Joe Biden

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to reauthorize the Drug Free Communities Act, a program which currently funds more than 300 community coalitions across the country that work to reduce drug, alcohol, and tobacco use. Four years ago, I worked with Senator Grassley, Representatives Sandy Levin and Rob Portman, and others to create this important program to fund coalitions of citizens--parents, youth, businesses, media, law enforcement, religious organizations, civic groups, doctors, nurses, and others--working to reduce youth substance abuse. Community coalitions across the country--including two in my home State of Delaware--are galvanizing tremendous support for prevention efforts. They are helping fellow citizens make a difference in their communities. And they are helping all sectors of the community send a consistent message about alcohol, drugs, and tobacco. I have been fighting for this type of anti-drug program for local communities for over a decade because I believe that prevention is a critical--but too often overlooked--part of an effective drug strategy. Substance abuse is one of our Nation's most pervasive problems. Addiction is a disease that does not discriminate on the basis of age, gender, socioeconomic status, race or creed. And while we tend to stereotype drug abuse as an urban problem, the steadily growing number of heroin and methamphetamine addicts in rural villages and suburban towns shows that is simply not the case. We have nearly 15 million drug users in this country, 4 million of whom are hard-core addicts. We all know someone--a family member, neighbor, colleague or friend--who has become addicted to drugs or alcohol. And we are all affected by the undeniable correlation between substance abuse and crime--an overwhelming 80 percent of the 2 million men and women behind bars today have a history of drug and alcohol abuse or addiction or were arrested for a drug-related crime. All of this comes at a hefty price. Drug abuse and addiction cost this Nation $110 billion in law enforcement and other criminal justice expenses, medical bills, lost earnings and other costs each year. Illegal drugs are responsible for thousands of deaths each year and for the spread of a number of communicable diseases, including AIDS and Hepatitis C. And a study by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University (CASA) shows that 7 out of 10 cases of child abuse and neglect are caused or exacerbated by substance abuse and addiction. Another CASA study recently revealed that for each dollar that States spend on substance-abuse related programs, 96 cents goes to dealing with the consequences of substance abuse and only 4 cents to preventing and treating it. Investing more in prevention and treatment is cost- effective because it will decrease much of the street crime, child abuse, domestic violence, and other social ills that can result from substance abuse. If we can get kids through age 21 without smoking, abusing alcohol, or using drugs, they are unlikely to have a substance abuse problem in the future. But there are still those who shrug their shoulders and say ``kids are kids--they are going to experiment.'' Others find the thought of keeping kids drug-free too daunting a task, and they give up too soon. But the truth is that we are learning more and more about drug prevention as researchers isolate the so-called ``risk'' and ``protective'' factors for drug use. In other words, we now know that if a child has low self-esteem or emotional problems; has a substance abuser for a parent; is a victim of child abuse; or is exposed to pro- drug media messages, that child is at a higher risk of smoking, drinking and using illegal drugs. But the good news is that we are also learning what decreases a child's risk of substance abuse. The Drug Free Communities program allows coalitions to put prevention research into action in cities and towns nationwide by funding initiatives tailored to a community's individual needs. In my home State of Delaware, both the New Castle County Community Partnership and the Delaware Prevention Coalition's Southern Partnership are working to prevent youth substance abuse by helping kids do better in school, addressing their behavioral problems, and teaching them the dangers associated with drug, alcohol, and tobacco use. The Delaware coalitions know that teachers who have high expectations of their students and help them develop good social skills also help to prevent substance use. And they know that if kids think that drugs, alcohol, and tobacco are bad for them, they will be less likely to use them. Other coalitions are working to engage the religious community. In Florida, the Miami Coalition for a Safe and Drug Free Community has developed a substance abuse manual for religious leaders so that they will know how to identify substance abuse and help people who need treatment find it. They are also teaching religious leaders how to incorporate messages about substance abuse into their sermons. Still other groups are working with the business community. A coalition in Troy, MI, is working with the Chamber of Commerce to form an Employee Assistance Program for a consortium of small businesses who could not otherwise afford to have one. These are just a few examples of the efforts that are making a difference and just a few of the reasons why I am proud to support community coalitions. Drug abuse plagues the entire community. We all feel the consequences--crime, homelessness, domestic violence, child abuse, despair--and we all need to do something about it. Prevention messages must come from all sectors of the community, from a number of different voices. Coalitions bring those groups together, give them information they need, help develop programs that work, and nurture them to success. I believe that the Drug Free Communities program is a powerful prevention initiative and I urge my colleagues to support its reauthorization. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. With all due respect to my distinguished colleague, I don't quite understand the argument that the Boy Scouts will have to fight their way into the schools. Constitutionally, they cannot be denied access to the schools now. They cannot be denied access. I suspect if one argues that you are going to have to fight your way in, there is the implication a lot of schools are trying to keep the Boy Scouts out. Second, since Brown v. The Board, you cannot keep black kids from going to school. If we had an amendment that took the language out of Brown, parroted it, as my distinguished colleague from California does, from the 1998 Supreme Court case that sets out this principle--we cannot do this--it means every black child has to spend thousands of dollars to fight their way into the schools. One of the things that distinguishes the United States of America, when the Supreme Court of the United States speaks clearly, and particularly when the Senate then legislatively parrots the exact language that the Supreme Court uses--guess what. The American people, even those who do not agree, obey. That is the pattern we have in this country. The idea that there will be Boy Scouts--and I was a Boy Scout and proud of it; I was an Explorer Scout; I support the Scouts; I will match my merit badges against my colleague's merit badges--Boy Scouts standing with tin cups in front of schools saying, ``We need to raise money to go to Federal court to make sure we can get in,'' is not going to happen. Theoretically, it could happen, just as theoretically today a school in the State of Delaware, or Kansas, could say, ``We will not let black folks in.'' Theoretically, that can happen. Guess what. The black parents have to go to court. This is as much a threat to the Boy Scouts having to raise millions and millions of dollars as black folks having to raise millions and millions to get access to public schools. There is a constitutional amendment. My friend--and he knows he is my friend--Senator Helms from North Carolina, has an amendment that I voted against. I think it got pretty well cleaned up by the