Joe Biden

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation which provides equity for a group of veterans at their final moment: those veterans who are buried in State-owned veterans' cemeteries. For a number of years, the amount of space in national veterans' cemeteries has been rapidly declining. With the strong encouragement of the Federal government, the States have undertaken to develop their own veterans' cemeteries. When certain categories of veterans are buried without charge in these State veterans' cemeteries, the Federal government pays the State a $150 ``plot allowance'' for the burial space. However, only limited categories of veterans are covered by this payment: those who were discharged for disability or who were receiving disability-related compensation; those who died in a veterans hospital; and those indigent veterans whose bodies were unclaimed after death. For the many other veterans who don't fall into one of these few categories, the federal government will pay nothing for their burial space if they are buried in a State veterans' cemetery. By contrast, if any of these veterans were buried in a national veterans' cemetery, for which they are eligible, the federal government picks up the cost of the burial space. This disparity seems inexplicable, a final insult to the dedicated service of men and women who unselfishly served their country. My bill removes this inequity by stating that, for any veteran who is eligible for burial in a national veterans' cemetery but who is interred in a State veterans' cemetery, the federal government will pay the State a $150 plot allowance for the burial space. That's it. No ifs, ands, or buts. No exceptions. The government promised these veterans that they would be taken care of in their final passage, and it must live up to this vow. Regardless of whether veterans are buried in a State cemetery or in a national cemetery, their service in the armed forces benefitted all of us, and we should stop quibbling about whether the location of the grave has anything to do with the dignity and selflessness of the service to the country. Mr. President, I urge my fellow Senators to support this bill in the name of fairness and in recognition of the service to the country of all our veterans in their final hour.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise first to compliment my senior colleague from Delaware on his effectiveness. We agree on an awful lot of things. We disagreed on this tax bill, but that in no way diminishes my admiration for his effectiveness. As a matter of fact, this is one of the few occasions I wish he were not as effective as he has been. I compliment him and I echo the comments of my friend from New York who said he is held in affection by Members on both sides of the aisle. I am first among those. I congratulate him for his success. I will not use the word ``deplore,'' but I disagree strongly with the outcome. However, I admire the way in which he--and maybe only he--could have been able to put this together.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, it has taken a lot of tough choices here in Washington--and a lot of hard work and restructuring in the private economy--to put our country's budget into the black. For the first time in a generation, we have a balanced federal budget. And for the first time in our modern history, we can project substantial surpluses for the foreseeable future. There were times I believed we would never see this day, Mr. President, but our official forecasts now call for as much as one trillion dollars in surplus over the next ten years. That's on top of the two trillion in Social Security surpluses that will build up over that same time, money that is already promised to future retirees. I want to say something about whether we should count on those surpluses actually materializing, Mr. President, but first I want to talk about what most families I know would do if they woke up to the kind of windfall in their household budgets that we anticipate in our federal budget today. Take your average family, Mr. President, with a mortgage, maybe paying for one or two children already in college, maybe another child with college still in his or her future. They have some debts, some worries about how to pay for a retirement that gets closer every year, some aspirations for their children that they may not be able to afford. Maybe Grandma and Grandad have moved in with them, bringing with them some health care problems that add to the family's expenses. Let's assume that after years of spending more than they took in, our family finally turns the corner. Let's borrow a story from today's new high-tech economy and say that the stock they hold in their new start- up company has just jumped in value. They cannot be sure that the stock will stay that high next year, or the year after that, but they feel a whole lot richer than they did before. Now let's picture the discussion around their kitchen table, with this new problem to discuss. I'm betting that most of the families I know in Delaware would make plans to pay down their past debts, the mortgage hanging over their heads, make provisions for their children's education, their parents' health needs, and their own retirement. Maybe, after they had taken care of those priorities, they would allow themselves to relax and enjoy a more affluent lifestyle. Mr. President, I don't claim that this is a perfect analogy to the situation before us in the Senate. I certainly don't claim that for many hardworking Americans sensible tax relief is some kind of luxury. But I think it makes an important point, which is simply that most Americans would be a lot more cautious, and a lot more prudent, in using any anticipated surplus in their family budget. Those are the priorities that I think should guide us in our deliberations today. We should take the opportunity given us with the expectation of future budget surpluses first to pay down the debt that has built up in a generation of deficit finance, then we should restore solvency to Social Security and Medicare, and then we should prevent further erosion in funding for national security, law enforcement, education, and the other basic functions of a space-age, high- technology, industrial economy. I think we can do all that, Mr. President, and still provide tax relief to the millions of Americans whose hard work and sacrifice-- through downsizing, restructuring, and all the rest--has been the real driving force behind the remarkable economy we enjoy today. But as we all know, Mr. President, the forecasts on which our projected surpluses are based make a lot of assumptions. That's all well and good for making long-term economic projections. But it is not good enough, as far as I'm concerned, for making long term economic policy. I ask my colleagues to listen to some of these assumptions, and to answer honestly if our country can really afford the nearly $800 billion tax cut before us today. The surplus that is forecast assumes no major interruption in the economic growth we have enjoyed in what is now the longest economic expansion in our history. That unprecedented economic growth has kept revenues strong enough to meet and exceed our spending plans. But as Alan Greenspan has reminded us, it is not a question of if, but when, that growth will slow. Still, those who call for an $800 billion tax cut are basing policy on the false hope that inevitable day will never come. Mr. President, the surplus that some of my colleagues want to use to pay for this tax cut also assumes that there will be no emergencies--no Bosnias, no Kosovos, no Iraqs, no hurricanes, no floods--that could increase spending, even though we regularly spend an average of $8 billion a year on such emergencies. The surplus also assumes that we will continue deep cuts in national defense, in education, health care, law enforcement, in environmental protection. It assumes that we will continue to reduce spending beyond the current levels, levels that are already causing gridlock in our budget process this year. Right now, Mr. President, spending for the basic functions of government--as well as the number of people we pay to perform those functions, down more than 340,000 in the past seven years--are both at levels we have not seen since 1962. We should recognize the hard work that achieved those low numbers, Mr. President. They are an important part of how we got to where we are today, with a balanced budget in hand, and surpluses in sight. As the private sector has become leaner and more efficient, the federal government has also moved in the same direction. But we must also realize that national defense, the FBI, medical research, education, veterans' health care, air traffic control, water quality--all of those things we have learned to count on as citizens of the richest nation the world has ever known--combined now comprise just 6.5 percent of GDP. But the surpluses my colleagues expect to be there to pay for this tax cut depend on pushing that down to just 5 percent of GDP--a further cut of more than 20 percent. But after years of defense cuts at the end of the Cold War, the Pentagon is asking for substantial increases to meet future threats. I agree with those who see the need for further investments in our nation's defense. If we actually increase defense spending to meet that request, we would have to cut the remaining functions of the federal government by almost forty percent. Now, Mr. President, I hear a lot of calls for responsible budgeting these days, but I don't hear many people calling for cutting forty percent from our law enforcement, education, or health care programs. For example, cuts of those size would eliminate health care for 1,430,000 of our country's veterans. Cuts of that size would eliminate $6.0 billion from the research into cancer and other diseases at the National Institutes of Health. Cuts of that size would require the FBI to cut over 4,000 agents from its current force of 10,600. That's what a $800 billion tax cut would require, Mr. President-- either cuts of unacceptable size in basic services, or, just as bad, we would simply return to the destructive path of deficit spending. Mr. President, one thing that ought to sober us up is what Alan Greenspan has been saying about delaying any tax cut until the surpluses actually materialize, until a downturn in the economy might justify the boost that would come from a tax cut. Twice he has come here to Congress in the past two weeks, to tell us that he continues to be concerned about our economy overheating, and that he is prepared to bump interest rates up again to prevent that from happening. Every American with a mortgage should think long and hard about the trade off between a tax break now and the long term costs that an increase in interest rates would mean. The Treasury Department estimates that a household in the lower 60 percent of the population-- 10 percent above the middle and on down--would get just an average of $174 a year from the tax plan before us today. But a one percent increase in a 7 percent mortgage on a $250,000 house amounts to over $2,000 a year in additional payments. That is not a deal any informed American would take, Mr. President. If Greenspan thinks the economy is already at risk of overheating, imagine his reaction if we throw an $800 billion tax cut into his calculations the next time he considers increasing interest rates. Everybody here knows that low interest rates and low inflation have been the keys that have unlocked the potential of our economy. I can't think of anything more likely to throw both of those keys out the window than a return to unbalanced budgets. That is why I will oppose a tax cut of the size before us here today. Not because Americans don't deserve tax relief--of course they do. But they also deserve our best judgement about how we manage the public finances of their country after so many years of deficit financing. And as far as I'm concerned, I'll take my guidance from the common sense of the average American family, and put first the priorities of debt reduction, Social Security and Medicare, funding national security and law enforcement, education and health care, and then, a more prudent, sensible tax cut.