Joe Biden

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the NIH Office of Autoimmune Diseases Act of 1999. This legislation, which is very similar to a bill introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Waxman, would create an Office of Autoimmune Diseases as part of the Office of the Director of the National Institutes of Health. I would like to outline briefly why I feel that this office and this legislation are needed. To understand autoimmune diseases, it is first necessary to talk about the body's immune system. The immune system is a collection of tissues which is designed to fend off any foreign invaders into our body. For example, we live in a world surrounded by microbes of various kinds, many of which would be harmful to us if they could set up shop in our bodies. However, the immune system recognizes that a foreign microbe has entered our body and it mobilizes a variety of defenses to expel this foreign invader. The critical importance of the immune system can be easily seen when something goes wrong with it. For example, when a baby is born with a major defect in its immune system, it is extremely vulnerable to attacks by bacteria that a healthy baby would be able to fight off. Such immune-deficient babies need to be protected from their environment in order to preserve their lives. You may have seen the TV programs about such ``bubble babies'', who have to spend their entire lives in a protective plastic bubble or a spacesuit. However, although the immune system is essential for human life, it sometimes can cause problems with our health. When someone gets a kidney transplant, for example, it is the immune system which tries to fight off this ``foreign invader'', a process called rejection. The survival of the transplant requires that the recipient be given treatment in order to suppress the immune system. Occasionally, the body's immune system goes haywire and starts to attack the body's own tissues as if they were foreign invaders. This process is called autoimmunity, and diseases in which autoimmunity is thought to play an important role are called autoimmune diseases. The spectrum of human illnesses for which there is evidence of an autoimmune component is extremely broad, ranging from lupus to diabetes to multiple sclerosis. At the National Institutes of Health, these different diseases are often studied in completely different institutes: diabetes in the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; lupus in the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; multiple sclerosis in the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; and so forth. Despite being studied in different locations, these diseases all have one thing in common: abnormalities of the immune system that lead to an autoimmune process in which the body actually attacks itself. It is vital that researchers on one autoimmune disease understand what research advances are being made on other autoimmune diseases; the key to understanding the autoimmune process in multiple sclerosis might very well be uncovered by a researcher working on autoimmunity in diabetes. This is where the need for an NIH Office of Autoimmune Diseases arises. Its purpose is to make sure that there is cooperation and coordination across scientific disciplines for all those working on the broad spectrum of autoimmune diseases. Researchers working on autoimmunity in one narrowly defined disease must be able to benefit from research advances in autoimmune research. The history of medicine is replete with examples where breakthroughs in one area were actually a direct consequence of advances in a completely unrelated field. This bill sets up an Office of Autoimmune Diseases at NIH, along with a broadly representative coordinating committee to assist it. The director of the Office of Autoimmune Diseases will be responsible for setting an agenda for research and education on autoimmune diseases, for promoting cooperation and coordination among the disparate entities that are working on autoimmune diseases, for serving as principal advisor to HHS on autoimmune diseases, for husbanding resources for autoimmune disease research, and for producing reports to keep other scientists and the public informed about progress in autoimmune disease research. Mr. President, I'd like to explain why I have a particular interest in the area of autoimmune diseases. A very close friend of mine in Delaware, Ms. Tia McDowell, is fighting valiantly against a chronic disease. At present, the treatments for this disease no longer seem to be working very well, so Tia's hope lies in new research advances. Although doctors are not sure what causes Tia's disease, they do think that autoimmunity plays an important part. For Tia, and for others with diseases where autoimmunity is important, I want to make sure that we are moving ahead with research in the most efficient manner possible, and I think that creation of an NIH Office of Autoimmune Diseases is one way to help this process along. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the NIH Office of Autoimmune Diseases Act of 1999 as something we in Congress can do to help our research scientists conquer this puzzling and pernicious group of diseases. I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. The bill follows:

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, on August 26, 1999, 13 young women, ages 15 and 16, put the First State on the map again by capturing the Senior League Softball World Series in Kalamazoo, Michigan. This was a tremendous accomplishment for Delaware and for the country. The Stanton-Newport team completed an undefeated run through the double elimination tournament by winning a come-from-behind victory over a persistent and well seasoned team from the Philippines. As one reporter put it, eight teams participated in the tournament, but ``only one will have its flag fly over the field for the next year.'' Proudly that will be the flag of the United States of America thanks to the team from the great State of Delaware. The Stanton-Newport team is an outstanding example of the power of youth sports in America. As I have said many times in the past, young people need a hobby they love, at least one adult who supports them and a good many friends with similar interests. Organized sports provides this much and more. In competitive sports young people learn responsibility, discipline, and the importance of cooperation and teamwork on and off the field. Later, these same young individuals will be able to apply their hard- earned lessons to everyday life. The young women of Stanton-Newport epitomize the exceptional athletes and citizens from across the nation who are inspired on a daily basis by their committed parents and coaches. I am proud to call this team a home-grown product and continue to salute their efforts on behalf of the First State and the rest of our nation. They are indeed World Champions.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues, Senator Grassley and Senator Torricelli, in bringing bankruptcy reform legislation before the Senate today. Senator Grassley is the Senate's acknowledged leader on this issue, in every sense of the word. He has made reform of our bankruptcy code his cause, and he has stayed the course, through the last session of Congress and again this year, to bring us to where we are today. It is evidence of Senator Grassley's commitment that he has reached out to the ranking Democrat on his Subcommittee, Senator Torricelli, to join him in that effort. He certainly chose the right man for the job. Senator Torricelli has worked with Senator Grassley to bring the kind of balance to the bill before us today that marked last year's Senate floor a bill that was reported out of the Judiciary Committee by a bipartisan, 14-to-4 margin. Last year, we brought to the floor a bill that passed the Senate 97 to 1--virtually unanimous agreement that our bankruptcy code needs reform, as well as consensus that reform must be fair. I would like to address both of those points today, Mr. President-- the need for reform, and the need for that reform to be balanced and equitable. To a large extent, the numbers speak for themselves--the number of bankruptcy filings has exploded in recent years, reaching a record 1.4 million last year. That's on top of double-digit increases in the number of consumer bankruptcy filings for most of this decade. This record was set in a time of the best economic conditions our country has ever seen--the lowest persistent unemployment and inflation, the highest sustained growth, widespread income gains, and a booming stock market. These are not the conditions that we normally associate with the kind of widespread financial distress that could trigger a wave of bankruptcy filings. This tells me--and a lot of others, as well--that there is something wrong with the way our consumer bankruptcy code operates today. Simply put, too many people are finding it too easy too easy to walk away from their legitimate obligations by filing for bankruptcy. When that happens, somebody else pays the bill. In the past year, a number different studies have looked at just how big that bill can be. These studies have been conducted by all sides in the debate, including the credit industry and the bankruptcy bar. The study conducted by the Department of Justice concluded that American businesses lose $3.2 billion annually to bankruptcies filed by individuals who have the capacity to repay their debts. The size of the bankruptcy problem--both the number of filings and the dead-weight losses to our economy--was the foundation for last year's overwhelming Senate support for reform. The principle behind the reforms we bring to the floor today is simple, Mr. President--if you file for the protection of bankruptcy, one basic question will be asked: do you have the ability to pay some of your bills, or not? If the facts--looking at your income on the one hand, and the bills you have to pay on the other--show that you can pay, then you must file under Chapter 13, that requires a period of at least partial repayment before you are forgiven your remaining debts. Under such a Chapter 13 plan, you are not required to sell off major assets such as your house or your car. If the facts show that you simply don't have the income to under take a Chapter 13 repayment plan, then the protection of Chapter 7 is still there for you. Chapter 7, however, requires that you sell off any significant assets, and the proceeds go to your creditors. Most Americans would agree that this is fair, and would be surprised to find that no test of someone's ability to pay is required to get the protection of Chapter 7. But in fact, as even the strongest opponents of bankruptcy reform admit, today pretty much all the assumptions in the bankruptcy code are in favor of the filers, who can voluntarily choose a Chapter 7 liquidation or a Chapter 13 repayment plan. The bill we bring to the floor today attempts to restore some balance to those assumptions, to require more responsibility on the part of those who seek the protection of bankruptcy. But some of my colleagues will argue during this debate that the source of this problem is not really the operation of our bankruptcy laws, but what they call ``irresponsible'' lending. Creditors-- especially the aggressive credit card companies--are pushing debt onto people, and that is what is driving people into bankruptcy. Now, I am sure all of us are tired of those millions--actually billions--of credit card solicitations that come through the mail every year. But I ask my colleagues to reflect for a moment on what the alternative to widely available consumer credit would be. When I first came to the Senate, we were fighting against lending practices that ``red-lined'' whole neighborhoods, Mr. President, in which banks would simply decide that some people were not worthy of credit, that they were incapable of managing their own affairs. A lot of us in Congress saw that as just plain wrong, and we worked to change it. One of the things we did, in 1977, was to pass the Community Reinvestment Act, that requires banks to lend into local communities where incomes may be lower or the risks of repayment higher than bankers might prefer. We just passed an historic overhaul of our country's banking laws. The Financial Services Modernization Act took many years of hard work to complete. Among the most contentious issues was the treatment of the Community Reinvestment Act. In fact, President Clinton threatened a veto of that bill if the principles of the Community Reinvestment Act were not protected in the final deal. Those principles boil down to the idea that everyone deserves access to credit, and it is the policy of this country that banks must not unfairly restrict credit, despite what they think is the best way to maximize returns and minimize the risks on their loans. Now, I am not here to argue that the flood of credit card solicitations is part of some new social program by the credit card companies. Of course they are trying to make money. By the way, it is also evidence of a lot of competition in the lending business, as well. But when I hear my colleagues argue about ``irresponsible lending,'' I hear echoes of those earlier debates about red-lining. The ``democratization of credit,'' as some people have called it, has risks, of course. Some people will not use credit responsibly. But the alternative to widely available credit--passing laws to cut back on credit to the kinds of people we here in Washington have decided just can't be trusted to use it wisely--that alternative is far, far, worse, in my view. Should we do more to make sure that consumers are fully informed, and that lenders disclose the full cost consumers pay for credit? Of course we should, Mr. President. During our Committee deliberations on this bill, we considered proposals by Senator Schumer that would have imposed requirements for more complete disclosure, in billing and in advertising, by creditors. Because those issues are under the jurisdiction of the Banking Committee, we made the conscious decision to leave those provisions for an amendment here during the floor debate. That amendment will be among the first items of