Joe Biden

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Iowa, and I compliment him for his continued support and early support for this program. I now yield 5 minutes to my friend from Massachusetts.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to my friend from Virginia.

Mr. BIDEN. I thank the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I now yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. What is the business of the Senate now?

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I understand I have a few minutes to speak, and I will take only a few minutes right now and reserve the remainder of the time when I have completed. I want to be very brief at this point. Mr. President, I want to separate out two aspects of the Gregg amendment: One I wish to compliment him on, and one I am going to remain silent on. The one part I want to compliment him on is that I think the reauthorization of the violent crime trust fund for another 5 years is the single-most significant thing we could do to continue the war on crime. In 1994, when we introduced the Biden crime bill, which eventually became the crime bill of 1994 which had the 100,000 cops in it, the Violence Against Women Act, and many other things, toward the end of that debate, with the significant help of the senior Senator from Texas, Mr. Gramm, who didn't like many aspects of my bill, and the senior Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, who did like the bill, we all agreed on what was viewed as sort of a revolutionary idea--that crime control was the single-most undisputable responsibility of the Federal Government domestically. We can argue about whether there should be welfare. We can argue about whether we should be involved in education. But no one can argue about the requirement of the Government of the United States to make the streets safe. That is the starting point for all ordered society. So we had an idea, and the three of us joined together to set up a violent crime trust fund. The way we did that was not to raise taxes for America because everybody kept saying: Biden, your bill, over the next 5 years, is going to cost over $30 billion. They were right. Putting 100,000 cops on the street costs a lot. Building thousands of new prison cells costs a lot. Spending money on prevention costs a lot. The total of the Biden crime bill was about $30 billion over 5 years in 1994 when I introduced it. They said: How are we going to pay for it? None of us likes telling the citizens the truth. We all like lying to you, telling you we are going to find a magic way to do this that is not going to cost you any money. The American public wants safer streets, and they have gotten them, I might add. Crime has gone down significantly every year since the crime bill was introduced. I am not claiming it is only because of that, but it is in large part because of that. So the way we reached this accord was Senator Gramm, who wanted to see the size of the Federal Government cut even more urgently than--I will speak for myself--even more urgently than I did--we codified, as part of this deal, the agreement that we would let 250,000 Federal employees go. We would shrink the size of the Federal Government. And we did. The second part of the agreement I wanted was that the paycheck we used to pay the person working in the Justice Department or in the Defense Department or at IRS, who was not going to be rehired, we take John Jones' paycheck and put it into a trust fund to do nothing but deal with violent crime in America. Not an innovative notion--that concept of a trust fund--but it is fairly radical in terms of applying a Social Security-type trust fund--only this does have a lockbox--a trust fund of dedicated revenues to deal with nothing but crime. The good news about that and the reason I felt so strongly about that at the time I wrote the bill was it is the one place no one can compete. If it is in general funds--and to people who don't share my view about the single-most important responsibility of Government is to maintain order--it is in competition. If it is general revenues, the COPS Program or the prevention programs or building prisons is in competition with money for education, money for the space program, money for the Defense Department, and money for every other function of the Government. By having this trust fund, though, it is not in competition with anything. It is there. It is set aside. It is similar to a savings account to fight crime. I respectfully suggest that it worked. Now, under the Biden crime bill, which is due to expire this year, the trust fund will end. This special, dedicated pot of money that nobody can compete for, which is not paid for by raising taxes, is paid for by not lowering taxes because it is legitimate to say: Biden, if you eliminate the trust funds, you can take John Jones' paycheck, the guy who left the Treasury Department in 1997, and you can give it back to the taxpayers as a tax cut. That is true. But I choose safe streets over tax cuts. The tax cut would be minuscule, I might add. So when I heard that my friend from New Hampshire was taking language essentially the same as the Hatch-Biden bill that passed out of here in juvenile justice, the same as the language I have been reintroducing everywhere I can and in every bill I can in the last 4 years, I thought not only is he an enlightened fellow but there has been a bit of an epiphany, that, my Lord, the powerful chairman of the subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee has seen the