Joe Biden

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Reserving the right to object, the minority leader staff tells me we have to check with other Senators on this side who may want to speak to this amendment, but why do we not proceed. I would object for the moment, but hopefully I can resolve this very quickly.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the Lugar amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I will be very brief. The amendment I have sent to the desk does a simple thing. It maintains the current cap on the amount that the United States contributes to the United Nations peacekeeping missions. It keeps it at 27.1 percent for the next 2 years. For those who may be watching, they may wonder what that is all about. When a peacekeeping mission gets sent overseas, authorized by the United Nations, the countries in question have a prior assessment as to how much they are going to pay, usually based on the size of their countries and the size of their economies, and it has been agreed to by us that the appropriate figure for the United States to chip in is 27.1 percent. So if it costs $1 million for peacekeeping, our share would be $271,000, and so on. Let me briefly explain the history of the law and what this does to the Lugar amendment. In 1994, Congress unilaterally limited what we would pay for the peacekeeping endeavors of the United Nations. We said we will no longer pay any more than 25 percent. I believe at the time we were paying 31 percent. That is what the previous administrations had agreed to. That is what the U.N. was assessing us, 31 percent. We said in 1994: No, no, we are not going to pay any more than 25 percent. What happened was, we never negotiated that rate with the United Nations. We unilaterally stated that. We did not go back to the U.N. and say: Look, we want to reconfigure how much we are paying. We want to go down from 31 percent, which we had been paying, to 25 percent. It never occurred, and the U.N. continued to bill us at 31 percent. So if a peacekeeping mission was $1 million--and none are as cheap as $1 million--we were getting billed $310,000 and we only agreed to pay $250,000. So we were in arrears of $60,000. The bill that my former colleague Jesse Helms and I did in the late 1990s to clear up what the United States allegedly owed--everybody used to call it dues, but it was more than dues. This peacekeeping is part of what people euphemistically refer to as dues. The accumulated obligation that we owed to the United Nations, although somewhat in dispute, was a little over $1 billion. Senator Helms, and many others, when he was chairman of the committee, argued that we should not be paying any of this; we did not owe any of these arrears. Senator Helms, after conferring with his trusted aide who has passed away, the Staff Director for the Foreign Relations Committee, Admiral Bud Nance, when he realized a lot of this was owed to some of our friends such as Great Britain, Europe, and others, he said I did not realize that; OK, we should pay that amount we owe. But in the process Senator Helms, Senator Lugar, myself, and many others also thought there should be reforms that should take place in the United Nations. In addition to settling this arrears question, we wrote a much larger bill that required some changes and commitments on the part of the United Nations as well. In the process of doing that, Senator Helms agreed and the Helms-Biden legislation said we would only pay at 25 percent. The Ambassador to the United Nations at the time was Richard Holbrooke. Richard Holbrooke, who was in negotiation with the United Nations to try to get them to agree that we would only pay 25 percent and that they would agree with that beyond us unilaterally asserting it, worked out an agreement that said the United Nations agreed we would only pay 27 percent. I know what I am talking about sounds arcane, but it is real money. Senator Helms and I said: OK, close enough. And we agreed to amend the Helms-Biden law to let these arrearage payments flow. What we never did was repeal the underlying law that was passed in the Congress, signed by the President in 1994, that said we would pay no more than 25 percent. The underlying law in 1994 was never repealed. In 2002, because these arrearages are running up again, the difference between 25 percent and what the U.N. thought we owed and what we had been paying at the 27 percent, we put in a provision in the law, a 3-year amendment that amended the 1994 law putting a ceiling on our payments at 27, not 25, percent through the year 2004. Last year, we came up against this issue again, and the Appropriations Committee, because we were unable to get our bill passed, extended the 27-percent number through calendar year 2005. So if nothing else is done now, the 1994 law kicks back in, and our maximum payment drops from 27 percent to 25 percent, and we are back in the same old tangle of building up arrearages of whatever the 2-percent difference would be every year that we thought we solved initially. So we need to address this issue. We do not want to get into this fight again. The U.N. peacekeepers perform critical functions in the area of conflict and instability around the world. They monitor cease-fires, human rights conditions, clearing minefields, disarming combatants, providing humanitarian assistance, and organizing and observing elections, which all costs money. The U.N. peacekeeping missions have become increasingly critical in the past year as authorizing missions that support U.S. policy objectives for stabilization in Burundi, Haiti, and other places, as well as an operation to Sudan which will begin to deploy in the upcoming weeks. Through missions such as these, the United States contributes to international peace and stability while sharing the cost of doing so with other nations. Therefore, it is my view that we need to continue to pay our U.N. peacekeeping bill, the one negotiated by Holbrooke, particularly at this point in time when we are asking for and need U.N. cooperation on issues such as democracy building in Iraq, post-tsunami disaster relief in Indonesia, and other areas. I remind my colleagues, and I am in no way being critical of my chairman, the bill we reported out of the Foreign Relations Committee corrected the problem. It said we are lifting the 25-percent cap passed in 1994, and we are doing it permanently. What the chairman of the committee is doing is introducing an amendment saying: I guess, on second thought, I do not like that idea very much. I want to now go back and amend what passed 18 to 0 and say we are going back to the 25- percent level. I know that is complicated for all the Members, but the bottom line is my amendment does what the President's budget request proposed. I want to do it permanently, but the President said keep it at 27 percent for another 2 years. That is what the President requested. That is what I am attempting to amend the Lugar amendment with. If I prevail, the President's position prevails. We no longer go in arrearages, and we put off another 2 years reckoning with the underlying problem. I see my colleague from Maryland is in the Chamber. With the permission of the Senator from Indiana, I would be happy to yield to him on this point. There is a time agreement. I do not know how much of my time I have used, but I am sure we could accommodate the Senator for the time he wants.

Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield briefly?

Mr. BIDEN. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BIDEN. I realize I have no more time. I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes off the time of the Senator from Indiana.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, very briefly, necessarily, the administration has not asked for any latitude. The administration is quite clear. They came up and said there is nothing we are trying to negotiate on 27 percent for dues. They didn't ask for that. Speaking to the Secretary of State, I asked her about Assistant Secretary Bolton, nominee for the United Nations post. She assured me he shares the administration's view. The administration's view was sent to me in writing. It said we ask you to extend for 2 more years at the 27-percent number. There may be negotiation in the future. But as recently as an hour ago--although this was not the subject matter, in my discussions with the Secretary of State--no reference was made by me to anyone in the administration that they were desirous of having a stronger negotiation in hand by keeping this at 25 percent. So it may turn out to be that. The administration's statement says-- this is Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, date April 5, 2005: Section 401 makes permanent the 27.1 percent United Nations peacekeeping rate, which is not consistent with the Administration's request for a two year extension. So they are asking for a 2-year extension. They didn't want to make it permanent, but they asked for 2 years. That is the only point I want to make.

