Joe Biden

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate has passed S. 1525, the ``Public Safety Officers Educational Assistance Act of 1998.'' Last congress, the Senate passed the ``Federal Law Enforcement Dependents Assistance Act''--led by Senators Specter and Kohl and co- sponsored by myself and nearly every member of the Judiciary Committee. This law provides for the education of the spouse and dependent children of federal law enforcement officers who die or are totally disabled in the line of duty. The purpose of the legislation was to remove a significant financial burden from the families of these deceased officers and to allow them to continue on the educational path they would have followed had their parent or spouse not been killed in the line of duty. Last fall, about 30 young men and women were able to go to college under this program. Unfortunately, this program is only available to the children of federal law enforcement officers. The Public Safety Officers Educational Assistance Act, which Senator Specter and I introduced last year, extends these same educational benefits to the dependents of all public safety officers--in other words, not just federal--but also state, county and local law enforcement officers, and fire and rescue personnel--who have given their lives in the line of duty. Under this bill, the Attorney General will administer a program which will provide up to $4,485 per child, per year to attend a 4-year college. This is the same amount of educational assistance the federal government provides to veterans. The Justice Department estimates the total cost for this year to be about $300,000. What is more, the Justice Department already has the funds to pay for this $300,000 within their current budget--so we will not need any additional appropriations. It is critical that we remember the families of those officers who have made the ultimate sacrifice to keep our streets and homes safe. This bill is intended to allow the dependents of public safety officers to continue with their education as they would have been able to do had their parent not been killed or totally disabled in the line of duty.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate has passed the House companion legislation--H.R. 3565--to S. 1985 the ``Care for Police Survivors Act of 1998'', which I introduced along with Senators Hatch, Leahy, DeWine and Sessions. This week we celebrate National Police Week. As we honor those who protect us, it is important that we remember those who have fallen in the line of duty. However, more than mere remembrance is necessary. We must work to ensure that the loved ones these officers leave behind are comforted and assisted in every way. The Care for Police Survivors Act does just that. This legislation modifies the Public Safety Officers Death Benefit program, which--as my colleagues know--establishes national programs that counsel and assist the families of slain police officers. The purpose of the Care for Police Survivors Act, which the House of Representatives passed overwhelmingly (403-8), is to enhance these national programs. It does so by directing more funds to these programs that counsel and support these families in the aftermath of tragedy. Under current law, these counseling programs have a ceiling of $150,000, this bill changes this to a floor of $150,000. Mr. President, I have long been concerned about the plight of families of public safety officers killed in the line of duty--last year, Senator Specter and I introduced the Public Safety Officers Educational Assistance Act which provides for the education of the spouse and dependent children of law enforcement officers who die or are totally disabled in the line of duty. In that vein, this legislation offers assurance to those in the public safety profession-- and even to those considering service as public safety officers--that there is a well established support system in place to comfort and assist their families and loved ones in the event that they die in the line of duty. Mr. President, it is critical that we not only remember, but offer real help to the families of those police officers who have made the ultimate sacrifice to keep our streets and homes safe.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I commend my colleagues for their hard work on this legislation--which implements the two world intellectual property organization copyright treaties adopted by the 1996 Geneva diplomatic conference. As is the practice on such intellectual property matters, we are first seeking to pass the implementing legislation. This, I believe, will pave the way for the Foreign Relations Committee--and the full senate--to ratify the treaties, which the administration submitted last July. The WIPO treaties and the implementing legislation will update intellectual property law to deal with the explosion of the Internet and other forms of electronic communications. Delegates from the United States and 160 other member nations agreed to give authors of ``literary and artistic works,'' including books, computer programs, films, and sound recordings, the exclusive right to sell or otherwise make their work available to the public. The treaties give tougher international protection to software makers and the recording industry--the U.S. Government's biggest goal. The U.S. wanted--and got--tough international protection for sound recordings in order to stop pirating of music compact discs overseas. The treaties protect literary and artistic works from digital copying, but do not make it illegal to use the Internet in the normal way. To give a concrete example of what passage and implementation of the WIPO treaties will mean--before the treaty it was illegal to photocopy the contents of an entire book or copy a videotape without permission, but it was not clear whether it was illegal to e-mail copies of a digital book or movie to 500 friends all over the world. Passage of this bill and the WIPO treaties will ensure