Lord, has seen the light, and I was overjoyed. So I said to my staff: I am going to go up there and compliment him. Literally, I said this this morning. They said: Don't be so quick. I said: Why? They said: There is a little kicker here. The kicker is once this amendment that you, Biden, have fought so hard for over the last 12 years, even before the crime bill was passed--once it is adopted, there will be a little amendment attached to it that has to do with the way this place functions procedurally, affecting how we can move substantively. I will not speak to that. I will only say and plead with my friend from New Hampshire, if and when the second issue is resolved, however it is resolved, that he not walk away from the substantive beauty of his amendment as it relates to the trust fund. I don't want to get into a fight with him about legislating on appropriations and second amendments and the rest. I want to say to him publicly that I truly appreciate the practical impact of reestablishing the violent crime trust fund, if we can do it. I hope in this procedural fight that is above my pay grade right now, which is about to take place, that a casualty of this fight will not end up being us committing for another 5 years to do what we did in the last 5 years--bringing crime in America down. The way to do that is to guarantee that the law enforcement agencies of the United States for 5 years do not have to compete with anybody, and we don't have to raise anybody's taxes. We are taking those old paychecks, and we are going to continue to make a deposit, similar to a trust fund in a family, for cops, for prisons, and for prevention.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, there is no greater threat to our country than that posed by weapons of mass destruction. Nuclear, chemical or biological weapons--perhaps delivered by long-range guided missiles-- could cause more destruction in a week or even a day than we suffered in all of the Vietnam war. The United States has many nonproliferation and counterproliferation programs, but there are cracks in our organization for combating this terrible scourge. The Commission to Assess the Organization of the Federal Government to Combat the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, also know as the ``Deutch Commission,'' has found those cracks. Yesterday the Commission gave America a blueprint for repairing them. We dare not ignore its analysis, any more than we would ignore termites in our homes. My colleague and friend from Pennsylvania, Senator Arlen Specter, also deserves special recognition today. The Commission was his idea; he secured its establishment and later ensured its continued existence. As Vice Chairman of the Commission, he worked to ensure that its recommendations would be practical and politically feasible. Today Senator Specter is introducing legislation to implement one of the Deutch Commission recommendations: that we require electronic filing of Shippers' Export Declarations on a secure, Internet-based system. This legislation will provide more timely and usable data for non- proliferation analysis by executive branch agencies, without causing any significant burden for exporters or endangering the traditional confidentiality of Shippers' Export Declarations. I am pleased to be an initial cosponsor of this legislation and I am confident that it will be enacted. Shippers' Export Declarations are already required under chapter 9 of title 13, United States Code. The content of those Declarations is prescribed in part 30 of title 15, Code of Federal Regulations. This legislation will not require any reporting by industry that is not already mandated under those regulations. There is also an existing Automated Export System, but its use is voluntary and it has not gained much acceptance. This bill will require that shippers use an Internet-based Automated Export System, once it is certified as being secure and capable of handling the expected volume of information that would be filed. I want to assure U.S. companies, as I have been assured, that this legislation will not cause difficulties for them. Exporters will have on-line assistance in filing their Declarations and will be able to double-check their Declarations for accuracy after filing them. In addition, the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which maintains the security of unclassified Federal Government communications, must join in certifying that the Internet- based Automated Export System is ready for use and has been successfully tested. That will ensure the continued confidentiality of these Declarations. This is hardly a revolutionary bill. Rather, it is one discrete, rational measure that is needed to improve our defense against the spread of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons to countries or groups that could otherwise rain chaos and destruction upon our country and the whole world. We simply must take this step, along with others recommended by the Deutch Commission. For our own sake and for our children's sake as well, we absolutely must respond to the challenge of proliferation.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. In my State, the vast majority of the people who have insurance work for Dupont, General Motors, Chrysler, the major pharmaceutical firms such as Zeneca and Hercules. Do you mean all those people--and they all have employer-provided health care--are excluded from coverage in the Republican bill?

Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BIDEN. Eighty-nine percent?