Mr. BIDEN. My amendment does exactly what the administration asks. I thank the Senator for the additional 2 minutes. Parliamentary inquiry: Tomorrow the vote is set for 10, and I believe the Senator from Delaware will have 2 or 3 minutes before the vote? I thank my colleague. I yield the floor. I see our friends are on the floor to debate another substantive issue, and I thank the Chair.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, to govern is to choose. Nowhere are our priorities and our values made clearer than in the budgets we write here every year. In these times, we face many tough choices. This budget ducks them all. It chooses the powerful over those without a voice. It chooses to reward wealth instead of work. It chooses the present over the future. It chooses debt and borrowing over sound finance. This budget rejects the very rules that brought our budget into balance just a few years ago. It ducks our duty to take responsibility for our choices, and sends the bill to our children and grandchildren. I will vote against this budget, and I urge my colleagues to reject it, too. Just 4 years ago we were considering the first budget of the new Bush administration. At that time, we could look forward to a decade of budget surpluses, totaling $5.6 trillion. We were paying down the national debt, and with every dollar accumulating in surplus, we were making our future stronger. Social Security funds were not being spent, as they are today, to fund the other functions of Government. Interest payments on the debt were shrinking, not growing. With the impending retirement of the Baby Boom generation, with the need to educate and train a workforce to take on the world of the 21st Century, we were doing the right thing--saving for challenges we could see coming. But instead of seeing those surpluses as an opportunity to get our house in order, instead of increasing our national savings by paying down the debt, the incoming administration insisted on a course that has resulted in the most dramatic reversal in our Nation's finances in our history. The record at that time is full of warnings that tax cuts of that magnitude would make it difficult, if not impossible, to meet the known challenges ahead, much less any surprises that history could throw at us. We were assured that the surpluses had to go, that we had all the money we needed to deal with recession, national security threats, natural disasters--anything we might have to face. We would be able to balance the budget, put money away for the surge in retirees, and meet every threat and challenge. A lot of us did not buy it. The record is full of warnings about the long-term damage of massive tax cuts without regard for our future obligations. But those tax cuts were passed. And more tax cuts followed every year, in time of economic boom, in time of recession, in peacetime, in wartime, when our budget was in surplus, and increasingly, as our budget deficits grew. Regardless of the situation, regardless of the facts, more tax cuts. In the face of all the challenges we face, we are now running our Government on a level of revenue not seen since the 1950s. A 21st Century superpower, on a 1950s budget. By the time they expire, the tax cuts we have put into law over the last 4 years will cost almost $2 trillion. But we will be asked to extend those cuts past their expiration. Not to do so, we are told, would be a tax increase. But those expiration dates were chosen to make the tax cuts look smaller. Extending those cuts will raise the total cost to over $5 trillion through 2015. That should cause serious people to stop and think. We are now engaged in an open-ended global war on terror, in a shooting war and reconstruction in Iraq. Security challenges from domestic threats to nuclear proliferation will continue to demand additional resources. Medicare and Medicaid are facing real crises, driven by an aging population and rising health care costs. Social Security has a long term funding problem that will have to be confronted, the sooner the better. As the global economy brings billions of new workers and customers into its scope, our country is in a real fight to protect and create good-paying jobs. That means strengthening our schools and universities, increasing research and innovation, investing in 21st Century infrastructure. All of that takes money. This budget chooses to ignore those priorities. In fact, it cuts the resources we need to meet those challenges. But it does not touch a dime of the $5 trillion the tax cuts will cost if they are all extended. Not a moment's pause, not a penny reconsidered. The President constantly reminds us that the world has changed profoundly in the past four years. That is true. He tells us that we face unprecedented challenges. That is also true. But his budget, the budget before us today, ignores those truths. It continues the most reckless budget policies I have seen in my 30 years in the Senate. Those policies have taken us from the strongest fiscal position we have known to the brink of the abyss. There is no way under these policies that we will ever get out of debt again. We are now debating the most basic priorities of our Government. The budget document we will vote on today will be the statement of this Senate on what we value, and what I we do not value. I am sorry to say that the most basic premise of this budget, is wrong. This budget protects tax cuts for those who need them least, and cuts the health care, housing, and education of those who need the most. It protects the largest tax cuts in our history, in the face of the largest deficits we have ever seen. The priorities in this budget are wrong. I do not think they are the priorities of the vast majority of people in this country. I know that they are not my priorities. Time and again during the week of debate, we have tried to provide funding for some priorities, and to reduce the money going to others. During this debate, I offered an amendment to restore money for the COPS program that has put 100,000 policemen on the streets of our country. To cover those costs, I proposed closing loopholes used by corporations who move overseas to avoid paying taxes. But that amendment was voted down. Cops versus corporate tax breaks. Cops lose. I voted to provide money for our veterans' health care, so sorely needed in these times. To pay for that, I was ready to close tax those tax loopholes. That amendment was voted down. Veterans versus corporate tax breaks. Veterans lose. I voted to increase funding for first responders, our first line of defense against terrorism here at home. It was paid for by closing those loopholes. That amendment was rejected. Fighting terrorism versus corporate tax breaks. First responders lose. I voted restore money for our national passenger rail system that carries 25 million people a year, for which not a dime has been put into this budget. But that amendment was voted down. Passenger rail versus corporate tax breaks. Passenger rail loses. These and many other examples reveal the real priorities of this budget. Nothing makes that clearer than the outright rejection of the kind of common sense budget rules that helped us balance the budget during the 1990s. Facing deficits of historical size, with no end in sight, most folks would consider it just common sense to set up some rules to rein this problem in. If you want to cut taxes, then cut spending to match. If you want to increase spending, you have to raise taxes to match. Pay-as-you-go rules would require us to make tough choices, to take responsibility for our choices, and not just add to the mountains of debt we will dump on our children. But not only does this budget reject those rules, it actually makes it easier to go deeper into debt, by protecting tax cuts, in time of record deficits. Senator Feingold and Senator Carper both offered amendments to correct that, and both amendments were rejected. This budget is not just irresponsible, it is openly hostile to any attempt to make us live within our means. This budget fails to address our most basic needs in these difficult times. It ducks our responsibility to pay for our own decisions. It does not reflect our Nation's priorities. I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting it.

Mr. BIDEN. We can check the Record. Let's vote.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, my amendment restores $1 billion for local law enforcement, three big programs that have essentially been zeroed out, the COPS Program, the law enforcement block grants. Four years ago we spent $2.3 billion helping local law enforcement. It is down to $118 million. My friend from New Hampshire said we are going to prove we can end the program. Let us pick one that is not working to end. This one works. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk, which I do not have in my hand, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I only have a few minutes. I consider this, as my colleagues might guess--in all my years working on this, I sound a little like a broken record, but this amendment restores money for local law enforcement. I want to make a stark point. In the past, we had an opportunity to deal with actually affecting violent crime. The way we did that was we passed a COPS bill that did a simple thing. It put more cops on the street in the Nation's cities and rural communities. It had a funny effect, a profound effect. Violent crime dropped on average 8 percent per year since the bill passed in 1994. We began to struggle with this concept and this notion even after the former Attorney General said the crime bill has worked miraculously, and then announced the administration was eliminating the funding for the COPS Program. In that process, we went from spending over $400 million on hiring additional cops at the local level--not we, but local law enforcement, local mayors, local town councils, local State police hired more cops, and in the year 2001 we spent over $400 million on hiring new cops. That number is now down to zero in this budget. All of my colleagues know, notwithstanding the fact they may subscribe to this notion of devolution of Government, meaning the Federal Government should not do anything the States can do, they have not only decimated the program that allows for hiring of law enforcement agencies locally but they have eliminated the big three, the COPS Program, the local law enforcement block grants, and the Byrne grants. Total support for local law enforcement from the Federal Government has gone down from $2.2 billion we were sending to local law enforcement in the year 2002 to $118 million this year. Will someone on this floor tell me how that possibly makes sense? Local law enforcement is facing what I would call the perfect storm. First, the FBI has been taken out of local law enforcement. The FBI accounted for somewhere between 2 and 10 percent of all the enforcement done at the local level, depending on the jurisdiction, for bank robberies, interstate auto theft, and a whole range of other issues. But necessarily, the FBI has been taken out of that and put in counterterrorism. Violent crime task forces are gone. The Federal arm has been withdrawn. Secondly, of the 46 or so major police agencies in the United States of America, 27 of them have had to cut the number of cops they have. In New York, it is 3,400 cops down; Cleveland, 250; Minneapolis, 140; New Orleans, 100. There are some 3,373 pending applications for additional cops from 3,373 jurisdictions in America, totaling well over a request for more than 10,000 additional law enforcement officers. What is the last part of this perfect storm? The last part in the perfect storm is that State and local budgets are crunched. Now, I realize I only have 7 minutes so I will conclude with this simple point: I hear my friends say that Homeland Security is going to fill in the blanks. There is not one penny in Homeland Security allowing for the hiring of an additional local law enforcement officer, No. 1. No. 2, if anybody is going to find a terrorist about to put sarin gas into the heating system or cooling system of the largest mall in Little Rock, AR, or in Savannah, GA, it is not going to be some guy wearing fatigues and night-vision goggles who is a special forces officer in the U.S. military. It is going to be a local cop on his way from a Dunkin' Donut shop on his rounds behind that shopping center. So we are making a tragic mistake. I do not understand the President's rationale. My legislation calls for funding the COPS Program at over $1 billion to eliminate the current backlog in applications and to meet State and local needs. We do it by cutting corporate loopholes and we provide an additional $1 billion in deficit reduction as well. The COPS office has met its goal of funding over 100,000 cops, but it is like cutting grass. Everybody says what a great job it did. Well, when one cuts their grass this summer, the first week it looks great. Two weeks later, when one does not cut it, it looks a little ragged. Six weeks later, it is a wheatfield. That is how crime is. The idea with an expanding population that we can use fewer resources to fight crime is absolutely mindless, and that is exactly what we continue to do. These law enforcement officers taking this money over the years are a victim of their own success. They made it work. I will close with a quote from the president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, IACP: But when I first read President Bush's budget for 2006, I felt as if someone had punched me in the stomach. I ask any one of my colleagues to go home and ask any one of their law enforcement agencies, State, municipal, town, county, whether they need this help. I will be dumbfounded if they find anybody who says they do not. The idea that this is not a Federal responsibility is beyond me. Where do my colleagues think the dope is coming from that is coming into their cities and towns? It is because of a failed Federal policy on interdiction at our borders. It is because of a failed Federal policy relating to all the poppy being grown in Afghanistan, a failed Federal policy of all the cocaine coming out of the Andes. This is a Federal responsibility. To quote President Reagan--I do not know who he was quoting, but he is most associated with the comment--if it ain't broke, do not fix it. This ain't broke. It is working. Do not try to fix it by eliminating funding for local law enforcement from in 2002 over $2 billion to in this budget less than $118 million.