Byrd amendment, but it has some arcane problems. I will not take the time of Senators and bore them, but the reason it is probably still unconstitutional, although I have no objection to the way it got cleaned up--the reason it is arguably still unconstitutional is it is not content neutral because--and this is a constitutional principle--we will deny a school district funds--money--if in fact they discriminate, they violate the Constitution, by not letting in Boy Scouts or like organizations that determine their leadership based on criteria that are their own, to which others may object. The problem with that is, technically, constitutionally, it does not include every group in the world. It does not include every group in the world. It is no longer viewpoint neutral. It says we are only going to penalize school districts that discriminate against one type of organization as opposed to all. I know that is not my friend's intention, but that is why the amendment is still probably flawed, although I am willing to take a chance on it. As I said to my friend from California, I am not sure this amendment is needed. I will support it. I think we all should support it. All we are doing is supporting the Supreme Court decision. On this idea that we have to go further, then it seems to me you should say, okay, we will cut off all moneys to all schools that violate the Supreme Court's rulings that you are not allowed to have organized prayer. How about that one? Does anybody want to sign up on that one? Same folks who want to sign up on this want to sign up on that? I don't think so. I don't think we will have people running across the aisle saying, look, if that school district or that school allowed organized prayer--and I am not opposed to prayer, obviously, but that is what the Supreme Court said, in a Supreme Court decision. What is done if a school violates the decision? Bring an action. Very few schools violate. But to make the Helms amendment content neutral-- and I did not want to start playing games, and I know occasionally it is suggested I am too constitutional. The mistake I make is I teach constitutional law. My mother would say a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. The truth is, if you wanted to make the Helms amendment pass constitutional muster, you could arguably say, OK, as long as you do not discriminate, you deny school funds to any school district that violated any constitutional right of anybody. That is why technically it is not constitutional. It doesn't do that. It protects only one viewpoint as opposed to all viewpoints. I don't want to get into that because the truth is, we all know on this floor, nobody, if we are a private citizen, is going to go home to the school district and say, by the way, I don't like the fact that the Boy Scouts don't allow homosexual Scout leaders so I will go to the school board meeting tomorrow and insist they be blocked access to my school. This is a bit of a charade. Everybody on the floor supports the Boy Scouts. We may disagree whether they should or should not allow homosexuals to be members. And I think they should. We may disagree on that. But no one disagrees on the ruling of the Supreme Court which says you cannot discriminate against them because the Court ruled it is OK for this organization to say we don't want homosexual Scout leaders. That is what the Supreme Court said. It is OK. I accept that. It is the Supreme Court of the United States of America. I also accept the fact that the Supreme Court says you cannot discriminate against the Boy Scouts because of the decision they made. I think it is Kafkaesque. We are arguing about something on which we don't disagree. This is about politics. This is a political game we are playing. It is a joke--who is more Boy Scout. I am as big a Boy Scout as anyone here. We can all compare merit badges and our support for the Boy Scouts. So let's not make a mockery of this thing. The fact is there is a technical, legal, constitutional argument that the last amendment is unconstitutional. That is the core of the objection of those who voted for it before it got amended. After it has been amended, it is arguably still unconstitutional. I am willing to take a chance on it. I am satisfied to let it go at that. This clearly is constitutional. This clearly restates what I thought we all want. No school district can deny Boy Scouts access if they have access for anybody. Again, I conclude by saying the idea this could cost the Boy Scouts millions of dollars I find a bit of a stretch. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, education is, and should be, among our top priorities here in the Senate. Parents know that the quality of a child's education can make or break that child's future. Businesses understand that they cannot compete in this high-tech world without a well trained and well educated workforce. That is why what we are doing here today, and have done in the past few weeks is so important. We have had an opportunity to put aside partisan differences to craft a federal education policy that will strengthen schools, increase accountability, empower parents, and give our teachers and administrators the resources they need to give our children the education they deserve. In many respects, we have been successful. The bill itself takes some positive steps toward improving public education in America. It provides for annual testing of students and a process for identifying and turning around failing schools. It requires that high standards be set for all students. It targets federal education resources towards the students who need the greatest assistance. It includes a new early reading initiative to promote literacy. Ands it contains other important provisions to help increase parental involvement in their children's education. In addition, we were able to make a number of key improvements to the underlying bill during the Senate debate. The bill now includes language calling for full funding of title I for disadvantaged children and full funding of the federal commitment to educate children with disabilities. We increased funding for bilingual education and after- school programs. We provided additional funding to improve and modernize resources in school libraries. We passed additional changes to make sure that States use high quality tests to gauge the progress of students. And we passed an amendment that I was proud to cosponsor that will help recruit more teachers. I am also pleased that the Senate accepted my amendment to provide $180 million to put more school resource officers in our schools. These officers are specially trained to prevent school violence and to quickly respond to crimes, while serving as mentors and role models and providing guidance to students. Despite these important steps that we have taken, I must say that I am truly disappointed by some missed opportunities. We missed an opportunity to make reducing class sizes a priority when the Senate voted against Senator Murray's amendment to increase funding for the 100,000 teacher initiative and ensure that it is not consolidated with other teacher quality programs. We missed an opportunity to help our States renovate and build new schools when the Senate voted against Senator Harkin's amendment to reauthorize a bi-partisan school construction plan. But above all else, we missed an opportunity to resolve the issue of adequate funding for all the education reforms that this bill requires. The truth is, we can stand here and make eloquent speeches about all these needed changes in our education system, many of which I wholeheartedly support, but without the resources to back up these eloquent words, nothing will change. I am hopeful that even more resources can be directed toward education during the conference committee negotiations and though the annual appropriations process that will begin shortly. I believe that on the whole this bill takes a dramatic step in the right direction. It improves accountability, empowers parents, and begins to make the types of investments that our teachers and students deserve and need.