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the foreign operations appropriation bill is a crucial bill. It is integral to all of our assistance programs overseas. The bill's importance to American foreign policy cannot be over emphasized. This bill provides funding for development aid to poor countries, funds to combat terrorism and proliferation of nuclear weapons overseas, and monies for all of the multilateral financial institutions which lend to needy countries. As I see it, the bill before the Senate has two major problems. First, the bill as a whole is significantly under-funded. The amount dedicated to our nation's foreign operations is almost $2 billion below the President's request for funding. I understand that some of this is due to the caps placed on expenditures as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997; however, we in the Senate cannot hide behind that piece of legislation every time we want an excuse for why the administration's appropriations requests are under funded. I am not saying that this is not a legitimate reason for not granting the President's entire request, but $2 billion is an enormous shortfall. In addition to inadequate funding overall, there are particular programs and foreign policy initiatives which are either funded at a level which is drastically reduced from the President's request, or which have not been funded at all. Mr. President, the administration in its statement of policy with respect to this bill has clearly stated that ``A bill funded at this level would be grossly inadequate to maintain America's leadership around the world. It would inevitably require severe reductions from previously enacted levels for programs managed by the Departments of State and Treasury, the Agency for International Development and other agencies.'' The statement quite clearly states that if the significant funding and language problems in this bill as reported are not resolved that ``the President's senior advisors have no choice but to recommend that he veto the bill.'' I wish to speak to several very important aspects of this bill that must be addressed in conference. First, the bill fails to provide the $500 million requested by the President to support the Middle East Wye River Agreement. Second, it fails to fund the administration's Expanded Threat Reduction Initiative, so important to our ability to reduce the proliferation threat and continue the elimination of weapons of mass destruction. Third, this bill imposes new onerous conditions on U.S. funding for the 1994 Agreed Framework, the cornerstone of our North Korea policy. I also have very strong concerns with respect to two provisions in the bill relating to Kosovo and our ongoing relationship with Russia. Unfortunately, by withholding critical support for Jordan, Israel, and the Palestinian Authority, this bill would have us renege on the commitments that made the Wye River agreement possible. The leaders of Jordan, the Palestinian Authority, and Israel have taken great risks for peace. We pledged to stand with them as they took these risks. In the months ahead, we will undoubtedly be called upon to play a lead role in the peace talks. But by refusing to fund one penny of the President's request for the Wye River agreement, this bill calls into question our commitment to Middle East peace just as there is renewed hope for accelerated progress. Some may argue that the Middle East gets enough assistance as it is. Relative to other accounts that may be true, but the levels of assistance to the Middle East are a reflection of the strategic and moral issues at stake. The funds requested by the administration are in keeping with our commitment to Israel's security. They will help wage battle in Palestinian areas against the greatest enemy of peace--namely, the poverty and despair that provides a fertile breeding ground for extremism. They will help bolster Jordan--a close ally whose peace with Israel should serve as a model for others in the region. I am convinced that the sums requested by the administration to support peace pale in comparison to the costs we would incur if conflict and turmoil returned to the Middle East. One of the most disturbing elements of this bill is its failure to fund the Expanded Threat Reduction Initiative that helps reduce the threat of weapons of mass destruction. Technically the cuts are to the larger budget lines for aid to the Newly Independent States and for Nonproliferation and related programs. But report language calls the funding of Expanded Threat Reduction Initiative programs ``ill advised,'' and they will bear the brunt of these cuts. Weapons of mass destruction dwarf the other threats to our national security. If we fail to help Russian experts find nonmilitary employment, we may foster Iran's nuclear weapons, or Iraq's biological weapons, or Libyan missiles. Even a single use of such weapons against the United States, U.S. forces, or our allies would be a terrible tragedy--especially if we failed to prevent it. The failure to fund the Expanded Threat Reduction Initiatives means no funds--not even the levels appropriated last year--for helping Russian biological weapons experts find new careers. This is a vital program that has enabled biological weapons experts to resist offers from Iran and other rogue states. We should be expanding this program, rather than cutting it. The Threat Reduction cut means no funds for the International Science and Technology Centers in Russia and Ukraine that have helped over 24,000 former weapons scientists since 1994. The Science Center program has been very successful. It has been praised for its tight management, under board chairman Ron Lehman, a former official in Republican administrations whom we all know to be a true patriot. Science Center support for Russian scientists is exempt from Russian taxes. We should be expanding this program, too, rather than cutting it. The Threat Reduction cut means no funds--not even last year's levels--for the Civilian