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, yesterday the Committee on Foreign Relations held a remarkable hearing on the prospects for democracy in Yugoslavia. Testifying were two of the Administration's top Balkan experts, two leading representatives of the non-governmental organization community with wide and deep experience in the Balkans, the executive director of the Office of External Affairs of the Serbian Orthodox Church in the United States, and a courageous woman from Belgrade who chairs the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia. One of the many topics raised during this hearing was the question of the correctness of the decision of the United States to refuse to give reconstruction assistance--as distinct from humanitarian assistance--to Serbia as long as Slobodan Milosevic remains in control in Belgrade. I completely support the Administration's policy in this matter, which, I am certain, comes as no surprise to any of my colleagues. Since on this very day President Clinton and more than forty other world leaders are meeting in Sarajevo to discuss a so-called Balkans Stability Pact, which would deliver reconstruction assistance on a regional basis, I thought it would be appropriate at this time briefly to discuss two alleged historical parallels, one of which I believe is fallacious, the other which I would assert is directly applicable to the current situation. At yesterday's hearing it was asserted that there was a moral imperative for NATO countries to offer reconstruction aid to Serbia just as after World War II the United States included Germany in its Marshall Plan assistance. Mr. President, I would submit that this intended parallel falls short in several respects. First of all, in spite of twelve brutal years of criminal Nazi rule, post-war Germany still had the democratic tradition of Weimar as a basis for rebuilding its political system, with several prominent surviving leaders. Nothing like that exists in Serbia today. There are no Serbian Konrad Adenauers or Kurt Schumachers. Secondly, the United States made as preconditions for Marshall plan assistance adherence to democracy, free-market capitalism, and cooperation with neighboring countries. Needless to say, the Serbia of Slobodan Milosevic would qualify on none of those grounds. Finally, in order to guide post-war Germany toward democracy, the victorious allies occupied the country, dividing up responsibility into four zones. The Soviets quickly made clear their intention to impose communism in what became East Germany, and Stalin pressured the East Germans and other satellite countries to refuse the offer of Marshall Plan aid. In the U.S., British, and French zones of Germany, however, hundreds of thousands of troops and civilian officials essentially ran political life until the Federal Republic of Germany was established in 1949, and allied troops have remained until today. It may well be that in order to bring Serbia into the family of democratic nations just such an international occupation would have to happen, but it is simply not in the cards. So, Mr. President, the alleged parallel of today's Serbia with post- war Germany is totally inappropriate. There is, however, a historical parallel chronologically much closer to today, which is, in fact, an appropriate one. That is the case of the Republika Srpska, one of the two entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina. After the Dayton Accords were signed in late 1995 and the two entities--the Bosniak-Croat Federation and the Republika Srpska--were established, the Congress of the United States put together a reconstruction assistance package. Because of the brutal crimes of the Bosnian Serbs under Radovan Karadzic from 1992 to 1995, the legislation excluded the new Republika Srpska, then under Karadzic's control, from any reconstruction assistance except for infrastructural projects like energy and water, which spanned the inter-entity boundary line with the Federation. That meant that in the immediate post-Dayton period the Federation received about ninety-eight percent of American development assistance to Bosnia. Largely as a result of this policy, the Federation's economy immediately began to recover from the war, while the Republika Srpska, under Karadzic's control in the town of Pale, stagnated. But our policy has not been one exclusively of sticks; there have also been carrots. If localities in the Republika Srpska cooperated with Dayton implementation, the U.S. Agency for International Development was prepared to channel assistance to them. USAID lays down strict conditions in contracts with the individual localities. The policy is not perfect, and it is carefully monitored by Congress. But, in general, it has worked, and it has had positive results. People in the Republika Srpska saw the economic resuscitation of the Federation and noticed the assistance that a few of their own localities were receiving. They compared this modest, but undeniable economic progress with the persistent, grinding poverty of most of the Republika Srpska, led by Karadzic and his corrupt, criminal gang in Pale, which had been effectively isolated. The indicted war criminal Karadzic was finally banned from political life, but one of his puppets took his place. No matter how ultra-nationalistic or even racist many of the people in the Republika Srpska were, most of the population caught on pretty quickly that their future was an absolute zero as long as their current leaders stayed in office. The result was a reform movement, initially led by Mrs. Plavsic, which legally wrested control from the Pale thugs and moved the capital of the Republika Srpska to Banja Luka. Last year she lost an election, but the government of the Republika Srpska is now led by Prime Minister Dodik, a genuine democrat, who has survived attempts from Belgrade by Milosevic to unseat him, is supported by a multi-ethnic parliamentary coalition, kept the lid on the situation during the Yugoslav air campaign, and now is beginning to implement Dayton. The situation in Bosnia, as we all know, is far from satisfactory, but real progress has been made. And, back to my original point, in the Republika Srpska we have the real historical parallel of a policy of excluding a government from economic reconstruction assistance as long as it is ruled by an indicted war criminal or his puppet. I hope this discussion of historical precedents may be helpful as the Senate continues to debate our Balkan reconstruction policy.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. I am delighted to yield.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, before I get to the subject I wish to speak to, which is the nuclear test ban treaty, I will address a comment to my colleague from New York, Senator Schumer. I, as all Democrats and some Republicans, think a tax cut should be progressive and equitable. To tell you the truth, I would like to be in a position to give the wealthy a tax cut if that were the case. That would be fine as long as we first gave the tax cut to the poor and the middle class. I was speaking to the Senator from Illinois a moment ago. In my State, which has, as all of our States, very wealthy individuals, I found an interesting phenomenon. Given a choice, if you go back to my State and ask anybody who made $1 million last year or is likely to make one next year, and said: We can continue the economy to grow the way it has the last 7 years, or give you a $30,000 tax cut a year, there isn't any question what they choose. They say: Whoa, leave well enough alone. I am making a lot more than $30,000 a year in the market. I am making a lot more than $30,000 a year in my investments. I am making a lot more than the $30,000 a year I would get in the tax cut from the lower interest rates. I am making a lot more. How many times have we heard the only thing that has remained constant in this changing economic environment over the last decade is tax cuts are a stimulus? We have one guy sitting at the helm. His name is Greenspan. He has been doing everything but taking an ad in the New York Times to say: Whatever you all do, if this economy heats up, if you stimulate this economy, I am telling you what I am going to do; I am going to raise interest rates. He hasn't used those exact words, but the market responds to every word he says. I don't know anybody who thinks that if there were almost an $800 billion tax cut, we are not going to have interest rates raised. I don't understand the math. To be more crude about it, I don't even understand the politics. It used to be good politics for our Republican friends to try to paint us into a corner and say: We are for tax cuts; Democrats are not for tax cuts ever. Therefore, Democrats are big spenders; therefore, we are good guys. Therefore, vote for us. I understand that. We do the same thing with them on Social Security. We assume no Republican can be devoted to Social Security, and they assume no Democrat could ever want a tax cut. That is politics. I understand that. The part I don't understand is to whom they are talking. Even their very wealthy constituency--not all wealthy people are Republicans, but it tends to be that way--is saying: Hey, go slow here. I hear the name of Bill Gates thrown around and others such as Gates. They are an aberration even among the wealthy. But the wealthy in my State, if they could pick any one thing out of the Roth tax proposal, I know what it would be. It would be the elimination of the inheritance tax. There are only about 820,000 people in all of America who would be affected by it, but that is something--I happen to disagree with them-- that is a big deal. That is a big-ticket item. That is worth a lot more than 30,000 bucks, but that is not the thing that would fuel a heated up economy. I am not proposing that. I am trying to figure out the politics.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 20 minutes as in morning business or until the managers of the legislation come forward and decide they want to begin the next piece of legislation.