business on this bill. Should we do more to make sure consumers are informed about how to handle debt, and how to avoid the ultimate step of bankruptcy? Of course we should, Mr. President. The bankruptcy reform bill before us today calls for new initiatives in those areas, as well. We look to the causes of bankruptcy as part of a comprehensive approach to reform. But to try to stem the tide of bankruptcies by making credit harder to get, Mr. President, is a cure that will prove to be worse than the disease. I thought one of the most important aspects of last years's Senate debate was how, as we attempt to reduce the number of bankruptcy filings, to still make sure that we continue to provide the full protection from creditors and the fresh start that many Americans will continue to require and deserve. For many of my colleagues, particularly on my side of the aisle, that has been the real focus of the debate over bankruptcy reform, and it should be. I know that many of my colleagues are concerned that the means test in this bill, that determines a bankruptcy filer's ability to pay, will be unfair to those who really need the full protection from creditors and the fresh start that Chapter 7 has historically provided. In fact, however, the means test is intended to ensure that a repayment plan-- under Chapter 13--will be required only of those individuals who actually have the documented ability to continue to pay some of their legal obligations. A range of studies from all sides in this debate has found that only 3 to 15 per cent of filers under the current system would be steered from the complete protection of Chapter 7 into Chapter 13, where they will be required to continue payments on--and, I have to stress, retain possession of--their credit purchases. The means test is designed to make sure that these new responsibilities will be required only of those who have the resources to meet them. The managers' amendment that we will bring to the floor will provide additional refinements and safeguards to make sure the means test achieves that goal. Another major concern that has been expressed by my colleagues is that bankruptcy reform will unfairly affect women and children, who may depend on family support payments--alimony, child support--that are all too often part of the picture in the financial and personal distress that can lead to bankruptcy. I want my colleagues to know just how much we have done to protect family support payments--to protect them much more than current law. This bill will give alimony and child support payments the highest possible priority--over credit card companies, over department stores, over all other creditors--when the line forms to collect payments from someone who is in bankruptcy. This bill also requires that all alimony and child support must be paid in full before the final discharge of debts at the end of bankruptcy. These are just two of the significant improvements in the treatment of alimony and child support in this bill, and there are others. The reform of our bankruptcy code is a complicated issue, and in the coming days we will be debating a lot of the thousands of important details that are involved. But if we keep our eye on the big picture-- fundamental principles of fairness, responsibility, and effectiveness-- I am convinced that this bill will enjoy overwhelming bipartisan support on final passage.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise to congratulate my colleagues for having supported S. Con. Res. 68, a sense-of-the-Senate resolution, which I cosponsored with Senator Helms, commemorating the tenth anniversary of the so-called Velvet Revolution, whereby the people of Czechoslovakia overthrew the communist dictatorship that had oppressed them for four decades. Since then, Czechoslovakia decided to effect a ``Velvet Divorce.'' Today both successor states, the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic, are in the process of integrating into the West. The Czech Republic is already a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and Slovakia is emerging as a strong candidate for the next round of enlargement. Both countries are busily preparing to qualify for membership in the European Union. Both countries have growing pains associated with the difficult transitions from dictatorship to democracy, and from a command economy to the free market. Both have ongoing challenges to guarantee equal rights for minorities. But the overall picture for the Czech Republic and for the Slovak Republic is bright. I am delighted that the Senate has recognized the accomplishments of the Czechs and the Slovaks and has wished them continued success in the future as partners of the United States. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to support, along with the senior Senator from North Carolina and several other colleagues, the Serbia Democratization Act of 1999. Mr. President, the last year has removed any lingering doubt that Slobodan Milosevic, rather than being part of the solution of the problems in the Balkans, is the problem. Milosevic has started, and lost, four wars during this decade: first with Slovenia, then with Croatia, then with Bosnia and Herzegovina, and finally with NATO over Kosovo. I would not be surprised if he were soon to make Montenegro, with its democratic-reformist government, the fifth target of his aggression. Earlier this year, Milosevic was indicted as a war criminal by the International Tribunal at The Hague. As my colleagues have heard me recount, I told Milosevic to his face way back in 1993 in Belgrade that he was a war criminal and should be tried at The Hague. So in one sense I am gratified that he finally has been officially charged. On the other hand, I know that as long as Milosevic remains in power in Serbia and Yugoslavia, there is no chance for lasting peace and reconstruction in the Balkans. In short, Milosevic must be replaced by a democratic government. This is no small order. Serbia is not exactly overflowing with genuine democrats, although there certainly are some. The problem is that many of them squabble among themselves, thereby wasting precious energy that should be devoted to unseating Milosevic. Moreover, Milosevic runs an authoritarian state, ruthlessly suppressing dissent, threatening his opponents--even sometimes attempting to assassinate them, purging the army and police, and cynically dominating the electronic media so as to misinform the Serbian public. Clearly it is in the national interest of the United States to use every legal means to undercut Milosevic and to assist the democratic opposition in Serbia. With that in mind, we have introduced S. 720, the ``Serbia Democratization Act of 1999.'' The following are the major provisions of the legislation. The Act supports the democratic opposition by authorizing one hundred million dollars for fiscal years 2000 and 2001 for the purpose of promoting democracy and civil society in Serbia and for assisting the Government of Montenegro. It also authorizes increased broadcasting to Yugoslavia by the Voice of America and by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. The Act offers assistance to the victims of Serbian oppression by authorizing the President to use authorities in the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to provide humanitarian assistance to individuals living in Kosovo and to refugees currently residing in surrounding countries. The legislation codifies the so-called ``outer wall'' of sanctions against Yugoslavia by multilateral organizations, including international financial institutions. It also authorizes other measures against Yugoslavia, including blocking Yugoslavia's assets in the United States; prohibiting the issuance of visas and admission to the United States; and prohibiting strategic exports to Yugoslavia, loans and investment, and military-to- military cooperation. The legislation also contains miscellaneous provisions, including requiring cooperation by Yugoslavia with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, and a sense of the Congress declaration on the ownership and use of diplomatic and consular properties in the United States. Mr. President, a good deal has been written in recent days about possibly easing the sanctions regime against Yugoslavia out of concern for its people. I do not believe that such a move would be in the interest either of the Yugoslav people, or of the United States. A look at the precedent set in the Republika Srpska in Bosnia and Herzegovina is instructive. After the Dayton Accords were signed in late 1995, the Congress passed legislation in which no assistance could be given to the Republika Srpska, which was then ruled by the war criminal Radovan Karadzic and his gangster clique in Pale. Meanwhile the Muslim-Croat Federation could receive assistance. Within two years a majority of the population of the Republika Srpska had observed the modest, but real economic recovery in the Federation and realized the futility of sticking with Karadzic and company. The result was, first the presidency of Mrs. Biljana Plavsic, and later the reformist government of Prime Minister Milorad Dodik, which is still clinging to power in the new capital of Banja Luka. I believe that if we keep up the pressure on the indicted war criminal Milosevic, a similar process will eventually occur in Serbia. Conversely, if we were to loosen the legitimate sanctions on Yugoslavia, it would constitute a stunning triumph for Milosevic. Mr. President, this week a delegation of leaders of the Alliance for Change, an umbrella organization representing more than forty democratic political parties and groups in Serbia, has been visiting Washington. I met with this group. They asked only that we lift sanctions against Serbia after a free and fair election results in Milosevic's fall from power. They are confident of victory in such an election; I hope they are right. It is in this spirit, Mr. President, that we must hold out carrots to the potential democratic successors of Milosevic. Therefore, in a move to facilitate the transition to democracy, the Act authorizes the President to furnish assistance to Yugoslavia if he determines and certifies to the appropriate Congressional committees that the Government of Yugoslavia is ``committed to democratic principles, the rule of law, and is committed to respect internationally recognized human rights.'' The Act also contains a national interest waiver for the President. The President may also waive the Act's provisions if he certifies that ``significant progress has been made in Yugoslavia in establishing a government based on democratic principles and the rule of law, and that respects internationally recognized human rights.'' In the meantime, I approve of our government's political support of a pilot program run by the European Union whereby emergency heating oil shipments are made to two Serbian cities that are governed by opponents of Milosevic. If the project succeeds--that is, if the oil is delivered and Milosevic does not succeed in taking credit for the shipments--the United States might join in financing the program, which would be extended to other cities. With regard to direct, material help to the anti-Milosevic forces, there are many genuine democratic organizations at the grassroots level and in the media in Serbia who could make a measurable difference if they had the means to spread their message. The United States Agency for International Development is already modestly supporting some of these organizations, and it has drawn up a list of additional potential recipients. In addition, through the SEED Act our State Department has recently made funds available through non-governmental organizations in Slovakia--a novel and promising approach. I believe that we can also utilize the democratic government in Romania to assist the democratic opposition in Serbia. I believe the time is ripe for simultaneously maintaining the pressure on the criminal Milosevic regime, and for increasing our material support to the democratic opposition. The Serbia Democratication Act of 1999 does just that, and I urge my colleagues to vote for its adoption. