Joe Biden

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to take strong issue with remarks by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as summarized in the Washington Post on May 18 and subsequently reproduced in their entirety on the paper's website, that he is ``pushing'' to pull U.S. troops out of Bosnia. According to Secretary Rumsfeld, ``the military job [in Bosnia] was done three or four years ago.'' I firmly believe that Secretary Rumsfeld's analysis of the situation in Bosnia is incorrect, and that his policy prescription would be seriously detrimental to the national security interests of the United States. First, let me turn to Mr. Rumsfeld's statement that the ``military job was done three or four years ago.'' It is true that IFOR, and then SFOR, successfully separated the largely exhausted warring parties without much difficulty. But to assert that this separation spelled the end of our troops' mission is to define ``military'' in such a narrow way so as to make it nearly meaningless in the Balkan context. Putting it in other terms, Secretary Rumsfeld seems to belong to the school that begins talking about so-called ``exit strategies'' as soon as troops are committed. Of course we need an ``exit strategy,'' and we have had one. The Clinton Administration early on outlined ten detailed benchmarks for Dayton implementation that need to be met before we can say ``mission accomplished'' and honorably withdraw. These are not secrets. The U.S. Embassy in Sarajevo hands out a list of the benchmarks to all visitors. I must assume that Secretary Rumsfeld is familiar with them, so it seems that he either believes they no longer apply, or that our troops no longer have anything to do with most aspects of Dayton implementation. From Secretary Rumsfeld's published remarks, I get the impression that he sees anything short of actual combat or the separating of warring parties as inappropriate tasks for our soldiers. If he does, I disagree with him. In fact, his view strikes me as the old syndrome of ``preparing to fight the last war.'' The last two so-called ``Strategic Concepts'' of NATO have made clear that the most likely security challenges of the twenty-first century will be ethnic and religious strife, trans-national crime, terrorism and the like--rather than a frontal attack on the territory of alliance members. The details bear examination. Little more than two years ago in this city, NATO celebrated its fiftieth anniversary. At that Washington Summit, NATO issued the latest version of its Strategic Concept. I would like to quote several parts of the Strategic Concept in order to show that we and our allies have clearly understood that the military's function is not bound in a narrow straightjacket. The document, agreed upon by all nineteen NATO members on April 23 and 24, 1999, declares in Article 20 that ``large-scale conventional aggression against the Alliance is highly unlikely.'' It goes on to say the following: ``Ethnic and religious rivalries, territorial disputes, inadequate or failed efforts at reform, the abuse of human rights, and the dissolution of states can lead to local and even regional instability.'' It then graphically outlines the possible ramifications of such developments: ``The resulting tensions could lead to crises affecting Euro-Atlantic stability. . . [and] could affect the security of the Alliance by spilling over into neighboring countries, including NATO countries, or in other ways, and could also affect the security of other states.'' Moreover, Article 25 of the 1999 Strategic Concept specifically states that ``The Alliance is committed to a broad approach to security, which recognizes the importance of political, economic, social and environmental factors in addition to the indispensable defense dimension.'' How can these factors be addressed? Article 29 mentions the ``Alliance's ability to contribute to conflict prevention and crisis management through non-Article 5 crisis response operations.'' So, clearly NATO, including the United States, is on record as seeing the threats of this new century as being new, complex, and calling for a variety of responses. In that context the marvelous men and women of our armed forces serving in Bosnia and in Kosovo have taken on many tasks that military people of earlier generations, trained to stop the Red Army from pouring through Germany's Fulda Gap, either do not understand or believe are beneath the dignity of regular troops. But our troops understand their mission and believe in it. I have spoken at length with our soldiers in SFOR in Bosnia and in KFOR in Kosovo, and the overwhelming majority of them think that their broadly defined pacification activities are making a contribution to lessening the very threats that NATO's Strategic Concept describes. Skeptics may think that I have gained impressions that I wanted to get. Fair enough, I'm only human. But statistics don't lie. Every year the Pentagon issues re-enlistment targets for troops based abroad. When I stayed at Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo this past winter, I was told that the re-enlistment figures for our Army troops in KFOR were one hundred forty-two percent of target--the highest for any foreign-based units in the entire world. Re-enlistment rates in SFOR in Bosnia are also high. So obviously our troops in the field in the Balkans seem to grasp what Secretary Rumsfeld apparently does not: that what they are doing is important to the security of the United States and is not beneath the dignity of soldiers. I might also add that the charge that our Balkan-based troops lose their fighting ability has been shown to be another canard used to dress up neo-isolationist ideology. In fact, the U.S. Army has a well thought out program to restore so-called ``HIC'' or high intensity conflict skills to troops rotating out of the Balkans in a short amount of time. Equally important is the universally accepted fact that the troops who have served in SFOR and KFOR have acquired leadership skills through the missions frowned upon by Secretary Rumsfeld, which they never could have gotten sitting in bases in Germany or elsewhere outside the Balkans. I understand full well that non-military police forces also have a role to play. That is why several years ago I began calling for the creation of a ``gendarmerie'' force for crowd pacification and assistance to refugees returning to their homes. In fact, so-called ``MSUs'' or Multinational Specialized Units were created in Bosnia. Unfortunately, though, their strength has been allowed to decrease. U.S. General Mike Dodson, Commander of SFOR, told me that while he once had nineteen MSU units under his control, the number has shrunk to eleven. They should be beefed up to their former strength. In addition, new local police forces have been created both in the Federation and in the Republika Srpska. Some of them are functioning well, others not so well. But neither