Joe Biden

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, when I came to the Senate almost 30 years ago, we were just entering what became a generation of Federal deficit spending. We lost the key to balanced budgets, the discipline to match our spending with our income. The economic impact of those decades of deficits was profound. The accumulating debt grew faster than our economy, and we slipped from our position as the world's leading creditor nation to the world's biggest borrower. While the Federal Government borrowed money as if nobody else needed it, private borrowers from first-time home buyers to major corporations all paid more for their loans. Our inability to balance our budgets was a dead weight burden on the economy here, and our high interest rates affected international finance as well. But perhaps the most important cost of those deficits was the loss of faith suffered by Americans in their Government. A lot of factors contributed to that cynicism and skepticism, but I am convinced that the cumulative effect of decades of unbalanced budgets was a major reason Americans for so long held their Government in such low esteem. Those deficits had another major effect. As we struggled every year to match our spending with our income, the priorities I came to the Senate to fight for, support for those among us who need it most, protection of the environment, quality education for everyone, safe streets and homes, those priorities were the first hit by spending cuts. And as we cut back on those programs, we cut back on the basic responsibilities of a democratic government. The era of budget deficits was marked by a deficit of democracy itself. Today, we can congratulate ourselves on not only balancing our budgets, but on producing substantial budget surpluses. On the foundation of an historical economic boom, the longest period of high- productivity growth in our history, we have restored the health of our Federal budgets. History will judge how we manage this success, what we do with the opportunity before us. Will we build a foundation for future growth, will we pay down the burden of debt that we built up in the generation of deficits, will we continue to meet the demands of our citizens for world class education, health care, and technology, for safe streets, clean air and water? Or will we put all of this at risk, along with the hard-won victory over deficits? I will vote against the Budget Resolution before us today, because it gives the wrong answer to those questions. As the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee reminded us so eloquently last week, Americans rightly expect us to make sure that the basic functions of government are taken care of. When we fail to provide the safe streets, the clean water, the good schools, that the citizens of the world's richest nation have every reason to expect, we have failed to live up to our responsibilities. I am sorry to say that this budget marks such a failure. Because of the size of the tax cuts, $1.35 billion, and their shape, they increase in cost in future years, this budget puts at risk all we have gained through years of hard work on the budget. And it puts at risk our ability to meet the basic demands our citizens make of us to manage our common affairs effectively and efficiently. We have real needs in this country, as the distinguished Senator from West Virginia reminded us last week. Almost a third of our bridges are in need of repair, many of our school rooms are crumbling, our water and sewer systems are in disrepair. In the midst of all of the private wealth our economy has created in the last decade, our public investments have failed to keep pace. This budget fails to provide any new funds for education, for health care, for clean air and water, for police protection, for safer roads and bridges--none. This budget spends less per citizen, after inflation, for all of those priorities. The President claims, and I believe him, that he wants to spend more on education. I support him in that effort. However, because there is not enough money in this budget to keep present levels of support for any domestic priorities, any increase in education spending will have to come out of police protection, out of drug interdiction, out of health care research. There is no increase in spending for education, unless you count a vague promise that we would like to spend more. But a budget is not about vague promises. It should tell us the facts about how much we have to spend on our priorities. And the sad fact is that this budget has no new money for education, period. This budget fails to meet the basic test of facing up to reality, there are more demands on our budget than there are funds to meet them, and this budget gives us no idea of where the cuts will fall to pay for any of the new priorities we face. When the Senate voted on its version of the budget last month, we called for $225 billion in additional investments in education. That money is gone from the Budget Resolution before us today, gone. In fact in this resolution, there is actually $5.5 billion less than last year's spending for education, allowing for inflation. The Federal budget is already smallest it has been since 1960 as a share of our economy. It is simply not realistic to assume that it will continue to shrink, in real terms, not just next year but for the next ten years. But that is just what this budget assumes. These cuts in domestic priorities will happen even if the economic projections on which this budget is based, ten-year projections that have proved wrong every time in the past, even if those projections turn out to be true. If the economy grows more slowly, if we face natural disasters, national security threats or other inevitable but unpredictable emergencies, there will be even more cuts. But there are other assumptions built into this budget, assumptions that I believe will be wrong no matter what happens to those economic projections. This budget assumes we will do nothing to protect millions of Americans from increases in the alternative minimum tax, that we will fail to renew popular and important programs such as the research and development tax credit, it assumes that we can undertake a major overhaul of our defense policy with a relatively small increase in spending. But recent statements by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld suggest hundreds of billions of dollars in new spending, that is not in this budget. If any of those assumptions, or a lot of other similar costly issues that are assumed away in this budget, prove to be wrong, there will be even less money for education, for health care research, for clear air and water, for cops on the beat. But this budget does not face up to those problems, it assumes them away. With the underlying health of our economy, with the hard work we put into restoring balance to our budgets, I am convinced we can afford tax cuts, tax cuts that would in any other context sound huge. Prudent budgeting, that makes full allowance for domestic and defense priorities and that is cautious about ten-year economic forecasts that have huge margins of error, would still leave room for hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts. There is no economic reason behind the tax cut numbers in this resolution. Those numbers date back to the Republican primaries, in 1999, when the economy was booming, the stock market was soaring and unemployment was falling. The Bush campaign picked a tax cut number they thought would help them beat Steve Forbes in the New Hampshire primary. They certainly were not concerned with formulating a ten-year budget plan during a slack economy. But those are the numbers we are told are still basically right for today. If we go into this thinking that we can afford a tax cut of this size, and a defense build-up many times greater than this budget allows for, with promises to increase spending on education, expectations that health care spending will go up, some kind of plan to shore up Social Security and Medicare with funds from outside those systems, I think we can all see where we are headed. One of the first things to go will the surpluses that we ought to use to pay down the debt, the burden that raises interest payments today and that our children and grandchildren will have to pay off. For all the talk about the surpluses belonging to the American people, we have to remember that the national debt belongs to them, too. Playing fast and loose with the assumptions in the budget could leave us with a bigger debt, and higher continuing interest payments on the debt burden, than we would have if we stayed on the course that restored balance to our budgets. We have come too far to go that way again. This budget does not build on the successes of the last decade; it threatens to return us to the time when we failed to make the hard choices that Americans expect us to make. I will vote against this budget resolution, and I hope my colleagues will join me.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to draw my colleagues attention to an on-going problem that impacts our national security-- parts shortages for the C-5. I know it may surprise some that I say this is a national security problem. Well, it is. My colleagues on the Armed Services Committee and on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee are not surprised. They know how vital strategic airlift is to national security. They also know that C-5s are the backbone of our strategic airlift capability. Working with the C-17, the C-5 provides the airlift needed for both wars and for humanitarian missions. For those who have not spent as much time on the issue, let me explain. The C-5 can carry more cargo, farther than any other plane in the American military. It is what brings the big, heavy stuff to the fight. For example, C-5s brought precision munitions into our major European bases for Allied Force in Kosovo. Once the big loads are brought into a theater, where necessary the C-17 then moves the equipment and supplies around the theater. As the Commander in Chief of United States Transportation Command has said many times, seventy percent of the cargo most needed in the first 30 days by the warfighter can only be airlifted on a C-5 or a C-17. And, by the way, this is stuff we'll need even if we get lighter and more mobile because time will always matter and the more we can get to the fight quickly, the better our military position. In addition to our warfighting needs, America uses the C-5 to promote goodwill and to help those made needy by natural disasters. C-5s are almost always involved in providing humanitarian assistance. For example, large desalinization plants to provide drinkable water must go on the C-5. So must the Fairfax Search and Rescue Team that we heard so much about after earthquakes in Turkey and Taiwan. To get back to my earlier point, America is a global power that needs a healthy C-5 fleet. One major factor in low mission capable rates and lower airlift capacity has been a lack of parts for the C-5. In short, without parts, C-5s are not available to the Nation. Because I was seeing the impact of this on a regular basis at Dover Air Force Base, in my State of Delaware, I thought it was important to take a closer look at this problem. What I was seeing was maintenance crews being overworked on a regular basis because there were no parts available to repair planes. In order to keep C-5s flying, two or more C-5s had to be turned into ``hangar queens'' or ``cann-birds''. Sad terms that describe million dollar airplanes that must be used to provide parts for other planes. Parts are taken from that plane and then put into another plane that needs that part. This process, called aircraft cannibalization, cost the Logistics Groups at Dover over $2.77 million for Fiscal Year 1999 according to an independent review of Logistics cost done for Air Mobility Command. Cannibalization not only wastes money, it also requires significantly more work hours to open up an airplane, remove a part, open up the other airplane and install the part, and then eventually install a replacement part in the original airplane. This process also increases the risk that something else on the cann-bird will break or that the part itself will break. The end result was that morale was low because without an adequate supply of spare and repair parts, inefficient procedures had become standard practice. In addition, the overall health of the C-5 fleet suffered. As I became more aware of the impact this lack of parts was having on morale and the readiness of the C-5 fleet two years ago, I brought then Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen to Dover to make him aware of the problem. While I believe that visit was helpful, it was clear to me that continued attention to the issue was necessary. That led me to write a short report on the issue. I have sent copies of the report to my colleagues in the Senate. The report seeks to explain the important role played by the C-5, the extent of the parts problem for the C-5, the impact those parts shortages have had on the fleet and those who work on the C-5, and to describe the failures in logistics system management that made the problem even worse. I hope that my colleagues will take the time to review the report and will reach the same conclusions that I did. In the end, it was clear to me that we must do three things. First, we must continue to increase funding for parts and keep it predictable. Second, we must completely modernize the C-5 fleet with new avionics and the Reliability Enhancement and Re-engining Program. Third, we must continue to promote smart management reform throughout the defense logistics system. Again, I know that none of this is news to my colleagues on the defense committees who have provided so much leadership and support for addressing these challenges, but I hope the report will be helpful to them and their staffs and to other colleagues. I know that spare and repair parts is not glamorous, but it is vital to America's ability to protect and promote our national security. For that reason, we must build on the good work done by the defense committees over the past four years to begin to solve the parts shortage problem and ensure that we do not lose sight of what must be done now and in the future to eliminate the problem.