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I am joined by Senator Roth, in introducing a bill that would designate the White Clay Creek and its tributaries in Delaware and Pennsylvania as a unit of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. It has been eight years since I introduced the bill authorizing the study of the White Clay Creek watershed, and thirty years since I began my efforts to protect this unique and valuable region from the over development and urban sprawl that are of increasing concern to all of us. The White Clay Creek watershed is a truly remarkable environment, covering 107 square miles and draining over 69,000 acres in Delaware and Pennsylvania. Centrally located between the densely urbanized regions of New York and Washington, D.C., the White Clay Creek watershed is within a 2 hour drive of eight million people. Its diversity of natural, historic, cultural and recreational resources, as detailed in the National Park Service's Resources and Issues Report in September of 1994, is extraordinary. The watershed is home to a wide variety of plant and animal life, archeological sites dating back to prehistoric times, a bi-state preserve and state park, and a source of drinking water for the region. It became clear, early on, that these resources warranted the federal protection provided under the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. With the introduction of my legislation today, we are entering the last major phase of seeing that protection become a reality. Before I begin to speak on the particulars of today's legislation and the study process that got us to this point, I think it is important to note that while there are over 150 National Wild and Scenic Rivers across this nation, the White Clay Creek brings with it two distinctions: Specifically, it will be the first and only Wild and Scenic River in Delaware; and, it is the first and only river to be studied for designation on a watershed basis. The study of the White Clay Creek for possible inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System recently culminated with the release of a National Park Service study report in September of this year. The study process began in 1992, when Congress directed the National Park Service to convene a study task force consisting of state and local governments, community organizations, watershed residents and landowners within the White Clay Creek watershed. As described in the study legislation, the duties of the task force were to evaluate the eligibility and suitability of the White Clay Creek and its tributaries, and to develop a management plan for the preservation and protection of the watershed. Fifteen local governments in Delaware and Pennsylvania participated in the study task force. I stated during hearings on the study legislation, before the Senate Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management in November of 1991, that there was tremendous support for the study and subsequent designation. However, I realized that with the diverse group of individuals, organizations and agencies making up the task force, the possibility for conflict in determining which segments should be designated and what protections afforded them, could be great. What I could not have expected and what I am extremely pleased to report is that the support for protection of the White Clay Creek is so strong, that over 190 miles of the approximately 400 river miles studied in the watershed are being requested for designation today. Clearly, Delawareans and Pennsylvanians alike understand the value of preserving areas as unique as the White Clay Creek. And, the legislation I am introducing will do just that. It directs the National Park Service to incorporate 190.9 miles of the White Clay Creek and its tributaries into its National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Along with the designation, all 15 local governments within the watershed area have unanimously supported, through the passage of resolutions, the ideals and goals of the White Clay Creek Management Plan. The plan, developed by the White Clay Creek Task Force, will ensure long-term protection of the White Clay Creek watershed, emphasizing the importance of local governments working together, which is key in obtaining the federal designation I am seeking today. Designation of the White Clay Creek and its tributaries will bring national attention to the unique cultural, natural and recreational values of the area. It will provide an added level of protection from over development, by requiring an in-depth review by the National Park Service of any proposed project requiring federal permits or federal funding in the affected area. And finally, it elevates the value of the watershed when applying for state, local and federal preservation grants. Of the 69,000 acres in the watershed, 5,000 acres are public lands owned by state and local governments, the rest is privately owned and maintained. There are no federal lands within the watershed and no federal dollars will be used to purchase any land within its boundaries. I believe the protection of the White Clay Creek watershed to be one of the most important environmental initiatives I have undertaken since taking office in 1973, and it is my hope that Congress will act quickly on this bill so it can be preserved not only for us, but also for all the generations to come.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I am joined by Senator Roth, in introducing a bill that would designate the White Clay Creek and its tributaries in Delaware and Pennsylvania as a unit of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. It has been eight years since I introduced the bill authorizing the study of the White Clay Creek watershed, and thirty years since I began my efforts to protect this unique and valuable region from the over development and urban sprawl that are of increasing concern to all of us. The White Clay Creek watershed is a truly remarkable environment, covering 107 square miles and draining over 69,000 acres in Delaware and Pennsylvania. Centrally located between the densely urbanized regions of New York and Washington, D.C., the White Clay Creek watershed is within a 2 hour drive of eight million people. Its diversity of natural, historic, cultural and recreational resources, as detailed in the National Park Service's Resources and Issues Report in September of 1994, is extraordinary. The watershed is home to a wide variety of plant and animal life, archeological sites dating back to prehistoric times, a bi-state preserve and state park, and a source of drinking water for the region. It became clear, early on, that these resources warranted the federal protection provided under the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. With the introduction of my legislation today, we are entering the last major phase of seeing that protection become a reality. Before I begin to speak on the particulars of today's legislation and the study process that got us to this point, I think it is important to note that while there are over 150 National Wild and Scenic Rivers across this nation, the White Clay Creek brings with it two distinctions: Specifically, it will be the first and only Wild and Scenic River in Delaware; and, it is the first and only river to be studied for designation on a watershed basis. The study of the White Clay Creek for possible inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System recently culminated with the release of a National Park Service study report in September of this year. The study process began in 1992, when Congress directed the National Park Service to convene a study task force consisting of state and local governments, community organizations, watershed residents and landowners within the White Clay Creek watershed. As described in the study legislation, the duties of the task force were to evaluate the eligibility and suitability of the White Clay Creek and its tributaries, and to develop a management plan for the preservation and protection of the watershed. Fifteen local governments in Delaware and Pennsylvania participated in the study task force. I stated during hearings on the study legislation, before the Senate Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management in November of 1991, that there was tremendous support for the study and subsequent designation. However, I realized that with the diverse group of individuals, organizations and agencies making up the task force, the possibility for conflict in determining which segments should be designated and what protections afforded them, could be great. What I could not have expected and what I am extremely pleased to report is that the support for protection of the White Clay Creek is so strong, that over 190 miles of the approximately 400 river miles studied in the watershed are being requested for designation today. Clearly, Delawareans and Pennsylvanians alike understand the value of preserving areas as unique as the White Clay Creek. And, the legislation I am introducing will do just that. It directs the National Park Service to incorporate 190.9 miles of the White Clay Creek and its tributaries into its National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Along with the designation, all 15 local governments within the watershed area have unanimously supported, through the passage of resolutions, the ideals and goals of the White Clay Creek Management Plan. The plan, developed by the White Clay Creek Task Force, will ensure long-term protection of the White Clay Creek watershed, emphasizing the importance of local governments working together, which is key in obtaining the federal designation I am seeking today. Designation of the White Clay Creek and its tributaries will bring national attention to the unique cultural, natural and recreational values of the area. It will provide an added level of protection from over development, by requiring an in-depth review by the National Park Service of any proposed project requiring federal permits or federal funding in the affected area. And finally, it elevates the value of the watershed when applying for state, local and federal preservation grants. Of the 69,000 acres in the watershed, 5,000 acres are public lands owned by state and local governments, the rest is privately owned and maintained. There are no federal lands within the watershed and no federal dollars will be used to purchase any land within its boundaries. I believe the protection of the White Clay Creek watershed to be one of the most important environmental initiatives I have undertaken since taking office in 1973, and it is my hope that Congress will act quickly on this bill so it can be preserved not only for us, but also for all the generations to come.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to salute four Delaware golfers who continue to make the citizens of my State proud. Last June, Margaret Butler, Mary Kaczorowski, Joyce Ruddick and Alice Wooldridge played in and won the American Cancer Society Golf Championship at Maple Dale Country Club in Dover, Delaware. They then advanced to the Mid-Atlantic Championship at The Homestead in Hot Springs, Virginia and won the Delaware State Title in Division 3. And on December 3rd and 4th, they will be representing Delaware and looking to continue their winning ways at the P.G.A. West in LaQuinta, California. Having talked with members of this foursome on a few occasions, it is clear to me that these women take their golf quite seriously. Together, they embody the spirit of competition and sportsmanship and are fine examples of personal achievement and Delaware pride. But most importantly, these women realize that their participation in this event helps to raise essential funding for cancer research and programs. Millions of Americans suffer from cancer-related illnesses, and events like these give us all hope for finding a cure. While I acknowledge that I may be a bit biased in my viewpoint, I also know a group of champions when I see them. I, among many, believe that talent is often overrated and that character is the true determining factor for any success one has in life. I have seen these women drive a golf ball and I can confidently say that both talent and character reign supreme for this team. It is therefore my pleasure to extend to them my deep expression of thanks for having represented Delaware so well this year and, as they prepare for their biggest challenge to date, to wish them continued success in the National tournament. We in Delaware are very proud of these four women, and we will be rooting for them!

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to condemn in the strongest manner possible the anti-democratic violence that continues in Kosovo. This violence takes many forms, the most widely publicized of which is attacks by ethnic Albanians on Serbs and other minority groups in the province. KFOR and the U.N. Mission must stamp out these attacks immediately. What has received less media attention is the intimidation, and occasional violence, within the ethnic Albanian community. Recently there were public threats against the lives of two of Kosovo's most respected journalists, Veton Surroi and Baton Haxhiu, editors of the newspaper ``Koha Ditore.'' On my trip to Kosovo eight weeks ago, I met with Mr. Surroi. He had already spoken out against violence against Kosovo's Serbs and was already receiving private threats as a result. Mr. Surroi is a worldly, courageous democrat--exactly the sort of person that Kosovo needs to achieve genuine democracy. During the same trip, I also met with Hashim Thaqi, political leader of the Kosovo Liberation Army. I told Mr. Thaqi that he and his forces would have to submit unconditionally to civilian authority and respect the rights of all political parties, ethnic groups, and individuals in Kosovo. With this as background, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an open letter published in Kosova Sot on October 29, 1999 by James R. Hooper, President of the Balkan Action Council, to Mr. Thaqi appear in the Record after my remarks.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, under rule XXII, I yield my hour to the Democratic leader.