Research and Development Foundation, which gives vital training to Russian former weapons scientists who are trying to form viable businesses. We tell Russian weapons experts to adapt to a market economy. But they will never achieve that, if we don't give them the training. And if they fail, they will be ripe for the plucking by rogue states who would buy their weapons expertise. The Threat Reduction cut means no funds--not even last year's levels--to assist customs officials in Russia and the rest of the former Soviet Union. The customs officials whom we assist are our most reliable allies in stopping the flow of nuclear and weapons of mass destruction materials. For example, it was customs officials in Azerbaijan who stopped a shipment of specialty steel to Iran that would have been used for missiles. This bill also contains only $5 million--out of $15 million requested--for world-wide assistance to customs services. This is the program that aids border control agencies in the Baltic states, where we have seen Russian nuclear smuggling efforts in the past. It makes no sense to provide only $5 million for this vital function. These cuts even wipe out the border security assistance to Georgia that Senator McConnell instituted last year. The Threat Reduction cut means no funds to assist in removing Russian troops from Moldova--a longstanding objective of the United States and of the Congress. Do we suddenly want the Russian troops to stay longer in a country that does not want them? Do we no longer care whether this exacerbates ethnic conflict in Moldova? The Foreign Operations Subcommittee made these cuts without prejudice. But it makes no sense to let us guard our national security only by cutting important programs to support democracy, free media, and the rule of law in the former Soviet Union. I am very pleased that the managers have accepted a sense of the Senate amendment I offered urging that the Threat Reduction funds be restored in conference to the level requested by the President. I urge the managers of this bill to do their utmost to achieve this, and I wish them complete success in that important effort. On the eve of South Korean President Kim Dae Jung's visit to Washington, and just as former Secretary of Defense Bill Perry is completing his comprehensive Korea policy review, this bill places the Agreed Framework in grave jeopardy. The bill not only provides inadequate funding for heavy fuel oil deliveries to North Korea--deliveries the United States is obligated to arrange under the 1994 Agreed Framework--it also effectively prevents the appropriated funds from being expended by requiring the President to certify the uncertifiable with respect to North Korea's conduct. Under existing law, the President must already certify that North Korea is in full compliance with the Agreed Framework and its confidential minute in order to expend monies appropriated for heavy fuel oil deliveries to the North. This a reasonable requirement. But if the North is fulfilling its side of the bargain, we should fulfill ours rather than dream up new requirements on the North. Do we have other serious concerns about North Korea, in addition to its nuclear ambitions? Of course we do. But these other concerns-- missile development and export, narcotics trafficking, armed provocations along the DMZ--cannot be addressed successfully if we abandon the Agreed Framework. For all of its imperfections, the Agreed Framework has served our national interest well, reducing the risk of war and capping the North's ability to produce fissile material for nuclear bombs. Five years ago, North Korea was on the verge of withdrawing from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and acquiring the capacity to build dozens of nuclear weapons every year. Today, with the Agreed Framework intact, the North's nuclear facilities stand idle. The spent fuel from its research reactor has been canned and placed under round-the-clock monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The Agreed Framework has also given us unprecedented access to North Korea, even to sensitive military sites, as demonstrated by the recent successful U.S. visit to the Kumchangni undergound facility. These are not insignificant accomplishments, and we should think twice before we risk turning back the clock. By underfunding the Korean Energy Development Organization and unilaterally imposing new obligations on North Korea, this bill could precipitate a crisis on the Peninsula and distance us from our key ally, South Korea. In addition, I have two serious problems with sections of the bill relating to Kosovo. First, $20 million shall be available ``for training and equipping a Kosova security force.'' Mr. President, this language conveys the impression that we want to train something like a national guard or an army. In the real world, most people would see this as our training and equipping a KLA Army. U.N. Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999), which gives international sanction to KFOR, is not specific about the future status of Kosovo. Any future Kosovo national guard or army presupposes an independent Kosovo. Aside from that being counter to United States policy, it is completely irrelevant to this bill. For the duration of fiscal year 2000, security in Kosovo will be guaranteed by the heavily armed, NATO- led KFOR. There is absolutely no need for any kind of an indigenous ``security force'' other than a civilian police force. The final legislation should make it crystal-clear that the appropriation will be used to train and equip a police force, not an army. My second Kosovo-related objection concerns the requirement that the Secretary of State certify that the Russians have not established a ``separate zone of operational control'' and are ``fully integrated under NATO unified command and control arrangements.'' This requirement has been overtaken by events. The Military-Technical Agreement between NATO and Russia found a formula to include Russian