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. I ask unanimous consent that my amendment No. 386 be called up and then set aside, just so I make sure I am in this game.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. BIDEN. I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be set aside.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise to support Senator Murray's amendment. I make an observation at the outset. I do think this amendment suffers in one sense. It suffers from the ``not invented here'' syndrome. That is, I have not heard anybody yet--I am hopeful to hear it--come forward and say why smaller classes are not better and why the United States of America and the Federal Government should not help in accommodating most States and counties and cities change individual classrooms to smaller sizes. Maybe there is something of which I am unaware. I am anxious to hear it. I have been listening back in my office to this nondebate debate because everybody seems to be for it, based on what is going on, other than an oblique reference that is not good from one quarter. But other than that, I have not heard why smaller classes are not better. I am amazed any Senator would come to the floor of the Senate to argue that reducing class size is not good for children. Occasionally we run across those things that are so obvious on their face there is no debate about it. I do not know anybody--educator, noneducator, able to read, not able to read, with a Ph.D., with just a high school education--I do not know anybody who would make the argument that if you are given the same teacher, competent or incompetent, that teacher is more likely to get more information in the heads of the children in his or her class if there are 2 students than if there are 5, if there are 5 instead of 15, if there are 15 instead of 45. It just is so self- evident. Results from both standardized tests and from curriculum-based tests show students in smaller classes continually outperform those same students in larger classes. These results span urban and rural schools, among low-income and wealthy students. In fact, when class sizes were decreased for minority students, their achievement rates doubled--that is right, doubled. There are certain things I do not know why we spend so much time debating, they are so self-evident, such as the idea that we would be better off in this country and more likely to raise the achievement level of all our children in direct proportion to how many children had to compete for the teacher's attention. Children would lose a lot if everyone had Plato as a teacher because they would not learn to interact with other children; they wouldn't be involved in sports; they wouldn't learn social skills. But, my Lord, does anybody think they would not learn more information if they had one brilliant teacher and one brilliant student, no matter how slow and how fast? Everybody knows this. The question is whether or not we are willing to put our money, as a priority, on what we say is the single most important task facing this country--education of our children. I ask anybody within listening distance of this microphone, on television or on radio, to ask themselves the following question--by the way, I teach. I taught as a student teacher when I was in law school to make money to get through law school. I now am a professor at Wyden University Law School, teaching an advanced course in constitutional law for two or three credits, depending on the semester, for the last eight or so semesters. You don't have to know rocket science to figure this out. They tell me there are about 190 young people who try to sign up for my class every year. Because it is a seminar, it is limited to no more than 16 or 17 students, although I might note parenthetically that the school started putting 25 and 28 in my class. I finally went to the dean and said: I think it is too large. He said: Well, I guess you are right. And they decided to put fewer students in the class. They changed the schedule to a Saturday morning, and it became inconvenient at the last minute. So for the last two semesters I have only had five to eight students. I promise you, as bad of a teacher as I am, when I had 5 students in my class, they learned a lot more than when I had 15, even in a targeted seminar. My wife has been a schoolteacher for the last 22 years. She can tell you, as any teacher in a public or a private school--she taught in the public school; now she teaches at a junior college--that everything changes when you have fewer students--everything. Discipline problems change when you have 5 students as opposed to 10; or 15 as opposed to 45. Everything changes. The student who is self-conscious, or the student such as I when I was a kid who stutters, is much more likely to raise his or her hand with a small class than with a big class. The kid who raises the devil or is shy is likely to engage more in a small class than a big class. I don't get this. I don't understand why this is even a debate. I really truly don't. Some of my conservative friends believe in the devolution of power, which is the new, as they say, paradigm for Government. It is a fancy word of saying the Federal Government has no responsibility. If you conclude that the Federal Government has no responsibility to deal in any way, directly or indirectly, with elementary and secondary education of our students in the States and localities, then I accept your ``no'' vote as being based upon a rational principle. I disagree with your principle, but it is rational. It is rational to say the Federal Government should not be involved at all; ergo, I am against 100,000 teachers. I got that. I figured that out. There are some in this body, many at the Cato Institute, and many at the Heritage Foundation who believe that. I think many of the people, including President Bush, may believe that. I don't know. But I understand that. However, I do not understand anyone making the argument that the distinguished Senator from Washington is wrong--if I am not mistaken, she used to actually teach--when she says that it is easier to communicate information, build confidence, and encourage involvement when you have a smaller class than when you have a larger class. Why do you think we pay so much money to send our kids to private universities as opposed to public universities? I went to a public university. I am very proud of my university, the University of Delaware. My son went to a large law school. In our State, we don't have a large public law school. My son went to Yale. He had five, six, or seven in his class. The fact is, I didn't get into Yale. Thank God I have a smart son. But all kidding aside, why do you think we pay all this extra money? Many of these brilliant young people sitting behind us and the ones who advise us went to those schools. They went there because, in part, of the teacher-pupil ratio. Why do you think when you send your kid to a university and you get that little book, which we all learn--there is a book that gives the ratings of all the colleges--why do you think, in addition to telling you the size of the library, the size of the student body, the endowment, and how many Nobel Laureates they have, part of the rating of whether they are a good or a bad school is based upon the teacher- student ratio? I get confused here. Maybe I am a little slow. But if, in fact, it matters when you are a 22-year-old doctoral student to have a smaller class, tell me why it doesn't matter when you are a 7-year-old first grader? I don't get this. I think we need a little bit of truth in packaging here. This is not my legislation. I am a follower. But I am ready to be a soldier. I hope someone will come to the Chamber and debate with us about why smaller class size is not a good idea. Good. Maybe my friend is about to do that. I would love to have that debate. Simply put, smaller classes can dramatically improve the quality of a child's education, whether they are slow, or fast, or whether or not they are the brightest candle on the table. All of them will benefit marginally more by a smaller class. We began this initiative under the leadership of the Senator from the State of Washington 3 years ago in an attempt to reduce class size in grades 1-3 to no more than 18 students. I cosponsored that amendment with Senator Murray in her effort to continue this program in subsequent years. I would like to think that the 100,000 teacher initiative would be as successful as the 100,000 cops initiative that I authored in 1994. I don't think it is an accident that overall crime has gone down 7\1/2\ percent per year because we added 100,000 cops on the streets in addition to other initiatives. The Federal Government has no strings attached in terms of having any control over the cop any more than having any control over the teacher. The State, the district, and the locality control that teacher. But as we say, there are certain national priorities. No child should be left behind. One of the ways to make sure no child is left behind is to do just what every parent does in the supermarket or department store: Don't let go of her hand. Don't let go of his hand. And if you have 45 students in the class, you can't hold all their hands, figuratively speaking. So the degree to which you want to be assured that children are left behind, increase class size. The degree to which you want to diminish the possibility of any child being left behind, reduce class size. Both the cops and teachers programs focus on putting resources where they can be most effective. For cops, it was the street. For teachers, it is the classroom. In the first year, more than 29,000 teachers were hired. Now about 1.7 million children are directly benefiting from smaller classes. In my home State of Delaware, a small State, our schools rely on this program to fund 115 teachers statewide. While that may not seem to be a lot to some of my colleagues, those additional teachers can, and do, have a great impact in a State as small as mine. I debated the Senator's legislation on, I believe it was, ``Meet the Press'' about a year ago with the distinguished and serious Governor of the State of Pennsylvania, who was making the case that President Bush did not like this program. He pointed out--and I will ask permission to amend this figure in the Record if I am wrong-- my recollection is there were a couple thousand teachers in Pennsylvania or 1,800. It was a big number. I turned to my friend on that show, the Governor of Pennsylvania, and said: Well, then, I assume the Governor of Pennsylvania would like to send back the money. You don't want the teachers? They don't make a difference? So I suggest that any Senator who is opposed to this program should stand up and in good conscience say: By the way, we have 270 federally funded teachers. I would like to send all the money back. I am sending a petition to my Governor saying: Don't take the money. Fire those teachers. Send them home. Or tell us why it isn't working in your State to help alleviate the myriad of problems public educators face every day. This program is working. Now, in my humble opinion, is not the time to give it up, either by failing to provide the necessary funds for continuation or by block- granting them with other education programs because, do you know what happens when you block-grant? The last people to benefit are the teachers. The last folks who get anything in the deal are teachers. This isn't for the teachers. This is for the students. Again, I make an analogy to the police. Before we passed the Biden crime bill in 1994, in the 20 largest cities in America, there was a net increase of less than 1.5 percent in the total number of those who were on police forces because--guess what--they did not want to hire police, not because they did not think they needed them but because they did not want to sign on to the commitment of year in and year out having to pay them. They did not want to pick up the fringe benefits, the health care, and so on. So when you block-grant it, I promise you, they are not going to put it in hiring more teachers. They are not going to go into your local school districts and say: By the way, we block-granted the money. And now we are going to give, for example, Abraham Lincoln School in such and such a county, in such and such a State, money to hire three more teachers. I hope I am wrong. But I will make a bet, if you block-grant it, a year after the block grant has been distributed, there will not be any more teachers than the day before it was distributed. So, folks, it is a funny thing about education: you need a teacher. It is a strange notion. I know of the incredible work Senator Kennedy has done. And I say to my colleague from Vermont, and all the members of this committee-- Republican and Democrat--they have done incredible work. But I cannot think of anything--anything at all--they have done that has the potential to have a more immediate impact on the amount of knowledge students in the United States of America attending public schools will acquire than reducing their class size. Maybe there is something out there--I do not purport to be an expert in education--but I am telling you, I can't think of anything in this bill more important. So I urge my colleagues to stand with the Senator from the State of Washington, Mrs. Murray, and adopt her amendment and support the Class Size Reduction Initiative--unless they have another idea as to how they are going to guarantee us that the end result of our legislation will be smaller class size in the States and localities that voluntarily choose to participate in this program. I thank my friend from the State of Washington for allowing me to participate and cosponsor this amendment. I compliment her and everyone else who supports this concept. I look forward to hearing opposing arguments on why smaller class size is not a good idea. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the nomination of John Bolton to be Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security. I do so for several reasons. I say at the outset--and I have said to my friend and colleague, Senator Helms, the chairman of the committee--that my opposition to John Bolton is not based on a personal concern about John Bolton's overall qualifications. He is an intelligent, bright, decent, and honest man. Notwithstanding an editorial in one of the major newspapers in this country, there is nothing inconsistent about that in my opposing the nomination of him relating to this specific position. I want my colleague from North Carolina to know that my opposition is based--and which he will soon hear, and he knows because we have talked about it--on Mr. Bolton's views on arms control primarily. This is a decent and an honorable man, but I think he is the wrong man for this job. I add at the outset, I think his views on some of the major issues in the area of foreign policy are at odds with the stated views of the Secretary of State, although I am certain the Secretary of State supports Mr. Bolton. I am not implying that there is opposition within the State Department to Mr. Bolton. Let me give you the reasons, as briefly as I can, that I am concerned about Mr. Bolton's views on arms control. He comes to the Senate with an extensive record of Government service but a very limited record in arms control and nonproliferation matters, which, as the Presiding Officer knows, is an extremely complicated area--extremely complicated area. What we do know about Mr. Bolton's views on arms control and nonproliferation matters suggests an individual who questions the relevance of arms control agreements. My friend from North Carolina, the chairman of the committee, questions the relevance of the arms control agreements, and I find him to be an extremely qualified Senator. We just disagree on the issue. I would vote for him for just about anything. I would probably vote for him even for this position, but maybe I would not. This is the one position I could consider I would not want him to have in the administration. In praising the defeat of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty, Mr. Bolton referred to the CTBT, and other unnamed treaties, as ``unenforceable treaties'' which provide ``illusionary protections.'' I realize some hold that view. They are not, however, people I think should be in charge of promoting arms control, disarmament, and nonproliferation matters. The death of the CTBT, he wrote, is a ``useful opportunity to re- examine in a hard-headed and realistic way how international peace and security are really guaranteed.'' Treaties are not the only means of ensuring arms control reductions, but in the last 50 years treaties and agreements have provided the foundation for advancing U.S. arms control and nonproliferation objectives. From the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to the START treaties, from the Chemical Weapons Convention to the Biological Weapons Convention, such agreements have been essential in containing the threat of dangerous weapons. Mr. Bolton has supported some arms control treaties, I might add, including the Chemical Weapons Convention, where he and I were on one side, and the chairman was on the other side. But his sweeping statements deriding the importance of arms control leave me uneasy about his commitment to the task. My discomfort level is increased by Mr. Bolton's questioning of whether treaties are even binding. He wrote: [W]hile treaties may well be politically or even morally binding, they are not legally obligatory. They are just not ``law'' as we apprehend the term. Similarly, Mr. Bolton once testified to Congress--recently; as a matter of fact, in the last several years--that treaties are ``political'' and ``not legally binding, to the extent that they purport to affect relations among national governments.'' In response to a written question, he stated the matter a bit differently, saying, ``I believe that treaties bind the United States,'' which I have difficulty, quite frankly, squaring with his previous writings. If confirmed, Mr. Bolton would supervise some of the most important treaty obligations. I find Mr. Bolton's views on those issues relating to treaty obligations very troubling--very troubling. I am also concerned about Mr. Bolton's limited experience in arms control. By law, the Under Secretary is the senior assistant to the Secretary of State in matters ``related to international security policy, arms control, and non-proliferation.'' As a matter of fact, in the reorganization effort spurred and led by my friend from North Carolina, the chairman of the committee, we moved this position into the State Department. It used to sit outside the State Department. This was supposed to be--and is supposed to be--the primary person promoting arms control. I note, parenthetically, I have always had difficulty voting for nominees who hold views that are antithetical to or at odds with the responsibilities they have. I voted against, for example, fine men who were nominated to be Secretary of the Interior during the Reagan administration when they were insufficiently committed to the environment. So I didn't want to be a party to putting someone in a position whose avowed purpose was the President's, which was antithetical to the purpose of the organization. I am also concerned about his limited experience, as I said. Mr. Bolton does have foreign policy experience, though--I do not think we should underestimate that--at the Agency for International Development and as Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations. He has held those posts. In the State Department, he did gain some experience in arms control, working on issues related to the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, but these activities were hardly a major part of his duties. In the last 8 years, Mr. Bolton has written extensively on foreign policy, but he wrote very little about arms control. That is not a bad thing, but it still leaves us with a person with little experience in the arms control field, to which many of our senior people devote their entire careers. Chairman Helms has cited a letter from former Directors of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency in support of Mr. Bolton. The signatory of that letter most recently in the arms control job is a man named Ron Lehman. I wish we had someone of Mr. Lehman's experience before us. I might add, Mr. Bolton is just as bright. This is a fellow who is a Yale undergraduate, went to Yale Law School, and is an extremely bright fellow. But he does not have Mr. Lehman's experience. When Mr. Lehman was nominated in 1989, he had already held three jobs with firsthand arms control experience before he was nominated. He was Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy, where he dealt with U.S. nuclear policy, arms control, space policy, and technology transfer controls. He was the chief U.S. negotiator on strategic nuclear arms; that is, the START talks. And he was the Senior Director at the National Security Council for Defense Programs and Arms Control. This man came with an incredible amount of experience. In short, Mr. Lehman was literally steeped in arms control. On other foreign policy issues, Mr. Bolton has been outside the mainstream. He has called for diplomatic recognition of Taiwan, a position at odds with three decades of American diplomacy--and contrary to the position of this administration. Mr. Bolton once wrote that the wars in Kosovo and Chechnya involved ``no tangible national interest.'' In the committee hearing, he changed his tune a bit, saying that there was no vital national interest in the Balkans. Nonetheless, I am concerned that Mr. Bolton's consistent criticism of the NATO action in Kosovo indicates a lack of commitment to the stability of Southeastern Europe--a position I find unacceptable for the person who would supervise security assistance programs to the region. I am concerned, finally, about Mr. Bolton's diplomatic temperament for this position, which involves the management of complex negotiations in a wide range of arms control and non-proliferation issues. Stated another way: It takes the patience of Job. I am not sure how good I would be in the position. These are sensitive and difficult negotiations. Mr. Bolton's penchant for inflammatory rhetoric gives me pause about his ability to handle this task. Following defeat of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, Mr. Bolton heaped scorn on proponents of the Treaty--I don't take that personally--who expressed concerns that its defeat marked an isolationist turn for the United States and might lead to accelerated nuclear proliferation. He wrote that such fears are ``indications of a profoundly misguided and potentially dangerous philosophy in American foreign policy,'' and said that such analysis is ``timid and neo-pacifist.'' He has a right to say that, but it is not the language of or temperament of people who have been in that position. Well, this senator expressed those fears, as did some of my colleagues. Mr. Bolton once said that ``Republicans are adults on foreign policy questions, and we define what we're willing to do militarily and politically by what is in the best interests of the United States.'' Is he seriously implying that Democrats are not adults on foreign policy questions and do not worry about the best interests of the United States? What does that suggest about his ability to work with Democratic Senators? This kind of inflamed rhetoric is what we might expect on talk radio, but we do not expect to hear it in diplomatic rooms of the Department of State. I believe Mr. Bolton is a capable person. I respect his intellect and his willingness to serve. But I think he is the wrong person for this job. The job of Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security is a critical one--its incumbent has the lead responsibility in the State Department on arms control and non-proliferation. I do not believe Mr. Bolton has the vision or the experience necessary for this position. One final thing that concerns me about Mr. Bolton is his lack of enthusiasm for the proposal put forward by former Senator Baker, the majority leader, Mr. Cutler, a top lawyer in Democratic administrations, a bipartisan group, saying the most dangerous threat we face is loose nukes in the Soviet Union. They predicted that there is an incredibly greater likelihood there would be a nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon used in the United States as a consequence of the inadequacy of the Russian system protecting those systems than there was from anything else that could happen and suggested a robust investment in our policy to deal with nonproliferation issues, particularly as they stem from the disorganization combined with the incredible array of weaponry lying around Russia. In the questioning, particularly by our colleague from Florida, it became pretty clear that Mr. Bolton does not share that sense of urgency at all. He is in charge of the nonproliferation side, the man who will be advising the Secretary of State. For all those reasons, I reluctantly cast my vote against Mr. Bolton. As I said, we have been on opposite sides of issues, he and I, for a long time. When I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee, he was the main man pushing nominations for the Administration. We were butting heads all the time. I learned to respect his intelligence, I learned to respect his drive, and I learned to respect how tough he was. It is not that I don't know Mr. Bolton. I know him in that capacity. This is a different capacity. It requires a different temperament and a different attitude in order to promote what I believe to be the single most important job for someone carrying this portfolio within the State Department. I urge my colleagues to vote no, although I must tell the Senate, I have done no whipping. I have not checked in terms of who is where on any of these votes. I want to make it clear why I am voting no on this nomination. I thank the Chair. I see my friend and chairman is prepared to speak. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, has there been time allotted for me to speak on this nomination?