Mr. BIDEN. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN. Not true.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Byrd and my other colleagues to offer this amendment, to repair a major flaw in the budget resolution. I was shocked when the President sent his budget here earlier this year, without a dime for intercity passenger rail. Not a dime. Not one red cent. How could they possibly refuse to fund our passenger rail system, that carries 25 million passengers a year? What are they thinking? Where will those 25 million travelers go? Back onto our overcrowded highways? Should they take a place in the security lines in our airports? We know what they are thinking, Mr. President. We have been told, in many public statements by the administration, that they intend to blackmail us in the Congress into accepting a plan to breakup Amtrak, in exchange for the funds the system needs to keep running. Instead of fixing that problem, this resolution repeats the blackmail threat: breakup the system, or no funds. No passenger rail system in the world operates without support. Almost no passenger rails system in the world operates on the low level of support inflicted on Amtrak over the years. We have starved the system of one of its most basic needs: capital. From the day we created it over 30 years ago, Amtrak has been put in the impossible position of trying to increase its ridership, to increase its own revenues, while we have refused to provide it with the resources needed to do the job. Railroading is a classic capital-intensive industry. The huge costs for the right of way itself, which Amtrak owns all along the Northeast corridor, the costs of maintaining the locomotives and passenger cars-- those are the costs that virtually every other advanced industrial economy in the world undertakes today. They don't do it out of nostalgia for the golden age of rail. They don't do it because they lack other kinds of transportation. They do it because modern economies need a full mix of transportation options, a balanced system. They do it because it takes pressure off highways and airports, because passenger rail is clean and safe. Here on the Senate floor, we are told: Don't worry, we aren't serious. We didn't mean it when we refused to put a dime in this budget for passenger rail. But the adminstration put it differently in its budget. They actually propose zeroing out Amtrak with the goal of causing a bankruptcy, which, and I quote, ``would likely lead to the elimination of inefficient operations and reorganization of the railroad through bankrupcty proceedures.'' That is their idea of reform. That is their idea of how to make transportation policy: Let a bankruptcy judge figure it out. They are creating a crisis, and using the threat of bankruptcy to force changes on the system. What is their plan? What do they propose? First, they want to push more costs off onto the States. That is a theme we are seeing throughout the budget. It looks like saving money, but it simply shifts costs. Ask our mayors, ask our Governors what they think of the Federal Government shifting costs onto them. That is not a plan that will work. They also want to break Amtrak up into capital and operating units. They tried something like that in Great Britain, and they regret it. Then they want to let other companies come in and bid to run operations on the most profitable lines. That is a formula for breaking up the system, encouraging cherry-picking, tearing up contracts with the unions, and leaving passengers stranded. That is not reforming a national passenger rail system; that is breaking up the system we have. This is no way to accomplish reform. Right now Amtrak has a growing ridership, for good reasons. With security concerns and hassles, with the cost-cutting and crowding, air travel is less attractive. Our highways are already congested. Amtrak has earned that new ridership, with its new fleet of high- speed Acela trains, with a commitment to maintaining and upgrading equipment. A lot of that work goes on in my State of Delaware, at our shops at Wilmington and at Bear. But by starving the system of the capital it needs, we have put it into crisis. Without more investment, it cannot attract riders. Without more passengers, it cannot earn more money. The way out of the impasse is to make the investment in the passenger rail system our Nation needs. Amtrak has a 5-year capital plan that could attract more passengers, and earn them more operating revenues, but they have not received the funding they need to make that plan work. Starved of the capital they need to succeed, then blamed for not making money, now Amtrak is facing blackmail and bankruptcy under this budget. Senator Byrd, who is our leader on this amendment, knows the history of Amtrak's funding problems. His amendment is not extravagant; in fact, it is less than we should be giving Amtrak as it struggles to improve. I am sure Senator Byrd feels the same way. But the $1.4 billion this amendment would provide would remove the threat of bankruptcy and keep the system running. It is the only responsible anwer to an irresponsible budget. While I am speaking Mr. President, there is one other aspect of passenger rail I want to mention: security. In the aftermath of the tragic events of September 11, over 3 years ago, I came to the floor with an amendent to the $15 billion airline bailout and security spending bill. That amendment would have begun the process of raising security on our rails, just as we recognized the need to increase security on our airlines. In deference to the emergency in the airline industry, I withdrew that amendment. In the years since, I have tried, with the help of Senators McCain, Hollings, Carper, Schumer, Clinton, and others, to move legislation to upgrade rail security. Over 3 years later, in the face of explicit warnings and evidence that terrorists are targetting passenger rail here in our country, a year after the tragic bombings in Madrid, we have done virtually nothing about Amtrak's security needs. It should be a scandal that this Congress and this administration have not even authorized, much less spent a dime for, a plan to secure our rail system. More people pass through Penn Station in New York City than through La Guardia and JFK airports combined. Union Station, just two blocks from here, is the busiest site in Washington, DC, with 25 million people passing through. Amtrak is expected to patrol those sites with its own meager forces. In Penn Station, only six to eight security guards patrol on weekdays. And they have the weekends off. Whatever you think of passenger rail, it is unconscionable to propose no money--zero, nothing--to increase the security of the 25 million Americans who ride Amtrak every year. This amendment by itself will not take care of those security needs, but it will address the basic needs of passenger rail in our country. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. BIDEN

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

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I checked with the leader on our side, and I hope it is all right with the Republican leader. I have no amendment relating to the bill. I would like to proceed as if in morning business until anyone has an opportunity to move on the bill, and I will cease and desist at that moment.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, several years ago, when we were considering this legislation, I spoke here on the Senate floor about some important provisions that I think have been overlooked in our discussions. In my remarks today I will repeat what I said back then, in March of 2001. We have heard a lot in recent days about how this bill lacks compassion--specifically, that it will hurt women and children who depend on alimony and child support. Critics claim that by making sure that more money is paid back to other creditors, this bill will make it harder for women and children to get what is coming to them. I am particularly proud of my record of protecting women and children during my career in the Senate. That record includes the Violence Against Women Act to protect women threatened by domestic violence. I am here again today to show that, contrary to a lot of the rhetoric that has been tossed around, this bill actually improves the situation of women and children who depend on child support. It specifically targets the problems they face under the current bankruptcy system into a virtual extension of the current national family support collection system. There may be other aspects of this legislation that we can debate: the balance between creditors and debtors, between different kinds of creditors, or between different kinds of debtors. But on the question of child support and alimony, there should be no dispute. Because this bill strengthens the collection of alimony. Period. Over the many years we have discussed this bill, it has earned the support of the National Child Support Enforcement Association, which represents over 60.000 child support professionals. It has earned the support of the National Association of Attorneys General, which has sent a letter of support personally signed by twenty-seven State attorneys general. Over the years, the child support protections in this legislation were endorsed by the Attorney General of the State of Vermont. The Attorney General of Minnesota endorsed them, too, along with the Attorneys General from Illinois, from Massachusetts, and from California, Montana, North Carolina, Michigan, Maryland, Iowa, Hawaii, and Washington. The child support and alimony protections in S. 256 are so far superior to current law that the National District Attorneys Association, representing more than 7,000 local prosecutors, have endorsed them. In addition to those national associations, those protections have earned the support of: the California Family Support Council, whose 2,500 enforcement professionals are responsible for carrying out the Federal child support program in California; The Western Interstate Child Support Enforcement Council, composed of child support professionals from the private and public sectors west of the Mississippi River; The California District Attorneys Association, consisting of elected district attorneys from each of every one of California's 58 counties and over 2,500 