the MSUs, nor the local police forces, have the clout or inspire the fear in the ultra-nationalists that the regular SFOR troops do. We may not like this situation, but we have to face the facts: Bosnia is not yet fully pacified, and the recipe for curing the unrest is exactly the opposite from talking of withdrawing American troops. A few months ago, I stood here and said that we are at a critical juncture in Bosnia. The moderate, non-nationalist forces embodied in the ``Alliance for Change'' political coalition had just made important, even extraordinary, gains by winning, in free and fair elections, control of both the national and the Federation parliaments. The hardline ultra-nationalist HDZ Bosnian Croat party has violently refused to yield to its democratic defeat. Rather, it announced that it was creating its own ``self administration'' and withdrew its troops from the Muslim-Croat Federation Army and from cantonal police forces. An international operation that seized the bank through which the HDZ conducted its nefarious activities prompted a violent riot in Mostar in which serious bloodshed was only narrowly averted. After extreme pressure from the West the Bosnian Croat ultra-nationalists have indicated that they may resume participation in government institutions, but the situation remains precarious. In the Republika Srpska the hardliners who owe their allegiance to indicted war criminal Radovan Karadzic and who are at least rhetorically supported by Yugoslav President Vojislav Kostunica have been up to their old caveman tactics. Two weeks ago they broke up a ceremony in Banja Luka in which the cornerstone was to have been laid to rebuild the great Ferhadija Mosque, destroyed by Bosnian Serbs in the early 1990s. They trapped two hundred Bosnian and international officials for several hours before they were rescued. As a nice reminder of their lofty cultural level, the Bosnian Serb thugs burned Muslim prayer rugs and let a pig loose on the mosque grounds. Incidentally, although President Kostunica criticized this barbarity, he added that the reconstruction of such buildings was a provocation! Ultra-nationalists have also rioted in Trebinje and elsewhere against returning refugees. In short, the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina is hardly pacified. It is a time of great opportunity, for the hardline Serbs and Croats are reacting to their dwindling power. But it is also a time fraught with danger. For example, one strictly military task remaining to be accomplished is the amalgamation of the rival armies. If the U.S. forces, and SFOR, would withdraw before this occurs, renewed warfare would almost certainly break out. Instead of publicly musing about exit strategies, we need to be stressing our country's commitment to helping Bosnia and Herzegovina move once and for all beyond the domination of the corrupt ultra-nationalist parties. Moreover, rather than setting artificially limited goals for our military and then congratulating ourselves on fulfilling them, we need to utilize SFOR to kill the serpent that continues to poison Bosnian life: by apprehending the more than three dozen individuals indicted by The International Criminal Tribunal at The Hague for war crimes who are currently living with impunity in the Republika Srpska. This rogues' gallery includes, above all, Karadzic and General Ratko Mladic--who, according to Carla Del Ponte, the Chief Prosecutor of The Hague War Crimes Tribunal, enjoys the protection of a security detail that is paid for by the Yugoslav army. SFOR claims that it doesn't know where Karadzic and Mladic are. Well, Mrs. Del Ponte, with whom I met earlier this month, has offered to use her tribunal's capabilities to locate Karadzic and Mladic for SFOR. I think we should take her up on her offer. As long as these two mass murderers are on the loose, there will be no definitive peace in Bosnia. Our British allies have not been squeamish about undertaking risky operations to nab individuals indicted for war crimes. We must get Karadzic and Mladic, and, if necessary, the U.S. Army should be involved. The linchpin to the strategy of pacifying and democratizing Bosnia and Herzegovina is a continued robust U.S. military presence in SFOR. Secretary Rumsfeld's comments are bound to boost the spirits of the ultra-nationalist hardliners who, according to a recent report published by the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, ``are gambling . . . that [if] they can intimidate or just outlast the international community, they may still succeed in dividing Bosnia into ethnic states.'' Moreover, I am certain that the Secretary's comments have reignited concerns among our European allies that they will be left holding the bag in Bosnia. In the Washington Post interview, Secretary Rumsfeld stressed that there was no friction between him and Secretary of State Colin Powell on this issue. His comments, however, appear to directly undercut Secretary's Powell's repeated assurances to our European allies during the past several months that the United States ``will not cut and run'' from the Balkans, and that ``we went in together with our allies and we'll go out together.'' What on earth is going on here? Just as Secretary Powell has spent the last six months trying to undo the damage done by similarly ill-considered unilateralist comments in a New York Times interview by Condoleeza Rice, now the President's National Security Advisor, so the Bush Administration spin-doctors were quick to try to explain away the Rumsfeld interview by asserting that his proposals were only part of a process by which we intend to use NATO's Six Month Reviews to reduce our combat troops in Bosnia. Well, if that's the case, we have a case of ``choose your poison.'' One possibility is that the Bush Administration is, once again, internally out of control as President Bush showed by cutting off EPA Chief Christine Todd Whitman at the knees on carbon dioxide and Secretary Powell on his sensible support of South Korea's ``sunshine policy.'' The other possibility is that Secretaries Powell and Rumsfeld are, indeed, on the same page, and that ``in together, out together'' really means that the United States intends to use its unparalleled influence within NATO to force our allies to join us in a precipitous withdrawal before the mission in Bosnia is successfully completed. Given the choice, I'd opt for poison number one, and wait for this Administration to finally get its act together. But I fear that poison number two is the more likely scenario. If my fears prove correct, and we withdraw our troops, I predict that renewed fighting in Bosnia is just a matter of time. This next round would be bloody, and, inevitably, we would have to go back in again, at much greater cost in men and materiel. Because no matter how much my neo-isolationist friends salivate at the idea of sitting on the sidelines while the European Union's European Security and Defense Policy rapid-reaction force takes care of things--they will be sorely disappointed, because for the foreseeable future ESDP will need massive American support to function. You know, I think this town has a great many very intelligent individuals, and Secretary Rumsfeld is one of the brightest of the bunch. It's difficult for me to understand how even the most Asia- centered, or missile defense-centered person, can believe that their new foreign policy emphases have a chance of succeeding if Europe is not stable. And with the Balkans still erupting, Europe will not be stable. So let's all reread NATO's Strategic Concept and not view our military's tasks through a twentieth century prism. Let's listen to our men and women on the ground in the Balkans. Let's listen to our diplomats who know full well that a stepped up, resolute effort at Dayton implementation--backed up by a still robust SFOR--is what is called for. Let's stop talking about accelerated exit strategies before the mission is successfully accomplished.