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, under the daily 24-hour assault of our highly competitive news media, constantly in search of the latest event and the most readily available personality, it would be easy to confuse leadership with celebrity. However, there are in every community, men and women whose names are rarely found in the headlines and whose faces rarely appear on the television screen, but who nevertheless contribute real leadership day in and day out. In my state of Delaware, one of those invaluable if rarely recognized leaders is Wilmington City Clerk, and Democratic City Chairman, Leo Marshall. A Wilmington native and a lifelong Wilmington resident, Leo Marshall does not often make the morning headlines or the evening broadcast news, but he is easily familiar to many Wilmingtonians because he never joined the migration to the suburbs that drained the energies and economies of many of our older cities--he has lived and served among them for four eventful decades. Leo Marshall is, in many ways, the ``Mr. Wilmington'' of an older and increasingly diverse city he has helped to guide through the social and economic challenges that have marked our urban landscape from the confrontations of the Sixties to, in Wilmington's case, the dawning rebirth of the Nineties. He would be the last to claim major credit for the city's successes; he will tell you that the city has survived and got to its feet again at the hands of a succession of progressive city administrations--but knowledgeable Wilming- tonians will tell you Leo Marshall has built and maintained the strong political structure that has made progress possible in the relatively small city that is nevertheless Delaware's largest and most thoroughly urban community. Like another Democrat prominently in the news today, Leo Marshall first came to public notice with a basketball in his hands, but as a proud product of Wilmington's still highly coherent Polish-American community, he was not willing to stop there. He turned his attention to city government, and the same intelligence and fiercely competitive spirit that had been so evident on the basketball court soon marked him as a leader in the rough-and-tumble of city politics. He was and is a frankly partisan Democrat, and he has made Wilmington a Democratic stronghold in most of our elections; but he has always reserved his most intense partisanship for his city itself. He never loses sight of the city's interests, and he will vigorously defend them against all comers, regardless of party. Those of us who encounter him as Democrats learn quickly, if we expect to enjoy the relationship, that Leo Marshall will almost invariably be found among the most progressive of Democrats when it comes to issues or candidates, local, state or national--but only when he is assured that the city's interests have been taken into constructive consideration. In those cases, he is capable of being a statesman who can help pull a party, a city or a state together; but if he feels the city is being attacked or neglected, he takes off the frock coat and rolls up his sleeves--and his opponents rarely enjoy the contest that ensues. If it sounds like I am characterizing Leo Marshall as an old- fashioned ``city boss,'' there is some truth to that notion; he came to party leadership out of the tradition of bare-knuckle ward politics that was the hallmark of most American cities of the day. But he has survived and successfully carried his leadership into a far different day because he has proved to be a boss with a difference--in a city significantly and persistently marked by rapid and challenging social and economic changes, he has been able to adapt his outlook, his leadership and his party to one major transition after another to the benefit of both his party and his community. Such adaptable behind-the-scenes party leadership invites a consideration of the current state of our political parties. Much is said these days of how ``entrepreneurial politics'' has reduced our parties to mere shadows of their former selves, and those of us who must regularly place our records and our hopes for the future before the judgment of our constituents are well aware that that analysis comes uncomfortably close to the truth. Replacing party conventions with primary elections, struggling to meet the staggering costs of campaigning and coping with a swollen press corps that dogs our tracks at all seasons has inevitably thrown onto the shoulders of individual candidates much of the burden that historically was borne by the political parties. But we should not let that fact blind us to the continuing contribution our political parties make to our national life. They remain the institutions that embody the political values we place before the voters when we campaign for office. They still provide the structure upon which our whole political system is based. They may not wield the overwhelming political influence they once possessed--and most of us would agree that they should not--but they are not without identity, they are not without purpose, and they are not without continuing value. They deserve our continuing attention, and leaders who maintain them to serve our nation's political life--leaders like Leo Marshall who have adapted those parties to the realities of our day--deserve our thanks and our admiration. Mr. President, the great American humorist Will Rogers was as wise as he was amusing, and never more so than when he said, ``God will look you over, not for medals, diplomas or degrees-- but for scars!'' Wilmington's Leo Marshall need fear no such examination; he bears the honorable scars of many a political battle, all of them acquired in the service of his city and his party, but also on behalf of his state and nation. He does not often make the headlines, but he has made his mark on the history of his community, and that is the truest legacy of leadership.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, with Senator Roth, Senator Lugar and other colleagues, a resolution that attempts to clarify the relationship between the European Union's new European Security and Defense Identify, popularly known by its acronym ESDI, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Mr. President, as my colleagues will remember, ESDI has been gathering momentum since last December's meeting in St. Malo, France between French President Chirac and British Prime Minister Blair. It is part of the European Union's Common Foreign and Security Policy, which the EU sees as essential to its development as ``an ever closer union.'' ESDI was discussed in the communique of the April 1999 NATO Washington Summit, and it was elaborated on in the communique of the June 1999 EU Cologne Summit. Let me say up front that I believe that ESDI--if it is developed in proper coordination with NATO--can serve the national interest of the United States by becoming a valuable vehicle for strengthening the European military contribution to NATO. Put another way, ESDI, if handled correctly, can at long last create more equitable burden- sharing between our European NATO allies and the United States. NATO must and will remain the preeminent organization to defend the territory of the North Atlantic area against all external threats, as envisioned in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty of April 4, 1949 and restated on April 30, 1998 by the United States Senate in its Resolution of Ratification of the enlargement of the Alliance to include Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary. NATO may also, pursuant to Article 4 of the North Atlantic Treaty, on a case-by-case basis, engage in other missions when there is consensus among its members that there is a threat to the security and interests of NATO members. These missions have become known as non-Article 5 missions and were also reaffirmed by the Senate in the April 30, 1998 Resolution of Ratification of NATO enlargement. ESDI's field of action should be restricted to those non-Article 5 missions in which NATO as an organization does not wish to involve itself. In practice, Mr. President, this would mean that at some future date if the need for military action arose in non-NATO Europe and the United States did not wish to become involved, the European Union could undertake the effort, utilizing, in part, NATO assets. Mr. President, I believe that such a situation with a rejuvenated European pillar of the alliance could free up forces of this country for possible action elsewhere. Let me emphasize, however, that in order for ESDI to accomplish both the goals of the European Union and of NATO, it must be clearly designed in a way that gives NATO the ``right of first refusal'' on non-Article 5 missions. To repeat--if NATO would not wish to become involved, then the European Union would have the option of leading the mission. In addition, Mr. President, we must be sure that ESDI does not duplicate resources or discriminate against non-EU European NATO members (Norway, Turkey, Iceland, Poland, Czech Republic, and Hungary). Mr. President, in my opinion the biggest danger is that ESDI could be constructed as an alternative to NATO for non-Article 5 missions. If this would happen, it could lead to an estrangement of the United States from its European allies. Unfortunately, the June 1999 Cologne EU Summit communique subtly modified the language of the April 1999 Washington NATO Summit communique in the direction of ESDI as an autonomous EU military organ, using NATO assets, without giving NATO this necessary ``right of first refusal'' for non-Article 5 missions. The European Union is currently involved in internal negotiations on a further elaboration of ESDI at the December EU Summit in Helsinki. The Sense of the Senate resolution that we are introducing serves as a clear message to our friends in the European Union that while we recognize their aspirations for a European Security and Defense Identity, it must complement NATO, not be in competition with, or duplicative of it. With that in mind, our Resolution traces the development of ESDI, citing both the Washington NATO Summit and the Cologne EU Summit. It stresses that the Yugoslav air campaign demonstrated the military shortcomings of the European allies and the imbalance with the United States, both of which the allies have pledged to address through the NATO Defense Capabilities Initiative. The Resolution then expresses several items that are the Sense of the Senate. NATO should remain the primary institution for security issues of trans-Atlantic concern; All NATO members should commit to improving their defense capabilities so that the Alliance can project power decisively with equitable burden-sharing; The Defense Capabilities Initiative adopted at the Washington NATO Summit is specifically endorsed; The resolve of the EU to have the capacity for autonomous action where the Alliance as a whole is not engaged is acknowledged; The member states of NATO and the EU should promulgate principles that will strengthen the trans-Atlantic partnership and reinforce unity within NATO. Then, Mr. President, cutting directly to the heart of preventing ESDI's becoming an alternative to NATO for non-Article 5 missions, the Resolution offers the Further Sense of the Senate that ``on matters of trans-Atlantic concern the European Union should make clear that it would undertake an autonomous mission through its European Security and Defense Identity only after the North Atlantic Treaty Organization had been offered the opportunity to undertake that mission but had referred it to the European Union for action.'' Further, and directly relevant to the issue of more equitable burden- sharing, the Resolution states the Sense of the Senate that ``failure of the European allies of the United States to achieve the goals established through the Defense Capabilities Initiative would weaken support for the Alliance in the United States.'' Addressing the issue of non-discrimination by the EU against non-EU NATO members, the Resolution states the Sense of the Senate that ``the European Union must implement its Cologne Summit decisions concerning its Common Foreign and Security Policy in a manner that will ensure that non-WEU NATO allies, including Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary, Iceland, Norway, Poland, Turkey, and the United States, will not be discriminated against, but will be fully involved when the European Union addresses issues affecting their security interests.'' Finally, the Resolution expresses the Sense of the Senate that the EU's implementation of its Cologne Summit decisions should not promote a strategic perspective on trans-Atlantic security issues that conflicts with that promoted by NATO and should not promote unnecessary duplication of the resources and capabilities provided by NATO. Mr. President, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization remains the cornerstone of our engagement with Europe. The resolution we have introduced makes clear to our partners that we support the European Union's European Security and Defense Identity as long as it is developed in a manner to strengthen NATO, not weaken it. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, Congress created drug courts 5 years ago in the 1994 crime law as a cost-effective, innovative way to deal with nonviolent offenders in need of drug treatment. Though authorization for this program was repealed just two years later, we wisely continued to fund this program. I am pleased to join with Senator Specter today to cosponsor the ``Drug Court Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 1999.'' In just 5 years, drug courts have taken off. There are 412 drug courts currently operating in all 50 States plus the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and two Federal districts. An additional 280 courts are being planned. Let me tell you why I am such an advocate for these courts. Drug courts are as much about fighting crime as they are about reducing dependence on illegal drugs. Our Nation has about 3.2 million offenders on probation today. They stay on probation for about 2 years. Throughout those 2 years, they are subject to little, if any, supervision. For example, almost 300,000 of these probationers had absolutely no contact with their probation officer in the past month--not in person, not over the phone, not even through the mail--none! Drug Courts fill this ``supervision gap'' with regular drug testing, with the offender actually coming before a judge twice a week, and actually seeing a probation officer or treatment professional three times a week. Nearly 100,000 people have entered drug court programs and the results have been impressive. About 70 percent of the drug court program participants have either stayed in the program or completed it successfully. That is more than twice the retention rate of most traditional treatment programs. The other 30 percent of the participants went to jail. And I think that should be heralded as a success of the drug court program as well. Without drug courts, this 30 percent would have been unsupervised, not monitored, and unless they happened to be unlucky enough to use drugs or commit a crime near a police officer, they would still be on the streets abusing drugs and committing crimes. Drug courts provide the oversight to make sure that does not happen. The Specter-Biden reauthorization bill calls for fully funding drug courts at the level the Attorney General and I called for in the 1994 crime law--- $200 million. Drug courts are effective and cost effective. Let's spend our money wisely and invest in what works. There are a number of jurisdictions that want to open or expand their drug courts but are unable to do so because of lack of treatment capacity. We always talk about devolving power to State and local government. Let's put our money where our mouth is and give these jurisdictions the funds they need. The Specter-Biden reauthorization act includes $75 million a year to expand local treatment capacity so that no community that wants to start or expand a drug court is precluded from doing so due to lack of treatment slots. Make no mistake, participating in the drug court program is not a walk in the park. If you use drugs while in the program, you go to jail. Period. Rather than just churning people through the revolving door of the criminal justice system, drug courts help these folks to get their acts together so they won't be back. When they graduate from drug court programs they are clean and sober and more prepared to participate in society. In order to graduate, they are required to finish high school or obtain a GED, hold down a job, and keep up with financial obligations including drug court fees and child support payments. They are also required to have a sponsor who will keep them on track. This program works. And that is not just my opinion. Columbia University's National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse found that these courts are effective at taking offenders with little previous treatment history and keeping them in treatment; that they provide closer supervision than other community programs to which the offenders could be assigned; that they reduce crime; and that they are cost-effective. According to the Department of Justice, drug courts save at least $5,000 per offender each year in prison costs alone. That says nothing of the cost savings associated with future crime prevention. Just as important, scarce prison beds are freed up for violent criminals. I have saved what may be the most important statistic for last. Two- thirds of drug court participants are parents of young children. After getting sober through the coerced treatment mandated by the court, many of these individuals are able to be real parents again. More than 500 drug-free babies have been born to female drug court participants, a sizable victory for society and the budget alike. Let me close by saying I hope the Senate takes up this legislation as soon as possible so we can reauthorize this important, effective program.