that both will be illegal-- both domestically and overseas. I am pleased that this bill contains provisions to clarify the actions Internet service providers--as well as libraries and educational institutions--will be legally required to take when confronted with evidence of copyright violations by users of their services. I am also pleased that this bill contains language intended to preserve the ability of consumer electronics manufacturers--and computer manufacturers and software developers--to continue research and development of innovative devices and hardware products. These provisions in my view strike an appropriate balance between the rights of copyright holders and the need to encourage continuing expansion of access to digital information to greater numbers of users throughout the world. Therefore, I commend my Judiciary Committee colleagues for their hard work on this bill and I look forward to its passage by the Congress. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I will be necessarily brief because I have over the years learned to count, and I do not believe I have the votes for this amendment, but I want to make two relatively brief points. First of all, in 1970, the Congress greatly assisted the fight against organized crime by adopting the Racketeering Influence and Corruption Organizations Act. We know it as RICO. RICO included a private civil enforcement provision with enhanced penalties, including triple damages for racketeering behavior in furtherance of a criminal enterprise engaged in certain, what they call predicate offenses, including murder, arson, bribery, wire fraud, bankruptcy fraud, and securities fraud--securities fraud. At the request of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the industry, though against the wishes of law enforcement and State regulators, in 1995, the Securities Litigation Act effectively eliminated securities fraud as a grounds for private civil RICO proceedings. Many of us disagreed with carving out the securities fraud for special status, Mr. President, and protection from application of the civil RICO statute. In fact, my amendment was intended to preserve many civil RICO securities fraud claims and was accepted last time by the full Senate. Unfortunately, it was dropped in committee. Last November, the Federal grand jury in Manhattan indicted 19 individuals, including two reputed mob chieftains known as ``Rossi'' and ``Curly,'' for their role in the alleged plot to manipulate a thinly traded stock, so-called penny stocks, and for threatening brokers to drive up the prices. There is an article that was published that says ``The Mob on Wall Street.'' I ask unanimous consent that an except from this article be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

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

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, they are not talking about legitimate traders; they are talking about the mob's attempt to infiltrate Wall Street. It seems to me for us to carve out of the original legislation an exemption from RICO predicate statutes securities fraud is a serious mistake. But it would also be a serious mistake for me to push this issue without the votes at this point, because I realize there is an attempt to bring this legislation to a close. I think it is bad legislation generally. I think it is a serious mistake to have done this, but I also have been here long enough, as I said, to be able to know where the votes are. I withdraw the amendment.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I opposed the 1995 Securities Litigation Act for several reasons--including the precedent-setting changes to this country's judicial system without the input of the Judiciary Committee. I support the Sarbanes amendment for similar reasons--relating both to procedure, and to substance. In the past, bills that made changes to the rules that govern citizen's access to State courts were referred to the Judiciary Committee, to enable the committee with expertise to review and work on the legislation. While my colleagues on the Banking Committee had the opportunity to examine the specific, substantive changes this bill would make to our Nation's securities laws, it seems to me that we have once again skipped a very important step in the process. The securities litigation bill we are considering on the floor today pre-empts State court statutes of limitations in securities fraud cases--and yet again the Judiciary Committee was not given the opportunity to examine the issue. In 1991, the Supreme Court significantly shortened the statute of limitations for Federal securities fraud actions--to the shorter of 3 years after the fraud occurs or 1 year after it is discovered. Then-SEC Chairman Richard Breeden called the new time limit ``unrealistically short.'' But, S. 1260 would compound the problem by applying the Federal time limit to State actions removed to Federal court--even though it is shorter than the time limit applicable to actions in 33 of the 50 States. This bill would not only leave investors without State court remedies when brokers and dealers make fraudulent statements when selling corporate stock--but it would also tell them that they need only conceal their fraud for 3 years before being absolved of responsibility in Federal court as well. And the new time limit will apply even though the 1995 Securities Litigation Act raised the standard investors must meet to win a class action suit--you now have to prove a falsehood was made with clear intent to deceive. That's incredibly tough to prove. I will admit, some frivolous lawsuits are filed. And some lawyers do make too much from a suit--leaving defrauded investors too little. But, immunizing Wall Street professionals who can successfully hide their lies for 3 years is not the answer. I support the Sarbanes amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same. We should protect the small investor--not let white collar criminals go unpunished.

Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield? I believe a unanimous-consent agreement had room for me to offer an amendment at sometime, and I intend on doing that, although I will not ask for a rollcall vote. I will be a very good boy if you listen for 5 minutes, and then I will withdraw the amendment.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Michigan. Mr. President, there are good ideas and bad ideas. There are timely ideas and untimely ones. Whatever our views on a nation-wide ballistic missile defense, S. 1873 is both bad and untimely. I urge my colleagues--on both sides of the aisle--to look closely at this bill and ask whether we should really be spending our time on it. Once they consider its implications we can reject cloture and get back to real work. What would it mean to make it U.S. policy ``to deploy as soon as is technologically possible an effective National Missile Defense system capable of defending the territory of the United States against limited ballistic missile attack (whether accidental, unauthorized, or deliberate)''? For starters, we would have to deploy a national missile defense even if broke the bank, the budget agreement, and the U.S. economy. And it might do just that, especially if the bill is interpreted as requiring defense of U.S. territories in addition to every square inch of the 50 states. This bill would also require deployment before we know the precise nature of the threat--indeed, before we are actually threatened by any strategic missiles other than Russia's and China's, which have posed that threat for years. That raises the distinct risk that we would deploy the wrong defense for the real threats we may someday face. Worse yet, we would spend the taxpayer's hard-earned money on the first technology, rather than the best technology. And the first technology may not stop missiles with penetration aids, which Russia and others already have. In addition, by putting pressure on the Pentagon to deploy the first feasible technology, this bill will very likely worsen what General Welch's panel recently called a ``rush to failure.'' Yesterday's fifth consecutive test failure with one of our theater defense missiles is a reminder of how difficult it is to develop any middle defense. Opting to deploy the first system that looks feasible is simply not a prescription for success. Worst of all, this bill does not require--or even permit-- consideration of negative consequences resulting from deployment. Will the march to deployment destroy the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty? Too bad. That's precisely what some of our colleagues want. Will the adoption of this objective torpedo implementation of START II and block any further reduction of strategic missiles or nuclear warheads? Too bad, again. Some people find ``star wars'' an easier solution than the hard, patient work of reducing great power armaments and stabilizing our forces. Will renunciation of the ABM Treaty and the START process lead to a collapse of the Non-Proliferation Treaty? That is a real risk. But once again, too bad. Do not focus on the Non-Proliferation Treaty's failings, and overlook its successes. What would the world be like if the countries that have stopped short of developing nuclear weapons were to give up on the commitment of the nuclear powers to reduce their forces? Would we really be safer if all those other countries were to go nuclear? That is a real risk, if we march willy-nilly to deploy a national missile defense. Remember: when Egypt developed a better defense against Israeli attack on its forces, it was able to mount an offensive attack in the Yom Kippur War. The same thing applies to a national missile defense. We may see it as a defense. But the rest of the world will see it as a second-strike defense that enables us to mount first- strike nuclear attacks. Some day, we may really need a nation-wide ballistic missile defense. That is why the Defense Department is pursuing the 3+3 policy of finding a technology that would permit deployment within three years of determining that there was a serious threat on the horizon. Some of my colleagues truly believe that we can't wait for that, and I respect their views--although I respectfully believe that they are wrong. Others may be frustrated because they feel the President is trying to steal their issue. ``Life is unfair,'' as another Democrat once said. But frustration and distrust do not make for good policy. And the policy that this bill would establish is simply too much, too soon. Let's get behind 3+3--make it effective, rather than forcing the Defense Department into an even more unrealistic schedule. Sensible policy on ballistic missile defense is perfectly feasible. But S. 1873 isn't it. Let's stop wasting the Senate's time with it. Mr. President, I am confused as the devil what my friends from Mississippi, Virginia, and others are doing here. Again, there are good ideas, there are bad ideas, there are timely ideas and untimely ideas. This is a bad, untimely idea. I truly am confused. No. 1, we don't have any system that works. No. 2, there is no clear analysis of what the threat is that we are going to defend against. That usually goes hand in hand. We say we are going to build a system and here is the threat. My friend, the senior Senator from Virginia, says, ``Well, you know, the threat may come from terrorist organizations or from specific rogue countries and single-warhead systems.'' Fine, that is one kind of system. My friend, the junior Senator from Virginia, stands up and points out, if we come up with a missile defense system for a single warhead that is able to be dealt with, do you think the Chinese are not going to sit there and say, ``You know, by golly, we're not going to build any MIRV'd warheads, we're not going to do that''? Right now they may not do that. It is clearly