Mr. BIDEN. No. I must say to my friend from Illinois that I haven't. I really think a legitimate debate--a debate that is a close call, in my view, would be whether or not, for example, we should be spending the surplus to reduce the debt, or spend the surplus--we can do both-- or spend more of the surplus to reinforce Social Security and Medicare. That is a traditional debate that we have. Republicans used to argue we are spending too much money on Medicare--not just that it is broken, but we are spending too much; and Social Security is inflated and we should be cutting it back. If you told me 15 years ago that the debate would be Democrats saying let's not put as much away to reduce the debt, put more in Social Security and Medicare, and with what is left reduce the debt, and the Republicans would have been saying let's reduce the debt, and once that is done, let's try to fix Medicare and Social Security--well, I don't know. The third rail of politics has become Social Security and Medicare. Obviously, they have to be for that; everybody is for that. So nobody really talks about it. Some courageous guys and women talk about it on the floor, about what we should be doing. But it is just a shame because there is a legitimate debate here. The truth is, for example, if you said to me reduce the debt or spend more money on cops, I would be for spending more money on cops. So it is true that there are some of us in this party who would want to spend more of the surplus for worthwhile things, such as education, law enforcement, et cetera. And it is a legitimate debate. They would say: Look, Biden wants to spend more money instead of putting it onto the debt. But that is not even a debate. That is not even a debate. The debate now is to give a tax cut that no one seems to want. I would love a tax cut. My total salary is what I make here, and the American people pay me a lot of money. I would love a tax cut. I would love even more--since I have a third child going off to college for the first year, and room, board, and tuition in any private school in this country is about $30,000 a year, I selfishly would love a tax break there. But what I would not love is my adjustable rate mortgage to change. I would not want that to change. Give me a tax cut and one little bump in my adjustable rate mortgage, and I am up more than I can save by the tax cut. So I don't know. Both of our parties are going through a little bit of establishing, going into the 21st century, what the pillars and cornerstones of our philosophies are. Ironically, I think for the change we are sort of a little ahead of the Republicans on where we are. It doesn't mean the American people agree with us. The debate over there seems to be that the jury is still out on where they will go. I hope, for everyone's sake, we get our bearings a little bit because it would truly be a shame if, as a consequence of a political judgment, we imperil what is the most remarkable recovery in the history of the world, essentially. The economy in America has never been stronger within our borders or comparatively internationally. I hope reason takes hold because even I think Republicans and Democrats know more about what the polling data says than I do. But my instinct tells me this is yesterday's fight. This is yesterday's fight, but it could be tomorrow's tragedy if it prevails.

Mr. BIDEN. Yes.

Mr. BIDEN. If the Senator will yield, I would like to make an observation or a comment. I heard some of our Republican friends use the old phrase ``if it's not broken, don't fix it.'' They can't stand status quo. I think they can't stand the fact that it is happening on Democrats' watch. I think part of the problem is they have to say something. It is similar to cops, the very thing they said would not work. It was terrible what Charlton Heston--or ``Moses'' Heston--said. They are going to have 100,000 social workers. Regarding the deficit reduction package in 1994, every Republican leader stood up and said this will mean chaos, recession, loss of world stature, et cetera, et cetera. They turned out to be wrong; these things are working. Cops are making the crime rate go down. The deficit reduction package worked. We are now in a position where we are doing better than ever. It is as if they have to have something. We politicians, I know, sit there and say if the other party does something, or my opponent does something, and it works, instead of saying it is working, we have to think of something better. I think the public is prepared to give everybody credit. Everybody deserves credit. The people who deserve the most credit are the people in the business community because of their productivity and the way they trimmed down. I can't figure it out. For the first time in my 27 years as a Senator, this seems to fly in the face of the orthodoxy of the Republican Party. I mean, if you had said to me 15 years ago--first of all, I would not have believed what I am about to say. But if you said to me 15 years ago: Joe, in 1999, you are going to be standing on the floor of the Senate, and one of the choices you are going to participate in making is not whether or not we balance the budget but whether we take money and reduce the accumulated national debt or give a tax cut, first of all, I would not have believed that option would be available. I would not have believed we would be in that position. Forget, for a moment, the two pillars: Social Security and Medicare. Leave them aside for a moment. I would have said: First of all, it won't happen. But if it does, on the idea of reducing the national debt, in every basic economics course you took when you were a freshman in college, they said if you can ever reduce the national debt, the impact upon interest rates, the impact upon home rates, the impact upon the economy would be incredible. And then, if you asked me: OK, what do you think the Republican Party would do? I would say that is easy. They would reduce the debt. These are the pay-as-you-go guys, the guys who say pay off your debts. These are the guys who had a clock ticking in your city, in Time Square, or down by the railroad station, Penn Station, a big clock, saying the national debt is going up. It was paid for, I suspect, by some wealthy Republican. So the clock was ticking. And not only have we stopped the growth of the debt, but it is ticking in a way that we can have those numbers go in reverse.