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, when we passed the 1994 crime bill and created the COPS Program, there were some skeptics. There were people who thought community policing was nothing more than social work and that the program would not work. Do you remember what I said to the skeptics? I told them that either this program was going to work and we would be geniuses or that it would flop and we would be run out of town. There is an old saying that success has a thousand fathers but failure is an orphan. Now, there are a thousand people all claiming to be the parent of this program simply because it has worked so darn well. In 1994, we set a goal of funding 100,000 police officers by the year 2000. We met that goal last May--months ahead of schedule. As of today, there have been 103,000 officers funded and 55,000 officers deployed to the streets. The COPS Programs is ahead of schedule and under budget. Because of COPS, the concept of community policing has become law enforcement's principal weapon fighting crime. Community policing has redefined the relationship between law enforcement and the public. But, more importantly, it has reduced crime. And that is what we attempted to do. All across the country, from Wilmington to Washington--from Connecticut to California, we are seeing a dramatic decline in crime. Just this week, the FBI released its annual crime statistics which showed that once again, for the seventh year in a row, crime is down. In fact, since 1994, violent crime is down 17.6 percent. And just last year, violent crime was down 6.4 percent nationwide from the year before. But, we can't let that slow us down. And that's why I'm here today. I am proud of our accomplishments, but we cannot become complacent. We have a unique opportunity here. Some people say if crime down, why put more cops on the streets? Well it's simple math: more cops equals less crime. If we know one thing it is this: if a crime is going to be committed and there is a cop on one street corner and not one the other, guess where the crime is going to be committed? Not where the cop is, I would guess. Maybe someday we will reach the point where crime is so low that we don't have to take pro-active steps any longer. But, we are not there yet. Our children and our parents are still at great risk out there and it should not be that way. Nor does it have to be that way. And why more cops on the street, it won't be that way. That is why today, I introduced a bill to continue this program for the next 5 years. It's called ``PROTECTION''--``Providing reliable officers, technology, education, community prosecutors and training in our neighborhoods.'' This bill will put up to 50,000 more officers on the street. It will also allow police officers to be reimbursed for college or graduate school, because we all know that overcoming crime problems requires something more than just more cops. It requires cops who understand the importance of prevention and community relations. The legislation also provides funding for new technology so that law enforcement can purchase high-tech equipment to put them on equal footing with sophisticated criminals. And it provides for funding for community prosecutors--to expand the community policing concept to engage the whole law enforcement community in fighting crime. It has all the things that law enforcement told me that they needed to do their jobs. I am proud to say that this legislation has the support of all the major law enforcement organizations and that 49 of my colleagues have told me that they support this legislation. Forty-five of them will join me today in cosponsoring this legislation--including 5 Republicans. I want to recognize my friends on the other side of the aisle and thank them for listening to their constituents, their mayors and their police chiefs who said: We can not do this without your help. I hope that even more will join us today. I ask the rest of my colleagues--there are 50 more of you--will you be with us on this? Will you listen to everyone who is asking for help? Will you listen to your police chiefs and your mayors? Will you stand up and be counted among those who say enough is enough--and I'm going to do something about crime? I'm going to put more police officers on the street. I'm going to support the most effective law enforcement program of our time. I hope that we can put politics aside on this one and all join forces to support the folks who do so much for us each and every day. The people who put their safety on the line so that we may be more secure. It is then, that I will know that we have all put our Nation's interest first. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, when we passed the 1994 crime bill and created the COPS Program, there were some skeptics. There were people who thought community policing was nothing more than social work and that the program would not work. Do you remember what I said to the skeptics? I told them that either this program was going to work and we would be geniuses or that it would flop and we would be run out of town. There is an old saying that success has a thousand fathers but failure is an orphan. Now, there are a thousand people all claiming to be the parent of this program simply because it has worked so darn well. In 1994, we set a goal of funding 100,000 police officers by the year 2000. We met that goal last May--months ahead of schedule. As of today, there have been 103,000 officers funded and 55,000 officers deployed to the streets. The COPS Programs is ahead of schedule and under budget. Because of COPS, the concept of community policing has become law enforcement's principal weapon fighting crime. Community policing has redefined the relationship between law enforcement and the public. But, more importantly, it has reduced crime. And that is what we attempted to do. All across the country, from Wilmington to Washington--from Connecticut to California, we are seeing a dramatic decline in crime. Just this week, the FBI released its annual crime statistics which showed that once again, for the seventh year in a row, crime is down. In fact, since 1994, violent crime is down 17.6 percent. And just last year, violent crime was down 6.4 percent nationwide from the year before. But, we can't let that slow us down. And that's why I'm here today. I am proud of our accomplishments, but we cannot become complacent. We have a unique opportunity here. Some people say if crime down, why put more cops on the streets? Well it's simple math: more cops equals less crime. If we know one thing it is this: if a crime is going to be committed and there is a cop on one street corner and not one the other, guess where the crime is going to be committed? Not where the cop is, I would guess. Maybe someday we will reach the point where crime is so low that we don't have to take pro-active steps any longer. But, we are not there yet. Our children and our parents are still at great risk out there and it should not be that way. Nor does it have to be that way. And why more cops on the street, it won't be that way. That is why today, I introduced a bill to continue this program for the next 5 years. It's called ``PROTECTION''--``Providing reliable officers, technology, education, community prosecutors and training in our neighborhoods.'' This bill will put up to 50,000 more officers on the street. It will also allow police officers to be reimbursed for college or graduate school, because we all know that overcoming crime problems requires something more than just more cops. It requires cops who understand the importance of prevention and community relations. The legislation also provides funding for new technology so that law enforcement can purchase high-tech equipment to put them on equal footing with sophisticated criminals. And it provides for funding for community prosecutors--to expand the community policing concept to engage the whole law enforcement community in fighting crime. It has all the things that law enforcement told me that they needed to do their jobs. I am proud to say that this legislation has the support of all the major law enforcement organizations and that 49 of my colleagues have told me that they support this legislation. Forty-five of them will join me today in cosponsoring this legislation--including 5 Republicans. I want to recognize my friends on the other side of the aisle and thank them for listening to their constituents, their mayors and their police chiefs who said: We can not do this without your help. I hope that even more will join us today. I ask the rest of my colleagues--there are 50 more of you--will you be with us on this? Will you listen to everyone who is asking for help? Will you listen to your police chiefs and your mayors? Will you stand up and be counted among those who say enough is enough--and I'm going to do something about crime? I'm going to put more police officers on the street. I'm going to support the most effective law enforcement program of our time. I hope that we can put politics aside on this one and all join forces to support the folks who do so much for us each and every day. The people who put their safety on the line so that we may be more secure. It is then, that I will know that we have all put our Nation's interest first. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise to comment briefly on why I will vote against the motion to proceed to S. 1692, the Partial-Birth Abortion bill. I support this legislation. I have voted for passage of this bill in the past, and I have twice voted to override the President's veto. I think we should take up this bill in the Senate, and I am quite certain we will get to it. Yesterday, in fact, we offered to move to this bill by unanimous agreement and, had that been accepted, we would be on it now. The problem with this procedural tactic of having a recorded vote on this motion is that it ends the Senate's work on campaign finance reform, and we are not finished with that bill yet. We started debating campaign finance reform last week, and we have a chance to make some genuine improvements in American politics. We should finish what we have started.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, on October 13, the Broadcasting Board of Governors--which supervises all U.S. Government-sponsored international broadcasting--held a ceremony celebrating its new status as an independent agency. Among the speakers was the President of Estonia, Lennart Meri, who delivered a very thoughtful and eloquent speech on the importance of international broadcasting to the mission of promoting democracy and freedom around the world. I commend it to all of my colleagues. I ask to have printed in the Record, the text of President Meri's speech. The speech follows: The Unfinished Tasks of International Broadcasting (By Lennart Meri, President of the Republic of Estonia, Washington, D.C., 13 October 1999) No one talking in this city about the importance of the media could fail to recall Thomas Jefferson's observation that if he were forced to choose between a free press and a free parliament, he would always choose the former because with a free press and a free parliament, he would end with a free parliament, but with a free parliament, he could not be sure if he would end with a free press. I certainly won't become the exception to that practice. But if these words of your third president and the author of the American Declaration of Independence continue to resonate around the world, one of his other observations about the press may be more relevant for our thinking about the current and future tasks of international broadcasting. Responding in June 1807 to a Virginia resident who was thinking about starting a newspaper, Jefferson argued that ``to be most useful,'' a newspaper should contain ``true facts and sound principles only.'' Unfortunately, he told his correspondent, ``I fear such a paper would find few subscribers'' because ``it is a melancholy truth that a suppression of the press could not more completely deprive the nation of its benefits than is done by its abandoned prostitution to falsehood.'' And one of the greatest advocates of the power of the media to support democracy concluded sadly, ``nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle.'' Jefferson's optimistic comment about the role of a free press came as he was helping to make the revolution that transformed the world; his more critical ones came after his own, often less than happy years as president of the United States. Given my own experiences over the past half century, I can fully understand his shift in perspective and can thus testify that were Thomas Jefferson to be with us today, he would be among the most committed advocates of international broadcasting precisely because of his experiences in the earlier years of the American republic. For most of my adult life, I lived in an occupied country, one where the communist regime suppressed virtually all possibilities for free expression in public forums. As a result, we turned to international broadcasting like Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, the Voice of America, and the BBC to try to find out what was going on. Let me go back in memory for a moment. Estonia was already under Soviet occupation when the ``Battle of Britain''-- solitary England's solitary battle against the totalitarian world--began. This is how I saw it, at the age of twelve, before our family was deported to Siberia. Nazi Germany bombastically boasted of its victories, London spoke of losses. And yet each broadcast from London, day after day, ended with the English newscaster's dry announcement: ``Das waren die Nachrichten am 5. Juni, am hundert sechs und funfzigsten Tage des Jahres, wo Hitler versprach, den Krieg zu gewinnen.''