deputy district attorneys; and finally, The Corporation Counsel of the City of New York. Yes, even New York City loves this bill. Why has this legislation earned such overwhelming support from the professionals out in the field and in the trenches who, ever single day, seek and enforce child support orders? One reason is the hard work of Phillip Strauss, who, speaking for the National Child Support and Enforcement Association, has represented the concerns of child support professionals in testimony before our committee over the years we have debated bankruptcy reform. From his personal experience with the problems women and children face under current bankruptcy law, he brought together his fellow enforcement officials to draft the provisions I am here to discuss. As Mr. Strauss and his colleagues have told us, right now the treatment of child support and alimony in bankruptcy is a mess, and this bill fixes it. When a deadbeat dad files for bankruptcy under the current system, what happens to mom and the kids? Well, if the dad is actually making the payments, those payments stop. That's right, the payments stop cold. Mom then has to find a lawyer or a government advocate, take time off of work, and go to bankruptcy court to try to get those payments started again. And when she goes to court, her claim may not be heard that day, so she'll have to return again and again . . . or if she's late, she'll miss her day in court. What else happens under current law? When dad's bill collectors show up in bankruptcy court, mom has to fight with them over dad's assets. There's a good chance that mom not only needs her payments started again, but she is due past support--support payments dad never made last month, last year. She needs him to pay her back for all the payments he failed to make. And in asserting her claim, she is not the ``Number 1'' collector in line. Under current law, she is Number 7. That's right--Not So Lucky Number 7. The current Code permits other bill collectors to beat her in the race to get at dad's assets. The current law handicaps her at the starting line. She is forced to wage a fight to make sure she and the kids receive their due. And what happens after she fights it out with the bill collectors? Well, under the current system, she might be lucky and get every dollar due. But, she may only get a portion of what is due or she may not get one red cent. That's not right. If a bankrupt household is a sinking ship, then women and children should be protected first. This is what the current law fails to do, but it is what this bill does: it puts women and children first. S. 256 dictates that even if he files for bankruptcy, dad must continue making those support payments that mom needs to feed and clothe her children. Under this bill, women and children will continue to receive their support payments during bankruptcy, while everybody else, from the credit card bank to the department store, waits for the bankruptcy judge's final order and plan. That alone would be a major improvement over current law. But that is just the beginning of the advances of this bill over current law. This bill makes mom ``Number 1'' and places her ahead of all the bill collectors on her past-due claim. No other bill collector--not the credit card company, not the car loan company, not the student lenders--can jump ahead of a mother and her children. Every other bill collector must stand in line behind the family. What is so great about the continuation of payments and making mom ``Number 1''? As a practical matter, she doesn't have to find room in her hectic schedule to make appearances in a federal bankruptcy court-- an intimidating place for most people. She can go to work without interrupting her day. She can complete her errands and pick up her kids after school. Under the bill, she will be automatically first in line on her claims and she will continue to receive her payments during bankruptcy. When we pass this bill, she does not have to work her way through the bankruptcy system. The system will work for her, not against her. That's the beauty of this bill: It is self-executing. The provisions to be added to the Bankruptcy Code will function automatically. This is vital. Unrepresented women will not be harmed by the process, as they are under the current Code. Today, under current law, these women have to get an attorney and go to court to assert their claims. In addition, under this bill, family support will never be dischargeable. It must be paid in full. All of it. This is important because, under the curren, domestic debts may not be paid in full or at all . . . believe it or not. Right now, a deadbeat father can file for bankruptcy and come out without paying one penny of support. While his slate is wiped clean, a mother and her children go without. When this bill passes and the President signs it, the law will hold the deadbeat dad's feet to the fire: he will pay, he will pay in full. There are other important ways that this bill will remove real obstacles to justice that exist in current bankruptcy law. This bill not only lifts the stay on support payments during bankruptcy, but it adds that, when a wife-beater files for bankruptcy, a domestic violence restraining order against him must remain in effect. It cannot be stayed. And the woman who needs a restraining order against him can still get one. I have here an order from a family court in my home state of Delaware. A woman went to the court and requested a restraining order against her abuser, who had already filed for bankruptcy. Incredibly, the judge found, under the current Bankruptcy Code, that a proceeding for a domestic abuse restraining order is automatically stayed ``by operation of law.'' That's right. We have judges out there right now who look at today's Bankruptcy Code, and they find that filing for bankruptcy stops all proceedings. They find that we have failed to write an exception for proceedings like those for domestic violence. They find their hands are tied. Then they send a woman in fear for her life off to a federal bankruptcy court to lift the Code's automatic stay by filing a special motion. Unbelievable. If you think this is fair, if you prefer this state of affairs, then I guess you will vote against this bill. Personally, I am proud of this bill, and I wish that those who are fabricating wild claims about it would stop. If they have their way, the women and children in this country who depend on alimony and child support will be robbed of real protections. That would be a crime. Under current law, more than just child support and--alimony are stopped in their tracks by the filing of bankruptcy. That automatic stay, as it is called, stops a lot of other proceedings that could provide real help to women and children. This legislation changes that. It lifts the stay on a number of methods that family support officials use to go after deadbeat dads, who today can hide behind the bankruptcy system. Unlike current law, this bill would permit reporting the deadbeat's overdue support payments to a consumer reporting agency. Under current law, it would permit restrictions on a deadbeat dad's driving, professional, or recreational licenses. It would permit family support collection officials to intercept his tax refunds. The legislation also clarifies the definition of support payments, ending conflicting bankruptcy decisions by different courts that today question what support payments actually are. Most significantly, though, this bill prevents a father from completing bankruptcy unless he has paid all his support obligations due after he filed for bankruptcy. Let's think about this. Under current law, a father filed for bankruptcy and can complete bankruptcy under a plan that relieves him of his past-due domestic obligations. Under the bill, however, this scenario will become obsolete. A father will never complete bankruptcy until he is paid up. He must pay. Moreover, the bill protects mom during a bankruptcy plan. Once a father is under a bankruptcy plan and he fails to make his support payments, a mother can march to the bankruptcy court and ask the court to dismiss his plan. The court will call dad back in to explain himself. He doesn't want to make payments during his bankruptcy plan? Fine, he can be thrown out of bankruptcy, and find himself back at square one. Some claim that this bill lacks compassion. Well, right now, women who want child support orders or who already have orders but fail to enforce them slip through the cracks. If we pass this bill, the Bankruptcy Code will empower women with the information they need. Section 219 of the bill requires the U.S. Bankruptcy Trustee to notify a woman of her rights to use the services of her state child support enforcement agency and gives her the agency's address and phone number. Better yet, the Trustee likewise notifies the agency independently of the woman's claim. This is striking. Women who need help will get the information they need, because the bankruptcy system is charged with reaching out to family support professionals--acting under federal family support collection law--and putting them at the service of the women and children who need them. This last item needs stressing, Mr. President, because so much has been made about what will happen after someone who owes family support payments comes out of bankruptcy. The claim is that other ``more powerful'' creditors will push women and children aside and strip the dad bare before he can make payments to his family. That makes for a moving story, Mr. President, but it is fiction, not fact. This legislation requires the bankruptcy Trustee to notify both the woman and the family support collection professionals about the dad's release from bankruptcy, his last known address, the name and address of his employer, and a list naming all the bill collectors who will still be collecting from dad. This section helps mothers both during and after bankruptcy. The new notification process will help a mother and the support enforcement agencies keep track of a father, where he is working, and what other bills he is required to pay. Because of this monitoring, which would be put in place by the bankruptcy system under this bill, mothers and collection agencies can more easily go to court and get that portion of a father's wages that now