Mr. BIDEN. I ask unanimous consent that Senators Hollings, Bingaman, Landrieu, Cleland, and Johnson be added as original cosponsors to my amendment. This amendment is fairly simple, and I hope all of my colleagues can support it. It would extend the Justice Department's school resource officer program for 6 years. It authorizes $180 million per year through 2007 for the wildly successful COPS in Schools Program. This is the same amount appropriated for the program in each of the last 2 years, the same amount requested by the administration in its Budget, and it's enough money to hire 1,500 resource officers per year. This is a great program. Police departments and schools get together and they file their application jointly, based on the community's needs. To date, the Justice Department has funded over 3,800 school resource officers. They are 3 year grants, totaling up to $125,000 per officer. That's about $40,000 per year, usually enough to fund the officer's whole salary. Why offer this amendment now. Well, the bill before us is designed to improve our schools, but without my amendment it does not include dedicated funds to hire school resource officers. And authority for COPS in Schools, one of the most successful school safety programs out there, expired last year. My amendment has been endorsed by the National Association of School Resource Officers, by the National School Safety Center, by the Center for the Prevention of School Violence, by the National Education Association, and by the Fraternal Order of Police. Why do school safety experts, line officers, the resource officers themselves, and the heads of police departments across the country, and educators support this amendment. Because they know COPS in Schools works. They know school resource officers can help quiet troubled schools halls, can quickly stop a violent incident, and can mentor students. What are school resource officers. These are specially-trained police officers, men and women who work in and around elementary schools, middle schools, and high schools. They work with teachers, parents, and kids to identify and combat school-related crime and disorder problems. They get to know the students. They are their counselors and their role models, and, when necessary, they enforce the law. D.A.R.E. police officers would be eligible to receive funding under this amendment, just as they are under the current COPS in Schools program. I recently sat down with all of the school resource officers in Delaware. My State has embraced the concept, today, 16 members of the Delaware State Police serve as school resource officers. So do two members of the Wilmington Police Department, and one Newark police officer. And about 1 year ago, I held a field hearing on school safety at the William Penn High School in Delaware. One of the witnesses was Delaware State Police Corporal Jeff Giles. Jeff told me low successful he has been as a school resource officer, how the kids feel safer, the school is more secure, and parents and teachers are put at ease. This program works, COPS in Schools is a success. Let me tell you a story: When a high school in my State, Lake Forest High School, tried to phase out its school resource officer because of a lack of funds, the kids walked out. They walked out of school to protest Corporal Gary Fournier's, dismissal! The kids would not let their school resource officer go, they liked having him around so much. We found some funds that let the school keep Corporal Fournier on, but it should never have come to that. Now, I was pleased the appropriators saw fit to include $180 million for COPS in Schools last year. And it looks like the Administration wants to continue the program at the same level this year. But year-to- year appropriations are no substitute for a multi-year authorization. Schools need to have assurances this is a program that's here to stay. City councils and other local governing bodies need to be able to pass their budgets knowing the Federal Government is there to help. Today, as we debate this education bill, authority for the whole COPS program has expired and with it, the COPS in Schools program's future is unclear. That just shouldn't be the case. A lot of these school resource officers are heroes, and we shouldn't end the program that helps fund them. Take a look at the tragic shooting this past March in Granite Hills High School in El Cajon, CA. Local officials there have stated that but for the quick response of Rich Agundez, that school's resource officer, lives may have been lost. In the weeks following this shooting, San Diego school officials decided to station resource officers in all of their 180 schools. We should help communities like San Diego. We should make sure they hear the message, loud and clear, that this Senate agrees with them. Let's give school resource officers to every school that wants one. Let's give parents a little peace of mind that their kids are safe when they get on that school bus and head off to learn. Let's give teachers a hand in maintaining order in their classrooms. Let's pass my amendment and fund the COPS in Schools program. It works. It works, and I challenge any of my colleagues to tell me otherwise. Amendment No. 640 Withdrawn

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, if the Senator will yield for a brief comment and question, my objective is to make sure the Boy Scouts have access to the school. My worry is, having been the guy who wrote the statutory language on flag burning, the Supreme Court is going to rule unconstitutional the Helms amendment, if you pass it. Ask any conservative or liberal lawyer. There is a 60-percent chance that will happen. I view it in the exact opposite way, although approaching it with the same objective as my friend from Texas does. The reason to include this other provision is to have a fail-safe constitutional guarantee because what the Court is going to say on the Helms amendment--which I support as amended--is the following. It is going to say that you do not have a guarantee to take away funds from any school district that denies homosexual organizations the right to be in the school. You do not deny funds to any organization or any school that denies or permits prayer in school, which is unconstitutional. The Court is going to look at it and say it is not content neutral. That is what I mean. I know my friend from Texas knows as well. That is why--it is not content neutral--the same rationale that declared my constitutional statute against flag burning unconstitutional. It was not content neutral. I argue, for those of you who truly want to make sure the Boy Scouts have access, even if you voted for and support the Helms amendment-- which I think is a reasonable position--you should vote for this amendment as well because it guarantees you double protection. This is clearly, unequivocally constitutional. The Helms amendment, as amended, is unquestionably constitutional. I yield the floor. I thank my colleague.