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, as we were reminded yesterday, words matter in diplomacy. Wednesday morning, the President of the United States appeared on national television in an interview taped Tuesday night with Charles Gibson of ABC News. In that interview, the President was asked if the United States had an obligation to defend Taiwan if it was attacked by China. President Bush replied, ``Yes, we do, and the Chinese must understand that. Yes, I would.'' The interviewer pressed further, asking, ``With the full force of the American military?'' President Bush replied, ``Whatever it took to help Taiwan defend itself.'' He did not elaborate at that time. A few hours later, the President appeared to back off this startling new commitment, stressing in an interview on CNN that the United States would continue to abide by the Taiwan Relations Act and the One China policy followed by each of the past five Presidential Administrations. I want to make clear that I believe the security of Taiwan to be a vital interest of the United States. Senator Helms and I are among a handful of current members of the U.S. Senate who were around to vote for the Taiwan Relations Act when it was introduced 22 years ago. And I remain as committed today as I was then to the peaceful resolution of the Taiwan question. And because of my strong support for Taiwan, I was inclined to believe that the President had made an honest, and mostly harmless, mistake yesterday, especially when the State Department issued a clarification stressing that U.S. policy remained unchanged. State Department spokesman Phil Reeker said, ``Our policy hasn't changed today, it didn't change yesterday, and it didn't change last year, it hasn't changed in terms of what we have followed since 1979 with the passage of the Taiwan Relations Act.'' But by the end of the day, senior national security officials at the White House were singing a different tune, insisting that the President meant what he said in the morning interview. The President's National Security Adviser claimed that, ``the Taiwan Relations act makes very clear that the U.S. has an obligation that Taiwan's peaceful way of life is not upset by force.'' And a White House Aide said, ``Nothing in the act precludes the President from saying that the U.S. would do whatever it took to help Taiwan defend herself.'' As my colleagues may know, the Taiwan Relations Act obligates the United States to provide Taiwan ``with such defense articles and defense services . . . as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability.'' It also states that any attempt to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means would constitute a ``threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area'' and would be, ``of grave concern to the United States.'' Finally, it mandates that in the event of, ``any threat to the security or the social or economic system of the people on Taiwan and any danger to the interests of the United States arising therefrom, the President and the Congress shall determine, in accordance with constitutional processes, appropriate action by the United States in response to any such danger.'' Contrary to the President's statement to Charles Gibson, the United States is not obligated to defend Taiwan, ``With the full force of the American military,'' and hasn't been since we abrogated the 1954 Mutual Defense Treaty signed by President Eisenhower and ratified by the United States Senate. And contrary to the White House spokesman's comments, the President does not have the authority unilaterally to commit U.S. forces to the defense of Taiwan. Under the Constitution, as well as the provisions of the Taiwan Relations Act, that is a matter which the President must bring to the American people and to the Congress of the United States. During the campaign, President Bush implicity criticized the policy of ``strategic ambiguity'' which has governed the use of American forces to defend Taiwan in the event of a conflict with China for more than 20 years since the United States abrogated the 1954 Mutual Defense Treaty with Taiwan and normalized diplomatic relations with China. The point of that policy, which I support, was to retain the right to use force to defend Taiwan, while reserving to the United States all the decision-making authority about the circumstances in which we might, or might not, commit U.S. forces. Otherwise, the United States might find itself dragged into a conflict between China and Taiwan even in the event of a unilateral Taiwanese declaration of independence, something the President said yesterday he would not support. This policy of strategic ambiguity was consistent with our One China policy and also with our desire that the Taiwan question be resolved only through peaceful means. Well, today I guess we have a new policy, and I am calling it the policy of ``ambiguous strategic ambiguity.'' What worries me is not just what the President said, but the utter disregard for the role of Congress and the vital interest of our key Pacific Allies, specifically Japan. Perhaps the President is unaware that without using U.S. bases in Japan, we would be hard-pressed to make good on his commitment to use U.S. forces to defend Taiwan in the event of a conflict with China. Perhaps he is unaware of how sensitive an issue this is for the Japanese government, which has taken great pains to avoid explicitly extending the U.S.-Japan Security Alliance to a Taiwan contingency. I was quick to praise the President's deft handling of the dispute with China over the fate of the downed U.S. surveillance aircraft. But in this case, as in his rocky summit meeting with South Korean President Kim Daejung, the President has damaged U.S. credibility with our allies and sewn confusion throughout the Pacific Rim. Words matter. Nuance matters. Other events, the challenge of engaging North Korea, the emergence of a reformist prime minister in Japan, and the threat of political instability in Indonesia, will surely test America's resolve and diplomatic agility in the Pacific during the months ahead.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise to call my colleagues' attention to an article by the distinguished First Amendment scholar, Ronald Dworkin, ``Free Speech And The Dimensions Of Democracy.'' The article appears in If Buckley Fell: A First Amendment Blueprint for Regulating Money in Politics, sponsored by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University's School of Law. Professor Dworkin's work illustrates a point some of us made during the recent debate on campaign finance reform: the shocking state of our current political life is a perversion of the public discourse envisioned by the Founding Fathers, a perversion directly rooted in the mistaken understanding of the First Amendment underlying the Supreme Court's decision in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976). As Professor Dworkin puts it, ``[o]ur politics are a disgrace and money is the root of the problem.'' There is no need to detail the disgraceful state of our political life brought about by politicians' need to chase dollars. Members of this body, myself included, described the current state of affairs in all its painful and embarrassing detail during the recently concluded debate on campaign finance reform. Professor Dworkin's article makes explicit what many of us have argued in supporting Senator Hollings' proposal to amend the Constitution so that reasonable limits can be placed on campaign expenditures: Senator Hollings' Amendment is not an affront to the First Amendment, as some have portrayed it; it is an affront to Buckley, which was wrongly decided. Senator Hollings' Amendment is restorative: it returns First Amendment jurisprudence to what it was before the ill-conceived Buckley decision. In holding that limitations on campaign expenditures violate the First Amendment, Buckley mistakenly equates money and speech. But, as Justice Stevens pointed out recently in Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, 528 U.S. 377 (2000), money is not speech; money is property. Professor Dworkin's article shows that the mistaken factual premise in Buckley is rooted in a fundamental misconception of First Amendment jurisprudence. Senator Hollings' effort to make clear that reasonable limits can be imposed constitutionally on campaign expenditures would restore that jurisprudence by overturning Buckley. The First Amendment and most of the important decisions interpreting it presuppose a democracy in which citizens are politically equal, not only as judges of the political process through voting, but also as participants in that process through informed political discourse. Reasonable regulations on campaign expenditures would enhance speech and contribute to a more rational political discourse. Professor Dworkin illustrates this point through a historical and philosophical analysis of First Amendment precedent and the threat that unrestricted campaign expenditures pose to the values underlying the First Amendment. Treating money as speech debases genuine democratic dialogue. Justice Brandeis made this point in another way in his justly famous dissent in Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 375 (1927): Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the state was to make men free to develop their faculties, and that in its government the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They valued liberty both as an end and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness and courage to be the secret of liberty; . . . [They believed] that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discourse is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. The damage that unrestricted campaign expenditures has done to our public discourse is clear. If money is speech, then inevitably one will need money, and large amounts of it, to speak politically. The result, in Professor Dworkin's words, is that our last two presidential campaigns were ``as much a parody of democracy as democracy itself.'' I will not repeat Professor Dworkin's analysis of the legal precedents interpreting the First Amendment and Buckley's distortion of them, except to point to the oddity that Buckley at times recognizes the constitutional jurisprudence it undermines. It does so in holding that, in contrast to campaign expenditures where any limit purportedly violates the First Amendment, Congress may constitutionally place limits on campaign contributions. The latter holding, as Professor Dworkin points out, is premised on a principle deeply rooted in First Amendment jurisprudence: reasonable restrictions on activity in the political realm, like contributing money, may be erected to protect core First Amendment values, like equality of political discourse. That is all that most proponents of campaign reform want to do, and that is all that the Hollings Amendment will do.