work. And, by the way, even on the academic side, you get somewhere between zero and 10 points based on the school you went to. The school I went to is a Catholic prep school, with mostly middle class kids. My daughter, who is now a senior in college, graduated from that same school several years ago. If my memory serves me correctly, I believe that out of 114 kids in her graduating class, 69 passed five or more advanced placement tests, meaning that they tested out of their entire first semesters at the universities they attended--69 out of 114 passed five or more AP tests. According to what was then put out by the SAT outfit out of New Jersey, these kids represented the highest number in the region to test out of their first semester classes, and one of the highest in the country--this little old Catholic school I went to. Guess what. It costs 14 grand a year to go to that school. Now, my daughter, I am confident, were she applying to Michigan, could have gotten up to 18 points--up to 10 for the quality of the school and up to an additional 8 for the quality of her curriculum. And not because of anything she had, but because her old man was able to borrow the money with her mother to pay for her to go to that school and expose her to that. She may have gotten B's and my sons who went there or I who went there may have gotten B's, while a kid from a little one-room schoolhouse--some States still have one-room schoolhouses, not many--from a small school in, say, North Dakota, where you have 20 kids in a senior class, that kid got a B, same grade point. My daughter may have gotten up to 18 points; the kid from North Dakota, with the same grade point average, may get no added points. How does it really work? A Black kid in west Philadelphia, he might have gotten B's from a school we all acknowledge isn't that great a school. My daughter gets an 18-point bump on the academic side because she went to a school that costs--guess what, when I went there, it cost $900 a year, now it is 15, 14 grand. How many middle-class Black kids out there are able to pay 14 grand, or Hispanic, Latino kids? So I just think we should be honest about this. There is a legitimate constitutional argument to make and a test that Michigan is going to have to prove, and they should have to prove. There is a two-prong test here. When you are in a suspect category-- race is a suspect category--there are two tests: One, is there a compelling Government interest in using race as one of many factors to achieve a diverse class, and, two, is that use narrowly tailored. I think Michigan can prove that. I haven't done all the work. I teach constitutional law; I think I know a little about it. I can't say to the Chamber, I am guaranteeing I know the Michigan test is constitutional. They should have to prove it. No problem. I think they will. But let's not kid each other. OK? Level playing fields? I will conclude this part and get on to what I was going to speak about and just look at it. Of the total 150 points an applicant to the University of Michigan can get, 40 points are for non-academic factors. You can get 20 points if you're an underrepresented minority, but also if you're a scholarship athlete, or if you're a kid who is socio-economically disadvantaged; you can get 10 points if you're a Michigan resident, 16 points if you live in 2 particular counties in Michigan; 4 points if your parents are alumni; 3 points for your required personal essay; 5 points for personal achievement; 5 points for leadership and service and, guess what--I say to my friend who went to a great, great university, the Presiding Officer, Duke University, one of the great universities in America; this will not surprise her, I suspect--the provost has 20 points of discretion. How about that one? The provost has 20 points of discretion. Do you think the provost is more likely to receive a phone call from the chairman of the board of General Motors, or do you think the provost is likely to take a phone call from Rashid's mother in Detroit? My colleagues, as the kids used to say, let's get real. Let's acknowledge the truth of this. There is no absolutely totally blind test out there. I am not criticizing. Universities have a reason for giving alumni preference. How do you think Harvard was built? There is a little red book on how Harvard's endowment was built. You build loyalty to a university. People then do things for the university. That is a good thing, not a bad thing. It is a good thing. There is geographic diversity. It is a good thing that there is discretion built in. But if you are going to take this purest view that race can never be considered, that minority status can't be considered and you want to be fair, be fair. Cash in your senatorial credentials when you start writing recommendations. OK? Don't write a recommendation. You want to be really fair? Be like every other person out there, do you know what I mean? Maybe it is because I come from a place called Claymont. I come from an Irish Catholic family. I am the first one in my family to go to college--no Horatio Alger story. I once got in an argument during the Thomas hearings which I don't like to