Mr. BIDEN. I think that is right.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. He began: The time has come for Senate action on the CTBT ratification. Senator Hatfield adduces some excellent arguments in favor of ratification, which I commend to my colleagues. But I especially want recommend his conclusion, which summarizes our situation with elegant precision: It is clear to me that ratifying this Treaty would be in the national interest. And it is equally clear that Senators have a responsibility to the world, the nation and their constituents to put partisan politics aside and allow the Senate to consider this Treaty. Senators, that says it all. Exhibit 1 Statement By Senator mark O. Hatfield on CTBT Ratification The time has come for Senate action on CTBT ratification. Political leaders the world over have recognized that the proliferation of nuclear weapons poses the gravest threat to global peace and stability, a threat that is likely to continue well into the next century. Ratification of the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty by the United States and its early entry into force would significantly reduce the chances of new states developing advanced nuclear weapons and would strengthen the global nuclear non-proliferation regime for the twenty-first century. Just as the United States led the international community nearly three years ago by being the first to sign the CTB Treaty, which has now been signed by 152 nations, the Senate now has a similar opportunity and responsibility to demonstrate U.S. leadership by ratifying it. The Treaty enhances U.S. national security and is popular among the American people. Recent bipartisan polling data indicates that support for the Treaty within the United States is strong, consistent, and across the board. It is currently viewed favorably by 82% of the public, nearly the highest level of support in four decades of polling. Only six percentage points separate Democratic and Republican voters, and there is no discernible gender gap on this issue. This confirms the traditional bipartisan nature of support for the CTBT, which dates back four decades to President's Eisenhower's initiation of test ban negotiations and was reaffirmed by passage in 1992 of the Exon-Hatifield-Mitchell legislation on a testing moratorium. It is clear to me that ratifying this Treaty would be in the national interest. And it is equally clear that Senators have a responsibility to the world, the nation and their constituents to put partisan politics aside and allow the Senate to consider this Treaty.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, speaking of polls, which are what I stood up to speak about this morning, I would like to turn to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the comprehensive test ban treaty that was signed nearly three years ago and submitted to the Senate nearly two years ago. The American people overwhelmingly support this treaty, yet it has not even seen the light of day here in the Senate. The Senate, as we all know, is uniquely mandated under the United States Constitution to give its ``advice and consent'' to the ratification of treaties that the United States enters into. In a dereliction of that duty, the Senate is not dealing with the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty. Why is this occurring? In the view of my colleagues--including some Democrats who support the treaty--this treaty is not high on the agenda of the American people. There is very little political attraction in the issue. It is easy to keep this treaty from being brought up and discussed, because people who care about nuclear testing tend to assume that we already have a nuclear test-ban treaty in force. President Bush did the right thing in accepting a moratorium on any nuclear tests, but that is not a permanent test-ban. It does not bind anybody other than ourselves. It merely implements our own conclusion that we don't have to test nuclear weapons anymore in order to maintain our nuclear arsenal. Faced with this perception on the part of many of our colleagues, several of us encouraged supporters of the Test-Ban Treaty to go out and actually poll the American people. Frankly, we wanted real evidence to show to our colleagues--mostly our Republican colleagues--that the American public actually cares a lot about this issue. I am not going to keep my colleagues in suspense. A comprehensive poll was done. The bottom line is that the American people support this treaty by a margin of 82 percent to 14 percent. That is nearly 6 to 1. For nearly 2 years, we Democrats--and a few courageous Republicans like Senator Specter and Senator Jeffords--have tried to convince the Republican leadership that this body should move to debate and decide on this treaty. Let the Senate vote for ratification or vote against ratification. The latest poll results are a welcome reminder that the American people are with us on this important issue or, I might add, are way ahead of us. I know some of my colleagues have principled objections to this treaty. I respect their convictions even though I strongly believe they are wrong on this issue. What I cannot respect, however--and what my colleagues should not tolerate--is the refusal of the Republican leadership of this body to permit the Senate to perform its constitutional responsibility to debate and vote on ratification of this vital treaty. It is simply irresponsible, in my view, for the Republican leadership to hold this treaty hostage to other issues as if we were fighting over whether or not we were going to appoint someone Assistant Secretary of State in return for getting someone to become the deputy something-or-other in another Department. This treaty isn't petty politics; this issue affects the whole world. Some of my colleagues believe nuclear weapons tests are essential to preserve our nuclear deterrent. Both I and the directors of our three nuclear weapons laboratories disagree. The $45 billion--yes, I said billion dollars--Stockpile Stewardship Program--that is the name of the program--enables us to maintain the safety and reliability of our nuclear weapons without weapons tests. The fact is, the United States is in the best position of all the nuclear-weapons states to do without testing. We have already conducted over 1,000 nuclear tests. The Stockpile Stewardship Program harnesses the data from these 1,000 tests along with new high-energy physics experiments and the world's most advanced supercomputers to improve our understanding of how a nuclear explosion--and each part in a weapon-- works. In addition, each year our laboratories take apart and examine some nuclear weapons to see how well those parts work. The old data and new experiments enable our scientists to diagnose and fix problems on our existing nuclear weapons systems without full-scale weapons testing. This is already being done. By this means, our nuclear weapons laboratories are already maintaining the reliability of our nuclear stockpile without testing. Still, if nuclear weapons tests should be required in the future to maintain the U.S. nuclear deterrent, then we will test. The administration has proposed, in fact, that we enact such safeguards as yearly review and certification of the nuclear deterrent and maintenance of the Nevada Test Site. The administration has also made clear that if, in the future, the national interest requires what the treaty binds us not to do, then the President of the United States will remain able to say: ``No. We are out of this treaty. It is no longer in our national interest. We are giving advanced notice. We are going to withdraw.'' Thanks in part to those safeguards I mentioned earlier, officials with the practical responsibility of defending our national security support ratification of the test ban treaty. In addition to the nuclear lab directors, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has spoken in favor of ratification. Support for ratification is not limited, moreover, to the current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The four previous Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs--also four-star generals--support ratification as well. Think of that. This treaty is supported by Gen. John Shalikashvili, Gen. Colin Powell, Adm. William Crowe, and Gen. David Jones, all former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs. Those gentleman have guided our military since the Reagan administration. Why would those with practical national security responsibilities support such a treaty? The answer is simple: For practical reasons. Since 1992, pursuant to U.S. law, the United States has not engaged in a nuclear weapons test. As I have explained, we have been able, through ``stockpile stewardship,'' to maintain our nuclear deterrent using improved science, state-of-the-art computations, and our library of past nuclear test results. Other countries were free to test until they signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Now they are bound, as we are, not to test. But that obligation will wither on the vine if we fail to ratify this test ban treaty. One traditional issue on arms control treaties is verification. We always ask whether someone can sign this treaty and then cheat and do these tests without us knowing about it. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty will improve U.S. monitoring capabilities, with the rest of the world picking up three-quarters of the cost. The treaty even provides for on-site inspection of suspected test sites, which we have never been able to obtain in the past. Some of my colleagues believe that our imperfect verification capabilities make ratification of the test ban treaty unwise. New or prospective nuclear weapons states can gain little, however, from any low-yield test we might be unable to detect. Even Russia could not use such tests to produce new classes of nuclear weapons. To put it another way, even with the enhanced regimen of monitoring and on-site inspection, it is possible that there could be a low-level nuclear test that would go undetected. But what all of the scientists and nuclear experts tell us is that even if that occurred, it would have to be at such a low level that it would not enable our principal nuclear adversaries and powers to do anything new in terms of their systems and it would not provide any new weapon state the ability to put together a sophisticated nuclear arsenal. For example, the case of China is particularly important. We have heard time and again on the floor of this Senate about the loss, beginning during the Reagan and Bush years, of nuclear secrets and the inability, or the unwillingness, or the laxity of the Clinton administration to quickly close down what appeared to be a leak of sensitive information to the Chinese. We lost it under Reagan and Bush, and the hole wasn't closed under the present administration, so the argument goes. We hear these doomsday scenarios of what that now means--that China has all of this technology available to do these new, terrible things. But guess what? If