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill which would right a wrong, a small wrong, but a wrong nevertheless. It affects a handful of our nation's diplomats who serve in the world's most dangerous places: places like Bosnia and Lebanon. Our diplomats serve in some pretty difficult places, often in harm's way, just as our soldiers do. These diplomats who serve in the most dangerous places receive a special allowance, which is aptly called ``danger pay.'' This allowance is not unlike that paid to our military when they are in combat. In fact, in some places where our military and diplomatic personnel serve side by side, both receive a special allowance for their sacrifices. The military justifiably receives this benefit tax-free. But our diplomatic personnel do not. Through an oversight in the Internal Revenue code, diplomats are taxed on their danger pay, even though they often face similar hardships and dangers. I think that's wrong. The bill I introduce today, I have a bill which would right this wrong. It affects just a handful of people. But to them it will serve as recognition of the sacrifice they make when they represent the American people in dangerous places overseas. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, as we debate the budget resolution, I rise today with the distinguished Senators from Texas, South Dakota, Mississippi and Massachusetts to bring to the attention of our colleagues the urgent need to provide Amtrak and the states with the stable source of capital funding they need for a national system of high speed rail corridors. Specifically, we would like to discuss the need for action on S. 250, the High Speed Rail Investment Act of 2001. We introduced this legislation earlier this year, and already more than 50 of our colleagues from both sides of the aisle have signed on with us. This bill is cosponsored by both the majority and minority leaders, which brings me to the point of my comments today, as we are considering the budget resolution, that will set our priorities for this year's session of Congress. Last December, on the very last day of the last session, I took the floor to discuss identical legislation with Senator Lott, Senator Daschle, and other leaders of our body. Our leaders were gracious enough to make a commitment to bring this legislation to the Finance Committee, on which they both serve, and to the Senate floor, during this session. For reasons beyond our control, we could not include important legislation in the omnibus appropriations bill, but many of us in the Senate, and I was among them, would not take ``no'' for an answer. My great friend Senator Roth, along with Senators Moynihan and Lautenberg, had worked too long on this issue to let this die. While we could not get this done last year, we got the next best thing: the word of our leaders, on both sides of the aisle that this legislation would be on their list of priorities for this year. So as we discuss our priorities in this budget resolution, it is important to hear from them that the High Speed Rail Investment Act is still on that list. I yield to Senator Hutchison, who has done so much to promote rational, efficient surface transportation in this country, including the indispensable component of passenger rail.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois. This is a simple amendment. It is an amendment that everyone here, on both sides of the aisle, should be able to support. When President Bush was campaigning during the Republican primaries, he announced a 10-year across-the-board income tax cut plan. He said that increasing the budget surplus meant the Government was taking much too much money. Steve Forbes had his flat tax, and Mr. Bush had his tax cut plan. He offered that plan at a time--to repeat what has been said on the floor before--when our economy was booming, when the stock market was still climbing. In late 1999, when the campaign was beginning and this plan was offered, the economy was growing at 8.5 percent. That is a very different circumstance than we have today. We just found out that the economy was still growing in the first quarter of this year, but not at 8.5 percent, at 1 percent. The President has told us the plan he came up with in the campaign when the economy was expanding was exactly the right size for the economy at that time. Now he is trying to tell us it is exactly the size for the economy at this time. President Bush has admitted that his plan fails to get enough money out to people at the start of his plan, right now, while the economy is at a low point, while consumer confidence is bumbling around down there, and while people are slowing up on their purchases, slowing up on buying durable goods, and beginning to wonder whether or not the economy is going to take a further tailspin or recover, although consumer confidence bumped up slightly. The vast majority of the President's tax cut actually happens many years from now. It can't have any effect on the economic problems we face today, on the sluggishness of our economy, and our concerns for recession. In fact, 95 percent of the President's tax cut takes effect after the year 2003. His plan, whatever else we may make of it, is not designed in any way, shape, or form, to stimulate the economy in the short run. One thing everyone seems in agreement on is what we should be doing. At least what we should be doing is stimulating the economy in the short run. The President himself acknowledges this. In fact, so does the Republican budget resolution before us today. My friend, the chairman of the Budget Committee, has included $60 billion for a stimulus proposal in this resolution. Senator Durbin, Senator Nelson of Florida, Senator Lieberman, and I suggest that we act on that. We are offering an amendment, with the same $60 billion cost this year as in the Republican plan, that will put money in the pockets of everyone who works for a living and pays payroll taxes. If this were to become law, as soon as 2 or 3 months from now, we will be able to send a $600 check to eligible couples, $300 to single taxpayers. We also permanently drop--and the President proposes as well--the income tax rate from 15 to 10 percent. This is a permanent cut that affects everyone who pays income tax at the highest and lowest brackets. The President has a similar proposal, but ours would go into effect immediately. That would mean an additional $300, on average, per person per year on top of the payroll tax rebate check for a married couple through lowering withholding from their paychecks, having lowered the lowest rate from 15 to 10, as the President proposes. That extra 900 bucks per family this year is real money. It is real money for working families, and it has real consequences. As strange as it may sound, it means a couple that is withholding the purchase of a new toaster or refrigerator or microwave or a durable product that folks like us don't withhold buying now--we are not the reason the economy is slowing down. Everybody always talks about how the Senate is made up of millionaires. I wish I were one of them. But there is no millionaire in this place who is not spending their money. They are not the reason the economy is slowing down. Average folks, the folks I grew up with, they are the ones who are causing the economy to slow because they are not spending their money. They have lost confidence in the economy. So if we are going to have any hope of an impact beyond what I believe is needed--the monetary stimulus that Mr. Greenspan, hopefully, will continue to provide, this is the only fiscal stimulus that is available to us. That extra $900 per family, as I said, is real money. It exceeds what they would get under the whole plan, in some cases, of the President. This will mean a lot of people and businesses that depend on them will be able to purchase and sell, keep people employed, keep the economy going. This money would get out this year, and to give a $60 billion jump start to the economy is something, if I read the budget resolution correctly, if I listened to the rhetoric I have heard from Democrats as well as Republicans, as we all acknowledge is needed--maybe the argument will be it is not enough of a stimulus. Some argue it is too much. I don't know anybody arguing that we don't need a stimulus. This is something I think we can all agree on: the need for a tax cut that actually does something to lift the sagging economy here and now. By the way, as our friend from Arkansas stood up, Senator Blanche Lincoln, a couple weeks ago, I was surprised when she listed how many people in her State would not benefit from any aspect of the President's tax cut because all they do is pay payroll taxes. Nothing. This will see to it that everybody--those folks, real live folks we all say we care about, will get a tax cut, and they will get it now. So the two benefits it has for that cadre of people is, one, they get it now and, two, they get it. Under the existing proposal of the President, they don't get it, period. I hope we get it and figure it out. The amendment I am speaking to today, along with my friend from Illinois and my friend from Florida, who will speak next, simply says we should put our money where our mouth is. Both parties in the Senate agree on a $60 billion stimulus plan, and we should act as soon as possible. This amendment calls on us to take the first tax bill that comes over from the House, substitute our $60 billion economic stimulus plan with this bipartisan support, pass it right away, and within weeks get money into people's hands. I say to my friends on both sides of the aisle, if you believe in doing something right now to pump some life into the economy, this is your chance. Whatever you make of this $2 trillion-plus tax cut cost by the President, whatever you make of its size or its distribution, this amendment does what tax cuts alone do not do--it puts money now, real money, into the hands of every taxpayer in the country in time to respond to the real needs of the economic stimulus. It is not based upon some pie-in-the-sky expectation of what is going to happen over 10 years based upon the growth of the economy and us limiting spending. I thank my colleague for listening. Whatever time I have left, I yield to my friend from the State of Florida.