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise in support of Howard Baker. I realize this is unusual; the chairman of the committee should be the one to close. I apologize. I didn't know you were speaking. I think I am the last to speak and I will be brief. Howard Baker is one of the few men or women nominated for Ambassador that it would be warranted not to be briefed about because there is so much to say about Howard Baker. The distinguished senior Senator from Hawaii, standing in the well, knows him as well as I do--and maybe a little better. I have been here 28 years. He was as fine a leader of the Senate as we had in either party. He is a man who, as I said this morning, possessed not only good judgment but a strong dose of wisdom. Howard Baker has a piece of the country lawyer in him, the country lawyer who knows how to cut through difficult circumstances in a way that resolves a situation and at the same time does no harm or damage to either the egos and/or positions of either of the parties. That is the mark of a leader. It seems to me that is the primary ingredient that an Ambassador should possess. The appointment of Howard Baker to be Ambassador to Japan is the single strongest signal that the people of Japan could have that we value this relationship with Japan. Senator Helms and I have been here the same length of time, Senator Inouye longer, but I doubt whether there is any country to which we have sent more distinguished men and women--men in this case--than to Japan. He goes in the tradition of some truly great Americans. That sounds like a trite thing to say, ``great Americans,'' but Mike Mansfield, ``iron Mike,'' from Montana had more integrity in his little finger than most have in their whole body, a man whom everyone admired, a distinguished Speaker of the House of Representatives, Tom Foley, a distinguished colleague of ours, and on the opposite side of my friend from North Carolina, but respected, Fritz Mondale, a man who graced this place--and I mean that literally, graced this body--and Howard Baker. And I am leaving out others of consequence as well. Let me say it is not hyperbole to suggest, as I did this morning, and the Senator referenced it, that Senator Nancy Kassebaum, all by herself, would be fully capable of dispatching the responsibilities of the Ambassador to Japan. Really, as we always say, the Senator from North Carolina and I, because of our responsibilities on the Foreign Relations Committee and confirming all Ambassadors--we always say the spouse of the nominee is someone who makes a sacrifice as well as who makes a contribution. It is almost always true, in some cases more than others. This is a combination of political leadership, diplomacy, knowledge, and access--access to the corridors of power in the White House--that I think is unparalleled. I join with my colleagues in saying that Howard Baker is a fine choice. More than that, he is a truly fine man. As I said this morning, he and I have been on opposite sides of things--more together than on opposite sides--but I truly consider him a friend. It is presumptuous of me to say of a man of his stature that I am a friend. He was a man of consequence long before I arrived. I don't mean to be presumptuous in saying we are close friends. We are different in generations and different in age. But we are friends. I admire him. I admire him very much, and I compliment the President. I will close with what I have always thought to be and I believe to be an old Anglo-Saxon expression. It says: Character is little more than the lengthened shadow of a man. Howard Baker casts a very long shadow. He has great character. He will serve this Nation well at what I believe to be the single most critical time in U.S.-Japanese and U.S.-Asian affairs since the end of World War II. Words matter; Howard Baker chooses his well, and I know of no place more than Japan where words, decorum, and diplomacy matter more. No better choice could be made. I compliment the President.

Mr. BIDEN. I do.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield for a very brief question. Will the Senator agree with me that if you want to know what a country values, you should take a look at what its Tax Code says--who it makes pay, and what its budget is. I respectfully suggest that everything the Senator is saying--and I hope he continues to speak--reflects a fundamental difference in values--not just priorities, a fundamental difference in values between those who support this bill--they are not bad votes. It is not good and evil; it is a different value judgment. This tax bill neither reflects my priorities nor my values. The Senator has laid out a number of items. He is going to lay out more. How do we explain that everybody in the Tax Code who is in a certain income tax bracket gets relief except people in the 15-percent tax bracket? How do you do that? It is a value judgment. I assume our friends think, if you give the wealthier people a cut, and not the middle-income people and the little guy, that somehow that is going to trickle down. That is a value judgment, a fundamental value judgment. How do we stand around and say, somebody who receives $100 million in inheritance should get a tax break when, at the same time, it is going to be paid for out of Social Security and Medicare surpluses? This is about values. So I guess it is less a question than a statement. I hope the Senator lays out every one of these things because I think it is important the public understand so they can make clear choices. What do they value the most? This is a value judgment. My friends on the other side always talk about values. Well, let me tell you, this is where the rubber meets the road. This reflects our values. I am where the Senator from Connecticut is. I hope he continues to educate me and the public about it. Make no mistake about it. It is not just priorities; it is about our basic values, what we value most.