China can't test this new technology that they allegedly stole, then it is of much less value to them. They have signed the Test-Ban Treaty, and they are prepared to ratify it and renounce nuclear testing forever if we ratify that very same test-ban treaty. Here we have the preposterous notion--for all those, like Chicken Little, who are crying that the sky is falling--that the sky is falling and China is about to dominate us, but, by the way, we are not going to ratify the Test-Ban Treaty. What a foolish thing. The Cox committee--named for the conservative Republican Congressman from California who headed up the commission that investigated the espionage that allegedly took place regarding China stealing nuclear secrets from us--the Cox committee warned that China may have stolen nuclear codes. Congressman Cox explained, however, that a China bound by the Test-Ban Treaty is much less likely to be able to translate its espionage successes into usable weapons. As I noted, however, the Test-Ban Treaty will wither on the vine if we don't ratify it. Then China would be free to resume testing. If we fail to take the opportunity to bind China on this Test-Ban Treaty, that mistake will haunt us for generations and my granddaughters will pay a price for it. The need for speedy ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is greater than ever before. In India and Pakistan, the world has watched with mounting concern over the past 2 months as those two self- proclaimed nuclear-weapons states engaged in a conventional conflict that threatened to spiral out of control. Were nuclear weapons to be used in this densely populated area of the world, the result would be a horror unmatched in the annals of war. This breaches the postwar firebreak against nuclear war--which has stood for over 50 years--with incalculable consequences for the United States and the rest of the world. The India-Pakistan conflict may be back under control for now. President Clinton took an active interest in it, and that seems to have been important to the process in cooling it down. The threat of nuclear holocaust remains real, however, and it remains particularly real in that region of the world. We can help prevent such a calamity. India and Pakistan have promised not to forestall the Test-Ban Treaty's entry into force. They could even sign the treaty by this fall. The Test-Ban Treaty could freeze their nuclear weapons capabilities and make it harder for them to field nuclear warheads on their ballistic missiles. This will not happen unless we, the United States, accept the same legally binding obligation to refrain from nuclear weapons tests. Thus, we in the Senate have the power to influence India and Pakistan for good or for ill. God help us if we should make the wrong choice and lose the opportunity to bring India and Pakistan back from the brink. This body's action or lack of action may also have a critical impact upon worldwide nuclear nonproliferation. Next spring, the signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty will hold a review conference. (The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is a different treaty; the treaty that we still must ratify bans nuclear weapons testing, while the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which was ratified decades ago, bans the development of nuclear weapons by countries that do not already have them.) If the United States has not ratified the Test-Ban Treaty by the time of the review conference, nonnuclear-weapons states will note that we promised a test-ban treaty 5 years ago in return for the indefinite extension of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. What we will do if we don't ratify is risk undermining the nonproliferation resolve of the nonnuclear weapon states. Ask any Member in this Chamber--Democrat or Republican; conservative, liberal, or moderate--get them alone and ask them what is their single greatest fear for their children and their grandchildren. I defy any Member to find more than a handful who answer anything other than the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the hands of rogue states and terrorists. Everybody agrees with that. We have a nonproliferation treaty out there, and we have got countries who don't have nuclear weapons to sign, refraining from ever becoming a nuclear weapons state. But in return, we said we will refrain from testing nuclear weapons and increasing our nuclear arsenals. Now what are we going to do? If we don't sign that treaty, what do you think will happen when the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty signatories get together in the fall and say: ``OK, do we want to keep this commitment or not?'' If the United States says it is not going to promise not to test anymore, then China will say it will not promise not to test either. India and Pakistan will say they are not going to promise to refrain from testing. What do you think will happen in every country, from rogue countries such as Syria, all the way to countries in Africa and Latin America that have the capability to develop nuclear weapons? Do you think they will say: ``It is a good idea that we don't attempt ever to gain a nuclear capability, the other big countries are going to do it, but not us?'' I think this is crazy. Let me be clear. The Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty must not be treated as a political football. It is a matter of urgent necessity to our national security. If the Senate should fail to exercise its constitutional responsibility, the very future of nuclear nonproliferation could be at stake. Two months ago I spoke on the Senate floor about the need for bipartisanship, the need to reach out across the chasm, reach across that aisle. Today I reach out to the Republican leadership that denies the Senate--and the American people--a vote on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. I was joined on Sunday by the Washington Post, which spoke out in an editorial against what it termed ``hijacking the test ban.'' I will not repeat the editorial comments regarding my friend from North Carolina who chairs the committee. I do call to the attention of my colleagues, however, one salient question from that editorial: One wonders why his colleagues, of whatever party or test ban persuasion, let him go on. I have great respect for my friend from North Carolina. He has a deep-seated philosophical disagreement with the Test-Ban Treaty, and I respect that. I respect the majority leader, Mr. Lott, who has an equally compelling rationale to be against the Test-Ban Treaty. I do not respect their unwillingness to let the whole Senate debate and vote on this in the cold light of day before the American people and all the world. A poll that was conducted last month will not surprise anybody who follows this issue. But it should serve as a reminder to my colleagues that the American people are not indifferent to what we do here. The results go beyond party lines. Fully 80 percent of Republicans-- and even 79 percent of conservative Republicans--say that they support the Test-Ban Treaty. And this is considered opinion. In May of last year, the people said that they knew some countries might try to cheat on the test-ban. But they still supported U.S. ratification, by a 73-16 margin. As already announced, today's poll results show even greater support than we had a year ago. Last year's polls also show a clear view on the public's part of how to deal with the nuclear tests by India and Pakistan. When asked how to respond to those tests, over 80 percent favored getting India and Pakistan into the Test-Ban Treaty and over 70 percent saw U.S. ratification as a useful response. By contrast, fewer than 40 percent wanted more spending on U.S. missile defense; and fewer than 25 percent wanted us to resume nuclear testing. The American people understood something that had escaped the attention of the Republican leadership: that the best response to India and Pakistan's nuclear tests is to rope them in to a test-ban, which requires doing the same for ourselves. The American people reach similar conclusions today regarding China's possible stealing of U.S. nuclear weapons secrets. When asked about its implications for the Test-Ban Treaty, 17 percent see this as rendering the Treaty irrelevant; but nearly three times as many--48 percent--see it as confirming the importance of the Treaty. Once again, the American people are ahead of the Republican leadership. The American people see the Test-Ban Treaty as a sensible response to world-wide nuclear threats. In a choice between the Treaty and a return to U.S. nuclear testing, 84 percent chose the Treaty. Only 11 percent would go back to U.S. testing. Last month's bipartisan poll--conducted jointly by the Melman Group and Wirthlin Worldwide--asked a thousand people ``which Senate candidate would you vote for: one who favored CTBT ratification, or one who opposed it?'' So as to be completely fair, they even told their respondents the arguments that are advanced against ratification. By a 2-to-1 margin, the American people said they would vote for the candidate who favors ratifying the Treaty. Even Republicans would vote for that candidate, by a 52-42 margin. Now, as a Democrat, I like those numbers. The fact remains, however, that both the national interest and the reputation of the United States Senate are on the line in this matter. The national security implications of the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty must be addressed in a responsible manner. There must be debate. There must be a vote. In sum, the Senate must do its duty--and do it soon--so that America can remain the world's leader on nuclear non-proliferation; so that we can help bring India and Pakistan away from the brink of nuclear disaster; and so that the United States Senate can perform its Constitutional duty in the manner that the Founders intended. Let me close with some words from a most esteemed former colleague, Senator Mark Hatfield of Oregon, from a statement dated July 20. I ask unanimous consent that his statement be printed in the Record after my own statement.