Mr. BIDEN. I ask unanimous consent that the remaining time be yielded to my friend from Florida.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I commend an initiative in my State that I am quite proud of. I have stood on this floor many, many times over the past 28 years to laud people, programs, and events in Delaware. There is one statistic in my State, however, that I am not fond of repeating, but it is a sad fact that we must, and are, confronting: Delaware has one of the highest breast cancer death rates in the country. Having said that, I want to commend the efforts of a special group of people who are determined to raise awareness about breast cancer and save more lives. A couple weeks ago, a Wilmington salon, ``Chez Nicole,'' hosted a unique event to raise money for breast cancer. A couple hundred women packed this hair and manicuring salon on Sunday, March 4th. The owners, Nicole Testa and Joe Cannatelli, father and daughter, opened their business doors and offered the services of their two dozen employees, all free of charge. Nicole's husband, Ken Testa, was by her side the entire day also. The bottom line: More than $14,000 was raised to fight breast cancer. The Biden Breast Health Initiative is a program designed to educate young women across Delaware on the importance of proper breast health and the life-saving importance of early detection of breast cancer. Awareness and early detection are the best defenses in fighting breast cancer mortality, and for these measures to be most effective, they must be raised among young women. Delaware has ranked, consistently and dismally, number one, two or three nationwide in breast cancer mortality rates over the past ten years. The Biden Breast Health Initiative Committee found that ranking to be simply unacceptable for women, especially for a State as generally progressive as Delaware. Since its inception, the ``breast health for teens'' program has been presented to many thousands of young women in nearly every high school in Delaware, both public and private. But it takes more than the hard work of highly motivated volunteers to make a program like this work as well as it has, it also takes money. All educational and support materials provided for the program are financed through fundraisers the committee holds annually, no taxpayer dollars are used to fund any aspect of the program. The funds raised at the ``Chez Nicole'' event will be used to reach even more high school students and purchase supplies for the ``breast health for teens'' program. The money also is needed to train school nurses and health teachers on how to help young women maintain breast health throughout their life time. I am proud to commend the generosity of Nicole Testa and Joe Cannatelli and their ``Chez Nicole'' team for their commitment to helping the Biden Breast Health Initiative educate more young women about breast cancer.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment being offered by my friend and colleague from Iowa, Senator Harkin. Earlier this week, Senator Kerry and I offered a similar amendment that called for voluntary spending limits and partial public financing. Senator Harkin's amendment differs in some respects to the proposal that we offered, but it still seeks to alleviate the same problem: How can we reduce the obscene amount of special interest money that is being spent in Senate campaigns today? And while I know that Senator Harkin's amendment will not pass, I nevertheless believe that it is truly needed to reform our campaign finance system. Since 1976, while the general cost of living has tripled, total spending on congressional campaigns has gone up eightfold. For the winning candidates, the average House race went from $87,000 to $816,000 in 2000. And here on the Senate side, winners spent an average of $609,000 in 1976, but last year that average shot up to $7 million. The FEC estimates that last year more than $1.8 billion in federally regulated money was spent on federal campaigns alone, and that doesn't even count the huge amount of soft money that went into attempts to influence federal elections. That has been roughly estimated to reach as high as nearly another $700 million. I have been calling for public financing of congressional campaigns for a very long time: since 1973, my first year in this body. And, as my colleagues who have been here for a while know, I have taken to this floor again and again over the years to urge us to solve the public's crisis in confidence and do the right thing. To be clear, I would prefer full public financing of campaigns that would reduce spending and completely eliminate the link between special interest money and candidates. I have long held that such a system is the only true, comprehensive reform that would help restore the American people's faith in our democracy and allow candidates to compete on an equal footing where the merits of their ideas outweigh the size of their pocketbook. But as the problems in our system have escalated in recent years, so too has my despair over our failure to see real reforms enacted, not just debated. That is why I am here again to see that we take at least a step toward achieving these much needed reforms. Senator Harkin's amendment is one such step, and urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. BIDEN

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

Mr. BIDEN. It seems as though the Senator from Massachusetts and I have been doing this a long time. We lost one of the musketeers in Senator Bradley. I don't know how many times we have come to the floor to talk about this issue. What is discouraging is, we seem to be moving backwards now instead of forward. I have a reputation that doesn't always serve me well of being relatively blunt. I am going to continue to exacerbate that a little bit today and depart from my prepared remarks at the outset and speak to the last point the Senator from Massachusetts was talking about. Our friends who oppose this will say to any idea of any public financing: Why should the public pay for bumper stickers and billboards and the like? I will bet you if you sat down with every American, and were able to do it one on one, and said: Here is the deal: Do you want me taking money from a checkoff system on your income tax, as the Presidential campaign is run, or from a direct appropriation that may cost you a couple bucks a year? Would you feel better about me and my independence if you did that and I had a limited amount of money if I were the nominee that I could spend, a limited amount of money based on the size of my State? Or would you rather have me hanging around in Hollywood, New York, Detroit, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, the major money centers of the world, sitting down with investment bankers and with corporate heads and union leaders and listening to them telling me what they think is important for the future of America and my knowing full well if I disagree with what they think is important for the future of America, that they are not likely to contribute to me and, therefore, if I have to rely totally on the people with the big money, that I may very well find myself rationalizing that, well, maybe it is not such a bad idea to be for that idea because it is better for me to get elected intact with most of my views in place than it is for me to be pure about this and not be able to run. I think the American people understand. I may be mistaken, but I believe Dick Clark, a former Senator from Iowa, and I, were the first two to introduce public financing as an idea back in 1974, in the middle of the Watergate scandal, to try to take polluting influence out of the system--I don't think there is an American out there who thinks if they get a chance to come up and lobby me on a particular issue and say, Senator, I sure hope you will vote for this tax cut or that tax cut or vote for or against something, that they have as much influence on me as somebody who walks in having contributed $10,000 to my campaign through two PAC contributions. I wonder what the American people think. I wonder do they think their voice is as easily heard as the rest of those folks. The thing that has surprised me over the years that I have been pushing this idea, along with others, is that we who hold public office aren't tired of this, aren't worried, why it doesn't bother us, whether we are lily pure or not, why it doesn't bother us being associated with the notion that what we do is a consequence of the financial influence placed upon us. For example, I don't think there is anything morally wrong, per se, about PAC money. That is an organization getting together and representing a particular interest--whether it is a labor organization, business organization, social organization--and giving a candidate $5,000 at a crack. I admit that is no more debilitating, no more immoral, no more unsavory than five people getting together in one family and coming up with $1,000 apiece to give $5,000. But I don't accept PAC money, and I haven't accepted PAC money--not because I think it is immoral or wrong, and I don't question the morality or judgment of those who accept it. I think I am one of the few people who don't accept it, and maybe one of the few in the whole Congress. The reason I don't accept it is that I like the fact that no one can--and I am a pro-labor Senator--question my pro- labor votes because labor gives me any money. They don't. I can stand up and say I like the feeling at home that when I am for something that maybe not all my constituents like, but labor likes, nobody can use the argument that Biden has been bought off by labor because the following labor groups got together and contributed to him X amount of dollars. A lot of Senators who talk about being lily white and pure accept PAC money. That is OK. But the only reason I don't is I don't like looking at my constituents and them thinking that I have taken a position because somebody contributed to me. That just bothers me. That just bothers my independence. There may come a day I have to take PAC money. I may run against somebody who raises $5 million in PAC money and I can't raise the money, so I have to take it to compete. But I don't accept it simply for my own gratification. I love walking into a meeting with a businessperson, or a business organization, or labor organization, and deciding for or against them based on the merits and never having to talk about money. I feel liberated. It is my sort of self-imposed, tiny victory against this system that I rail against all the time. What has surprised me is why people of this body would not want limits on spending. Do you think the majority of us like traveling two- thirds of the way across the country to sit down at a fundraiser in the home of somebody who is going to ask us stupid questions, who may be an absolute idiot, and is going to raise us $20,000, and we have to sit there and listen. Now I'll have everybody who has ever done a fundraiser for me saying, ``Is he talking about me?'' If anybody likes that, you probably should be doing something else because you can't be that bright. So I don't get this. I don't get it. I don't get why we haven't gotten to the point that just for our own living standard, so that we don't have to get on planes at 7:30 at night and sit in an airport, and then miss it, and 47 thank-you notes why we could not be there and apologize and set a new date, and you miss your kid's first communion, or you miss your daughter-in-law's birthday, or something because you are out raising money. I don't think anybody sitting in here has any idea how much of our time is spent raising money. The more scrupulous you are about how you raise it, the more hurdles you place in your way to make sure everybody knows that you are clean and you are not like what people think you are, the harder it is--the harder it is. We all do it. We all sit here and say, wait a minute now; we just voted on a bill that will affect some of the people who are going to be there. I can't go to that fundraiser now. It will look like I did it for the wrong reason. I don't want them thinking that is why I did that because that is not why I did that. All Members here are moral, decent people. The irony