Mr. BIDEN. We are going to be in real trouble. So I hope, I say to the new Senators on the floor, they do not make the same mistake this senior Senator did almost 20 years ago; that is, vote for something such as this. We will pay a dear price in this country for this vote. I compliment the Senator on his comments tonight, as well as his vote in the 1980s. I wish I had the foresight he had to know what was going to happen.

Mr. BIDEN. The Senator, if I am not mistaken, was one of only 10 or so who voted no. The Senator from Delaware voted yes on that amendment. I have cast over 10,000 votes as a U.S. Senator. It was one of the two votes I most regret ever having cast. The other one was voting for a fine, decent man, Supreme Court Justice Scalia. I regret that because his view turned out to be so fundamentally different than my view of the Constitution. One of the reasons why I think what the Senator is saying is so important is it took the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Delaware--you doing the right thing in the first instance, me making a mistake--it took us almost 20 years to bail out. I have the scars on my back, as does the Senator. He did not deserve them, I do--for the efforts we had to undertake to put the budget back in shape. We did that at a time when we had expanding productivity, when we had a lot of unmet capacity in the country, when, in fact, we were moving-- there was a chance to rectify it. There will be no chance because when this kicks in--and I am going to sit down--when this kicks in, because it is the same time guys like the Senators from Connecticut and Delaware, the baby boom generation, are going to be retiring.

Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield on that one point?

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to change my vote on rollcall vote No. 137 from nay to aye. This will not change the outcome of the vote.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, authority for the community policing program has expired, and I rise today to introduce legislation to extend that hugely successful program for another six years. We created this program in 1994 as part of that year's crime bill. The COPS program has worked better than any of us could have hoped. Crime has gone down every year since the program has been in existence. We have invested over $7.5 billion to make our streets safer. 115,000 officers will be funded by the end of this fiscal year. 73,600 of those officers are on the beat today, over 200 of them in my own state of Delaware. Grants have been issued to more than 12,400 law enforcement agencies. Big cities and small towns have benefitted, and more than 82 percent of all COPS grants have gone to departments serving populations of 50,000 or less. Community policing methods are taking hold across the country. A recent Justice Department study revealed that the number of community police officers nationwide increased by 400 percent between 1997 and 1999. Schools are benefitting: by the end of this fiscal year COPS will have funded almost 5,000 school resource officers. These are specially trained officers who work in schools to prevent crimes before they occur, mentor students, and assist school administrators in creating a safe learning environment. Since COPS started funding school resource officers, their numbers across the country have shot up more than 40 percent. When we passed the crime bill in 1994, we set a goal of funding 100,000 officers by 2000. That goal has been met. But the need for more officers, for technology to help those officers do their job more efficiently, and for more prosecutors so the cases investigated by the police can effectively be brought, continues unabated. The Justice Department reports that in the last two fiscal years, demand for new police hiring grants has outstripped available funds by a factor of almost three to one. To meet this need, the legislation I introduce today authorizes $600 million per year over the next 6 years, enough to hire up to 50,00 more officer. We have made this portion of the program more flexible: up to half of these hiring dollars can be use to help police departments retain those community police officers currently on payroll. In another change from current law, portion of these funds can be used for officer training and education. The legislation also provides funding for new technologies, so law enforcement can have access to the latest high-tech crime fighting equipment to keep pace with today's sophisticated criminals. Also included are funds to help local district attorneys hire more community prosecutors. These prosecutors will expand the community justice concept and engage the entire community in preventing and fighting crime. The statistics we have on community prosecutions are quite promising, and we should increase the funds available to local prosecutors, a piece of our criminal justice puzzle that has too often gone overlooked. We need to pass this bill. Already the administration has announced its intention to end the police hiring program, to dramatically scale back the community prosecution program, and to cut other critical state and local law enforcement programs. That is not the right approach. Crime is down, but it will not stay down. Preliminary FBI crime reports for 2000 indicate that we may be reaching the end of our eight straight years of decreasing crime. Last December, the FBI reported that crime was down in most big cities, but up in cities of less than 50,000 people. It was up 1.2 percent in the South, the nation's most populous region. Several of our largest cities have reported increases in their murder rates. Crime will not stay down, unless we dedicate the resources necessary for state and local law enforcement to do their job effectively. This bill has the support of every major law enforcement organization in the country. Fifty senators are original cosponsors of the legislation, including five Republicans. I want to pay a special tribute to my friends on the other side of the aisle and thank them for listening to their mayors, police chiefs, and officers who told them this is the right thing to do. We should not play politics with public safety, and I hope we can pursue common-sense crime-fighting proposals without regard to party. I would like to thank the men and women of law enforcement for their service and heroism in bringing about the longest lasting decrease in crime in this nation's history. Let's build on that success, and let's continue to give them the support they deserve, by reauthorizing the COPS program. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, as well as several letters supporting its introduction, be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, authority for the community policing program has expired, and I rise today to introduce legislation to extend that hugely successful program for another six years. We created this program in 1994 as part of that year's crime bill. The COPS program has worked better than any of us could have hoped. Crime has gone down every year since the program has been in existence. We have invested over $7.5 billion to make our streets safer. 