really belongs to them. Dad may complete his bankruptcy plan, but his obligations do not stop. These new protections guarantee that family support claims of women and children,will always receive ``Number 1'' priority--during and after bankruptcy. The process for obtaining a portion of a father's wages--through a wage attachment--gives priority to domestic support orders over orders held by bill collectors, including credit card companies. That money is taken out of his paycheck before he even sees it. He can't be forced by ``powerful creditors'' to choose between them and his alimony or child support. Those payments are automatic. Again, the picture of greedy bill collectors rushing to the front of the line makes for dramatic storytelling. But it is only that--storytelling. The legislation builds on the existing Federal Child Support Enforcement Program, that exists to help women of all walks of life receive their support payments. By tying Federal dollars to federal standards, current law requires state and local support enforcement agencies to enforce national standards. A couple of the requirements under Federal family support law are: first, that immediate wage withholding should be included in all child support orders; and second, that the withholding of child support obligations be given top priority over every other legal process under State law against the same wages. Therefore, after bankruptcy, when a mother and the bill collectors walk into court to make claims against the father's wages, the mother is again ``Number 1'' in priority and those bill collectors fall in line behind her. In response to some of my colleagues concerns--concerns that I would certainly share if I listened to some of the claims out there--I looked for ways to make the system even tighter. I found out that the only way to do that was to require a wage attachment, whether the woman wanted one or not. Maybe she wants nothing to do with an abusive husband. Maybe she is afraid for him to know her address. We have to leave that decision up to her, but she will get all the help we can give to help her know her rights. As I said, I looked for ways to make this bill stronger in support of women and children who depend on support payments, and I simply couldn't find any. Even if a father does not earn wages, then support enforcement agencies have many tools to use to ensure that the mother and her children are paid. A support enforcement agency can intercept taxes and unemployment benefits, revoke driver's, professional and recreational licenses (like those used for fishing, hunting, and boating), deny passports, and institute criminal and contempt actions. That is why, even compared to any imaginary ``powerful creditor'' you might be able to conjure up, mothers and children have real, tangible protections and resources at their disposal to bring a first priority claim against a father's wages after bankruptcy. Finally, let me conclude where I began: with the enthusiasm for this legislation that we have heard from the folks in the trenches. Here is what the National Association of Attorneys General has asserted: the bill ``improve[s] the treatment of domestic support obligations'' and when the current Code's ``obstacles are removed, as this legislation seeks to accomplish, we believe that our State and local support offices will continue to be able to collect these monies effectively, regardless of whether other lower-priority creditors remain.'' As I mentioned before, the Association's letter was personally signed by the State Attorneys General from twenty-seven States, including the--State Attorneys General from Vermont, Minnesota, Illinois, Massachusetts, California, North Carolina, Michigan, Montana, Maryland, Iowa, Hawaii, and Washington. The National District Attorneys Association, with more than 7,000 local prosecutors in their membership, does ``not believe that after bankruptcy it would be more difficult to collect support simply because credit card debts are not discharged. To the contrary, support collectors have vastly more effective, and meaningful, collection remedies before a bankruptcy case is filed, or after the case is completed, than any other financial institution . . . It is under the current law, during bankruptcy, that support collectors have the greatest difficulty because they are in competition with all other creditors for bankruptcy estate assets and because their most effective collections remedies have been stayed . . . This legislation provides a major improvement to the problems facing child support creditors in bankruptcy proceedings.'' I support the reform that the enforcement professionals call for, from New York City to California, from Minnesota to Vermont, from Massachusetts to Michigan. I want to save women and children from having to fight their way through a broken bankruptcy system. I want to make the system work for them, not against them. A vote against this bill is a vote in favor of the current broken system. A vote for this bill is a vote to protect family support payments in bankruptcy. That is why I support this bill.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise for two purposes. The first is to draw attention to a recent program at the Supreme Court on the work of Justice Robert Jackson and Thomas Dodd, the father of Senator Christopher J. Dodd, dealing with the International Military Tribunals at Nuremberg. I was happy to read the remarks of my colleague, Senator Dodd, at the event, and I was interested to find that many of the conclusions he draws from his father's experiences remain essential to our conduct of international justice today--and, unfortunately, they are all too often forgotten. I would first echo the remarks made by Senator Dodd and salute the extraordinary work performed by Justice Robert Jackson and Thomas Dodd in their roles as the U.S. Chief Prosecutor and Deputy Prosecutor, respectively, at Nuremberg over 50 years ago. The Nuremberg Tribunal taught us many lessons: that even in the depths of war, justice is not blind; that those who practice terror, oppression, hatred, and mass murder will be punished. Perhaps equally important, however, was the notion that they should also be afforded a trial. Indeed, the United States committed itself to overcoming the passions of the moment and reaffirming the rule of law. I believe this action set an important precedent that is still applicable today. Critically, the Tribunal also helped record the horrific crimes of the Nazi regime so the whole world would see the brutality and understand the depravity of those unimaginable acts. Unfortunately, crimes against humanity have occurred since the Nuremberg Tribunals, and they continue to occur today in places such as Darfur in Sudan. I believe that it is again necessary to remind ourselves of the important lessons learned over 50 years ago when Justice Robert Jackson and then Thomas Dodd--soon to be Senator Thomas Dodd--brought before the world the evidence of Nazi atrocities and said, ``This cannot stand.'' I ask unanimous consent that the remarks of Senator Dodd at the Supreme Court on February 15, 2005, entitled, ``Justice Served, Lessons Learned: Robert Jackson, Thomas Dodd and the Nuremberg Trials,'' be printed in the Record following my comments here today.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to take the time to read this speech and consider this important message and its application today. Exhibit 1 Justice Served, Lessons Learned: Robert Jackson, Thomas Dodd, and the Nuremberg Trials It's a privilege to be with you in the Supreme Court Chamber, where cases that have changed the course of our nation's history have been argued and decided. As a United States Senator, it's not often that I make my way across the street to this building and to this branch of government. Two years ago, I was here to observe oral argument in Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs. That case considered the constitutionality of the Family and Medical Leave Act. I was interested because I authored the Family and Medical Leave Act in the Senate. The bill had survived two Presidential vetoes and had taken seven years to become law. But in this institution, these facts were of little consequence. Nothing is quite as humbling as Justices deciding whether or not to strike down a law you labored over for years. I was relieved when the Court, by a margin of 6 to 3, upheld the Act. But that visit, and others I've made over the years, prompted me to think about the differences between the Senate and the Supreme Court. Senators show up to work in suits; Justices wear robes. Senators are under the constant scrutiny of television cameras; Justices have somehow managed to keep them out of this Chamber. And, of course, Senators have to run for re-election every six years; Justices of the Supreme Court have the best job security in the world. So it's understandable why no fewer than 13 United States Senators later served on the Supreme Court. That number includes three Chief Justices--Salmon Portland Chase, Edward Douglass White, and Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut. I tried to comfort myself by finding what I assumed would be an equally long list of Justices who resigned their seats on the Court for the honor and privilege of serving in the U.S. Senate. But that list was exactly one name long. That lone individual, I discovered, was David Davis, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, and later Senator from Illinois. He was appointed to the Court by Abraham Lincoln in 1862, and served here for 15 years before resigning in 1877 when he was elected a Senator by the Illinois state legislature. It should be noted, though, that the U.S. Senate wasn't his first choice. He was a candidate for the presidential nomination five years earlier in 1872. He sought the nomination of what was then known as the ``Liberal Republican'' party. Some might suggest it was that characteristic that would make him most unique today. I'd like to recognize, of course, Justice Souter, who has joined us this evening. And though he isn't here today, I'd also like to recognize Chief Justice Rehnquist. Justice Rehnquist is a wonderful student of history who has done so much to educate our nation and the world about this unique institution. And as I'm sure many of you