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I missed this vote by a couple seconds. I was conducting a hearing on the Balkans. It was my fault. I am not suggesting that it is anybody's fault but mine. But if I had been here in time to vote, I want the Record to reflect that I would have voted for the Dodd amendment. I realize I cannot have my vote recorded, but I want to be recorded as being in favor of the Dodd amendment if I had been here in time. I apologize to my colleagues.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to once again join my distinguished colleague from Indiana, Senator Lugar, in introducing legislation to protect the world's significant tropical forests through ``debt-for-nature'' mechanisms. We have shared a long and fruitful bipartisan relationship on this important issue. I am gratified that we have the bipartisan support of our original cosponsors noted by Senator Lugar. Tropical forests are a cornerstone of the global environment. Figuratively speaking, they are the ``lungs'' of our planet, and they can help to regulate and mitigate the process of climate change. They guide global patterns of rainfall on which agriculture and fisheries depend. They harbor pharmaceutical treasures that we are just beginning to explore. They are home our planet's widest diversity of plants and animals. We have a responsibility, a duty, to be good stewards of these essential resources, and it is in our direct economic interest to see that they flourish. In 1989, Senator Lugar and I coauthored the Global Environmental Protection Assistance Act, which was enacted into law as title VII A of the International Finance and Development Act of 1989 (Public Law 101- 240, December 19, 1989). That Act authorized US AID to use its funds for Debt for Nature swaps. Under the authority of this Act, US AID has used $95 million of its funds to establish environmental endowments totaling $146 million in Costa Rica, Honduras, Indonesia, Jamaica, Madagascar, Mexico, Panama and the Philippines. President Bush's Enterprise for the Americas Initiative (EAI), carried forward this linkage between debt reduction and the generation of local funds to protect the environment. The EAI provided $876 million in debt relief and $154 million in local endowments at a federal cost of $90 million in seven countries in Latin America and the Caribbean: Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Columbia, El Salvador, Jamaica and Uruguay. The Tropical Forest Conservation Act of 1998 extended the debt for nature mechanism of the EAI to the protection of significant tropical forests in lower and middle income developing countries throughout the world, not just those in Latin America and the Caribbean. Furthermore, the Tropical Forest Conservation Act (TFCA), authorizes the use of two new, no cost ``debt-for-nature'' models, the Buy Back option and Debt Swap option. The basic premise behind this series of programs has not changed over the years. Many of the world's important tropical forests are found in countries that do not have the resources to protect them. Their own patterns of economic development and their participation in the international economy place irresistible pressures on them to turn these irreplaceable global resources into quick local cash. One of the important contributors to those pressures is too often the debt those countries owe to us. That is one thing we can do something about. The mechanisms in this bill will allow us to multiply the small dollar cost of writing the debt of those countries off of our books, leveraging substantially more resources to the cause of preserving tropical forests around the world. I look forward to taking this bill up in the Foreign Relations Committee as soon as possible, and I fully expect it will continue to enjoy the strong support it has had in the past. I also look forward to working with the Administration to provide the funding that the President has called for to implement this program.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to once again join my distinguished colleague from Indiana, Senator Lugar, in introducing legislation to protect the world's significant tropical forests through ``debt-for-nature'' mechanisms. We have shared a long and fruitful bipartisan relationship on this important issue. I am gratified that we have the bipartisan support of our original cosponsors noted by Senator Lugar. Tropical forests are a cornerstone of the global environment. Figuratively speaking, they are the ``lungs'' of our planet, and they can help to regulate and mitigate the process of climate change. They guide global patterns of rainfall on which agriculture and fisheries depend. They harbor pharmaceutical treasures that we are just beginning to explore. They are home our planet's widest diversity of plants and animals. We have a responsibility, a duty, to be good stewards of these essential resources, and it is in our direct economic interest to see that they flourish. In 1989, Senator Lugar and I coauthored the Global Environmental Protection Assistance Act, which was enacted into law as title VII A of the International Finance and Development Act of 1989 (Public Law 101- 240, December 19, 1989). That Act authorized US AID to use its funds for Debt for Nature swaps. Under the authority of this Act, US AID has used $95 million of its funds to establish environmental endowments totaling $146 million in Costa Rica, Honduras, Indonesia, Jamaica, Madagascar, Mexico, Panama and the Philippines. President Bush's Enterprise for the Americas Initiative (EAI), carried forward this linkage between debt reduction and the generation of local funds to protect the environment. The EAI provided $876 million in debt relief and $154 million in local endowments at a federal cost of $90 million in seven countries in Latin America and the Caribbean: Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Columbia, El Salvador, Jamaica and Uruguay. The Tropical Forest Conservation Act of 1998 extended the debt for nature mechanism of the EAI to the protection of significant tropical forests in lower and middle income developing countries throughout the world, not just those in Latin America and the Caribbean. Furthermore, the Tropical Forest Conservation Act (TFCA), authorizes the use of two new, no cost ``debt-for-nature'' models, the Buy Back option and Debt Swap option. The basic premise behind this series of programs has not changed over the years. Many of the world's important tropical forests are found in countries that do not have the resources to protect them. Their own patterns of economic development and their participation in the international economy place irresistible pressures on them to turn these irreplaceable global resources into quick local cash. One of the important contributors to those pressures is too often the debt those countries owe to us. That is one thing we can do something about. The mechanisms in this bill will allow us to multiply the small dollar cost of writing the debt of those countries off of our books, leveraging substantially more resources to the cause of preserving tropical forests around the world. I look forward to taking this bill up in the Foreign Relations Committee as soon as possible, and I fully expect it will continue to enjoy the strong support it has had in the past. I also look forward to working with the Administration to provide the funding that the President has called for to implement this program.