115,000 officers will be funded by the end of this fiscal year. 73,600 of those officers are on the beat today, over 200 of them in my own state of Delaware. Grants have been issued to more than 12,400 law enforcement agencies. Big cities and small towns have benefitted, and more than 82 percent of all COPS grants have gone to departments serving populations of 50,000 or less. Community policing methods are taking hold across the country. A recent Justice Department study revealed that the number of community police officers nationwide increased by 400 percent between 1997 and 1999. Schools are benefitting: by the end of this fiscal year COPS will have funded almost 5,000 school resource officers. These are specially trained officers who work in schools to prevent crimes before they occur, mentor students, and assist school administrators in creating a safe learning environment. Since COPS started funding school resource officers, their numbers across the country have shot up more than 40 percent. When we passed the crime bill in 1994, we set a goal of funding 100,000 officers by 2000. That goal has been met. But the need for more officers, for technology to help those officers do their job more efficiently, and for more prosecutors so the cases investigated by the police can effectively be brought, continues unabated. The Justice Department reports that in the last two fiscal years, demand for new police hiring grants has outstripped available funds by a factor of almost three to one. To meet this need, the legislation I introduce today authorizes $600 million per year over the next 6 years, enough to hire up to 50,00 more officer. We have made this portion of the program more flexible: up to half of these hiring dollars can be use to help police departments retain those community police officers currently on payroll. In another change from current law, portion of these funds can be used for officer training and education. The legislation also provides funding for new technologies, so law enforcement can have access to the latest high-tech crime fighting equipment to keep pace with today's sophisticated criminals. Also included are funds to help local district attorneys hire more community prosecutors. These prosecutors will expand the community justice concept and engage the entire community in preventing and fighting crime. The statistics we have on community prosecutions are quite promising, and we should increase the funds available to local prosecutors, a piece of our criminal justice puzzle that has too often gone overlooked. We need to pass this bill. Already the administration has announced its intention to end the police hiring program, to dramatically scale back the community prosecution program, and to cut other critical state and local law enforcement programs. That is not the right approach. Crime is down, but it will not stay down. Preliminary FBI crime reports for 2000 indicate that we may be reaching the end of our eight straight years of decreasing crime. Last December, the FBI reported that crime was down in most big cities, but up in cities of less than 50,000 people. It was up 1.2 percent in the South, the nation's most populous region. Several of our largest cities have reported increases in their murder rates. Crime will not stay down, unless we dedicate the resources necessary for state and local law enforcement to do their job effectively. This bill has the support of every major law enforcement organization in the country. Fifty senators are original cosponsors of the legislation, including five Republicans. I want to pay a special tribute to my friends on the other side of the aisle and thank them for listening to their mayors, police chiefs, and officers who told them this is the right thing to do. We should not play politics with public safety, and I hope we can pursue common-sense crime-fighting proposals without regard to party. I would like to thank the men and women of law enforcement for their service and heroism in bringing about the longest lasting decrease in crime in this nation's history. Let's build on that success, and let's continue to give them the support they deserve, by reauthorizing the COPS program. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, as well as several letters supporting its introduction, be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I wanted to make a statement before I yield.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I would be happy to yield, if he wants. I find this the single most fascinating debate I have been involved in in 28 years. I sincerely do. It is not a joke. I am not being facetious. I find this absolutely fascinating. This isn't just about choices. This is about values. My friend from Arizona says ``morality.'' Give me a break. Morality? This is about values. This is about what you value. Is it of a higher value to you to make sure that the fewer than one-tenth of 1 percent of the people in America, numbering literally in the thousands, who will have to pay an estate tax over $3 million--the first 3, no tax--will have their rate dropped from 55 to 53 instead of 55 to 50--is that of greater value and moral content than paying for tens of thousands of Americans, sitting in this gallery, listening to this debate, being able to send their kid to school? Talk about morals. Talk about morality. Talk about values. You have just summarized the fundamental difference between that side and this side. This is about values. I have never had it so starkly and honestly stated on this floor. This is about values: What do we value as Americans? Given the fact we just received a beautiful speech from both the managers of the bill about how we can't do everything; it has to be done gradually, my Lord, values, values, values, values. I will tell you what my values are. My values come from the middle- class family in which I was raised. There are three things a parent can give a child: They can give them faith, they can give the child an education, and they can give the child character. We want to talk about values. Is it better that I see to it that if I am lucky enough to have a $4 million estate left, that on $1 million of that, I leave to my heirs several thousands dollars less than they would otherwise get because they won the genetic pool or that somebody in the State of Nevada, or in Delaware, or New York is busting their neck working two jobs, both parents trying to send their kids to school and can't get them to college. Tell me about values. Where I come from, that is an easy call. That is not even close. It would be viewed by most where I come from as immoral to give the kid who won the genetic pool $3,000 more than the million they already get and to allow the person who is working two or three jobs in one family to not be able to send their kid to school. I am glad my friend raised it in moral terms. I didn't quite think of it that way before. Look, let's talk about the morality of what we are considering here-- whether it is immoral to charge someone over 50 percent after they are dead so their heirs will receive $10,920,000 instead of $14,110,000, or whatever the numbers would come out to. Everybody in this Chamber acknowledges what my friend from New York has been saying. College tuition is skyrocketing beyond the means of most of us. When we talk about the minimum wage and say that kids should work their way through college--I worked; they flirted with me about football scholarships, a grant in aid, and I got a job making a dollar an hour. Guess what. The tuition for the whole year was $800. A dollar an hour helped. It is true. The staff looks at me as if I am a fossil. We are paying now $5, $5.50. We can raise the minimum wage to $6. Tell me how many hours you would have to work to pay at a State university such as mine, where room and board and tuition is somewhere around $17,000. At the