know, from 1952 to 1953 he served as a law clerk for Justice Robert Jackson. Last month I had the honor of participating in the inauguration of President Bush. I don't think anyone watching the ceremony on that day could fail to be moved by the courage and fortitude displayed by Chief Justice Rehnquist. I think I speak for everyone here, and countless others, as well, in wishing him well this evening. I'd like to thank Barrett Prettyman of the Supreme Court Historical Society for his kind introduction, and I'd like to thank Professor John Barrett for his historical notes as well. I'd also like to thank Greg Peterson of the Robert H. Jackson Center for his remarks, and for the invitation to speak to you this evening. And I'd like to welcome members of the Jackson family who have joined us this evening. If Nuremberg was the most profound experience that influenced my father's life, there were few individuals whose words and ideas carried greater weight with my father than those of Robert H. Jackson. Justice Jackson was truly an extraordinary man whose life's journey took him from a farmhouse in upstate New York, to the U.S. Department of Justice, where he served as Solicitor General and Attorney General, to the Supreme Court, to a courtroom in Nuremberg, Germany. Following Nuremberg, he returned to this very chamber where, less than five months before he passed away, he and his eight colleagues voted to end racial segregation in schools across our land. Robert Jackson graduated from neither college nor law school. And prior to his appointment to the Supreme Court, he had never served as a judge. Yet he became one of the most respected jurists of his time, one known for his thoughtfulness, his fairness, his courage, and his eloquently-written opinions. He was an ardent defender of the freedoms articulated in our nation's Bill of Rights. Of particular relevance today, Justice Jackson defended these freedoms even during times of war, and even when he was at odds with many of his fellow justices. He was one of only three justices to dissent in Korematsu v. United States, which allowed the detention of Japanese-Americans in internment camps during World War II--a decision we now regard as a stain on our nation's historical commitment to freedom and justice. Most of all, Justice Jackson was committed to promoting and enforcing the rule of law, not only here in the United States but around the globe, as well. Having witnessed the horrors of Nazi Germany, he had a deep and abiding belief that the law is humanity's strongest and noblest weapon against tyranny and oppression. We gather here this evening two days after the 113th anniversary of Justice Jackson's birth, and just a few months after the 50th anniversary of his passing on October 9, 1954. It's fitting, as well, that we assemble here two weeks after the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. More than any other events, the liberation of Auschwitz and the Nuremberg trials were the two events that laid bare before the entire world the horrors committed by the Nazi regime. At liberation, the Western world saw, for the very first time, the gas chambers, the cattle cars, and the crematoria. They saw gruesome piles of corpses, and the emaciated few who had survived the largest and deadliest of Hitler's death camps. At Nuremberg, the war and the Final Solution were painstakingly and meticulously documented and recorded so the existence of these horrific events would never, ever be in doubt. With each passing day, there remain fewer and fewer of those who can personally bear witness to the atrocities of the Nazi regime. As a result, our generation's responsibility becomes even greater--to ensure that the lessons we learned six decades ago do not fade away into the mist of history. This responsibility was one that my father took very, very seriously--and it was reflected in how he raised his six children. From a very early age, he would tell us about Adolf Hitler and Heinrich Himmler, and describe places like Auschwitz, Buchenwald, and Dachau. My father believed firmly that the value of the Nuremberg experience would not only be in the individual sentences meted out to the named defendants--but, in a larger sense, in the legacy the trial would leave to future generations. In hindsight, some might think it was inevitable that nations like ours would judge criminals like the Nazis according to the rule of law. In reality, there was great debate, both here in the United States and among our allies, over how to handle the Nazi leaders. We know today that as many as four Supreme Court Justices, and many others including the powerful Senator from Ohio, Robert Taft, felt that the trials at Nuremberg would be a case of ex post facto judgment, and would therefore be illegal under our own Constitution. The Chief Justice at the time, Harlan Stone, called Nuremberg a ``high-grade lynching party.'' A great many in our nation and around the world advocated a different treatment for captured Nazi officials--one that had long been practiced by nations victorious in war: summary execution. Winston Churchill was said to have supported such a policy. Why, so the argument went, should we show any mercy to these criminals--men who were responsible for the ruthless slaughter of six million Jews, and five million other innocent men, women, and children? Men who razed to the ground entire villages and towns and massacred those who lived in them. Men who launched an aggressive war that eventually claimed over 54 million lives, and turned the European continent into a mass graveyard. The argument was a compelling one. But a different one would win the day. That case was the one advocated by men like Justice Robert Jackson and a young lawyer named Thomas Dodd. These two and others believed that the best way to judge these crimes against humanity, and to deter future crimes, would be a fair, legal trial. They insisted on the rule of law, rather than the rule of the mob. And so in the summer of 1945, Justice Jackson assembled not a team of executioners, but a team of legal professionals who would meticulously use the Nazis' own documents, records, and testimony to prove their guilt. My father was one of the men he chose to be on that team. During his fifteen months at Nuremberg, my father wrote daily letters to my mother. These beautifully written letters always began with the words ``Grace, my dearest one.'' They fill up this volume I hold in my hand--and a second volume of equal length. I had no idea that these letters even existed until the early 1990's. Before reading these letters I, arranged them in chronological order. I finally completed this long process in the summer of 1995. Without any prior awareness, you can imagine my shock when on the evening of July 28, 1995, I sat down to begin reading the letters and realized that the first letter to my mother was written on July 28, 1945--50 years earlier, to the day. My father arrived in Europe on that day with mixed feelings. He knew that he had an opportunity to be part of a historic occasion. But he was reluctant to leave my mother and their children. I was only a year old at the time--and a very active child according to my mother. Sometimes I wonder if I was the reason my father decided to go to Nuremberg. Ultimately, the decision was made to see the job through. As he explained it, ``Sometimes a man knows his duty, his responsibility so clearly, so surely, he cannot hesitate--he dare not refuse it. Even great pain and other sacrifices seem unimportant in such a situation. The pain is no less for this knowledge--but the pain has a purpose at least.'' He threw himself into a job he expected would last only a few months. In July 1945, this 38-year-old attorney had no idea that he would be promoted from staff counsel to trial counsel, then to senior trial counsel, and then to Executive Trial Counsel--the deputy prosecutor for the United States. The Nuremberg trials themselves were an absolutely massive undertaking, with so many questions that had to be answered: Who would be the judges? Who would be the lawyers? Would the defendants be tried together or separately? Would the trials be conducted under American or European legal customs? Would they be military or civilian trials? And perhaps the most pressing practical question: Where would the trials be held? My father, like many, expressed reservations about holding the trial in Nuremberg. The city, he said, was ``probably the worst in Germany'' in terms of destruction. He suggested that Heidelberg, which had survived the war essentially intact, would have been a better alternative. But for reasons of principle--if not practicality--he knew that Nuremberg was the right choice. It was, after all, Nuremberg where the Nazis met on September 10, 1935 to codify into law their regime of oppression, terror, and hatred. And so it was totally fitting that in Nuremberg, these Nazis were brought to justice. My father's ambivalent outlook towards his participation in the trial changed dramatically on August 14th, 1945. On that day, he and his fellow prosecutors began interrogating prisoners. He described it as ``a day I shall never forget,'' and the day that followed as ``the most fascinating day of my life.'' From August through November 1945, my father spent much of his time face to face with some of the most vital cogs in Hitler's murderous Nazi machine. William Keitel. Hans Frank. Rudolph Hess. Hermann Goering. One by one, each of them would do his best to deflect blame and to deny. My father remarked that ``It would be relieving to hear one of them admit some blame for something. They blame everything on the dead or missing.'' Throughout the course of the investigation and trial, my father became one of Justice Jackson's closest associates-- and one of his closest friends, as well. There's no question that my father viewed Justice Jackson as much more than a professional colleague. ``I am proud of my association with him,'' he wrote, ``and even more proud of his friendship.'' My father admired Jackson greatly for his keen intellect, his quiet dignity, and for his steadfast dedication to seeing the trial through to the end. In a letter he wrote to Justice Jackson's son on the occasion of the Justice's passing in 1954, my father called him ``one of a very few great men whom I have been privileged