against their interests. We have this treaty with the Russians, the former Soviet Union, to do away with all multiple warhead missiles because we know they are so pernicious. This will encourage the Chinese to move. No. 1, we don't have an analysis of a threat. No. 2, my conservative friends, who are all budget-conscious guys, like we all are here, have no notion what the cost will be. They are ready to sign on and say, ``Deploy. As soon as we find it, deploy it. If it breaks the budget deal, if it causes a deficit, if it breaks the bank, deploy.'' No. 3, the idea that the ABM Treaty may or may not be impacted upon by this seems to be of no consequence. And No. 4, my friend, the senior Senator from Virginia, and others stood up on the floor when we were dealing with NATO expansion and said, ``Joe, Joe, Joe, the Russians, let's worry about how the Russians are going to think about being isolated; let's worry about how this could impact on Russia. Look, Joe, if you go ahead and do this and expand, what's going to happen is that all arms control agreements are going to come to a screeching halt.'' Well, let me tell you something. You want to make sure they come to a screeching halt? Pass this, pass this beauty. This will be doing it real well. Bang. All of a sudden, the Duma saying, ``Now look, we are going to commit to go to START II, which means we have no multiple warhead weapons, which means we're only going to go to single warhead weapons, which means that, by the way, the U.S. Senate''--and they think we are even smarter than we think we are--``the U.S. Senate just said, `Go ahead and deploy as soon as you have a feasible system.' '' Now, what do you think those good old boys in the Duma are going to do? They are going to say, ``You know, let's continue to destroy our multiple warhead weapons. The only thing we know for sure, these guys can't stop.'' Look, what is viewed as good for somebody is viewed as poison for other people on occasion. And let me point out to you, we are sitting here thinking--and we mean it--that what we want to do is we are going to defend the American people. And we do. But you sit there on the other side of the ocean, the other side of the world, and say, ``These guys, these Americans, the only people, by the way, who ever did drop an atomic weapon, these guys are building a system that is going to render them impervious to being hit by nuclear weapons. We think they are building that system for a second-strike capability. They can affirmatively strike us knowing they can't be struck back.'' Now, don't you think the guys that don't like us might think that? Don't you think that might cross their minds as reasonable planners? And what are we doing this for? What are we doing this for? We have no technology that works now. We are spending $3 billion a year, which I support, on theater and national missile defense research--$3 billion a year. I am for it. We should not get behind the curve so there is a breakout. But to deploy as soon as feasible? So I have only come to one conclusion here, Mr. President. This has to do with either trying to get rid of ABM, which is one of the reasons why some of my friends on the right think it is a bad idea or, No. 2, the President stole the march on the missile defense from them and they are not going to let it happen. This makes no sense. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I will not take the time of the Senate to respond to all the Senator said. We have rehashed a lot of those things. I will just note that a 59-41 vote--I have been here a long time and I never thought that was a close vote. But let me say with regard to only one point, because a lot is not rehashed and lacking consequence, but we have debated it a lot. One point was raised that is new, and I thought it would be raised by someone. The Senator from Iowa has just repeated the oft-heard assertion that the United States promised Gorbachev during negotiations on German unification that we would not expand NATO. This is an important assertion. It is also historically incorrect. Since opponents of NATO enlargement have taken to repeating this assertion as if it were true--most recently in a full-page advertisement in the New York Times, which contained other striking factual errors--I think it is imperative to set the record straight. Both Robert Zoellick, a senior State Department and later White House official in the Bush Administration who drafted the famous ``Two-Plus- Four'' Agreement with the Russians in 1990, Eduard Shevardnadze, the current President of Georgia who was then Soviet Foreign Minister, have both made clear the no such promise was ever made. There is nothing in the ``Two-Plus-Four'' Agreement about NATO expansion. There is no secret addendum to the ``Two-Plus-Four'' Agreement. U.S. Secretary of State James Baker did make a comment ``not one step further east,'' which has been intentionally or unintentionally misinterpreted as having precluded NATO enlargement. In actuality, according to Mr. Zoellick, the drafter of the agreement, this remark was related to what would be the status of U.S. forces if a united Germany were part of NATO. That is, there would be no permanent stationing of American troops east of Germany, a position which did become official NATO policy as enunciated by the well-known statement of the North Atlantic Council on March 14, 1997: In the current and foreseeable security environment, the alliance will carry out its collective defense and other missions by ensuring the necessary interoperability, integration and capability for reinforcement rather than by additional permanent stationing of substantial combat forces. In fact, with possible NATO enlargement in mind, Zoellick made sure that the ``Two-Plus-Four'' Agreement did not foreclose the possibility of forces transiting Germany to reinforce Poland. The September 12, 1990 