University of Iowa, it is $10,000 or more. Tell me how many hours you would work for that. Tell me how you can work your way through school today. You just work your way through school. How many families do you men and women know--maybe I lived in a different neighborhood, came from a different place--who both work and some have two jobs? How many do you know? I know lots of such people. Lots of people. Talk about values. Look, everything is relevant. The question here is, What do you value the most? I would like to point out another thing, without going into all the statistics. There are a couple of points I want to make to you. By the time this kicks in--the Schumer-Biden amendment--it makes $3,000 of college tuition and fees tax deductible. Let's talk about what this giant tax bill is going to do for middle- class families, OK. When all is said and done, if we don't put anything in here at all, nothing at all about tuition--let's talk about what helps the people making up to $120,000 in joint income--you are going to get $1,400 back when it kicks back. OK, that is great. I am all for that. Guess how much you get back by the time ours kicks in for your tuition. It is $3,306. Our tuition tax proposal is bigger than the whole tax cut you get. Come on. We all stand here and say, because most of us come from middle-class roots, middle-class backgrounds, we care about the middle class. No matter how you cut this, in terms of raw dollars, in terms of what you value, in terms of education, this is a bigger bump for the average middle-class family with a kid in school or somebody trying to put themselves through school than the entire tax break you get. I don't know where you guys live. I don't know where you live. Quite frankly, I thought it was brilliant of my friend from New York. He and I have been doing this for over 2 years in our different capacities. He said, OK, we have to find an offset because of the stupid process we have. He put in the least innocuous offset you could find. If this would offend you, my Lord--this goes to permanent 11 years out. We are slowing up 3 percent to give tens of thousands of Americans a chance to send their kids to school. This is not the place I joined 28 years ago. Do we have our values upside down? Do we have our priorities backwards? It is similar to my saying, you know, the guy who lives in that $4 million estate down there, because the county has raised the sewer fees and because he has seven bathrooms, he is going to end up paying $120 a year more, so we should give him relief. The guy living in the place where he has a two- bedroom bungalow, trying to figure out how to pay the electric costs and the heat because of the energy prices going up, we will rip our hair out to decide whether or not, my God, do we continue this relief we have for people----

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I have been standing here for a long while.

Mr. BIDEN. May I have 2 more minutes?

Mr. BIDEN. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, the bottom line is that this is a vote about values. This is a way to define, very simply, what you value most. If you value giving 5-percent relief to people with estates over $3 million, instead of 3 percent, more than you value allowing tens of thousands of Americans to get up to $3,300 in relief on their taxes, which can be to do everything from paying tuition to paying the light bill, middle- class families, then vote against us. Make no mistake about it. My friend from Arizona is right. This is a moral question. This is about value. I know where I stand. I am interested to see where the Senate stands.

Mr. BIDEN

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

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, after speaking with the Republican and Democratic sides, I understand there is room for 10 minutes for any Senator to proceed in morning business, and/or if I need to go over that 10 minutes, my Republican colleague indicated I may have some time. I will proceed and hopefully finish in 10 minutes.

Mr. BIDEN. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Biden and Mr. Reid pertaining to the introduction of S. 899 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. BIDEN. I suggest the absence of a quorum

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, tomorrow the administration will unveil its energy plan. From the early reports we have been given, I am concerned that the proposals are too heavily weighted on the production side and fail to adequately address the need for conservation. One bright note that I have found is a general support for hybrid vehicles, the topic that I wish to address briefly today. Specifically, I want to voice my support for legislation creating a hybrid vehicle tax credit. A hybrid vehicle combines an electric motor and battery pack with an internal combustion engine. The engine and the electric motor work in tandem, with either system providing primary or secondary power depending on driving conditions. For example, when stopped at a light, the vehicle shifts from an internal combustion engine to electric power and then back again upon acceleration. In addition, the batteries are re-charged during operation, eliminating the need for an external charger. This is new technology and the result of years of hard work. I would like to see my colleagues join me in passing legislation to create a tax credit that would encourage consumers to purchase hybrid vehicles. I have known for years that this technology would become available and I have been looking for the right opportunity to draft legislation that would help put hybrid vehicles on our roads. I think that there are two components that must be addressed in a tax credit bill. To begin, I firmly believe that we must reward the integration of the technology into the vehicle with a base credit. In addition, however, I feel strongly that an important goal that must be achieved through legislation is to reward a vehicle that significantly decreases the amount of fuel consumed. I have proposed a plan that provides both a base credit of up to $2000 for the use of the technology, as well as a bonus credit, up to $1000, calculated based upon the lifetime fuel savings of the vehicle. I think that this approach is a sound one. Placing the emphasis on gallons saved speaks directly to the importance of conservation and with our country facing an energy crisis is critical. And I also know that the biggest improvements in the reduction of fuel consumption will come from getting larger volumes of hybrid vehicles into the hands of consumers. But in crafting this legislation, there are certain realities that we must accept. Today, there is a significant portion of the population that wants to drive a larger vehicle. This is America and people are entitled to personal choice. It is for this reason that I applaud the efforts of car manufacturers who have chosen to place hybrid technology in larger vehicles and SUV's. For example, DaimlerChrysler has committed to hybridizing the popular Dodge Durango with the vehicle scheduled to come on like in 2003 and this will bring a 20 percent improvement in fuel consumption. I am also aware that others have advocated different approaches to crafting legislation that creates a tax credit for hybrid vehicles. My colleague Senator Hatch has introduced a bill, S. 760, that would provide a tax credit for hybrid vehicles as well as other advanced motor vehicle technologies. While his bill provides a base credit, up to $1,000, for the inclusion of hybrid technology, the bonus credit in this bill, up to $3,000, is calculated depending upon the fuel economy performance of the vehicle. In addition to the Hatch bill and the administration's general statements, members of the automobile industry as well as environmentalists are also engaged in discussions to draft language that will create an incentive for consumers to purchase a hybrid vehicle. In the next few weeks, we need to have a thorough discussion among members of the automobile industry and environmentalists so that we can reach consensus on the language of this important legislation and move forward to passage of a bill. There is not just one approach that solves the problem and I am prepared to listen to all views. I hope that the other stakeholders are also ready to work for a compromise. While we may differ on our approach to drafting the legislation, I am sure that we can all agree that the goal should be passage of legislation that creates a tax credit for hybrid vehicles and provides the necessary encouragement to bring this important technology into the marketplace.