peacekeepers in KFOR. This formula has been accepted by our government, by all other 18 NATO members, and by the United Nations. I have no doubt that Secretary Albright could broadly construe words like ``operational control'' and ``fully integrated'' and thereby make the required certification. But what would we get by retaining this language and forcing her to do so? I'll tell my colleagues. We would be gratuitously sticking our finger in the Russians' eye at the precise moment we are trying to involve them in KFOR and in the entire reconstruction effort in Kosovo. To sanitize a phrase used by an esteemed former President of the United States, I would rather have the Russians inside our tent looking out, than outside our tent looking in. I would like to remind my friend Senator McConnell that when the two of us recently appeared on the Sunday Fox Television News talk-show he said with regard to the Russians in Kosovo--and I quote; ``I don't know that we need to threaten foreign assistance.'' Apparently he has changed his mind. I agreed with Senator McConnell that day on television. I wish he had held to his position. It is important that these problems be addressed in conference, and that a way be found to increase the overall funding levels. At this time I will reluctantly vote to send this legislation to conference. However, I reserve the right to vote against it should these problems not be addressed in the final conference report.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. If the Senator will yield. Put the candy back in the drawer and I would be happy to help.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am impressed. The second thing I say to my friend from New Hampshire, I find his reasoning absolutely fascinating and appealing. It is a little like saying, you know, we have been in the candy drawer for the last year, but we are going to lock it now because we think you are right; there should have been a lock on this drawer the whole time, as they walk around fat and happy and 300 pounds. I kind of like that. I have been here 27 years, and I have never been as impressed with the generosity of the other party as I have been today. I wanted to say that and tell you how good it makes me feel. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I will just take 2 minutes. I thank my colleague for his generosity. I can't tell you how bowled over I am by the generosity of the Republican Party for allowing us 2 hours of discussion when, as I understood the rules, there is no limit on time, assuming you can get the floor. I am truly overwhelmed by that generous offer. And my friend from New Hampshire--

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. I agree with the Senator from Indiana and suggest it has the added benefit of taking four groups on different ideological ends of the spectrum and having them cooperate, work together. It has a salutary impact on how they function relative to one another overall.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for a moment before he turns to the second amendment, I can't emphasize how important I think the change is that the Senator suggests and the enthusiasm with which we accept the amendment. I happen to like the Senator's second amendment that he is going to withdraw. I hope that will happen in the remainder of this year. If we can't get it done this year, I hope we can next year. I hope the committee will take a look at the entire functioning of the inspector general's office. Quite frankly, a similar thing came up in my other committee, the Judiciary Committee. Quite frankly, I think we initiated reforms that were needed a decade or more ago to provide for these inspector generals, and they are throughout the Government, which is a good thing. It is not a bad thing. But what we haven't done, in my opinion, is we haven't given the same kind of scrutiny and oversight into how the offices function as we have, for example, the Attorney General's office, or the overall functioning of the State Department. I hope this is the beginning of not any kind of witch hunt but just a serious, thoughtful oversight about whether or not the inspector general's authority puts it in a position where it has sort of incrementally involved itself in a way that the rights of individuals who are being looked at or who are caught up in a net are, quite frankly, not treated the way we would expect, for example, the U.S. Attorney's Office to proceed. I thank the Senator. As I said, I like the second amendment which he is going to be withdrawing. Hopefully, we will have an opportunity, with his leadership, to revisit that on another piece of legislation, or on the floor independently.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maryland for his statement and cooperation. I thank the chairman for working out a compromise with the Senator on his amendment. I must say, I would be more comfortable if I could be pure on this, because I happen to agree with the Senator from Maryland. I think we owe a total amount of probably $1.021. The U.N. says we owe $1.509. We do not, in my view. I would be more comfortable if we could have gotten all of that. Quite frankly, I would be more comfortable, as a matter of principle, if there were no conditions. So I began this process 6 years ago exactly where the Senator is. The arrearages began to mount in larger numbers, really with UNPROFOR in Bosnia. I know the Senator knows that a significant amount of what the United States ``owes'' is for peacekeeping missions. It is owed to France, the U.K., Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, Canada, India, Pakistan, Russia, and Germany. It is not dues in the sense that we belong to a club, or a country club, and you have yearly dues. This is more like at the end of the year when they say we ran over X amount of dollars and you assess the members beyond their dues. That is what we owe, in large part. I know the Senator knows this, and I thank him for his acknowledgment of our attempt to