to meet in my lifetime.'' I will not go into much detail discussing the proceedings of the trial itself. Much of the trial was actually fairly tedious. For the most part, anyone expecting tearful admissions of guilt was sorely disappointed. My father, for his part, presented several aspects of the prosecution's case, including those on concentration camps, on economic oppression, and on slave labor. He cross-examined numerous witnesses, including six of the defendants. Four of those defendants were ultimately sentenced to death. The other two served lengthy terms in prison. For my father, though, Nuremberg was about much more than the defendants, the evidence, and the sentences. It was about the opportunity, as he put it, ``to write a record that will mark a new point in man's relation with man.'' My father returned from Nuremberg with a deep commitment to the rule of law and its role in upholding the basic human rights and human dignity of every man, woman, and child. That commitment is the reason why--as a Congressman and a Senator--he was such a staunch supporter of the civil rights movement. It's the reason he was such an ardent opponent of Communism. And it is the reason why he embraced bold new efforts to eliminate poverty in our nation and throughout the world. My father also left Nuremberg as an ardent believer in the need to create and use law to preserve and promote human dignity. Nuremberg was essentially a trial without precedent. As I mentioned earlier, when Justice Jackson and others were developing the guidelines for the Nuremberg trials, there was a great deal of debate and disagreement over the legality of the proceedings. Justice Jackson spent a great deal of time arguing why, in fact, there was legal precedent in international law for the crime of waging aggressive war. But beyond those legal arguments, there was another, far more fundamental point--a point that Robert Jackson and my father shared. That the crimes committed by the Nazis were so heinous, so unthinkable, that they violated the basic rules by which all of humanity must abide. As Justice Jackson said in his opening statement, ``The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant and so devastating, that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored because it cannot survive their being repeated.'' This idea of a natural law, rooted in basic standards and norms of human behavior, was a powerful argument in favor of the Nuremberg trials. Perhaps no document embodies the idea that such basic standards exist more than our own Declaration of Independence, which affirms that ``all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'' Natural law was a concept for which my father was a strenuous advocate. I can remember a story he told me about a paper he wrote at Yale for a professor of his, Harold Lasky, a renowned socialist. In the paper, my father argued passionately in favor of natural law theory. When he got the paper back, a note was written on the front page: ``I disagree with everything you have written. A Plus.'' The Nuremberg trials' lasting legacy, my father believed, would be in international institutions that could punish crimes against humanity, and more importantly, deter those crimes in the future. As he put it, ``By a declaration of criminality against these organizations, this tribunal will put on notice not only the people of Germany, but the people of the whole world. Mankind will know that no crime will go unpunished because it was committed in the name of a political party or a state; that no crime will be passed by because it is too big; that no criminals will avoid punishment because there are too many.'' Regrettably, my father's and Robert Jackson's vision has not yet been fully realized. Over the last six decades, we have not witnessed the level of horrific destruction and carnage perpetrated by the Nazis. But we have seen, time and again, terrible crimes against humanity in places like Cambodia, Iraq, Bosnia, Rwanda, and today in the Darfur province of the Sudan. Tragically, many of the individuals involved in these crimes--people like Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, and Idi Amin-- were never brought to justice. In some of these cases, the world did eventually create tribunals--but always, like Nuremberg, temporary, ad hoc courts that were established after the fact. To truly be called effective, a court must not simply punish the guilty, then disband. It must serve as a permanent reminder to any potential criminals that they, too, will be held accountable. Such a court can not only punish crimes--it can deter them. In my view, there is only one kind of institution that can ensure the kind of accountability that can prevent future war crimes--and that is a permanent court empowered to indict, prosecute, and judge international criminals. After many, many years of effort, the International Criminal Court came into existence on July 1, 2002. Unfortunately, rather than lend its support to this effort, the United States has walked away from it. I'm aware that there are complex issues that need to be resolved regarding our nation and the International Criminal Court. But I strongly believe that our nation's interests, and the world's interests, would be far better served if we worked to address those issues rather than abandoning the entire process. What, after all, does it say about a nation that prides itself in upholding freedom, justice, and human rights when it simply disengages itself from an institution whose goal is to promote those values? And what does it say about an institution's power to bring criminals to justice when the most powerful nation in the world refuses to play a part? The tragic events in Darfur today represent exactly the kind of situation in which people like my father and Robert Jackson envisioned international courts playing a prominent role. It is my hope that the current administration will see the Darfur genocide as an opportunity to participate in this institution in some way, rather than simply standing on the sidelines. Otherwise, the cry of ``never again'' will ring tragically hollow. There is another legacy of Nuremberg that is just as powerful as its role in the development of international law. As I mentioned earlier, the decision to hold a trial at Nuremberg--rather than summary executions--was not an easy choice. We rejected the certainty of executions for the uncertainty of a trial. We turned away from violence that was certainly within our ability, and, many would argue, within our right. But what we learned is that our nation became stronger, and more respected, because we took the course that we did. At the heart of that decision was the idea that this nation will not tailor its eternal principles to the conflict of the moment--and the recognition that if we did, we would be walking in the very footsteps of the enemies we despised. This is a principle I believe we would all do well to remember today. This past year, we all were horrified at the images and stories of abuse of prisoners held in places like Abu Ghraib in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The abuse itself was shocking. In my view, though, even more troubling are the comments on this issue that we've heard from some who occupy positions of great power in our government. Legal justifications for the use of torture by American troops; For turning over individuals to other nations known to torture detainees; And, perhaps most egregiously, legal justifications that would explicitly exempt any executive branch official from prosecution for torture ``if they are carrying out the President's Commander-in-Chief powers.'' Sixty years ago at Nuremberg, the United States and our allies considered the defense ``I was just following orders'' to be so cowardly that it was prohibited under the rules of the trial. Perversely, there are some who consider that defense acceptable for Americans today. The proponents of these rationalizations tell us that we are living in different times. That we are facing enemies who show blatant disregard for human life, and whose organizations transcend international borders. As a result, the argument goes, we must re-evaluate certain conventions and practices that we have long respected. I wonder how men like Robert Jackson and my father would respond to these arguments. Would they be swayed by them? Would they be persuaded somehow that the followers of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are fundamentally different from the despicable and depraved defendants who swore allegiance to Adolf Hitler? Would these men, who prosecuted the Nazis based on testimony and documentary evidence, be heartened by the argument that the best responses we can muster against evil today are attack dogs and water-boarding? I truly, truly think not. On the contrary, I believe that Robert Jackson and my father would be tremendously disappointed and saddened at some of the actions taken by Americans on behalf of our nation--and by some of the official legal arguments made in support of those actions. I believe that Robert Jackson and Thomas Dodd would see these actions as a reflection of a government that has turned away from the lessons of history and stepped back from the very values of due process and equal justice that we expect of others worldwide. Is the threat of international terrorism a dangerous one? Unquestionably. But we cannot allow that danger to compromise bedrock principles which have stood since the birth of our nation--values like the right to be free from torture or from indefinite detention without a charge. We enshrined these values in our Constitution not simply because we believe Americans are entitled to them. We did so because they affirm a basic sense of human dignity in each and every man and woman. And because we, as a nation, are committed to upholding that dignity--even if others do not. If we cavalierly toss aside those values in response to a particular enemy or threat, it is not our enemies, but we who will pay the ultimate price. As Justice Jackson said at Nuremberg, ``we must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants today is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well. `` A century and a half ago, in his second State of the Union address, Abraham Lincoln said that in giving or denying freedom to slaves, ``We shall nobly save or meanly lose the last, best hope of earth.'' The issue then was how our nation treats the enslaved. Sixty years ago, the question was how to treat Nazi war criminals. Today, we face the same choice with regard to the way we treat international terrorists. If we heed the example set at Nuremberg by people like Robert Jackson and Thomas Dodd, if we treat our enemies according to our standards--not theirs--we feed the flame of liberty and justice that has rightly led our nation on its journey for these past two and a quarter centuries. And we set a shining and lasting example for a true global community--one grounded in the principles of justice, freedom, and peace. And we live up to the great memory of Robert Jackson and of a young counsel named Thomas Dodd.