--``These were the news of June 15, 156th day of the year when Hitler promised to win the war''. There was no irony in these words. Rather, there was the pedantic knowledge of a pharmacist--how many drops of truth morning, day and night were necessary to keep the ability of doubt alive. The end of World War II found me in exile, buried deep into the heart of Russia, a couple of hundred kilometers from the nearest railway station. You had your Victory Day celebrations, and so had I. I bought a crystal of selenium to build a radio receiver. During the time of war, all radio equipment had been confiscated in Russia. Now, suddenly, I was holding in my hands a thumb's length of a glass tube containing a crystal and a short wire--my pass to freedom. The third receiver, built already in Estonia, finally worked, and I have been with you ever since. I doubt whether it is in my powers to give you a convincing picture of our spiritual confinement. Imagine being blind, unable to see colours, to perceive light or shadows; being surrounded by the void space without a single point of reference, without gravity that would feel like motherly love in this spiritual vacuum. And then, for a quarter of an hour, or half an hour, or even--a royal luxury--for a whole hour--the void would suddenly be filled with colours, fragrances, voices, the warmth of the sun and the fresh hope of spring. How many of you remember the Moscow Conference of 1946, to which so many Estonians for some unknown reason looked forward with hope? I remember Mr. Peter Peterson from the BBC covering the conference, I remember, the intonation of Winston Churchill, when he said of the winners of this very ``Battle of Britain'': ``That was their finest hour''. I remember the lectures of astronomer Fred Hoyle, to which I listened taking notes from week to week. Under Soviet rule, his discovery was banned as ``idealistic''. Some years ago, when I received Javier Solana, the Secretary-General of NATO, in Tallinn, I compared the inevitability of the expansion of the island of democracy and NATO security structures with Fred Hoyle's expanding universe, and noticed when I was still speaking that Mr. Salona was deeply and personally moved by my speech. ``You could not have known,'' he said afterwards, ``that Fred Hoyle was during my university studies my research subject.'' This is how the radiation from an antenna materialises into attitudes, actions, and landscapes. Allow me two more comments. It is my duty to thank from this chair your predecessors for the decision to start broadcasts in Estonian on Radio Liberty, and even more for the decision to transfer the broadcasts in Estonian to the responsibility area of Radio Free Europe--in full concord with the non-recognition policy of the United States. I do not know how this decision was taken. During the Korean War, I heard from the Russian broadcasts, that the next day, the first Estonian broadcast would be on the air at 1800 hours. I was still a student and lived in Tartu, in a dormitory, which housed more than 500 students. I mentioned the forthcoming Estonian broadcast to one single friend. Stalin's terror was rampant in Estonia. For the time when the broadcast begun, my room was full of people, and more were coming. I will never forget that day, those solemn thirty minutes, and least of all the atmosphere in my room. Those people were the friends of my friend's friends. I knew a few, most were strangers to me. Every listener stood apart, in different directions, motionless, no glance met another, no word was spoken, we parted in silence. Such gatherings were punished with twenty-five years of hard labour. Not a single one of these twenty or thirty people got into trouble, which bespeaks of a high morale. And my last point. I have myself worked at the radio, and know and knew the most distressing doubt--or ignorance, to be more accurate--whether your message did find your listeners. The broadcaster's work is like a dialogue with the stars: he can hear his own voice, but never gets any answer. The listener's temptation to respond is overwhelming. In spring 1976 Radio Free Europe informed that the Estonian polar explorer. August Massik had died in Canada. I picked up the phone and dictated a message for the writers' newspaper, and it appeared two days later, on June 18. In the circumstances of totalitarian seclusion, this was quite an accomplishment, which, I hoped, would morally support Radio Free Europe's Estonian staff. I must confess, I also wrote to your countryman Alistair Cooke the following lines, and I am quoting: ``Your word has always penetrated the Iron Curtain. Every week you have been a member of our family. I don't remember if you have ever spoken about Estonia, but you have always spoken as a European about the democratic world, which is the same''. I was deeply moved to get Alistair Cooke's reply, which I would very much like to read to this audience: ``It will be plain to you'', Alistair Cooke wrote, ``why I particularly cherish letters from people who listened, sometimes at their peril, from behind the Iron Curtain. Of all such, your letter is at once the most touching and the most gratifying. I am deeply grateful to you and wish you all good things as you approach what (to me) is early middle age! Most sincerely, etc. Alistar Cooke''. That was the role you have played, and I doubt whether you yourself are aware of how much an antenna can outweight the world's biggest army. Frequently, these sources provided the only reliable news we could get about what was going on not only in the outside world but also in our own country. These broadcasts were our universities: They provided us with the materials we needed to understand our world and ultimately to build a movement capable of reclaiming our rightful place in world. Indeed, one of the key moments in the recovery of the independence of my country is directly tied to international broadcasting. On January 13, 1991, Russian leader Brois Yeltsin flew to Tallinn in the aftermath of the Soviet killings in Lithuania. While there, he not only signed agreements acknowledging the right of the Baltic states to seek independence from the Soviet Union but he issued a statement calling on Russian officers and men not to obey illegal Soviet orders to fire on freely elected governments or unarmed civilians. Through a series of FM and telephone connections from Tallinn via Helsinki to Stockholm to Munich, Yeltin's words reached REF/RL's Estonian Service and then were broadcast throughout the Soviet Union on all of that station's language services. I am convinced that that broadcasting by itself prevented Moscow from taking even more radical steps against our national movement and thus set the stage for the recovery of our independence as well as for the dissolution of the Evil Empire as a whole. Just one indication of how important that action was to us is the fact that the head of RFL/FL's Estonian Service at that time, Toomas Hendrik Ilves, is now Estonian foreign minister. I can't stress too highly what these broadcasts meant to me and to my fellow Estonians in another sense as well. During the long years of occupation, these broadcasts in our own languages demonstrated that the world, and that there was no basis for pessimism about our future. And these broadcasts, especially those which were about our country, reminded not only us but the Soviet Authorities that they would never be able to prevent us from regaining our freedom. When we finally did so in 1991, I like many other Estonians and, I suspect, like many of you, looked to the future with enormous self-confidence. and also like many of you, I was sure that the chief contribution of international broadcasting to my country lay in the past. Indeed, it was in that spirit that I nominated Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty for the Novel Peace Prize, an honor I still believe it should ultimately receive. Surely, we thought, with communism overthrown and with our own independence reaffirmed, we could quickly establish our own free press, one that would provide our citizens with the information they would need not only to recover from the past but to allow us to re-enter Europe and the West. But the experience of the past eight years has shown that such optimism was misplaced. First of all, the privatisation of the media did not make it free. Because of economic difficulties, privatisation both reduced the number of media outlets, thus paradoxically stifling freedom, and encouraged those remaining to seek readers and listeners by appealing to the lowest common denominator among our citizens. Instead of elevating the understanding of their audiences, all too many of our media outlets played to the worst in them, filling their pages or their broadcasts with sex, violence, and charges of corruption. That is why I have complained so often that the path from a controlled press to a free press all too often lies through the worst kind of yellow press. There is a second reason why our optimism about our own domestic media was misplaced; the experiences and values of the editors and journalists who now work in the domestic media. Not surprisingly, almost all of them are products of the Soviet system. Their understanding of what the media is for and what they do is thus very different from that of journalists who have grown up in a free media environment. They see media outlets as a form of propaganda, something the new owners frequently even encourage, and they see individual news stories as a chance to push their own agendas rather than to report accurately on what is going on. And there is yet a third reason why we expected too much too soon in this area after the collapse of communism. A free press needs a free audience be it readers or listeners, and such an audience is not something that has been created overnight in any country. It did not happen overnight even in the United States which never faced the same kind of tyranny that we did. Indeed, Jefferson complained about this as well when he said that for the citizens of his day, ``defamation is becoming a necessity of life; in so much that a dish of tea in the morning or evening cannot be digested without this stimulant.'' But the impact of the Soviet system in my country was far deeper and more insidious than that and far deeper and more insidious than many people either in Estonia or in the West want to acknowledge. It involved more than the mass executions and deportations, more than the destruction of much of the landscape, and more than 50 years of the stifling of our lives. It involved in the very first and most important sense the deformation of our minds and souls, a deformation that means that even today many of us cannot confront reality except through the filters provided by that past. Estonian is not an easy language to learn, but any of you who can listen to Estonian broadcasts or who read Estonian newspapers or journals will immediately feel what you are listening to or reading is something very different from the media you are used to in this long-established democracy. And if you listen or read while you visit my country--and I invite all of you to do so--you will be shocked by the difference between what you hear and see in the media and what you hear and see all around you. Jefferson again understood this problem when he wrote: ``The real extent of this misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.'' And he added that ``I really look with commiseration over the great body of my fellow citizens, who, reading newspapers, live and die in the belief, that they have known something of what has been passing in the world in their time.'' I share that feeling almost every time I pick up an Estonian paper or listen to a broadcast by a domestic Estonian outlet. Now, lest you accuse me of being overly pessimistic, let me hasten to add that there are notable exceptions among owners, among journalists and especially among readers and listeners. There are owners of media outlets in my country who do believe in the principles of a genuinely free press. There are journalists who understand that news is not the same as propaganda and that checking facts is important. And there are many readers and listeners who know what genuine news is and increasingly expect to get that and not the poor substitute they are often given. One of the reasons that I have some optimism about the future of the free media is that our very oldest citizens remember the media from before the Soviet occupation and our very youngest are growing up without the constraints of the communist system. These two groups have been responsible for most of the positive changes in our country since 1991 not only in the media but in all fields of endeavor. Indeed, I think it is symbolic that I am a representative of those who remember Estonia before the Soviets came and our prime