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, last week the Senate passed S. 1217, the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill. I want to take a minute now to express my serious concerns about the low level of funding for embassy security contained in the bill. Just about one year ago, two United States embassies in East Africa were destroyed by terrorist bombs, killing hundreds of people and injuring thousands. The bombings underscored the great vulnerability of our diplomatic missions. In response, Congress promptly provided $1.4 billion in emergency funding to rebuild the two embassies and to take other urgent steps to bolster security at overseas missions. Soon thereafter, two panels were convened by the Secretary of State to review the bombings. The two commissions were chaired by retired Admiral William Crowe, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former Ambassador to the United Kingdom. The Crowe commissions recommended that the U.S. government devote $1.4 billion per year for each of the next ten years to security. Unfortunately, the legislation before the Senate falls far short of what the Crowe commissions recommended. The bill appropriates just $300 million for security in the State Department operations accounts, and just $110 million for security in the capital account. But of this latter amount, only $36 million is provided for construction or renovation of new embassies--$264 million below the President's request. Moreover, the bill rescinds $58 million in previously- appropriated funds in this same account. Neither the bill nor the Committee report explains how these funds will be restored to meet continuing and future needs. Finally, the bill denies the Administration's request for $3.6 billion in advance funding for capital projects for Fiscal Years 2001 to 2005. The Department based this request on bitter experience. In the mid-1980s, after a commission chaired by Admiral Bobby Inman recommended massive increases in embassy security, Congress initially responded by providing significant funding and significant promises. But as the years passed, security became a second-order priority; the requested funding for security was denied by Congress, and some of the money that had been allocated for security was either rescinded by Congress or redirected to other priorities. By the mid-1990s, the Inman Commission report was collecting dust on government bookshelves, its recommendations barely recalled, and funding for security had been reduced considerably. So, understandably, the State Department is skeptical that the grand promises made in the wake of the embassy bombings will be fulfilled. With considerable justification, the State Department experts have told Congress that it can best move forward on a sensible and rational construction program if it can be assured in advance of the necessary funds. Otherwise, the Department of State rightly fears, we will see a repeat of the experience after the Inman Commission. The Committee on Foreign Relations, and then the full Senate, responded to this plea by providing a $3 billion authorization over five years in S. 886, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act. But that was just the first step. The authorization will be useless without appropriations. Unfortunately, the Committee on Appropriations has ignored the State Department's request in this bill. I believe this bill breaks faith with the bold promises that were made in the wake of the embassy bombings last summer. We need to do much, much more to protect our dedicated public servants working overseas. I strongly urge the chairman and ranking member to look for additional resources to fund this important account, without compromising the other important foreign affairs accounts.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. I truly appreciate that because I, quite frankly, think-- and this is presumptuous of me to say because you know as much about these issues as I do, clearly--this is the single-most significant thing we can do to continue the successful fight against crime. I authored it, so you might say there is pride of authorship here. But I didn't do this alone. The distinguished Senator from Texas and the distinguished Senator from West Virginia were really the ones who made it happen. I hope, in a bipartisan way, we can continue the funding mechanism. I thank him for his comments. If I have any time, I reserve it. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN

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

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, my friend from California, the distinguished Senator, Mrs. Boxer, feels a sense of compassion about a number of things, one of which is this amendment, and the way in which she, for the past 15 years, has been fighting and successfully, for the most part. I have been at her side to make sure we, quite frankly, keep dolphins from being killed unnecessarily. It sounds like a simplistic message, but it is as basic as that. What happened is we got rolled last year by the administration and by the Senate because there are more votes here. We had the Dolphin Protection Act in place. I will not take the time to discuss it now. Actually, it was basically eviscerated by what took place. I was not particularly pleased with Vice President Gore's position on this, the administration's position, nor the position of my distinguished friend whom I respect very much, Senator Breaux, and the distinguished Senator from Alaska. That was a formidable array we faced, and we essentially lost. What did we do last year? Last year, we did basically what the treaty said, and said: Look, we have this mechanism set up where everybody pays their fair share to make it work. The treaty says that. And I will again, in the interest of time, not recite the elements of the treaty which say that and point out how the following sentence can be distinguished that lays out the proportional requirement to participate in this. But the bottom line is very simple. We made an agreement last year involving countries in question. They said they agreed, the administration promised, and the Senate said everybody will pay their fair share. Simple. Wrong. We are paying 70 percent or more of the administration of this arrangement, and we should only be paying 40 percent. The distinguished Senator from California comes along and says: Hey, look, let's make it 50 percent. We will pay more than we should, but not this disproportionate amount. And if they do not pay as they promised, they should not get the benefits that flow from the agreement that encompasses their participation. So it is real simple, I say to my distinguished friend from South Carolina, who asked me to be brief. I will be brief. This is not fair. The Senator from California is right. She is willing to have us pay more than our fair share but not essentially twice what our fair share is. So I support the amendment, and I hope the managers of the bill may see fit, based on their sense of justice and their notion of fairness, to accept the amendment. I yield the floor. Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, 3 years ago this week I joined with my distinguished friend and colleague, Senator Hatch, to introduce the ``Hatch-Biden Methamphetamine Control Act'' to address the growing threat of methamphetamine use in our country before it was too late. Our failure to foresee and prevent the crack cocaine epidemic is one of the most significant public policy mistakes in recent history. Despite the warning signs of an outbreak, few took action until it was too late. But we did learn an important lesson from that mistake. When we began to see similar warning signs with methamphetamine, we acted swiftly to make sure that history would not repeat itself. That Act provided crucial tools that we needed to stay ahead of the methamphetamine epidemic and avoid the mistakes made during the early stages of the crack epidemic. We increased penalties for possessing and trafficking in methamphetamine and the precursor chemicals and equipment used to manufacture the drug. We tightened the reporting requirements and restrictions on the legitimate sales of products containing precursor chemicals to prevent their diversion, and imposed even greater requirements on firms that sell those products by mail. We ensured that meth manufacturers who endanger the life of any individual or endanger the environment while making this drug receive enhanced prison sentences. And finally, we created a national working group of law enforcement and public health officials to monitor any growth in the methamphetamine epidemic. I have no doubt that our 1996 legislation slowed this epidemic significantly. But we are up against a powerful and highly addictive drug. Meth stimulates the central nervous system, making the user feel energetic, clever and powerful. Unlike crack, whose effects sometimes last only a matter of minutes, a meth high lasts for hours. Last year in my home State of Delaware law enforcement officers busted what was described as ``the largest and most sophisticated drug lab in the Northeast,'' seizing 50 pounds of meth and meth base. This was only one of the 5,786 reported clandestine laboratory seizures in the United States last year. We have countless heart wrenching stories of violence and families being tragically ripped apart by methamphetamine use, sadly reminiscent of what we saw with crack cocaine. A recent news story reported that a woman in California has been charged with the murder of her infant son. High on meth, she left him in a sealed car in the summer heat while she and her boyfriend slept in an air-conditioned motel room nearby. The innocent infant died a tragic and senseless death. Unfortunately, this unspeakable tragedy is not an isolated incident. It is not unusual for a meth user to remain awake for days. And as the high begins to wane, the user is likely to be violent, delusional and paranoid. Not surprisingly, this behavior often leads to crime. In areas like San Diego where the meth epidemic rages, more than 33 percent of people arrested in 1998 tested positive for the drug. On top of the violence associated with methamphetamine users, there is also the enormous problem of violence among methamphetamine traffickers and the environmental and life-threatening conditions endemic in the clandestine labs where the drug is produced. But perhaps the most frightening fact of all is that despite all of the evidence that methamphetamine is a horribly destructive substance, the percentage of kids who perceive it as a harmful drug is on the decline. And that I why I am joining my friend from Utah once again --along with Senators DeWine, Feinstein and Bond--to build on the 1996 methamphetamine legislation and continue to fight this pernicious drug. Our Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act, first and foremost, addresses the growing problem of amphetamines as a meth substitute by making the penalties for manufacturing, importing, exporting or trafficking amphetamine equivalent to those established for methamphetamine in our 1996 law. The two drugs are nearly identical -- they differ by only one chemical. Whereas methamphetamine is made with ephedrine, a substance found in some over-the-counter cold remedies, amphetamine is produced with phenylpropanolamine, a chemical found in over-the-counter diet pills. The two drugs are produced in the same dangerous clandestine labs and are often sold interchangeably on the streets; the penalties for dealing in both substances should be the same. This legislation also provides the Drug Enforcement Administration with much needed funding to clean up clandestine labs after they are seized as well as to train state and local law enforcement officers to handle the hazardous wastes produced in the meth labs. Methamphetamine is made from an array of hazardous substances--battery acid, lye, ammonia gas, hydrochloric acid, just to name a few--that produce toxic fumes and