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. I will not ask unanimous consent to do that, but I will be around to continue this debate. I thank my friend from New Hampshire for whom I have great respect. We just have a different value system about education. Amendment No. 791, As Modified

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am sorry the Senator from New Hampshire was not here when I was speaking. If you give me just a second, in case his name comes up again so he understands the context in which I used his name, the Senator says--which is, on its face, a sound argument-- that ``comparable'' may not in fact be comparable. We are using the language, in our amendment, ``comparable,'' which is on line 5 of page 1 of the amendment, in ``comparability of services.'' We are using the words ``comparability of services'' in a comparable comparison. That is, it is the exact language used in the existing law relating to title I, which says ``comparability of services'' in Section 1120A subsection c. The second point I would like to make to my friend is that we are not nationalizing anything. Let's understand what this does. Right now, if Houston or North Carolina has a charter school, that charter school has to have comparable services that exist within that school district, or they could not have the school. It could not be a public school. So all we are saying is you should do--and I apologize for saying this--what we do in Delaware. In Delaware, the State funds 70 percent of the funding of every school district, every school in the State. Not just the district, every school in the State. We have comparable funding, comparable education, required by our law. It is not unlike what the Supreme Court in the State of New Hampshire said, in the decision I have in my hand, if I am reading it correctly, saying that your Supreme Court dictated-- they didn't use the word ``comparable,'' but dictated that there be ``essentially equal services.'' So there is nothing new about this. I view this as an unfunded mandate. You view it as national intrusion. If you are going to insist on a testing regime which I think does not make a lot of sense, and force my State to have to comply in order to get any Federal funds, then it seems to me I have a right to say you are dictating an unfunded mandate because you are requiring some of the kids in the States in this country, where 20, 30, 40, 50 percent less is spent and where 70 percent of their teachers are not certified in the area for which they teach, in classrooms which leak, in buildings which are in some cases a trap, and say to them we are going to hold you to the same standard or your State is not going to get money. That is an unfunded mandate to me. To me, that is an unfunded mandate. All we are saying is, as we did when we talked about title I, you are mandating to a State what they have to do. I am saying: OK, mandate to the State but fund it. Fund it. Make it fair. Again, I realize time is getting close here for our vote. I am going to have to yield the floor, not my right to the floor but yield for the vote. It seems to me, if you take a look at the facts, what we are talking about here is just simple, basic fairness. If you take two children from the same background, same intellectual capability, same amount of gray matter, same everything, and you give one kid less attention, you give one kid books that are not as good, you have one kid taught by an inferior teacher and one by a good teacher, those two comparable kids will end up scoring differently. They will score differently on the test. They may both pass it. They may both do extremely well. But the one with the better teacher, the one who had more attention lavished on him, the one with the better materials, the one in the safer environment, is almost surely going to score better. So it seems to me all we are talking about is simple fairness. I view this as a value issue. The Senator from New Hampshire and I have a different value system on this issue. I respect his. He is not wrong. He just has a different value system than I do. I value the notion that all children, if they are held to the same standard, should have the same opportunity. If the Government is going to impose a standard, then the Government should see that they have the same opportunity. That is a basic value I have. He thinks the value of the State schools being able to have one group of kids in one school where they have lousy teachers, where they have lousy buildings, where they have little money spent on them compared to another, that what he values most is the right of the State to do that. I respect that. I respect that. I disagree with it. We have a different value system. This is the debate about values. Parliamentary inquiry. When is the Senator from Delaware to cease so we can begin the next vote?

Mr. BIDEN. Parliamentary inquiry. After the two votes, does the Senator from Delaware retain the floor on this amendment?

Mr. BIDEN. I did yield.

Mr. BIDEN. I am delighted to do so, reserving my right to the floor.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, this is getting kind of silly. If the Senator wants to respond, respond. I am delighted to yield to him to respond. There was no intention to in any way affront the Senator. The Senator from California asked me a question. She did not have the floor; I had the floor; and I yielded to her for a question. You walked on the floor. As soon as she finished, I yielded to you because your name was mentioned.

Mr. BIDEN. The answer to the question is yes. I am happy to yield to the Senator for a question without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. BIDEN. I will yield after the Senator asks her next question.

Mr. BIDEN. I do not want to lose my right to the floor for the next 10 minutes. The Senator spoke for the last 25 minutes. I want to speak. Give me an idea. I will be happy to give you the time.