minister Mart Laar, perhaps the youngest national leader in the world, came of age as they were leaving. Another reason I am somewhat more optimistic than you may think is that international broadcasting has already done some important work. Those of us who listened to what the Soviets called the ``foreign voices'' not only heard the news but learned what news is--and importantly what it isn't. Many of our best journalists have been regular listeners to RFE/ RL, to VOA, to the BBC and to all the others for their entire lives. That gave them the courage to think differently and a model for their profession. Without it, we would have been much further behind. But there is a final reason for my optimism: the continuing impact of international broadcasting to my country and to its neighbors. Estonians and many other people around the world fudge their own media on the basis of what international broadcasting tells them. That operates as an important constraint on the tendency of domestic media operations to go off the rails, but it also means that these audiences are learning what news is and thus will demand it from their domestic outlets. And when they do, then there will be genuinely free press and the possibility of genuinely free society. Consequently, I am now convinced that the greatest challenges for international broadcasting lie ahead and not in the past, for overcoming the problems Jefferson identified two centuries ago is not going to be easy or quick. Estonia as many of you know has done remarkably well compared to many of the other post-communist countries, but our problems are still so great in the media areas as elsewhere that we will continue to need your help and your broadcasts long into the future. On behalf of the Estonian people, I want to thank you in the United States for all you have done in the past and are doing now through your broadcasts to my country and to other countries around the world. I believe that international broadcasting is and will remain one of the most important means for the spread of democracy and freedom. And consequently, I am very proud to greet you today on the occasion of the formation of the Broadcasting Board of Governors as an independent agency--even though I want all of you who are celebrating that fact to know that your greatest challenges lie ahead and that those of us who are your chief beneficiaries will never let you forget it. Thank you.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for this country's teaching hospitals. These institutions provide the critical experiences of internship and residency by which raw medical school graduates, who have learned the science of medicine, are converted into seasoned physicians who have learned the art and practice of medicine. We are all going to face illness at one time or another in our lives, and we want to make sure that there will be well-educated, conscientious, and compassionate physicians to care for us during those periods. The critical role of the teaching hospitals in molding the doctors of the future cannot be overestimated. These teaching hospitals also serve as key participants in the medical research advances from which we all benefit enormously. We tend to forget that medicine is a relatively young science. Antibiotics, which we all take for granted, have been in use for only about 50 years. Heart bypass surgery and kidney transplants, procedures so commonplace that we hardly give them a second thought, were virtually unheard of 40 years ago. These and other medical advances have led to a tremendous increase in life expectancy in this country over the past 100 years. Yet all of these innovations would have been virtually impossible without the ongoing participation of teaching hospitals in programs of medical research and development. Finally, these teaching hospitals provide a tremendous service to our communities. For many of the most vulnerable among us, the teaching hospitals represent their major, and often only, source of medical care. The homeless, the indigent, the elderly, the new arrivals to our country: for many in these groups, there would be no medical care at all if not for the care provided by the teaching hospitals, such as Christiana Care in my home state of Delaware. So we should all agree that teaching hospitals are an absolutely essential resource for our society; we don't want to go back to 19th century medicine, we want to move ahead to 21st century medicine. But there is a problem: the teaching hospitals' financial underpinning has become very precarious, and a number of the most reknowned teaching hospitals in this country are now losing money each year. We have come somewhat late to the unsurprising realization that the time and resources which the teaching hospitals devote to the education of future physicians, the research we need for better and healthier lives, and the care of the indigent and working poor, costs a lot of money. These costs are going up every year for our teaching hospitals: new technology costs money, dedicated employees must be paid a living wage, and so forth. But the income of teaching hospitals is not coming close to matching these cost increases. Health insurance companies are reducing their payments to health care providers, including teaching hospitals. Teaching hospitals, with their obligatory high costs, are not able to compete financially for contracts to take care of HMO patients. A significant percentage of teaching hospital costs has been paid in the past by Medicare, but as Medicare finds itself facing future insolvency, its payment to teaching hospitals for training interns and residents has also declined. We in Congress contributed to the decline in teaching hospitals' income with several provisions in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, particularly the reductions in payments for indirect medical education and disproportionate share hospitals. Everybody who gets health care in this country benefits from the work of teaching hospitals, but in the face of the financial straits that have overwhelmed our health care system, nobody wants to pay for them. Mr. President, it is absolutely essential that this country's teaching hospitals remain vital and viable. Medicare may no longer be in a position to continue paying a disproportionately large share of teaching hospital expenses. In the long run, we must carefully reevaluate the funding mechanism for teaching hospitals to ensure their stability; if we all benefit from them, then perhaps we should all pay part of their costs. These long-term changes are important, but we in the Senate must also be concerned about the here and now. Teaching hospitals that are currently losing money may not be able to wait for the ``long run''; they need help in the next few months. Senator Daschle has just introduced the Medicare Beneficiary Access to Care Act, which contains provisions that would benefit the teaching hospitals and their patients, and I understand that the Senate Finance Committee is currently working on proposals to address some unintended consequences of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, including those that have impacted on teaching hospitals. But time is of the essence, and the key word is urgency. Next year may be too late. The Senate is working furiously to pass the necessary appropriations bills in the few legislative days we have remaining this session, but I implore my colleagues not to move to adjournment until we take action to make sure that the teaching hospitals will still be around next session. The teaching hospitals spend 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, working to make sure we live long and healthy lives, and it's time for us to return the favor. If we don't have enough time this session to complete the necessary major surgery on the payment system for teaching hospitals, the least we can do is set aside the few hours or days it would take to administer a little life-saving financial CPR.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. After consultation with the chairman of the committee, they are going to reserve the remainder of their time so we will not go back and forth with proponents and opponents until they indicate they want to. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, how much time remains in my control?

Mr. BIDEN. How much time remains in control of my friend?

Mr. BIDEN. Surely.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I have spoken to our leader. I am going to close the debate on our side. I will use any time up to the amount of time that I have available. My friend from North Carolina knows--I guess when people listen to us on the air they must wonder. We go through this, ``my friend from North Carolina'' and ``distinguished Senator from.'' I imagine people, especially kids or youngsters in high school and college, must look at us and say: What are they talking about, unless they understand the need for good manners in a place where there are such strong differences, where we have such deep-seated differences on some issues, where I must tell you--and I am not being melodramatic--my heart aches because we are about to vote down this treaty. I truly think, I honestly believe that, in the 27 years I have been here, this is the most serious mistake the Senate has ever made--or is about to make. But that does not detract from my respect for the Senator from North Carolina, who not only is against the treaty, but wants to bring it up now, now, and vote it down. So I think it is important for the American people to understand. We have deep differences on this floor. In other places they have coups and they shoot each other. Because of the traditions of this body and the rules of the Senate, we live to fight another day. My friend knows we came the same year; we came the same date; we came at the same time. I will promise him, and he will not be surprised, I will use every remaining day of this Congress to try to fight him on this issue--even though I am about to lose, we are about to lose, my position is about to lose--to try to bring this back up, try to push it, try to keep it alive. Because as the Parliamentarian pointed out, when you vote this treaty down today, it doesn't die; it goes to sleep. It goes back to bed. It jumps over that marble counter there, back over the desk to the Executive Calendar to be called up again. I warn you all, I am going to be a thorn in your side, not that it matters much, but I am going to keep harping at it. I am going to keep beating up on you; I am going to keep talking about it; I am going to keep at it, keep at it, keep at it. When we started this off, my objective was to get the kind of hearings--I know my friend says we have had hearings--the kind of hearings we have had on other significant treaties--10, 12, 15, 18 days of hearings. The ``sense of the Senate'' amendment that I was prepared to introduce two weeks ago called for Foreign Relations Committee hearings beginning this fall and final action by March 31, 2000. That is what I was looking for because I truly believe that, were the American people and our colleagues able to hash this out in the way we designed this body to work, we would, in fact, find accommodation for all those concerns that 67 Senators might have; not 90, but probably 67, 68--70. I truly believe that. I truly believe that. Instead, we got one quick week of hearings, with the Committee on Foreign Relations holding only one day of hearings dedicated to this treaty, the day after the committee was discharged of its responsibility. That abdication of committee responsibility was perhaps only fitting, as most Republicans appear prepared to force this great country to abdicate its responsibility for world leadership on nuclear non- proliferation. But let me say that in this floor debate, I have attempted at least to answer attacks leveled by treaty opponents. Neither side has been able to delve very deeply, however, given the time constraints and lack of balanced, I think, detailed knowledge on the part of our Senate. For example, the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island and the Senator from Virginia are both friends. They are World War II vets. They have served a long time and they are among the two most honorable people I know. Senator Chafee--I assume he will forgive me for saying this--came up to me and said: Joe, check what I have here. Is this accurate, what I have here? I said what I am about to say: It is absolutely accurate. He said: But it is different from what my friend from Virginia said, Senator Warner said. I said: I love him, but he is flat wrong. He is flat wrong. I don't think anybody is intentionally misleading anybody. I do think we haven't hashed this out. For example, there is a condition that we have adopted by unanimous consent, part of this resolution of ratification we are about to vote on, the last section of which says: Withdrawal from the treaty: If the President determines that nuclear testing is necessary to assure with a high degree of confidence the safety and reliability of the United States nuclear weapons stockpile, the President shall consult promptly with the Senate and withdraw from the treaty. He has no choice. He must withdraw. My friend from Virginia characterizes this treaty as having no way out. If, however, the President is told by the National Laboratory Directors, by the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Energy, ``We can't guarantee any more, boss,'' he must inform us and he must withdraw. That is an illustration of what I mean. Here are two honorable men, two men of significant experience, asking one another and asking each of their staffs: Which is right? In one sense, it is clear what is right: we haven't had much time to talk about it. We haven't had much time to talk about it. The debating points and counterpoints are too many to summarize in a short statement in the probably 12 minutes I have left. But the themes of this debate are clear and so are the fallacies that underlie the arguments of those who oppose the treaty, at least the arguments made most repeatedly on the floor. The first theme of the treaty opponents is that, while our nuclear weapons stockpile may be--they don't say ``may'', they say ``is''--safe and is reliable today, there is no way to do without nuclear testing forever. That is the first theme that is promoted by the opponents. This argument is based on a fallacy rooted in our nuclear weapons history. The history is that our nuclear testing has supported a trial- and-error approach to correcting deficiencies, rather than rooting our weapons in detailed scientific knowledge of how a nuclear reaction works. The fallacy is that nuclear weapons must be subjected to full-up, ``integrated'' testing. That is a fallacy. The truth is, rarely do we fully test major systems. Rather, we test components or conduct less than full tests of complete systems. As my colleagues know, a truly full test of a nuclear weapon would require that it be tested as a bomb or as a warhead, as it is intended to be, and exploded in the atmosphere. All the experts tell you that. That is the only true, absolute way you know what is going to happen: test it in the atmosphere. As the Presiding Officer knows, we have done without atmospheric testing for 36 years. We accepted the supposedly degraded confidence in our nuclear stockpile that results from this lack of full-blown testing. Why have we accepted that? Because we balanced the benefits of full- up atmospheric testing against its disadvantages, and it was clear that the benefits outweighed the negatives. When listing the benefits, we also noted how well we could assure the systems performance without these full-up tests. When listing the disadvantages, we included cost, risk of collateral damage, environmental risk, radioactive fallout, and the diplomatic or military costs that would have been incurred if we had rejected or withdrawn from the Limited Test-Ban Treaty which was signed in 1963. Similarly today, we have to consider both the benefits and the disadvantages of insisting upon the right to conduct underground nuclear testing. We should include in our calculus the fact that the Resolution of Ratification of this treaty requires the President to withdraw from the treaty if he ``determines that nuclear testing is necessary to assure, with a high degree of confidence, the safety and reliability of the United States nuclear weapons stockpile.'' Guess what? Every year now, under the law, the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of Defense must not only go to the President, but must come to the Senator from Nebraska, the Senator from Delaware, the Foreign Relations Committee, the Armed Services Committee, and they must tell us, as well as the President, whether they can certify the continued safety and reliability of the stockpile. If they cannot certify, and if we adopt this Resolution of Ratification, the President has to withdraw from the treaty. We will likely differ in our calculations of the balance between advantages and disadvantages of foreswearing underground nuclear testing. But we should all reject the fallacy that there is no substitute for continuing what we did in the past. The second theme that opponents of the treaty keep putting out is that we have to reject this treaty because it is not perfectly verifiable. This argument is based upon a fallacy rooted in slogans and fear. The fear relates to the history of arms control violations by the Russians and the Soviet Union. The slogans are Ronald Reagan's election-year demand: Effective verification. And his later catch phrase: Trust but verify. This body has never demanded perfect verification. Consider the vote we had on the INF Treaty that eliminated land-based intermediate-range missiles. That treaty was signed by President Reagan. President Reagan, the same man who signed the treaty, also coined the phrase ``trust but verify.'' Was the INF Treaty perfectly verifiable? No. Nobody in the world suggested it was perfectly verifiable. Listen to what the Senate Intelligence Committee said before we voted on Ronald Reagan's INF Treaty. They said: Soviet compliance with some of the treaty's provisions will be difficult to monitor. The problem is exemplified by the unresolved controversy between the Defense Intelligence Agency and other intelligence agencies over the number of SS-20s in the Soviet inventory. We did not even know how many SS-20s, intermediate-range missiles, they had. The Intelligence Committee went on to say: Ground-launched cruise missiles pose a particular difficult monitoring problem as they are interchangeable long-range, sea-based launch cruise missiles. Which the INF Treaty did not ban. This was not verifiable. Where were all you guys and women when the Reagan treaty was up here? God love him: Trust but verify. I challenge anyone to come to the floor in the remaining minutes and tell me that the INF Treaty was perfectly verifiable. I love this double standard. You wonder why some of us on this side of the aisle think this is about politics. The fallacy is clear: Nobody really believes in perfect verification. The Senate approved Ronald Reagan's INF Treaty by a vote of 93-5, despite the fact that we knew the INF Treaty was far from verifiable. The legitimate verification questions are how well can we verify compliance and whether our national security will be threatened by any undetected cheating that could occur. I say to my colleagues, we should end the pretense that only a perfectly verifiable treaty is acceptable. The only perfectly verifiable treaty is one that is impossible to be written. Each side in this debate has agreed that the approval or rejection of this treaty could have serious consequences. I suggest that we pay some attention to each side's worst-case scenarios. Opponents of the treaty have warned that a permanent ban on nuclear weapons tests could result in degraded confidence in the U.S. deterrent, perhaps leading other countries to develop their own nuclear weapons. Treaty supporters have warned that rejection of this treaty could lead to a more unstable world in which all countries were freed of any obligation to obey the Test-Ban Treaty. Neither of these worst-case outcomes is very palatable. Any degraded foreign confidence in the U.S. deterrent would be limited, however, either by annual certification of our own high confidence in our nuclear weapons, or by prompt action to fix any problems--including mandatory withdrawal from this treaty if the President determined that testing was necessary. Rejection of this treaty would not greatly increase the speed with which a nuclear test could be conducted, if one were necessary. The nuclear stockpile certification process already forces an annual decision on whether to resume testing, and the treaty would impost only a six-month delay after notice of our intent to withdraw. That means a total lag of 6 to 18 months between discovering a problem and being free to test--roughly what officials say is the minimum time that it takes to mount a serious nuclear weapons test, anyway. By contrast, however, the worst-case scenario of Treaty supporters might not be so limited. As Larry Eagleburger, who served as Secretary of State at the end of the Bush Administration, wrote in Monday's Washington Times: The all-important effort of the United States to stem the spread of nuclear weapons around the world is about to go over a cliff unless saner heads in Washington quickly prevail. Eighty years ago, this body rejected the Treaty of Versailles that ended the First World War. Woodrow Wilson's vision of a League of Nations to keep the peace was turned down by a Senate that did not want to accept such a U.S. responsibility in the world. While that vote was understood to be significant at the time, nobody could foresee that our refusal to take an active role in Europe's affairs would help lead to a Second World War only two decades later. Today, eight years after the Cold War's end, the Senate is presented with a different kind of collective security proposition--an international treaty that can meaningfully reduce the danger that nuclear weapons will spread, a treaty enforced by an army of inspectors and a global system of sensors. We cannot tell what the precise consequences of our actions are going to be this time, but the world will surely watch and wonder if we once again abdicate America's responsibility of world leadership, if we once again allow the world to drift rudderless into the stormy seas of nuclear proliferation. World War II was a time of horror and heroism. A world of nuclear wars will bring unimagined horror and little room for the heroism of our fathers. We all pray that our children and grandchildren will not live in such a world. Will the votes today have such a major, perhaps awful, consequence? We cannot say for sure, but I end by suggesting to all that the chance being taken by those who are worried about our ability to verify compliance and our ability to verify the stockpile is far outweighed by the chance we take in rejecting this treaty and saying to the entire world: We are going to do testing and we do not believe that you can maintain your interests without testing, so have at it. We should all consider that this may be a major turning point in world affairs. If we should reject this treaty, we may later find that ``the road not taken,'' in Robert Frost's famous phrase, was, in fact, the last road back from the nuclear brink. I heard, in closing--the last comment I will make--my friend say: Our allies will lose confidence in us if we ratify this treaty. The fact is, however, that Tony Blair called today and, to paraphrase, said: For God's sake, don't defeat this treaty. He is the Prime Minister of England, our No. 1 ally. The German Chancellor said: Please ratify, in an open letter. The President of France, Jacques Chirac, said: Please ratify. So said our allies. Larry Eagleburger's conclusion is one with which I shall end. His conclusion was: The whole point of the CTBT from the American perspective is get other nations to stop their testing activities and thereby lock-in--in perpetuity--the overwhelming U.S. advantage in weaponry. There is no other way to interpret a vote against this treaty than as a vote in favor of nuclear testing of other nations. It would stand on its head the model of U.S. leadership on nonproliferation matters we have achieved for over 40 years. If the Senate cannot bring itself to do the right thing and approve the treaty, then senators should do the next best thing and pull it off the table. As I used to say in a former profession, I rest my case, but in my former profession, when I rested my case, I assumed I would win. I know I am going to lose here, but I will be back. I will be back. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of time, if I have any.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the lifetime achievements of a man with truly a lifetime of achievements. Russell W. Peterson served as Governor of Delaware from 1968-1972, restoring peace on the streets of Delaware's largest city in the wake of the tumultuous 1968 summer riots--as he overcame decades of resistance to implement a sweeping overhaul of State government. Russ Peterson is known to Delawareans as the father of the state's landmark Coastal Zone Act, just as he is renowned nationally as one of our country's leading environmentalists. I will go into more detail of his many accomplishments, however, the reason I pay tribute to him today is for his recognition--not only as a statesman, environmentalist and civil rights leader--but as a grandfather! Delaware's Creative Grandparenting, Inc. has awarded Russell W. Peterson its first-ever ``Lifetime Achievement Award.'' Peterson, a grandfather of 17 and father of four, deserves every accolade bestowed upon him. When Russ Peterson was elected Governor of Delaware in 1968, the National Guard patrolled the streets of Wilmington. As he promised, the day Peterson was sworn in as Governor, the National Guard was pulled from the streets. As a 27-year-old New Castle County Councilman first elected that same year in 1968, I assure you Governor Peterson's leadership and steady stewardship made a lasting impression upon me. I am proud to call him a friend. As Governor, he bucked resistance and reformed Delaware's arcane Commission form of Government into a Cabinet form of government. He convinced the General Assembly to streamline 112 Commissions into ten department leaders. It was nothing short of a revolution! His greatest accomplishment came in June, 1972, when he single- handedly pushed through the landmark Coastal Zone Act, which forever prohibits development along Delaware's precious coastal zone. Yes, he's the man who proclaimed ``to hell with Shell,'' as he fought efforts by oil refineries to further develop on the Delaware River. The Coastal Zone Act shall forever stand as a monument to Russ Peterson in my State. Governor Peterson also signed Delaware's Fair Housing Act into law and appointed the first female to the Delaware bench--Family Court Judge Roxana C. Arsht. And in July, 1972, he signed into law a major revision of the Delaware Code, which is important for what was not included. The Whipping Post! From 1669-1952, more than 1,600 men were flogged at the whipping post. Delaware was the last State to eliminate this barbaric punishment, thanks to Russ Peterson. After leaving office in 1972, Russ served as an advisor to Presidents and held numerous prestigious environmental positions. He was named Vice-Chair of Governor Nelson Rockfeller's National Commission on Critical Choices of America. Then, he chaired President Ford's Council on Environmental Quality. In 1976, Peterson became President of New Directions, a world-wide citizens' lobby group. In 1978, he was tapped to be the director of the congressional Office of Technological Assessment. He secured his worldwide reputation as an environmentalist as the President of the National Audubon Society. Mr. President, I consider myself very fortunate to call him a friend. I am honored that just last week, Governor Peterson took the time to write me a handwritten note to say he was ``proud that you are my Senator.'' That sort of praise from such an accomplished man is humbling. Russ Peterson, my friend, you have a lot of living yet to do and more accomplishments yet to come. Today, though, we honor your lifetime of achievements.