often lead to fires or explosions when mixed. I am revealing nothing by naming some of these chemical ingredients. Anyone with access to the Internet can download a detailed meth recipe with a few simple keystrokes. Our legislation would make such postings illegal. This bill also tightens the restrictions on direct and indirect advertising of illegal drug paraphernalia and Schedule I drugs. Under this legislation, it would be illegal for on-line magazines and other websites to post advertisements for such illegal material or provide ``links'' to websites that do. We crafted this language carefully so that we restrict the sale of drug paraphernalia without restricting the First Amendment. Finally, the bill provides more money for law enforcement. This includes hiring more Drug Enforcement Administration agents to assist state and local law enforcement in small and mid-size cities and rural areas and providing more money to combat meth in places designated as High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas. While I clearly support the goals of this legislation, I want to make it clear that I think we may need to tweak it as it goes through the process to ensure that we do not stymie a good idea with the fine print. Specifically, I have concerns about how we fund meth lab clean up. As written, some of the money would come from the asset forfeiture fund, a most important resource for law enforcement. We are now struggling with reforming the overall structure of asset forfeiture in this country and I would hope we could find an alternative pot of money to tap to do the important work of cleaning up meth lab sites. That being said, I am confident that any concerns I may have at this time will be resolved during the committee process. I want to commend Senator Hatch for his continued leadership on this issue. I urge all my colleagues to join us in protecting our children and our society from the devastations of methamphetamine by supporting this vital legislation.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I will make a few brief comments, and I am prepared to yield the remainder of my time. I thank my friend from New Hampshire for accepting the amendment. This was part of an original bill called the Biden crime bill at the time. At the time, when we introduced the notion of all these new cops partially being paid for by the Federal Government, I was told a couple of things. One, local authorities would not like it because they would have to come up with part of the funding. Two, it would be cumbersome to administer. Three, we would find ourselves in the position where it really wouldn't make much of an impact on the community. I suggest the reason I wrote the bill the way I did originally was to take into consideration all three of those concerns. First of all, everyone will know, from their home States, that there is no redtape in this program. The day after we passed the crime bill in 1994 in my office, I sat with the Attorney General of the United States and her staff, and, to her chagrin, I said we must get this application down to one single page. They looked at me as if to say: What do you mean, one single page? That is not possible for a Federal program which is going to cost $30 billion. But that is what it is. It is a page. That is the reason why there is an infinitesimally small portion of this COPS Program and the crime bill program money being spent for administration. The second thing was, I remember my friend from South Carolina telling me at the time: If you don't do this the right way, this is going to get hung up in every State. That is why we didn't send this money to Governors. The Presiding Officer is a former Governor. We love former Governors. But this doesn't go through State legislatures. The local police chief in Columbus, OH, does not have to convince anybody in your State capital they need more cops. They can go directly to the source. From a little town in Massillon, OH, they can go straight to the source. They do not have to go to the legislature; they can go straight downtown after their city council in Dover, DE, Smyrna, DE, Wilmington DE. It enabled local law enforcement agencies to determine their own needs and thereby eliminate the waste. By the way, I got in trouble with Governors for writing it that way, for not sending it through State legislative bodies. The third thing it does, and there was criticism of this when it was done, it says you do not get any money unless you have a certain kind of police department. What do you have to do? If you have 10 cops in your police department, you cannot fire two and apply for Federal money to hire them back. That is what was done under the LEAA, the Law Enforcement Assistance Act, when I first got here. This program said there was a maintenance of effort. We would help you get the 11th cop, but you couldn't cut it to 9 to go back to 10. We said: By the way, you have to have a community policing operation. Why is that important? Mayors and Governors do not want community policing. It is harder to do. It costs more money. The cops organizations--I love them all--didn't want it. It costs more money. If I am a cop in a tough district, I would rather be riding in a patrol car with another guy than I would be walking through by myself. So they did not want it. We said: No money unless this gets leveraged. If you have 10 cops and you want one of ours to raise your force to 11, all 11 have to be community cops. That is the key. Why do I say this? If the Federal Government gets out of the business of helping here, it will not only be the loss of the money; I predict it will be the loss of the willingness to maintain community policing even though it works, even though every mayor knows it works and every county official knows it works. It is expensive and it is hard. Mark my words: The day the COPS Program ends, initially 5 percent, 10 percent of the communities in America will go away from community policing, and 10 years from now we will be back to where we were. That leads to my second concluding point. People said back when the original bill was written: Biden, why are you only doing it for 5 years? I said, one of two things are going to happen. Maybe at the end of the 5 years those of us who support this concept are going to be right; it is going to be proven, as in the old expression, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. At the end of the 5 years, the pudding either tastes good or it tastes bad. If it tastes bad, all the king's horses and all the king's men will not keep the COPS Program going because it will be branded for what it is, a waste of time and money. But if the pudding tastes good, all the king's horses and all the kings's men cannot stop it from being reauthorized for another 5 years. So far, the king's horses and king's men have stopped it from being authorized for another 5 years. It is a different issue. It is different than continuing it for this next year. But I want to say, I think the proof is in the eating. Our streets are safer. Go out and ask any of your mayors, any of your county executives, any of your town councils, any of your police departments. You come back and tell me anyone who said: Eliminate this program. They may have suggestions to make it better, and we should listen to them but not eliminate it. This leads me to my exact last point. I am a Democrat. I take great pride in the fact that I wrote this bill. Originally, it was the Biden bill. When it passed and became law, I remember saying to President Clinton: Let's call it the Clinton bill. We lost the Congress that year, and he thought we lost the Congress in part because of the gun amendments. He said: Keep it the Biden bill. It started working really well, and now it is the Clinton bill. It is good it is the Clinton bill, but I want to make this the Republican bill, and I mean this sincerely. I want COPS to become like Social Security has become. Initially, Republicans hated Social Security and they were against it. Roosevelt came along, and Democrats supported it. Over the years, they have not only become politically committed, they are as committed as we are. They really understand how important it is, but for a long time it was not invented here. This COPS bill was bipartisan in its inception. When the first so- called Biden crime bill that had this in it originally passed out of the Senate, it was called the Biden-Hatch crime bill until it got to the other side. Gingrich did not like the look of it politically, and even though it passed in the Senate with 97 votes originally--what passed the Senate originally was the same thing that ended up becoming law. It had 97 votes originally. It went over to the House of Representatives, and when it came back, I had to get seven Republicans to pass it. Only seven Republicans voted for it. From that point on, the bad news about the crime bill has been: We Democrats beat our chests about how we did it, and the Republicans did not, which is literally true. And the Republicans have said: My Lord, we can't continue to support a program from which the Democrats are getting such benefit. Let's end this. Let's go back and pretend this was part of the crime bill that passed out of here, which it did, with 97 votes. This is a bipartisan idea, and my plea is let continuing the program through its authorization period of the fiscal year 2000 be the first step, and the second step, that Republicans and Democrats join together and reauthorize for another 5 years this program and reauthorize for another 5 years, as my friend from New Hampshire has suggested, the trust fund. It is time--and I know this sounds ridiculous in this atmosphere--to take the politics out of this. This is working. There is enough room for all of us to claim credit. There is enough room for everybody to say, look, listen to what Ronald Reagan used to say when he first became President: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. This ain't broke. Now let's put a Republican stamp on it and a Democratic stamp on it-- an American stamp--just as we do on Social Security. We will be doing the Nation a great favor, and maybe, just maybe, we will get back in the habit a little bit of cooperating as Democrats and Republicans. I thank my friend from New Hampshire for being willing to accept the amendment. I appreciate his accommodation in allowing us to speak to it in spite of that, and I truly look forward to the possibility that in the coming months we will be able to move beyond this and have a bipartisan--a Republican amendment. I will sign on to a Republican amendment reauthorizing this and call it the Republican crime bill. I do not care what we call it. I sincerely mean that. But let's keep a good thing going. I thank my friend, again, very much. I thank my friend from South Carolina who, when this bill was being written 5 years ago, was the major engine behind it. He was the one who allowed it to get through the committee in the first place. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. BIDEN. I yield 5 minutes to my friend from Minnesota.