recall very often. Someone was saying to me that there was no preference given to the Justice getting in the Yale University Law School. And I looked at this particular guy, who wasn't happy with me over another issue about logging roads through Federal lands. He was really mad at me about that. I looked at him and I said: Where did you go to school? He said: I went to Yale. I said: You are the guy who took my spot at Yale. He said: What do you mean? I said: We are the same age. You took my spot at Yale. I know you are the one. He said: What are you talking about? This guy happened to be from Alaska. I come from Delaware. If I'm not mistaken, you got points at Yale for being from Alaska. And probably his marks were better than mine, but I joked with him. He didn't know. I said: I bet my marks were better than yours. I said: I'll make you another bet. I bet your daddy went to Yale. He said: Yes, what difference does that make? It makes a difference. Assume my marks had been the same as his. I am from Claymont, Delaware. My father is making 17,000 bucks a year, and I applied to Yale. He is from a geographically underrepresented area and his daddy went to Yale. I mean this sincerely, I understand the anger of working-class and middle-class White people like me, my background. I can remember when my dad, who was an automobile salesman, I remember my dad being so angry when he was trying to borrow the money to get a student loan to send me to the local university and my sister almost at the same time. He was $800 over the limit. It was like 18,000 bucks he made that year, over the limit to be able to borrow. The guy who worked on the lot came in really happy one day, and my dad was good friends with him. But the guy was the laborer who cleaned the cars. And he said: My son is getting in. I got the loan. And my dad thought it was so unfair that this guy made one-third less than he did and he was able to get the loan, but my dad couldn't afford to send us all without the loan. So I am not in any way belittling the legitimate concern and anxiety of middle class and lower middle class White folks who feel they are pushed out of the way. That is why I think we should give them all a $12,000 tax deduction to get to school which I have been pushing for 8 years now. But it amazes me how some of our friends in this Chamber and in the body politic political elite really will bleed over the 1 or 2 or whatever percent of the White children who really do get bumped out of the way. Where is their bleeding for the 10, 20, or 30 percent of the Black kids or Latino kids who get pushed out of the way a thousand ways? Is anybody suggesting to me the injustice done to middle White class or any White student is anywhere nearly equivalent to the injustices done or the lack of opportunity available to minorities? There is such an imbalance about this. That doesn't mean we should justify a wrong when it is only done to 1 percent of the people because there is a greater wrong done to another group of people. We ought to be able to figure out how to deal with this. I will end with this: I respectfully suggest we should be making it a lot easier for kids to get to college, period, across the board. One of the things we should do is what my friend from Connecticut has devoted his career to, and he knows more about it than I do by a long shot, and that is making elementary and secondary education truly equal. He had an amendment that said, on this big bill we passed on education, by the way, if you are going to test people equally, make sure you spend equal amounts of money on them. If you are a kid in west Philadelphia and you are a kid in Marion, which is one of the wealthiest areas just 4 miles away, I don't remember exactly what the numbers are, but it is like two or three to one resources spent on the kid in Marion to educate him than the kid in west Philadelphia. We are going to give them the same test. It reminds me of the old separate but equal stuff. So there is a lot we can do to make sure no child, White or Black, is bumped out of the way because they are qualified, but otherwise they do not suffer from one of the litany of things listed as being able to be taken into consideration in admission. I am not making the case on the merits. I don't know enough about the Michigan policy. I hope we have a honest discussion about this when we talk about it because there are preferences built in across the board, absolute preferences. I know, as a middle-class White kid--lower middle class economically--growing up, who did relatively well, I knew that the kid who had a lot more money, whose parents had gone to college, had more of an advantage. I didn't begrudge them the advantage. It is just there. It is just there. Let us at least admit to that and acknowledge that. Let's stop this--and nobody has done this in the Chamber, but let's not start demagoging this notion that all these White kids are being discriminated against and so-called reverse discrimination is killing opportunities for White children.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, if I may ask the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, a question.