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Frances Collender Public Safety Officers' Benefit Improvement Act of the year 2001. At around 6 a.m. on February 6 of this year, Corporal Frances Collender of the Delaware State Police pulled her cruiser behind a van that had been disabled by an accident on Route 1 in Odessa, DE. Tragically, Corporal Collender was struck and killed by another driver just as she was assisting the disabled motorist. There was a little bit of snow on the ground. Corporal Collender was not only a beloved mother and daughter, she was also beloved by her entire troop and by the State Police. This was a woman who, after having started another career, went back and decided to become a public safety officer and joined the elite of the Delaware State Police. She was sort of the mother figure of these folks who were a lot younger than she. She was a leader. She was a corporal, but in many ways she was the captain. She was the one to whom everybody looked. Everything and anything that was good that was being sponsored by police organizations in our State--she was not atypical in that sense-- she was involved in. She was always one who not only refused to shirk her duty but took on additional responsibilities. She did not have to respond to this call. She was about to get off, but she responded--it was typical of her--to keep someone else from having to come out. She was ``nearby,'' so she responded. And she has passed away. She volunteered, as she always did, and, in doing so, maybe saved somebody else's life but lost her own. This week, with thousands of law enforcement officers, survivors, and family members gathered in the Nation's Capital for National Police Week, we listened to the President of the United States, as we have other Presidents. We listened as the rollcall was called of all fallen officers nationwide in the calendar year 2000. Until you attend an event such as this, as I am sure my colleagues have, it doesn't--how can I say this?--it doesn't sink in, just how incredible these officers are, just what incredible chances they take for us, and just how many lose their life in doing so. Corporal Collender had two beautiful daughters, one of whom has become my buddy. She is 17 years old; she is smart; she is beautiful; she is engaged. She lives with her grandmom and grandpop who, if you knew them--especially grandmom--you would understand, without knowing Corporal Collender, that she is everything I said she is. It seems to me we have to do more than pay our respects once a year to these families for the sacrifices they have made on our behalf. I was involved with a group, years ago, that decided although it is technically not a Federal responsibility, we should provide a death benefit to fallen and slain officers. What I am suggesting today is that a death benefit is not sufficient. It was set years ago. Although it has increased with inflation, it is below what I think is a realistic need of the average first responder's salary. This will cover first responders including firefighters. If you think about it, there are very few people in law enforcement--none goes into it because they think they are going to make a lot of money, and very few in law enforcement come from families who have trusts or endowments or inheritances that are left. They are working-class people, almost all these days college educated. But they make a decision because of their sense of duty, their sense of honor, and their sense of just wanting to take on difficult tasks. When they die, their families are left in a very difficult circumstance. I need not tell anyone in here that a $150,000 death benefit--which is what the original death benefit is up to now because of inflation-- is insufficient. It is not going to pay even for the college costs of one of Corporal Collender's daughters, if she goes to a private institution, by the time they get there. It will not even pay for the college costs of her younger daughter if she goes to my alma mater, the State University of Delaware. So I think it is time, particularly in this period of incredible surplus we are talking about, when we can decide that the inheritance tax should be eliminated for billionaires, when we decide we are going to give hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax breaks to people who make over a million bucks and up, that we ought to be able to, for the relative handful, thank God--we are talking hundreds now, not talking thousands--we ought to be able to raise the death benefit for those who give their lives to make us safer. Since 1972 with the shooting of a New York deputy sheriff, over 15,000 public safety officers have been killed in the line of duty; 30 officers from my State. Thirty from my little State have paid the ultimate price, with Corporal Collender being the most recent loss. This past Sunday, 313 names were added to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial. Yesterday, as I said, families paid tribute to those fallen officers by laying a wreath at the National Peace Officers Memorial Service. I was there. The President paid tribute to Corporal Collender and her family and to the families of all officers who were lost. There are too many--there are too many--line-of-duty deaths each year, and for too long our response to their families just hasn't been enough. The Justice Department runs the Public Safety Officers' Benefits program, an initiative begun 25 years ago to make one-time payments to assist public safety officers and their families when they become disabled, or lose their lives, in the line of duty. For the first 12 years of its existence the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program issued $50,000 payments to qualifying officers and their families. In 1988, we recognized this figure was inadequate both to express the gratitude of a grateful nation and to try to put these families on sound financial footing. So 13 years ago we raised the payment to $100,000 and indexed it for inflation. This year the program began at $151,000. Last year, 181 claims were paid, and the Public Safety Offices' Benefits program has successfully helped disabled officers, their families, and the families of those officers killed in the line of duty put their lives back together. It is time to take another look at the Public Safety Officers' Benefits program. Recently, the other body approved legislation that would increase