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the second reason I rise is literally a coincidental but important offshoot of what Christopher Dodd, Senator Dodd's father, did at the Nuremberg Trials. What they did--he and Justice Jackson--was they understood that you could uncover, deal with, and expose to the world atrocities humanity commits upon humanity and at the same time do it under the rule of law, give people a fair trial, actually abide by what we say we stand for. All of us are aware of the genocide now taking place in the Darfur region of Sudan. We passed a resolution last July which called Khartoum's abuses in Darfur genocide, which is what they were, what they are, and what they continue to be. The then-Secretary of State Colin Powell made the same assessment in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in September of 2004. The President of the United States, President Bush, signed legislation imposing sanctions on Khartoum for the actions in Darfur this past December. With the signing of the North-South Peace Agreement on January 9, administration officials believed the situation in Darfur would improve. Unfortunately, they have only gotten worse. The Government of Sudan and its proxy militia continue to attack civilians with impunity. An estimated 100 people were killed in an aerial bombardment in Sudan at the end of January. In February, the African Union officials reported that the security situation in Darfur had deteriorated over the past 4 months and said that the government and its allied militias were primarily to blame. This month, Doctors Without Borders has reported that rape continues as a routine practice, routinely used as a weapon against the women in the region with no sign of abating. The insecurity continues to hamper aid efforts, and on March 6, the United Nations forbade its workers from traveling to certain areas--the latest in a series of security measures put in place after aid workers were kidnapped and then killed. Aid organizations report that as many as 1,000 people a day are dying because of the lack of access to food and medicine. All told, violence and insecurity have resulted in at least 70,000 deaths, although some believe the total to be much higher. The number of internally displaced persons has risen to nearly 2 million people. There are over 200,000 refugees in Chad alone. The current registration being conducted reveal that there are far more than the 20,0000 refugees in neighboring Chad. The African Union Force in Darfur has made a noticeable difference in the areas they are able to reach, but it does not have the size, the mandate, or the capability to protect civilians in Darfur. AU monitors have come under fire from government allied forces and, in some instances, have been prevented from investigating allegations of cease- fire violations. The AU faces a serious lack of capacity both at the headquarters level and at the level of member states. Out of a mandated 3,000 troops, fewer than 2,000 are on the ground. And even at full strength, 3,000 soldiers is not enough to prevent further abuse of civilians and to investigate cease-fire allegations in the area the size of France. It is evident to me that the administration--our administration-- needs to devote some focused time and attention to addressing the genocide in Darfur. Our current policy has not turned the tide. We need to redouble our efforts and bring an end to the genocide in Darfur. The question will be 5 years from now to all of us: Where were we? Where were we? What did we do when this genocide unfolded? There will be another Academy Award-nominated movie about the god-awful genocide that is taking place, the routine rape, the systematic elimination of a whole people. Today, I sent a letter to the President of the United States urging him to instruct our permanent representative at the NATO alliance, the so-called NAC, the North Atlantic Council, to propose that NATO assess and report immediately to members on the potential effectiveness of and requirements for a NATO-enforced no-fly zone across Darfur in the region of the Sudan. The reason I sent the letter is I am absolutely certain of what NATO will say. They are fully, totally capable of enforcing a no-fly zone out of Chad. The French could do it now. I have been one who has been critical of this administration. I apologize for discussing this in the middle of a bill we have been working on for a long time but, literally, events are overtaking us. I am confident that NATO will point out they are fully physically capable of taking and imposing a no-fly zone in the region. That will be significant. My friend from New Jersey has been a leader on this subject and this issue. He has been banging us about the head to do more. He has a much more expansive proposal, which I support, than what I am proposing today. I have stood in this Senate and defended our European allies against some of the broader allegations in the Bush allegation, but I must say today, I am tired of our French friends and others bleeding all over us about the plight of the people in Iraq, the plight of the people in other parts of the world, when it is fully within their capability right now that France could do this all by itself. Right now. They have the wherewithal, they have the aircraft, they are positioned, and they very much want to make sure that they are recognized as a major player in Africa. I am, quite frankly, more than disappointed--appalled--for all their talk that they are not acting at all. That does not relieve us of responsibility. The fact that another nation has the capacity and has a history that would warrant it taking the action that needs to be taken now, and does not, does not free us of an obligation. Today's Washington Post editorial page says that enforcing the no-fly zone in Darfur would require ``one squadron of 12 to 18 fighter aircraft backed up by 4 AWAC planes,'' and cites a retired Air Force general as their source for believing such. Let's find out whether they are right. I believe they are. I have no reason to doubt that this Air Force general has talked not only to them but to others. But let's make it official. Let's do an assessment. Let's force the NAC to make an assessment now. I believe they will come back with exactly what I have just stated--a squadron, backed up by AWAC, that will be able to take out those gunships that are being used now to decimate entire villages. As I said, my friend from New Jersey witnessed--I don't think he witnessed the actual gunships in action, but he witnessed the results. Let's find out now so we cannot kid around with ourselves, so we do not do what we are doing today, what we were doing last week and last month. We think this is an awful occurrence; we condemn it; but it is beyond our capacity to effect an outcome. That is what they said to me in 1993 in Bosnia. That is what they said in 1997 in Kosovo. That is what we didn't do in Rwanda. This is time to act. It is within our capacity to do so. I believe it is totally consistent with the President's call for freedom, totally consistent with the President's Inaugural speech, which I applaud, totally consistent with what I believe and hope is in his heart, to be able to stop this kind of action. The question is, why propose sending the NATO mission to Darfur? A NATO mission will do three things. First, it will provide immediate security for the people of Darfur by preventing area bombardment on the ground by the government of Sudan. Second, it will bolster the ability of the African force on the ground by discouraging attacks in the AU personnel and helicopters. Finally, it will send an unequivocal message to the international community that we will no longer tolerate Khartoum's actions. Some may say, Why aren't you going to the U.N.? This is a point I want to make again and again, one I made back in 1993, 1995, 1997 and 1998. When that body does not act responsibly and when there is a genocide underway, it is fully within our rights--and I will argue our obligation--to act, hopefully, with others, with the strongest alliance in the history of the modern world, NATO. But even if they don't, we have a right, for I would argue and I say that which I am not supposed to say: If you engage in genocide, the world should reach a conclusion that you forfeit your sovereignty. You forfeit your sovereignty if you engage in genocide. That should be a principle we should state loudly and clearly. That warrants, if the capacity exists, the use of whatever action is possible to stop the genocide. I realize we have 12 divisions, 10 of which are coming or going to Iraq. But we are not talking about a division here. We don't need a division here. We are going to look back and find a squadron of aircraft, possibly several thousand American forces. That is what I would do, by the way. I think we should put ground forces in as well, but I am not asking that. All I am asking is, quite frankly, prick NATO's conscience and have them give us an honest assessment of what would, in fact, be required to enforce a no-fly zone. I send a resolution to the desk. I apologize I have not circulated this, but I know my colleague from New Jersey, as I say, has been heard on this and wants to be added. I know Senator Durbin does. I ask unanimous consent it remain open for the remainder of the day for me to be able to add cosponsors on both sides. I thank the Chair and my colleagues for their indulgence.

Mr. BIDEN

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