do the best we could. But I think, as I said, on principle, we should pay our obligations in full with no conditions. We should negotiate conditions from this point on, if we want to, because I think the Senator would agree with me that the U.N. is a badly run outfit in terms of its management skill. It has been the employer of first resort for a significant number of countries, understandably. It is a bloated bureaucracy, which has been worked upon positively by Kofi Annan, and there has been progress made. But it is not an institution that we had in mind when we signed on in San Francisco. We didn't expect it to turn out to be as inefficient as it has, understandably. It has also done an incredible amount of very good work. I believe, as the President said with regard to the United States, the United States is the ``essential nation.'' I believe it is the essential international organization. I am committed to it. But, a friend of mine, when I used to serve on the county council in New Castle County, DE, a Republican named Henry Folsom came down to Washington--by the way, in the Reagan administration. Henry used to say, God bless his soul, ``Joe, remember. Politics is the art of the practical.'' Practically speaking, my pure stand of saying ``no conditions and all the money'' was rhetorically very appealing. But it didn't do a thing. It was only, quite frankly, when the Senator from North Carolina--who has been a critic over the years of the United Nations--decided we had to fix this somehow; that we ended up over a period, I would say to the chairman, of probably 2 years of talk, negotiating, arguing, and compromising that we ended up where we are today. Where we are today is four-fifths or more of the way home. Still, I for one do not like the conditions that precede us paying. I would rather say that these are conditions that we hope would be met, notwithstanding whether or not we would pay. But we are where we are. So this is a process. This is a process. I have spoken with all but two of the former Secretaries of State on this matter. When I put the question to them, as I did to Kofi Annan-- All right, do you want this or do you want nothing? --every single person involved with the United Nations to whom I have posed that question said: No. No we will take this. We will take this. The truth of the matter is there are choices. Our choices are this or nothing. All of us who are devoted to the United Nations, in terms of thinking it an essential body, have been unable to get a penny--a penny--toward these arrears. We have been noble, myself included, in our efforts. But we haven't gotten a penny for those ``arrears.'' Where we are today is with a decision. That is, is it partial, more than partial, is it the bulk of the arrearages to be paid, conditioned upon things which this Secretary of State says--by the way, the last piece of this was negotiated not by the Senator from Delaware and the Senator from North Carolina but by the Secretary of State speaking for the President of the United States and the chairman of the committee. The administration has been candid. They said they are not sure they can get all of it done. They think they can. They are going to fight for it. But they think it is worth the fight--that it is worth the candlestick. We are seized with a decision that I think is going to overwhelmingly pass, which is, do we keep these conditions that have been altered in light of the passage of 2 years of time to make them more likely to be able to be met, coupled with the $926 million paid out, as the bill calls for, much of it front-end loaded, or do we step back and say no, we are not going to? I know the Senator from Maryland isn't suggesting this. But the other alternative is to step back and say unless we get it all, no conditions, all the arrears, we are not going to do anything, we will not be creating new arrears with this deal. By the way, even though we are authorizing less than the administration requested for contributions to international organizations, we are about $43 million above what is needed in the first place. I understand the State Department will soon announce a $28 million surplus in the fiscal year 1999 international organizations account. This would be applied to reduce the amount requested for fiscal 2000. Also, because of exchange rate gains, the request is $20 million too high, as of April 30. $7 million is requested for war crimes commissions in Iraq and Cambodia. As much as I would like to see the commissions, neither looks likely in the very near future. Finally, there is $8 million in the budget request to cover exchange rate fluctuations, but the committee bill already contains language that guards against adverse exchange rate variations. Section 801(f)(1) states: . . .there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2000 and 2001 to offset adverse fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates. I am confident we have authorized enough funds to meet our current obligations to international organizations. I understand the Senator's concern and fear. But I do not believe when we pass this authorization bill, if it were appropriated as we suggest, that we are going to be further and further behind in this process. It is true that we have not fully funded the administration's request for arrears payments to the United Nations and other international organizations. We are $95 million short of our request. As I have said, in an ideal world I would like to pay our arrears to the United Nations in full, immediately, and without condition. But I have made a judgment, and I believe the correct one, a pragmatic judgment, because I know that such a proposal has no chance of passing--``no conditions, all the money.'' In the last Congress, I asked the administration to give me a bottom line figure for arrears to the United Nations with which they could live. The administration responded with a memorandum to me which stated they were willing not to pay $68 million in arrears to