Mr. BIDEN. Although I have been waiting a while, I can refrain from doing that if we are likely to move on to other votes. I do not want to hold people up on Friday afternoon. But if we don't have something we are going to go to right away--in other words, I don't want to get in the chairman's way. But, otherwise, I would like to speak. But I know it is Friday afternoon. I see people with topcoats on their laps, and they have places to go. I can make this the last order of business today. But I don't want to yield to others who are not going to speak on an amendment. But I will yield if you really think we are going to move to something and we are going to act on it. That is my point. I ask the Senator from Alaska if he can tell me what the plans are.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, we can't afford to put either Iraq or North Korea on the back burner. Both need our immediate and sustained attention. But the crisis on the Korean peninsula, and it is a crisis-- is our most urgent priority. The situation in North Korea has gone from bad to worse. They've thrown out the international inspectors. They've turned off cameras that tracked thousands of canisters of weapons grade plutonium. They've withdrawn from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The irony here is that the very rationale some in the administration cite for regime change in Iraq is an emerging reality in North Korea: A rogue regime and one of the world's worst proliferators is on the verge of becoming a plutonium factory. It will sell anything it develops to the highest bidder. We know it doesn't take much plutonium to make a nuclear threat real. You only need something the size of the bottom of a water glass, about an eighth of an inch thick, two pieces. With a crude operation to ram it together at high speed, you have a 1 kiloton bomb in a homemade nuclear device. My colleagues from New York will remember this: our national laboratories produced what could be a homemade nuclear weapon. They made it off the shelf with easily obtainable materials. Everything except the plutonium. I asked Senators Clinton and Schumer to bring that homemade weapon up to S. 407 and they walked it right in. The threat of proliferation exists in North Korea as we speak, right now, not tomorrow or next week or next month or next year, but right now. And by the way, if President Clinton had not completed the Agreed Framework, North Korea would already have material for dozens of nuclear weapons. If North Korea continues down this path, we also risk an arms race in Asia. Think about it. North Korea, South Korea, Japan. And if that happens, China will build up its nuclear weapons arsenal, India will get nervous and do the same, and Pakistan will follow suit. Everything we've been working to present for decades--a nuclear arms race in Asia and beyond--will become a reality. And that could have a terrible impact on economic stability, too. The regime in Pyongyang is first and foremost to blame for this crisis. But frankly, two years of policy incoherence on our part has not helped matters. We have see-sawed back and forth between engagement and name-calling. And the last two weeks of taking options off the table--especially talking--has made matters worse. It tied our own hands and added tension to our already strained relationship with a key ally, South Korea. We need a clear--and clear eyed--strategy for dealing with this danger. I'm pleased the administration now seems to be on the right track. As several of us have argued for weeks, direct talks are the best way out of this impasse. Some claim that talking is appeasement. Well, we know that not talking could result in North Korea having the material to build up to a half dozen nuclear weapons in six months--and dozens more in the months and years to follow. We know that taking out North Korea's plutonium program must be a course of very last resort. Pyongyang has more than 10,000 heavily protected artillery pieces just miles from Seoul--it could devastate the city, its inhabitants and many of our troops before we could respond. We know that for additional sanctions to bite, we would need the participation of South Korea and China, neither of whom so far, wants to pursue that path. And we know that talking is not appeasement. It is the most effective way to tell North Korea what it must do if it wants more normal relations with us. In fact, in dealing with an isolated regime and a closed-off leader, talking clearly and directly is critical if we want to avoid miscommunication and miscalculation. We cannot and should not buy the same carpet twice. We won't if we insist on getting more from North Korea than we got last time. This should include giving up the plutonium and spent fuel it already has produced and forsaking the production of plutonium and uranium in the future--all of this verified by international inspectors and monitoring. In turn, we should hold out the prospect of a more normal relationship, including energy assistance, food aid and a ``no hostility pledge.'' iraq As we contend with Korea, we also must deal with Iraq. The administration was mistaken to suggest North Korea could be put on the back burner. But so are those who suggest Iraq is not a major problem. It is, and we must continue to deal with it on its own merits, but on our own timetable. It's no secret that the State Department, the Defense Department, and the Joint Chiefs of are at odds on the best course of action in Iraq. We have Hans Blix and the IAEA saying that the inspectors need more time to accomplish