Mr. BIDEN. It is a challenge for us to apply the lessons we have learned over the past years. More cops on the street means crime goes down. Law enforcement knows this. The American public knows this. We know this. And we must act now. We all recognize the importance to communities across our country of ensuring the continued success of lowering crime rates. Look at this chart. Since the COPS Program began as part of the 1994 crime bill, arrests have gone way up. This is total arrests. Look at all the support we have on this. All the law enforcement organizations endorse this program. The mayors endorse this program. I thank, by the way, these organizations for their continued support of the COPS Program and for their extraordinary help with this amendment in particular. To the law enforcement community, I say thank you. We should all say thank you. We could not have done this without your hard work and support, your phone calls, your letters. Your personal appearances have resonated with all of us. You are always on the frontline on this, and you have always taken a stand against crime. You should be proud. I am proud of them. In a recent survey done for the National Association of Police Organizations, 85 percent of those surveyed think we should extend the COPS Program. The American people don't want the program to end. Although we do not extend the COPS Program beyond its authorized period through this fiscal year, my friend from New Hampshire and my friend from South Carolina know that I have continually attempted to extend the program. I will be back in another fora trying to extend the COPS Program so that we continue this beyond the year 2000. For years, when I first wrote this crime bill, back in the early 1980s, we would debate this, and we would debate it and debate it. The editorial writers in this country, primarily from the most established newspapers, were very critical of my notion that we should vastly increase the number of cops. They would write editorials. One--I think it was one of the major papers, the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, but I don't recall which--said: Been there, done that. Well, the truth is, we were never there. The truth is, for the previous 20 years, before the Biden crime bill, we did not add appreciably to the number of cops in America. If my memory serves me, in the 20 largest cities in America over the previous 20 years, although crime had grown significantly, we only added about 1 percent more cops than existed 20 years earlier. We had never done this before. After all the hearings I held as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, being exposed over all those years to the leading criminologists in the country, the psychologists, psychiatrists, law enforcement officers, social workers, all the experts, I came away convinced of only a few things. One is, if there is a cop on one corner of the street and no cop on the other corner and a crime is going to be committed on a corner, it is going to be committed where the cop is not. Sounds pretty basic. It is basic. This single most important reason why, beyond the sheer numbers, this COPS Program has worked, in my view, is because in order to get Federal money to hire local cops under this program, local law enforcement departments had to decide, as my friend from Virginia knows, to set up community policing. When he was Governor, he talked about this. When he was Governor, a lot of the Governors and mayors knew about this. It was hard to do. Cops didn't want to get out of their cars and walk on the beat, figuratively and literally. There was resistance. So we said: Look, if you want another cop paid for in part by the Federal Government, your whole department has to be a community policing department. You have to go back and interface with the community. You have to know who owns the corner store. You have to know who lives in the house in the middle of the block. You have to know where the drug trafficking takes place. You have to know where the gymnasium is where the kids hang out. You have to know where the swimming pool is. You have to know the people. And so one of the reasons, I argue, for the extraordinary success of the program is not merely the added numbers of cops but because of the way in which they are required to utilize their existing police forces in order to get any new cops. Now, granted, in one sense this is a small victory in that it only continues the program through the time it was intended to continue it. I hope we can reach some bipartisan consensus before we get to fiscal year 2001 to extend, as my friend from New Hampshire has proposed in an amendment we will vote on later today, the violent crime trust fund that pays for these cops, the Federal share. I hope we can get some bipartisan support on extending the program that continues to put more local law enforcement on the ground with the help of Federal dollars. I will reserve the remainder of my time in a moment, but I want to make it clear that I truly appreciate the willingness of the Senator from New Hampshire to reinstate, at least in part, the funding for this program which would allow the office to continue through the year 2000. I see my friend has risen, and I am happy to yield to him at this time.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, let me begin by thanking the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member. This is a bit unusual. I am violating what the Senator from South Carolina would recognize as the Russell Long rule. When I first came to the Senate, Russell Long, the distinguished Senator from Louisiana, was chairman of the Finance Committee. One day I walked up to him because I had an amendment to a finance bill. He said: I will accept it. I said: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Then I got back to my seat in the back row, and a staff person who had worked here longer than I had--I had only been here about 3 months-- said: Senator, you really want a rollcall vote on that. So I went ahead and I did my little spiel. Then I asked for the yeas and nays. The roll was called, and Russell Long voted against the amendment and encouraged others to vote against it. It was defeated. I walked up to him and said: Mr. Chairman, my Lord, you told me just 15 minutes ago you would accept my amendment. He said: Yes, I would accept your amendment. But I did not say anything about a rollcall vote. We are not going to have, I hope, a rollcall vote on this amendment. I want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee for accepting the amendment. I apologize to him for speaking on something that is going to be accepted. But I think this is of such consequence that it is important to remind our colleagues of what we are about to redo. A few weeks ago, the Appropriations Committee zeroed out all funding for the COPS Program, nearly closing the doors of what I believe to be the most successful Federal-State cooperative law enforcement program of our time. This amendment corrects the committee's elimination of the funding for the COPS office in the fiscal year 2000. It restores funding for the COPS office to perform many of the significant functions in support of law enforcement--particularly in getting more cops out on the street. In doing so, it supersedes--or, basically, makes void--the language in the committee report on pages 62 and 63 that would have directed the Justice Department to take steps to dismantle the COPS office. Under this amendment, the COPS office will remain alive and well for fiscal year 2000. I am pleased today we have put aside partisan politics in support of this effective law enforcement program. Let me make it clear, although some of my colleagues on the Republican side worry a little bit about this being a Democratic program, it is not a Democratic program. It is a bipartisan program. It is a program where even this amendment has garnered the cosponsorship of four Republicans and the commitment of another several to vote for it. I predict there will be more Republicans to vote for it as well. I am glad that we have listened to the police officers on the street, the police chiefs, the prosecutors, the mayors, the citizens of our communities, and our constituents about why they think the COPS Program has worked so well. As I said, today, joined by 42 of my colleagues, including four Republicans, I offer this amendment to restore the COPS Program for fiscal year 2000. This amendment restores $495 million in funding for the COPS Program for the year 2000. This is just one-third of the $1.43 billion that was appropriated in 1999. But it preserves this vitally important program that has thus far funded over 100,000 cops in communities across the country. Here is how it will work: $170 million will come from unobligated balances for this fiscal year for the COPS office; $5 million in unobligated funds from the Bureau of Prisons; $140 million are shifted back to the COPS office for programs that it already has successfully administered in the past. These include the Cops Connect Program, which provides equipment and upgrades so that officers from different jurisdictions can talk to each other and share vital information; it also includes targeted funding for equipment that protects police officers, such as bulletproof vests; and for training to identify and take down methamphetamine and other drug laboratories. And $180 million are put back into the COPS Program to fund the hiring of up to an additional 2,400 officers in our public school system. Most importantly, this amendment restores to the COPS office its primary function: putting more cops on the street. Under this amendment, there will be funding sufficient to put 1,500 additional local law enforcement officers out on the streets in our communities. I think we can all agree that this is a small price to pay for lower crime rates, safer communities, safer schools, more advanced law enforcement equipment, and more responsive police departments. I am thrilled to be joined by so many of my colleagues. As I said, there are 42 cosponsors. I ask unanimous consent that a list of the cosponsors be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN. I send the amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Is the amendment at the desk?

Mr. BIDEN. I yield 10 minutes to my friend from New York.