UNIDO, an organization that we withdrew our membership from earlier in this decade. Their judgment is that a total of $68 million in arrears is owed to an organization in which we are not a member, and to which we have no intention of paying membership dues. They also told me they would apply an expected refund of $27 million from the U.N. to reduce our arrears. Unfortunately, that $27 million was used to reduce the fiscal year 1998 contributions because our bill got stalled in the House. Otherwise, we would have been in pretty good shape. For those who are wondering how we came up with $926 million, if we added $68 million to the $27 million and subtract that from the total of $1.021 billion we owed, then we would arrive at our figure. What we did was essentially pay the entirety of the arrearages that we thought were owed absent the $68 million they said they didn't want to pay to an organization we weren't a member of, and not contemplating the fact they have to use the $27 million because this bill got slowed up. It is true that $27 million U.N. refund has already been used and, thus, is not available for arrears. But I would note that this sum can be easily subtracted from arrears owed to the specialized U.N. agencies. Even with the $926 million provided in our plan, many of the specialized agencies will have to create or expand programs to absorb the arrears payments they are going to receive. It sounds a bit counterintuitive that a plan which is supposed to control the size of the U.N. could actually end up expanding it temporarily. That will be the short-term effect for many of the specialized agencies, if they decide to devise ways to spend the extra money that is going to be flowing in. Again, I personally would like to fully fund the administration request. I think I have outlined a solid political and substantive rationalization for providing the lower figure. Finally, I emphasize again that there is $8 million in the budget request to cover exchange rate fluctuations. The committee bill, as I said, already contains language to guard against an adverse exchange rate. It is section 801(F)1. It states: There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary in each fiscal year 2000 and 2001 to offset the adverse fluctuations of foreign exchange currency rates. I still agree with my friend from Maryland. That is, I believe the real hangup is the conditions. The truth of the matter is, we have basically paid all the arrears that we owe, that we say we owe. If you accept the administration's position that the $68 million owed to an organization we have been fighting with for 10 years, and we have been out of it for 3 or 4 years, that if we do not pay the $68 million owed--and had we not had the House stall with what Senator Helms and I put together 2 years ago, we would be at the $1.021 billion. Again, it would be better if even that were done. I am not arguing that. I almost hesitate to make the point, to be honest with my friend from Maryland, this is a fragile coalition we put together. I am not sure we would get all the Republican votes we need if we thought we were paying everything we owed. I don't want to go around making a big deal of the fact we are paying everything we think we owe, short of those two accounts, to be very blunt. I guess I shouldn't be so blunt. That is the truth of the matter, from my perspective, politically. We have done a heck of a job. I don't know whether to praise my friend or not, because my praise on this issue is probably not very helpful to him, so I won't. But let me say there has been a very good- faith effort on the part of my friend from North Carolina. This is not nearly as draconian as it sounds. Again, the single most significant thing my friend from North Carolina extracted in return for essentially paying off our arrears were the conditions that exist. The essence of the deal is, we basically paid all the arrears we say we owe, if this becomes law, if this is appropriated, in return for conditions to do things I don't disagree with my friend on, but I don't think we should have done it the way we did. I think we should have said, pay the arrears, and, by the way, from this point on, we are not going to unless these conditions persist. However, politics is the art of compromise. The Senator from North Carolina has made a significant compromise here to get us to this point. Because of his standing on his side of the aisle and, quite frankly, his standing nationally, as one who is not about to be viewed as easily taken over by the U.N., I think the mere fact that he has done this adds a credibility to the process that exceeds by far and away the dollar value that would have been accomplished, had we gotten another $95 million or thereabouts in the account. This is only the beginning of the fight. The Senator put his credibility on the line to get this done one time before. The House concluded that for reasons I will not take the time to go into now, that it would not do this. The House committee, our comparable committee, has been good on this issue. But it is a different thing when it gets to the House floor. Although we are technically halfway there, if we pass this bill today, the truth of the matter is, we are probably only about 30 percent of the way there because there are other hurdles on the House side we have to overcome. I truly appreciate the views of the Senator from Maryland, with whom I agree 100 percent. I also truly appreciate the statesmanship of my friend from North Carolina who has brought us to this point. Without him, quite frankly, this couldn't be done. That old expression we have overused, ``Only Nixon can go to China,'' only Helms could take us this far. That is literally true. That is not an exaggeration. I thank him for that. Hopefully, this is the beginning of a process that puts us in good stead, strengthens the United Nations, and makes it a more viable and tightly run organization. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield me 15 seconds?