is, this place, in terms of personal rectitude is probably squeakier than any Congress in the last 200 years because of all the disclosure rules. That is the irony. You used to have a person standing at a desk right over there--one of the leading Senators in history--who would write letters to the railroad company saying, ``By the way, I just defeated a thing that would have hurt you. Send more money or I won't do it next time.'' The money that was being sent was in his pocket. When I ran for the Senate in 1972 and won, there were no limits on what you could spend or what could be given to you. My goodness, you would think by now the irony of all ironies is that I would be dumbfounded if any Member of this body was taking money under the table or doing anything illegal. They are the cleanest bunch I have dealt with. Yet we are viewed as being among the dirtiest bunch. Why? Because we are associated with all this money. My mom had an expression when I was a kid. I would say, ``Mom, can I go hang out on the corner by Buffington's with the rest of the guys?'' She would say, ``Those guys get in trouble.'' And I would say, ``But I won't.'' She would look at me and say, ``Joe, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it is a duck.'' I used to say, ``What does that have to do with anything?'' She would say, ``Those boys down there are not good boys. When you hang with them, even if you are not doing anything wrong, you are going to be presumed to be.'' What happens now when anybody within earshot, not holding public office, hears your child say, ``Mom, I want to be a politician.'' I am not allowed to reference the gallery, but I bet if I looked at their expressions right now, they would all have the same expression: Oh, no, no, you don't want to do that. Why, when in fact they have more honest men and women in the business now than have ever have been in it? The likelihood of people doing untoward things relative to financial gain is almost unheard of now. When you have a billion plus dollars spent on elections, the conclusion to the American people is that if it looks like it is corruption, sounds like it is corrupt, it appears to be corruption, then it is probably corrupt. So this has always amazed me. I would have thought by now that we would be so afraid of being burned by our association, unintentionally, with unsavory notions, causes, or people, through contributions, that we would say let's get out of this. I will tell you right now. I don't think anybody here would disagree. I would rather be beholden, or thought to be, to 280 million Americans than to 200 contributors. I would think they would want me to be beholden to them, not only in fact but in perception. So what have we done? As my friend from Massachusetts has said--and we have been allies in this for a long time, and I am a great admirer of his--just since 1976, the total congressional campaign spending has gone up eightfold. In 1976, the average race for the House of Representatives cost $87,000. Today, it cost $816,000. Where are you going to get that money? Where are you going to go for that money? Do you think there is $816,000 worth of folks out there saying: Just because I love this system, I don't care what your positions are on any issues. I just want honorable men and women like you involved, so here is a contribution. What do you think? Do you think that is how it happens? You know what it is for Senate races? In 1976, the average cost of a Senate race was $609,000. Now it is $7 million. So I have gotten to the point where I am even more concerned about the amount than I am about the source--more about the amount than I am about the source. Let me explain that. If, in fact, we are going to ever do anything about the influence of money and the ability of people like me to be able to get involved in politics--I say people like me. No one who ever held State office, no one with any personal fortune or money, and who has a dubious distinction along with one other Senator on the floor being listed as one of the poorest men in the Senate. How can a guy like me get involved today knowing that for me to get out of the box, I am going to have to raise, even in a tiny State such as mine, potentially $4 million to $5 million? How does one start that? Where does one go? Why are we surprised with a lot of millionaires? Do you know what a lot of us Democrats do, as Dale Bumpers, one of the best speakers I heard on the Senate floor in past years, used to say, in the bosom of the lodge here? Because we cannot match their money, do you know what we do? When we recruit candidates, whom do we look for, I say to the Senator from Connecticut? We try to find millionaire Democrats. We try to find Democrats who are millionaires to front their own campaigns because we do not have enough money around to front all the campaigns. We try to find people who are millionaires.

Mr. BIDEN. I ask for 5 minutes more.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the fact of the matter is, we are never going to make any really fundamental change in the system until we adopt the position of setting limits on the total amount of money that can be spent in a single State on a single election. Our approach provides the candidates with partial public financing when they commit to voluntary limits, and if the other person does not commit to those voluntary limits, then we allow that funding to go up so that person can keep in parity with the person against whom they are running. It is a simple, basic proposition. By the way, it is complementary to the so-called soft money ban. It is not contrary to, it does not undermine it; it is complementary to the ban on soft money. The spending limits for the Senate candidates are different in each State based on a rather simple formula that my friend from Massachusetts pointed out: A million bucks to start and then, on top of that, 50 cents for each person of voting age in that State. In my State of Delaware, that means one could not spend more than $1.3 million. In a State such as Illinois, where there are 9 million potential voters, one could spend $5.5 million. I will not go through all the detail beyond that except to say that our amendment also includes a provision to counter those last-minute sham ads that have become all too common in the closing weeks of campaigns. Our amendment says if your campaign is a victim of one of those drive-by sham ads, you will receive additional public funding to enable you to respond to keep you in the game. I have been calling for public financing for congressional campaigns for a very long time, since 1973, my first year in this body. I thought Watergate would have been enough to take us to the brink of trying to do something serious about campaigns. We did make some initial progress until the Supreme Court ruling in Buckley v. Valeo which set everything on its head, and now here we are back again. The time has come, as my old math teacher would say, to work the problem and to stand at the blackboard until we come up with an answer that will pass the test of public confidence. The amendment we are offering today I think passes that test, and I urge all of my colleagues, for once and for all, do something that really will impact upon who can run, their ability to stay in the game, the ability to compete and reengender some confidence in the American people. My closing remark is this: We have gotten to the point, as my friend from Massachusetts pointed out, of businesspeople dreading this funding process because they get held up for contributions. Beyond that, we have reached a point where, because we have had to become so brazen in the way in which we raise money, those who used to contribute to us who never were brazen in return are now equally brazen, suggesting they want to know more about what we will do before they give us the money. It is a bad system. This could go a long way to changing it. I have no hope that it is likely to be adopted this time, but someday-- someday--it will, and I suspect only after some additional major scandal occurs. I want to make sure for my own safety's sake I am recorded on the right side of this argument again so no one misunderstands what I think we should be doing. I thank my friend for his leadership, and I thank him for yielding the time he has. I yield back whatever time is remaining.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I would like to begin today by praising my distinguished colleague from South Carolina for the leadership and determination that he has brought to this debate. I would also like to apologize to him. Apologize that he has to come to this floor yet again to cut through all the rhetoric, and high- minded talk, to get to the single most important fact in this debate. And that is, nothing will change in our campaign finance system until we have the Constitutional ability to limit spending in congressional campaigns. And the only way that we can do that other than through voluntary limits is by standing with Senator Hollings to pass this Constitutional amendment. We've been down this road many times, Mr. President. As the Senator from South Carolina will tell you, he and I have stood on this floor urging the Senate to take this first fundamental step by passing his amendment. We have recited fact after fact to illustrate how the spending in last election cycle was far worse than the previous cycle. And each time that we stand here, the story get's worse and worse. The truth is, unless we adopt Senator Hollings' amendment and pass the McCain-Feingold bill, we will back here in 2 years--reciting a new round of statistics to illustrate how bad the system got in 2002. Mr. President, our system is spiraling out of control. And it will continue this spiral, unabated, until we pass needed reforms. But nothing can fundamentally change the way in which our process works until we have the ability under the law to limit the amount of money that is spent on campaigns. Twenty-five years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that spending money was the same thing as speech. The Court said that writing a check for a candidate was speech, but writing a check to a candidate is not speech. The Supreme Court made a supremely bad and, I believe, supremely wrong decision. By saying that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom to write a check, the Court is saying that Congress cannot take the responsible step of limiting how much money politicians can spend in trying to get elected. We have to start putting limits on spending, Mr. President, because money is beginning to overtake the system. In the twenty-five years since the Supreme Court's ruling, the general cost of living has tripled, but the total spending on Congressional campaigns has gone up eightfold. Think about it: eight times! For the winning candidates, the average House race went from $87,000 to $816,000 in 2000. And here on the Senate side, winners spent an average of $609,000 in 1976, but last year that average shot up to $7 million. And the Federal Election Commission estimates that last year more than $1.8 billion dollars in federally regulated money was spent on federal campaigns alone, and that doesn't even count the huge amount of soft money that was used in an attempt to influence federal elections. Yes, these numbers are staggering. But even more so, is the thought that they will continue rise unless something is done. And I belive that the single most important thing that we can do from a purely practical sense is to amend the Constitution and give us the right to limit the amount of money that candidates are able to spend. I don't approach this lightly, Mr. President. Amending our Constitution is not a trivial matter. We have seldom done it in our history, and we have only done so when it was truly needed. Reluctantly, I have reached the conclusion that it is needed, now. For if we do not take this opportunity to seize control of our system, we will be right back here merely debating the problem, instead of solving it. And when we return 2, 4, maybe 6 years from now, the problem will be even worse than it is today, and as a result, much harder to solve. Mr. President, the sooner we take action, the sooner we will be able to restore the