Treaty precluded stationing NATO-integrated German forces on the territory of the former German Democratic Republic (i.e. East Germany) until after the withdrawal of Soviet forces. These agreements explicitly did not apply to the rest of Europe. Any agreement on the future security arrangements of other European countries would have been inappropriate, since such countries were not part of the talks. Mr. President, lest anyone believe that this is one-sided American historical analysis, I would like to quote from an article in The Reuter European Community Report of February 13, 1997 entitled ``West Made No Pledge to Moscow, NATO Told'': Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze told NATO this week that the West did not offer Moscow any guarantees about the alliance's future during talks over German unification in 1990... ...Shevardnadze's comments, made to NATO Secretary General Javier Solana during a meeting in Tbilisi on Wednesday, contradict Russian claims that NATO's enlargement plans represent broken promises by the West. Shevardnadze, who was Soviet foreign minister when Moscow cut the deal in 1990 with Western powers opening the way for unification, told Solana that the talks only concerned Germany... President Shevardnadze told the secretary general that during those two-plus-four-talks, no guarantees had been given concerning NATO enlargement... Mr. President, the striking fact that the chief negotiators of German unification on both the Soviet and the American side have made categorical denials that any assurances were given about NATO enlargement should lay this specious claim to rest.

Mr. BIDEN. I see no purpose for this amendment. I hope my colleagues will view it the same way. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I will be very, very brief. This is a rerun of the amendment by my distinguished friend from Virginia, Senator Warner. This is a means by which to artificially delay any new decision relative to new entrants. We already have the strategic concept that contemplated and reflected the changes that took place in 1991. You all voted 90 to 6 last night on the amendment of the Senator from Arizona, Senator Kyl, laying out in detail what must be taken into consideration by the United States of America to sign on any new strategic concept. This is, in fact, not necessary. It is not needed, and it is an unnecessary delay. So I am prepared--if my colleague will yield the remainder of his time, I will yield the remainder of mine and I am ready to vote. I urge you all to vote no.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BIDEN. Ashcroft.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. At the conclusion of this vote, the regular order would be to return to the Ashcroft amendment; is that correct?

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I now move to table the Ashcroft amendment, and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I call for the regular order with respect to amendment 2318, the Ashcroft amendment.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. I urge its adoption by voice.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Do we need to vitiate the yeas and nays? I move to vitiate the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. BIDEN. Amendment 2065, as modified.

Mr. BIDEN. I urge adoption of the amendment. Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am satisfied, and I will send to the desk, if I may, with the permission of the chairman, a modification that has been agreed to by Senator Stevens and myself. On behalf of Senator Stevens, I ask that a modification to amendment No. 2065 be sent to the desk. This adds one word to the amendment which I have cleared with Senator Stevens and with Chairman Helms. I want to state my understanding about this amendment before we adopt it, which I have also cleared with the Senator from Alaska. First, this amendment does not affect the Partnership for Peace Program. Second, I understand this to mean that NATO cannot incur NATO expansion costs for which the United States would be obligated to pay except through NATO's common-funded budgets unless specifically authorized by law. And with those understandings, the amendment, as modified, is perfectly acceptable to me.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, for months and weeks and days, we have listened to the intellectual exchange, the foreign policy considerations, the financial impact and what effect what we are about to do will have on bilateral-multilateral relations of the United States with other nations. That gave a context for this debate. My friend from Maryland showed us the soul of this debate. I am proud to have been on the floor to hear her at this moment make the statement she made. Not only is it historically accurate, but it reflects the wave of emotion that tens of millions of Americans of Polish descent are feeling at this moment. I would like to say something that is going to make her very angry. I would like our colleagues to consider that when we get to 67--we are going to cast our votes from our seat; I don't know if it is possible; it has never been done before--I think she should have the honor of casting the 67th vote for this treaty. I don't know mechanically how to do that. But you have no idea how much this means to her. You have no idea how much this means to millions of people like my colleague from Maryland. I don't know how to work this out, but I am going to try, with the Democratic and Republican staff, to figure out whether there is a way we can officially record that my friend from Maryland was the 67th vote cast to take care of a historic inequity that her grandmother brought as a burden to this country and she as a Senator will help end.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 5 minutes prior to the vote in opposition, if we choose to use it.