their mission--that they will have to stay in Iraq much longer to get the job done. Secretary Rumsfeld is saying, if we get ourselves locked in for four more months we will lose our weather window and be forced to wait until the fall. Secretary Powell is saying, look, we must make it a priority to maintain the support of the French and the Germans and everyone else, not to mention the American people. The President was right to make Iraq the world's problem, not just our own. Let's keep it that way. In my view, the President has shown restraint on Iraq. He has gone to the United Nations. He has allowed inspectors to begin. Now he must allow them to take their course. I would say to the President, keep it going. In the eyes of the world, you're doing it right. Inspectors are not a permanent solution and neither is our massive troop presence. But so long as the inspectors are doing their work in Iraq, backed up by the threat of our forces, it is highly unlikely Iraq could pursue a nuclear program undetected or would run the risk of selling chemical or biological weapons to terrorists. And we will sustain international support. Meanwhile, the pressure will build on Saddam. Unlike in North Korea, times is on our side, not his. Of course, this massive deployment is costly and hard on our men and women in uniform. But going to war would be far more costly in terms of troops and treasure. It must remain a last resort. If we do go to war, we better be absolutely certain that our friends and allies are all in the game at the outset. Not because we cannot prevail against Saddam Hussein without them. We can--though it certainly makes sense to spread the risk and share the cost. But because without the support of other nations, we will be left with a political, financial, and, potentially, a regionally destabilizing burden after we take down Saddam. We will have to deal with the ``day after'' Saddam--or more accurately the decade after--on our own. In the weeks ahead, if we move to war, I hope the President will tell the American people what he has not yet told them: How much will the war cost? How will the balance his guns and butter rhetoric with the bottom-line budget realities we face? How many troops will have to stay in Iraq after Saddam and for how long? How much will it cost to rebuild Iraq? Who will help us foot the bill? The American people deserve answers to these and other key questions?

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, we are once again back here on the Senate floor fighting for the future of passenger rail in this country. Everyone here is well aware of my position on railroads. Unfortunately, this is a battle that those of us who believe in passenger rail service have had to make over and over. I don't need to tell anyone here that our national rail system is at a crossroads. Decades of underfunding have finally caught up to us. Amtrak is struggling to stay afloat. They have imposed drastic spending cuts in the last 2 years. They have deferred key capital maintenance projects. The have mortgaged Penn Station in New York-- their most valuable asset. The have slashed jobs. These short-term moves have only served to worsen Amtrak's long-term financial viability and put its future in jeopardy. For 30 years, Congress has dragged its feet. It has taken a back-seat approach to dealing with the long-term needs of a national passenger rail system. It stalled. It bickered. In the end, it provided only enough money to allow Amtrak to continue to limp along. And we broke the deal we made with Amtrak to help it meet its capital needs. Year after year, Amtrak received only $521 million--far less than it was promised--forcing it to turn to private sector loans and dramatically increasing it debt burden. No industrialized country in the world operates a rail system that is completely self-sufficient. Japan, Germany, France--all of the supposedly superior, successful rail systems, received some level of subsidy from their governments, in most cases far more than that sought by Amtrak. They understand the enormous capital costs involved in developing and maintaining a national rail system. Why don't we? Why don't we speak the truth: America needs a passenger rail system and it will take a national commitment. It makes sense. It's simple common sense. And yet, though we've made a substantial commitment to highway and aviation development--over $750 billion since 1971--somehow we don't seem to get it. We don't seem to understand the parallel commitment necessary for railroads. Instead, we have starved the rail system. And that's why Amtrak is in this situation today. We have to end that practice. We have to sit down with governors, mayors, railroad workers--with everyone who cares about keeping the railroads solvent, safe, and moving. We need to discuss and resolve the kind of passenger rail system this country deserves. And how much support from Federal, State, and local agencies will be needed to sustain it now and over time. And we need to do this in the larger context--taking into account increasing capacity constraints on our highways, at our airports, the chronic overcrowding, and the air pollution that comes from that. I commend my good friend, the Senator from South Carolina, Senator Hollings, because as chairman of the Commerce Committee, he made the reauthorization of Amtrak a priority and stepped up to the plate-- recognizing the depth of commitment that is needed. I am proud to cosponsor his bill. But this is not what we're fighting over today. Today, we are asking for the life-support