Mr. BIDEN. I will be happy when she finishes the question to yield to you.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Hampshire for allowing me the opportunity to speak to this amendment. With all due respect, I think the arguments of the Senator from New Hampshire would be better reserved for the New Hampshire Supreme Court than for the U.S. Senate. We are not nationalizing anything. There is nothing in the Dodd-Biden amendment that requires a national standard. We do require a State standard. My friend says this bill is all about flexibility. It reminds me of a track meet. The rich kids can have brandnew track shoes and starting blocks for running the 100-meter race, and the poor kids can have flexibility. They can decide to run in long pants or short pants. They can decide whether or not they want to wear a sweat shirt or T-shirt. They can decide whether they want to run frontwards or backwards. They do not get track shoes and starting blocks, but they have flexibility. You can wear whatever color you want. You can wear long pants or short pants. You can run backwards or forwards. You can do cartwheels on the way down the track. But you do not get those spikes. You do not get those starting blocks. Guess what. You get judged. You get judged where you finish, and if you do not finish 1, 2, or 3, you are out. That is the track standard set. The NCAA of track says: Hey, here's the deal. If you don't finish 1, 2, or 3, go home. You don't get to run anymore. You don't get to go on to the next step. But we gave you flexibility, all the flexibility you want, man. You could have done this with a dashiki on or you could have done this with a T-shirt on. You could have done this in a suit, or you could have done this in short pants. You have flexibility. Not only flexibility matters. Maybe I have been doing this criminal justice stuff too long. I realize I do not know as much as my friend from Connecticut does about education, nor my friend from New Hampshire, whom I do not know as well, but I know my friend from Connecticut knows so much more. He has made a career of knowing this. I have made a career of understanding the criminal justice system--how you deal with crime, stop crime, affect it, and so on. After all the years I have done it, it comes down to a few basic facts. If there are four corners, three cops on one corner, no cop on another, and there is going to be a crime at the intersection, it will be committed where the cop is not. We also know when you are engaged in armed robberies or engaged in purse snatching, you tend not to do that when you get to be 40 years old because it is hard as heck to jump over that chain link fence with the cops chasing you. As you get older, you slow down and tend to get less violent. We know that. What we ate for breakfast, where we were raised, how we related to our mothers, what our education was--we have a lot of theories about how that impacts on crime, but we do not know. What we do know about education is basic. We know if you get two kids of comparable talent or lacking in talent and you put them in a classroom with 70 kids and 1 teacher, they are not going to do as well as if you put them in a classroom with 3 kids and 1 teacher. We know the more focused the attention, the closer to one on one you can get, the product being the same, the better chance you have of succeeding. We also know if you have books that are legible and available and every student has one--same students, same IQ, same background, same everything--the kids with the good books are going to do better than the kids with the bad books. My Walter Mitty dream was to be a professional athlete. A phrase my coach used was: A good big man can always beat a good small man. A phrase in athletics is: A good fast woman can always beat a good slow woman. There are certain truisms. Two kids with the same talent, whether they have a 90 IQ or 190 IQ, whether they are creative, not creative, put them in a large class with a comparable group of people, and they are not going to do as well as when you put them in a small class of a comparable group of people. If you put them in the same classroom with a good teacher versus a bad teacher, they are going to do better with a good teacher. There are basics. What do we know about how education works? My friend says we are going to nationalize. What we are trying to do is what States are trying to do right now and what my State has already done. We are trying to do what title I now requires. I am going to use the word ``comparable'' comparably. Right now, ``comparable'' is used in the statute that exists to say that if you get title I money, every school in that school district has to have a comparable educational system. That is all the Senator from Connecticut did. Why did he do it? Why did I join him? Why did I ask him to do it? I was going to offer this amendment because my friend, Chaka Fattah, with whom I worked for a long time in the House of Representatives--I am not on the committee, so I went to my friend from Connecticut and said: I want to do this. He said: I am already going to do it. Why did he decide to use that word ``comparable''? Guess what. My friend from the State of New Hampshire says he wants a national standard. We did not say we want a national standard. The President said he wanted a national standard. My friend from New Hampshire wants a national standard. They want to judge how fast every kid can run. They want to judge how fast every kid can read. They want to judge how well every kid can write. OK, fine, but do not do to those kids the same thing as my fictitious example on the track. Do not judge the kid who comes from a school district where they spend $5,000 per pupil, with teachers who have their teaching certificate in the area in which they teach--do not judge them by the same standard that you are going to judge kids who have $1,500 spent on them per pupil, who have a majority of teachers who are not certified in the area they teach, who teach in classrooms that are leaky, some of them unsafe, and without an adequate number of textbooks. As my dad would say: Give me a break. I do not think the Federal Government can or should, or any government should, decide to equalize everything. As one former President said, life is unfair. Certain things Government cannot do. The Government cannot dictate you to be 6 foot 2, if that is what you want, or 5 foot 9. The Government cannot dictate that everybody will have the voice of Barbra Streisand or some famous male singer--whoever the heck you like. Life is unfair. I was born with no talent musically and maybe with nothing else. The Federal Government cannot say: You know what: Guaranteed, Joe Biden cannot do what he wants to do, be a flanker for the New York Giants. That is truly what I wanted to be. Life was unfair. At 6 foot 1, 155 pounds, I did not have the talent of Tommy McDonald who was that small and played for the Philadelphia Eagles in the sixties. They cannot fix that. Let me tell you what we can fix. We have an obligation to fix the things we can fix. If you are going to hold a kid to a standard, darn it, give him an equal opportunity, at least in his own State. Give him a shot. Do my colleagues know what this reminds me of? The first African American ever admitted to the bar in the State of Delaware was Louis L. Redding. He took the bar in 1928. There were 13 or 14 people who took the bar that year. Twelve took it in one room with one test, and Louis L. Redding took it in another. They gave him a completely different test. No one on this floor today would say that is fair. I don't think anybody would say that is fair. In a public system with one school district, and I don't care whether the kid is black or white, whether the child is Hispanic or Asian, if the child is slow or smart, it is unfair to take a very bright white kid in a school district where they spend $1,000 or $2,000 less per pupil than the other school where the bright white kid gets $2,000 more spent on him--that may be the difference between going to my State university and Harvard University--it is clearly not fair for the kid born into the district that has no tax base, where the businesses have moved out, where the average home is one-fourth the value of the neighboring school district, and say: judge them by the same standard. There is enough inequity built into life. I will never forget when I was a widowed father; it was the first time it came to me: why it is so incredibly important there is diversity on the floor, including women, with a woman's perspective. I found women to be no slower, no brighter, no less venal, no more generous, no less generous, than men. I know I will get in trouble for saying that, but it is true. I used to not understand why we didn't hold the kid who came out of the ghetto accountable, the mother with two kids making, by today's standard, $16,000 or $18,000 a year. We hold her kids to the same standard that we hold a kid who comes from a family with a combined income of a couple hundred thousand bucks, living in a great area, and attending great schools. The government can't do anything about that. I wish life were fair. I remember as a single father raising two kids. I was a Senator. My sisters helped me raise my kids; my mother was available; my brother moved in to live with me. I had great help, and I had trouble. It is the first time I thought about my secretary raising kids by herself. I thought, my Lord, what an inequity. We are not asking the government to fix that. We are asking the government along the way to make it equal and give leave for when your child is sick and things such as that. But here government is mandating. Depending on where one stands is how one views things. My friend views this piece of legislation as intrusive, nationalization of the school system. I view this legislation as an unfunded mandate. We are mandating that every school in America meet a standard, every school in the State meet a minimum standard. We are mandating that. We are telling them if they don't, they don't get Federal money. I am oversimplifying in the interest of time. If I said to my friend from New Hampshire, you have to mandate that every drinking water system in the State of New Hampshire meet a certain standard, he would be the first one, with his colleagues on the floor, screaming about unfunded mandates, unfunded mandates, setting health standards, setting environmental standards, and not giving us any money. This is not an unfunded mandate? I don't get this. How is this not an unfunded mandate?