public's faith in our democracy. I urge all of my colleagues to stand with the distinguished Senator from South Carolina and adopt this Constitutional amendment as a first, and fundamental, step toward reclaiming our political system for the American people. Mr. President, let's get something straight here. The first amendment is not absolute. No amendment is absolute. When there is a Government interest, in this case of curbing corruption, there is a Government rationale to be able to deal with what the Court refers to as speech. I think Justice Stevens got it right in a case decided 24 years after Buckley v. Valeo, I say to my friend from Alabama. He said money is not speech, money is property. Money is property. We are talking about speech. All the folks sitting up here in the gallery are in fact interested in free speech. But it does not go unnoticed that their ability to speak freely and be listened to depends upon how much money they have. You can be as free-speaking as you want. You can stand in a corner or in a park with a megaphone and go on and on about what you think should be done. You can seek free press. But you are unable to go into the Philadelphia media market and pay $30,000 for a 30-second ad to say my good friend from Alabama is a chicken thief or is a war hero. You are not able to do that. That takes money. Money talks. Money talks. Money is property. Money is not speech, money is property. The fact of the matter is, in this context, if you look at my friend from Alabama, and others, the Court, in the progeny of Buckley, has allowed us to regulate campaign contributions under certain circumstances. So this notion that it is absolute is absolutely inaccurate. I will not go into further detail because of the time constraints here. Let me say again that I thank my friend from South Carolina because, when all is said and done, this is the only deal in town. It is fascinating. If you look at what happened here, we can pass the McCain- Feingold bill--and I am for it--but I promise you, we are going to be back here in a year or two, or three, on a simple proposition. The simple proposition is that the cost of campaigning has gone up eightfold in the same time that we have been in a system where the cost of inflation has gone up significantly less than that. Since 25 years ago, at the time of the Supreme Court ruling, the general cost of living has tripled, the cost of running a campaign has gone up eightfold. Now, for a winning candidate, the average of a House race 25 years ago was $87,000. This time around, it is $816,000, average. Let me tell you, if you have a lot of money, you can speak a lot louder, your voice is heard more. If you don't have a lot of money, you are not heard. I didn't think that is what the founders had in mind when they talked about speech. They didn't sit down and say, by the way, landowners with a lot of money should be able to be heard more than the guy who is the shoemaker in the village, or the village cobbler. They didn't say that. Money is property. Money is property. It is not speech. On the Senate side, let's take a look at what happened. When I ran in 1972--and I won't even go back that far--I spent $286,000 in the election. The Senate race in Delaware combined cost over $13 million-- not my race; I am not up until this time. Let's get something else straight. One of the reasons our friends aren't so crazy about this amendment is all of us who hold public office now are in pretty good shape without this amendment. It is not merely what the other guy can do to you. You sit there and say: That interest does not like me, so they will spend a lot of money. If you are popular enough in your home State, guess what. They are worried what you will do to them. I am not going to have any trouble raising money as long as I stay relatively popular. Right now I am relatively popular. Guess what. I would hate to be getting starting now to try to run in Delaware. I do not know how they do it. How do they do it? How do they raise a minimum of 2 million bucks or probably, if it is a race, $5 million, in a little State with only 400,000 registered voters? Heck, we could go out and pay everybody. We could go out and give them all a bonus, increase their standard of living if we took that $13 million and spread it among 400,000 voters. This is getting obscene. What is going to control? What is the deal here? I know this amendment is not going to pass this time, but I want to be on the side of right on this one, like I have from the very beginning when my friend from South Carolina proposed this. If, in fact, the average cost of a Senate election--catch this--in 1976, the average cost of a State election was $609,000. Do you know what it was this last cycle? Seven million dollars. Did you hear what I said? Seven million dollars. Give me a break--free speech, whoa. You better have won the genetic pool, as the distinguished financier from the great State of Nebraska says. You better have won the genetic pool and inherited a whole lot of money, or you better have an awful lot of very rich friends, people with a lot of money, otherwise how do you get in the game? How could I possibly--maybe this is a good reason not to have the amendment--but how could I as a 29-year-old guy, coming from a family with no money--I am the first U.S. Senator I ever knew in effect--how could I have gotten elected? How could I do it now? I have been here now for 28 years. Obviously, the people of Delaware do not think I have done a real bad job. How could I have gotten here if, in fact, I had to go out and raise $2 million, $3 million, $4 million, $5 million, or $9 million? I will tell you what happens. You engage in an incredible exercise of rationalization. You go out there and say: I am going to stick to my principles. I will give a specific example. When I ran the first time, at the very end--and my friend from South Carolina knows because he headed up the campaign committee and he is more responsible for my being here than anyone in the Senate because he helped me. We narrowed the race down to a percentage point with 10, 11 days to go. My brother Jim, 24 years old, was raising my money and said: Joe--we had no TV ads--the radio station called and the ads come off the air on Friday--this is 10 days before the election and my ads were working. You need $20,000. We have no money. He set up a meeting with a bunch of good people, decent, honorable men my age, maybe a little older, very wealthy people in my State who were, like me, opposed to the war in Vietnam, pro-environmental movement, and thought women's rights should be expanded. They were basically Republicans, but they were moderate Republicans. I drove out to a place called Greenville, DE. I walked in to this investment banking operation in a beautiful area, one of the wealthiest areas in America. My friend knows it well. I sat down with six or eight fine men. They offered me a drink. I sat there and had a Coke. We talked about my position on promoting the rights of women, the equal rights amendment because they were for it. I talked about the environmental questions. I talked about the war in Vietnam, et cetera. Then one guy said: Joe, what is your position on capital gains? No one here will remember except my friend from South Carolina, but at that time it was a big issue in the 1972 campaign. Nixon either wanted to eliminate it or drastically reduce it, I cannot remember. Guess what. I knew all I had to say was: You know, gentlemen, I really think we should have a cut in capital gains. But because I was young enough and stupid enough not to think, I immediately said: No, I oppose a cut in the capital gains tax. No one said anything except: Joe, lots of luck in your senior year. Good talking to you. So long. I will never forget riding down the pike with my brother Jim. My brother turned to me and said: I hope you really feel strongly about capital gains because you just blew an election. I truly believed--and only someone who has run for office can really understand this--I truly believed everything I had worked for I had just blown by telling the truth. I almost wanted to turn the car around and go back. I think of myself as a principled man, but I started to rationalize. I started to say: Isn't it better for me to get elected with 95 percent of my values intact, a guy who will fight to stop the war, promote the rights of women, fight for civil rights, a guy who will blah, blah, blah? Capital gains is not that big a deal. That is how insidious this process is. No one buys us. No one goes out and pays and says: If you do this, I will pay you. But it is insidious. It is insidious, and the only people who have a lot of money to be involved in campaigns, whether they are people I support such as labor unions or big business are people who have an interest. I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 2 more minutes. My friend is not here.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I conclude by pointing out the following: Last year, we spent $1.8 billion--$1.8 billion--on the elections. You tell me, take soft money, hard money, no money, up money, down money, any money--if you take it out, you take a piece of it out and you do not limit the amount we can spend, I promise you--I will bet my career--2 years from now, we are going to be standing here, and I am going to say: We just spent $1.9 billion, and the average cost of an election has gone to $7.1 million. Average people have no shot of getting in the deal. They have no shot of getting in the deal. Money is property. Money is not speech. I cannot believe the Founders sat there and said: You know, if I win the genetic pool, I am entitled to have a greater influence in my country and in the electoral process than if I am not in that genetic pool; I was born into land wealth or mercantile wealth. I cannot believe they believed that. I cannot believe that was the case. I conclude by saying we have the ability under a controlling government interest to deal with corruption in our electoral process. I defy anyone to look me straight in the eye and say they believe all this additional money in the electoral process is not polluting and corrupting the process. It puts honorable young women and men in the Republican and Democratic Parties who are getting into the process in the position of shaving their views very nicely before they get there. No one is going to pay them off, but they are not stupid. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. If the Senator will yield, because I don't have much time, I understand how it comes in. What I don't understand, on whatever time I have remaining, and I thank the Senator for her response--I do not understand why that standard, A, would require redundancy, to have two standards to be met--if the language was added by the Senator from Pennsylvania which says--which when read as a whole in the context of external events is ``unmistakably unambiguous and suggestive of no plausible meaning other than an exhortation to vote for or against a specific candidate.'' Granted three other circuits or four other circuits ruled differently than the ninth circuit, but it seems to me the most damaging decision-- the most damaging thing that has happened to the electoral process has been Buckley. The single most damaging thing that has occurred in our effort to clean up the glut of money and the hemorrhaging of influence in the electoral process has been the Buckley decision. Things were going relatively well until that decision occurred and then the dam broke. So I just want to say I think it is more appropriate to err on the side of being more specific and more inclusive, so that everyone understands that if it says ``vote against the Republican candidate'' but doesn't mention the Republican candidate for the Senate, that in fact it is covered. If it says vote against the person who said the following but doesn't name the person who said the following--if those ways are used to get around what is now the attempt of having a prohibition on such activity and the hemorrhaging of money, it seems to me that is well captured by the ninth circuit language. I would rather run the risk of seeing that happen because this is the most damaging thing I have seen happen.