to keep Amtrak moving until we are able to reach a consensus on its future. If we don't adopt this amendment, if we don't fund Amtrak at $1.2 billion this year, this system will die, commerce will be disrupted, passengers will be abandoned, and it will cost us much more to build a new rail system down the road. I want to thank the Senator from Washington, Senator Murray, and the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, for giving Amtrak a fighting chance, and to give us the time we need to resolve these issues. Last spring, Amtrak got a new president, David Gunn. Right out of the gate he was faced with the prospects of shutting down the system because of the lack of operating funds. We were here less than a year ago, fighting for an emergency $200 million to keep the trains running. This administration was not especially receptive to the idea of helping, but in the end, after long hours, an agreement was reached and Amtrak got the infusion of funds it needed to keep going. But David Gunn made it clear to the Congress even before then that in this fiscal year--the one we are in right now--Amtrak was going to need $1.2 billion in this year to stay alive. The administration sent up a budget with just a placeholder number in it: $521 million--the same number Amtrak has received in other recent years. But everyone knew that number wasn't real, that it was grossly insufficient. The number in this bill is grossly insufficient as well. Its $374 million short. Once more, Amtrak is getting underfunded. But this time we can't expect it to keep limping along. This time--if we don't step up to our commitment--we're going to strand millions of rail passengers. We need to give David Gunn the resources he needs to get Amtrak back on its feet again. Now--with new leadership at the helm--it is critical that we don't short change Amtrak one more time. Mr. President, this is unusual for me. I thank my friend from Arizona. I appreciate him. My friend from Arizona is right on one very basic point. We have had such a stark disagreement, he and I, for so many years, as close as we are. It is the only thing ever where we have gotten each other's hackles up, and in the middle of these debates we have occasionally felt like walking across and pummeling one another, but we are close friends. But he is right--and I mean this sincerely--about one important thing. We should make a decision. We should shut this sucker down or we should fund it. I have been fighting this fight for 30 years as a Senator, and it is always a bridge too far. I am not referring to my friend from Arizona because he says: Look, let's figure out how to reorganize this sucker; let's chop it, move it, change it, but whatever we are going to do, let's do it. I agree. Let's have the final fight here. Not tonight. Let's this year have a fight over whether or not to reauthorize Amtrak. Let's do it. If we do it--whatever we call it, subsidy or not--let's pay for it. If we call them giveaways, whatever it is, let's just be realistic and decide, is it worth the price? It reminds me--and I will end with this--every single year I have come on this floor since the Nixon administration, and said: I will take whatever you can give me; just keep part of it open; just keep it open. It was always less than everyone said was needed to make it run. It kind of reminds me of when we talk about vouchers--I am not talking about my friend from Arizona--we talk about vouchers for school. In my State, the cost of the average private school is about $1,500. If you go to the real private schools, they cost about $13,000 a year, like down here in Washington. If I go to some African- American or Latino kid in the neighborhood and say: You have $500. Here it is. I could give him $5,000, if the cost is $13,000--I could give him $10,000--and he can't get there. That is kind of where Amtrak is. There is no way to get from here to there without funding it, like I guess we have basically reached an agreement on. We are going to get, at least initially here, a reform. I thank my friend. I really hope this year he and I and others--the leader in this deal for me has always been Senator Hollings, and now Patty Murray, who has for the last I don't know how many years headed up this subcommittee. I think we should just have a knockdown, drag it out debate about whether we should have the railroad or not. If we have it, fund it. If not, let's get rid of it.

Mr. BIDEN. No, I am fine. I said all I want to say. I sincerely mean what I said about let's decide whether we are going to have this system or not.

Mr. BIDEN. If the Senator will yield, I think I could have guessed what he said.

Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BIDEN. I will only take 2 minutes. The Senator is right. It's like going to someone and saying: By the way, we are going to demand that you be self-sufficient within the next 2 weeks or 2 years. By the way, we are going to give you half of what you need to be self- sufficient. And now you have to promise me you are going to be self- sufficient. I know darned well I can't get self-sufficient based on what I have to operate with. But what do I do? What has been done--and this is the lie of it, in effect--what has been done too long, they say: OK, don't shut us down now. We will be self-sufficient--hoping that something happens in the next year and the year after and the year after. So my friend is exactly right. He made a believer out of me. He's absolutely right. That is what I mean by let's not do that anymore, let's shut it down or whatever we want to do.