Mr. BIDEN. I yield.

Mr. BIDEN. That is exactly correct. Reading from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the Committee on Education in the Workforce, U.S. House of Representatives, page 54, under section 1120(c): (c) Comparability of Services.-- (1) In general.--(A) Except as provided in paragraphs (4) and (5), a local educational agency may receive funds under this part only if State and local funds will be used in schools served under this part to provide services that, taken as a whole, are at least comparable to services in schools that are not receiving funds under this part.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, there is no UC request pending, but I will ask a question. I would like to speak to this amendment for about 8 to 10 minutes.

Mr. BIDEN. Whatever.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, amendment 676 is essentially the High Speed Rail Investment Act I introduced with Senator Hutchison earlier this year, that has 57 cosponsors, including the Majority and Minority leaders. Indeed, a majority of the Finance Committee supports this bill, as well. Both of the leaders have given us their public commitments to move this legislation this year, commitments to finish a job that was started in the last Congress. As the Administration introduces its proposal for a new energy policy, as we read daily about increasing congestion on our highways and at our airports, we simply must make safe, clean, high-speed passenger rail a key component of our nation's transportation system. I say that this is essentially the same as the legislation that I introduced with Senator Hutchison and others earlier this year. Actually, the amendment we are offering today is an improved version, that addresses two key concerns of many of our colleagues. At the insistence of Senator Baucus, and with his cooperation, we have included new language with an unambiguous prohibition on the use of the Highway Trust Fund by States in meeting their matching requirements under this legislation. That is something that has always been important to him, and I am glad to say that we have reached an agreement on that issue. Just as important, we have also added new language on the question of State and local taxation of the improvements that will come from upgrading rail lines around the country to carry high-speed passenger trains. I know that was a concern of Senator Grassley, along with many other Senators. As Senator Baucus knows, with this change the bill now has the support of the National League of Cities, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the United States Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Counties, and the Council of State Governments. So, with the help of Senator Baucus, from now forward we have an improved version of the bill. This is the version we hope will move in the Finance Committee soon. While supporters of this legislation are a majority in both the Finance Committee and here on the Senate floor, I will respect the wishes of Senator Baucus that we not ask for a vote today. I am grateful that he is not only willing to sign on to this amendment, with the improvements he was seeking, but he is committed to helping us move this legislation through the Finance Committee and on to the floor as soon as we can. This is an important move forward, and an important step toward fulfilling the commitments Senate leaders have made to move the High Speed Rail Investment Act this year. I thank Senator Baucus for his help in this matter.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, Americans deserve a tax cut. They deserve a large tax cut. And in this time of budget surpluses, we can afford hundreds of billions of dollars of tax relief. But Americans deserve other things at least as much. They deserve honesty in budgeting. They deserve a government that will face up to the fundamental choices that have to be made in writing a ten-year budget plan. Americans deserve a strong national defense, safe streets, effective schools, world-class health care, clean air and water, a safe and efficient transportation system. I must vote against this tax bill because it does not honestly face the serious choices that still confront us in this era of surpluses, because it sacrifices virtually all other priorities--and some of our fundamental values--to the single-minded pursuit of cutting taxes. Despite what some would have us believe, we cannot afford to do everything for everybody all at the same time. We cannot cut taxes by nearly 2 trillion dollars in the next ten years--a number that actually doubles in the following decade--and continue to provide the fundamental governmental functions that Americans need and deserve. If we are honest about the real costs of this tax cut, Mr. President, we would admit that on top of the $1.35 trillion sticker cost, we have to add $300 billion in additional interest payments that come from not paying down the national debt. If we admit that we will have to reform the Alternative Minimum Tax that will soon hit millions of Americans, we have to add another $300 billion to its cost. Because history shows that we will extend the Research and Development tax credit and other popular and useful breaks that we have always supported in the past, we can add another $100 billion to the size of the tax cut. Those calculations put the full cost of the tax cut and the real, foreseeable, inevitable tax issues that will face us in the next decade at over $2 trillion. Two trillion--again, a number that will at least double in the ten years after the coming decade. But we are told that there is a surplus that will cover the costs of this and all of the other things we will want and need. Money in the bank. Not to worry. There is an old saying to the effect that something that sounds too good to be true, probably is too good to be true. This big tax cut certainly sounds good. It certainly would be appealing to go along and vote for it. But that would not be honest because the numbers that we have in front of us right now tell us that we simply can't afford it. The surpluses available to us in the next decade, if we agree not to spend money from the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds, is supposed to be about $2.5 trillion. That sounds like a lot of money, and it would be, if it were real. But it is not real for two reasons. First, it is based on some assumptions we all know are just not true. If we can, let's just leave aside for a moment how well we can project the future of this economy--that problem alone has proved every other long-term surplus projection