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, in the midst of the best economy our country has ever seen, while we have understandably focused on the good news, there has been another story that has only recently begun to get the attention it deserves. Thanks to the leadership of Senator Rockefeller, Senator Byrd, and many of our other colleagues from our country's leading steel producing states, the story of American steel workers has been heard. Like so many other workers in America's core manufacturing industries, steel workers have been struggling with restructuring and modernization that has made them among the most productive in the world. But on top of the sacrifices--in jobs and job security, in pay, in benefits--they have been hit by the one-two punch of the international financial crisis over the last couple of years. On top of the lost sales overseas, where once booming developing nations are no longer able to purchase steel from the U.S., our steel workers have watched as those same developing countries have dumped their own steel products here, often below the cost of production, literally stealing American markets out from under them. So, with lost sales at home and abroad, steel workers are losing their jobs as our mills cut production and even shut down. For the tens of thousands of American workers whose jobs have been lost, whose families have been strained to the breaking point, whose communities have crumbled, this is not some abstract economic question about free trade and open markets. The question is what shall we do to help the people who, despite their hard work and sacrifice, are paying the ultimate price as the rest of us enjoy the many benefits of the new economy. The question before us today, is how to deal with the kind of economic disruption that has come from a global economy with wide-open capital markets and instantaneous communication. The current crisis in our domestic steel industry is, at its roots, a crisis of overcapacity in the steel industry on a global scale. Too many developing countries built too many new steel mills, with less concern about the long term economic sense and more interest in the kickbacks and quick bucks to be made in the short run. I believe that we have been right to respond to the recent international financial crisis by providing the IMF and the World Bank and other entities with the funds they need to put the international financial system back on its feet. But one unfortunate aspect of that process, in my mind, is that too many investors who were throwing money at ill-prepared and even corrupt developing economies will benefit from our attempts to prevent a collapse in the world economy. Today, instead of high-rolling international investors, we are asked to consider help for those American workers and their families who are victims of that international economic crisis, for which they are completely blameless. We will be adding insult to that injury if we fail to act to help them. But while I will vote for the motion to proceed to this bill, Mr. President, I could not vote for passage in its current form. We already have many anti-dumping actions underway, a time-consuming and sometimes frustrating process to be sure, but a process designed to guarantee that we hit what we are shooting at--it requires evidence of who is dumping what kind of steel, and what the real economic damage is. We should continue to pursue those actions as quickly and as relentlessly as the law allows. Just last week, the Senate passed legislation, brought before us by Senator Byrd, that provides $1 billion for the steel industry in loan guarantees to help them deal with the current crisis. These actions are significant steps in the right direction, and they don't have the unintended consequences that the bill before us brings with it. Quotas on imported steel violate one of our oldest and most basic commitments to the international trading system we have worked so long to create. That system, for the most part, has been a key part of our current economic success. If we impose unilateral quotas on other countries' steel exports-- without showing any specific illegal practices or any direct economic damages--we will seriously weaken our leadership in international trade when we are fighting so hard to open other markets to our products. Chief among those products are our agricultural products, Mr. President, but virtually all of our exports are exposed to a trade war with other countries if we respond to the very real problems of our domestic steel industry by unilaterally imposing quotas. That does not mean we cannot and should not do more to protect American steel mills and steel workers from the unfair and illegal trade practices of other countries. But I hope if we can proceed to a real debate on this issue that we can formulate a more effective way to right the wrong that has been done to them.

Mr. BIDEN. Reserving the right to object, I ask the Senator to withhold that request. I know he was doing it as a favor. I appreciate it very much, but two things intervened in the last 5 minutes. I ask him to withhold that unanimous consent request for now.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. I suggest the Senator start, and if no one is here to speak on the steel bill, while he is still speaking, we might be able to ask consent for him to continue. Otherwise, he can pick up afterward.

Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I will ask that the Senator be able to proceed after we vote on the cloture motion to proceed to the steel bill during the party caucus recess.

Mr. BIDEN. Yes. What we do not want to do is hold up the Holbrooke hearing. We will ask unanimous consent that Senator Dodd have 15 minutes and that the Senator from Iowa have possibly another 10, 15 minutes during the period of the party caucuses in order to meet the deadline of the Holbrooke hearing at 2:30 p.m., which we have been fighting to get for a year and a half. That is the objective. Obviously, the regular order is to move to steel. Unless my steel colleagues are willing to yield the Senator from Iowa 15 minutes now, which he can request, I know of no other alternative. The Senator might ask.