we have ever made wrong by hundreds of billions of dollars. But even if we could know for sure that the economy will continue to grow at the high rates of investment and productivity we need to match the forecasts behind those projections--which we don't--those projections simply ignore some basic facts. Only if we ignore those facts can we believe that the tax cuts in this bill make sense. Here are some of the facts that make those surplus forecasts more likely wrong than right. They assume we will have no wars, no hurricanes, no floods, no earthquakes--no national security emergencies or natural disasters that would subtract billions of dollars from the projected surpluses. The second reason the projections have to be wrong is that they assume we will cut the size of government in our country by 25 percent over the next ten years. As a share of the economy, our federal government is already the lowest it has been since 1960. There are plenty of reasons to believe that we will not be able to cut it by another 25 percent. Our surplus projections do not account for increases in our population or increases in the cost of living over the next decade-- incredible as it may sound, they do not. If we put those two basic budgeting concepts back into our assumptions, that subtracts as much as $640 billion from the surpluses. Subtract that $640 billion from the $2.5 trillion estimated surplus, the tax cut is greater than the surplus remaining. Basic honesty in budgeting shows that we cannot afford a tax cut this big. And the surplus projections ignore new spending priorities that everyone wants to address, on top of just keeping up with current levels. The Administration has called for both a radical overhaul of our national defenses, and a new anti-ballistic missile program. We have no clear idea what those programs might cost, but I have added up just the six best known weapons modernization programs, and they add up to over $380 billion. The new defense plan could add perhaps $250 billion, and a full-blown missile defense plan that covered every option the President has expressed an interest in covering could be another $100 billion. So prudence suggests we should show some of those costs in the budgets for the next ten years. But we don't. That is hundreds of billions of dollars that will have to come out of the supposed surpluses, but we have no place for them in our discussions of this tax bill or in our budget calculations. The President says that he wants to spend more for education, even though his budget includes no new spending for it. So far here in the Senate, we have passed $150 billion in new education spending, on a priority that all Americans share. With just the spending that we know about in defense and education, virtually all of the non-Social Security, non-Medicare surplus is gone--and then some--with nothing left for improvements to our aging roads, bridges, sewers, dams, or docks. No money for additional air traffic controllers or airports, no money to break the gridlock on our highways with a national high-speed passenger rail system. No money for new policemen on the beat, for after-school programs to prevent juvenile crime, no money for drug interdiction or drug treatment programs. With the huge additional burdens on Social Security and Medicare coming in the years just beyond the decade covered by this tax plan, there is no money left for the fundamental reforms of those programs. If we follow the Administration's approach to Social Security reform, we will need an additional trillion dollars. But there will be no money left. Why are we left with so little for so many of our fundamental needs? Why, when we have finally brought our budgets into balance after years of deficits, can we not afford to pay for these essential priorities that we all agree deserve our support? Because this tax cut was not designed as part of a comprehensive budget plan. If it becomes law for the next decade, it will be the only real priority in our budget. Every other priority, from defense to education--and even, I am afraid, balanced budgets--will be only an afterthought. That is why I will vote against this tax bill. It costs too much; it depends too much on wishful thinking; it ignores realities that are staring us in the face over the next ten years. We tried to amend this bill to fix the problems I have discussed. Senator McCain offered an amendment to scale back the size of the tax cut to make room in our budget for the projected increases in defense spending. That prudent statement of our national priorities was voted down. Senator Harkin offered an amendment to simply hold off on a piece of the tax cut until we could certify that we can meet the long-term obligations of Social Security and Medicare. Once we could make that certification, every bit of the tax cut would go forward. That basic commitment to the promises we have made was voted down. I offered an amendment to scale back the size of the tax cut to make room for a tuition tax deduction to help pay for college. That important priority of middle-class families was voted down. Senator Rockefeller offered an amendment to make sure we can afford to provide a prescription drug benefit for seniors before we cut taxes. It would not prevent a cent of the tax cut from going out--as long as we could pay for a prescription drug benefit. That bipartisan priority, shared by the President, was voted down. Senator Feingold offered an amendment to scale back the size of the tax cut so that surviving spouses will not have to give up their earthly possessions to pay for nursing home care received by deceased Medicaid patients. That small gesture toward fairness was voted down. In every case the tax cut came first; every other priority--every other value--was left behind. We can afford major tax relief for all Americans. And we can afford to provide the national security, the world-class education, the health care and the other priorities Americans have a right to expect. We can even afford a little fairness in the distribution of the many blessings we enjoy. We can afford to act on our values. But not if we pass this tax bill. We are indeed a blessed nation, at an historic peak in our prosperity and in our influence in the world. We have the resources to prudently manage the challenges and opportunities before us. But we are not immune to the basic laws of budgeting--we have to make choices. This tax cut, by its sheer size--a size selected without consideration of any other priority--refuses to face honestly those fundamental choices. It refuses to recognize any other values. I cannot support it.