to $250,000 the maximum death benefits for families of military personnel killed in the line of duty. We should do the same thing for the families of slain public safety officers, including firefighters. So today I am introducing the Frances Collender Public Safety Officers' Benefits Improvement Act, legislation that will increase the payment under the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program from $100,000 to $250,000. Payments will continue to be indexed for inflation. We have not adjusted the payment under this program for almost 15 years, and the families of those who have paid the ultimate price deserve some more help than they are getting. I have raised this issue with my good friend and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch. He has indicated he may very well want to join as an original cosponsor of the bill. I have not been able to get in touch with him this morning, so I have not added his name. The reason I am introducing the bill now is because the afternoon will get so busy and I may not have an opportunity to speak to the introduction of this legislation. If my friend from Utah decides to join me on this bill, as I hope he will, I am prepared to rename this act in the name of both Frances Collender and a slain Utah police officer that my friend from Utah would like to add to this legislation. I would be happy to do that if he decides and wishes to join me. During Police Week, while the Collenders and other heroic families of public safety officers are in Washington to pay tribute, let's show our gratitude as well, beyond our sympathy. Washington can pay tribute. They can pay tribute by us voting and agreeing to increase this death benefit. It is the least Congress can do to express our gratitude to the peace officers for all they have done. If we cannot afford it now, we can never afford it. I do not see how we can afford not to do this for the public safety officers of this Nation. I thank the Chair. I thank the family of Frances Collender for their bravery because it is sometimes much harder to be in the waiting room than the operating room. Sometimes it is much harder to be at the grave site than being the one buried, I suspect. They have shown great class. They have shown great resolve. And the one thing all of us who deal with law enforcement and firefighters know, they never forget their own. Although those two beautiful young girls of Frances Collender do not have their mother, they have inherited, for as long as they live, the entire police force of the State of Delaware, who, for real--it is not hyperbole--will be there for them, whether they ever knew their mother or not, until the day they die. It is part of the tradition, it is part of the honor, and it is part of our responsibility as well. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BIDEN. I am happy to yield.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. As usual, he is generous and gracious. He is, as everyone on both sides knows, one of the most gracious men who serves in this body. He is a gentleman with a backbone like a ramrod. I take his comments to heart because I believe he means them. It means a lot to me that he does. There are few things I have done in my 28-year career in the Senate that I believe has been more worthwhile, and that I am more proud of, than working with the law enforcement agencies of this country, getting them from 500,000 to over 600,000 in local law enforcement agencies. I appreciate the sentiments expressed by my friend. I add, he was there every step of the way, voting for it, adding amendments, pushing it. I know he will be with me as we try to, quite frankly, prevent the President of the United States from eliminating that program. I am sure the President cares deeply about the safety of law enforcement officers in the country. I hope we can get his attention, to convince him that cutting the COPS Program in this upcoming budget is a mistake. I think once he focuses on that, we have a shot of doing that. But, again, I thank my friend from Nevada. He is a real gentleman and a good friend. And I thank the Presiding Officer for listening. One of the things--I should not say this--I like best about the present occupant of the chair is, whenever I stand to speak in this Chamber--I am sure he does it for everybody--he looks and listens and acts as if he is paying attention, and it makes a big difference. He is not signing his mail. I know I am not supposed to say that, but I am going to say it anyway because I appreciate his courtesy, speaking of a gentleman. I thank you all and yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Frances Collender Public Safety Officers' Benefit Improvement Act of the year 2001. At around 6 a.m. on February 6 of this year, Corporal Frances Collender of the Delaware State Police pulled her cruiser behind a van that had been disabled by an accident on Route 1 in Odessa, DE. Tragically, Corporal Collender was struck and killed by another driver just as she was assisting the disabled motorist. There was a little bit of snow on the ground. Corporal Collender was not only a beloved mother and daughter, she was also beloved by her entire troop and by the State Police. This was a woman who, after having started another career, went back and decided to become a public safety officer and joined the elite of the Delaware State Police. She was sort of the mother figure of these folks who were a lot younger than she. She was a leader. She was a corporal, but in many ways she was the captain. She was the one to whom everybody looked. Everything and anything that was good that was being sponsored by police organizations in our State--she was not atypical in that sense-- she was involved in. She was always one who not only refused to shirk her duty but took on additional responsibilities. She did not have to respond to this call. She was about to get off, but she responded--it was typical of her--to keep someone else from having to come out. She was ``nearby,'' so she responded. And she has passed away. She volunteered, as she always did, and, in doing so, maybe saved somebody else's life but lost her own. This week, with thousands of law enforcement officers, survivors, and family members gathered in the Nation's Capital for National Police Week, we listened to the President of the United States, as we have other Presidents. We listened as the rollcall was called of all fallen officers nationwide in the calendar year 2000. Until you attend an event such as this, as I am sure my colleagues have, it doesn't--how can I say this?--it doesn't sink in, just how incredible these officers are, just what incredible chances they take for us, and just how many lose their life in doing so. Corporal Collender had two beautiful daughters, one of whom has become my buddy. She is 17 years old; she is smart; she is beautiful; she is engaged. She lives with her grandmom and grandpop who, if you knew them--especially grandmom--you would understand, without knowing Corporal Collender, that she is everything I said she is. It seems to me we have to do more than pay our respects once a year to these families for the sacrifices they have made on our behalf. I was involved with a group, years ago, that decided although it is technically not a Federal responsibility, we should provide a death benefit to fallen and slain officers. What I am suggesting today is that a death benefit is not sufficient. It was set years ago. Although it has increased with inflation, it is below what I think is a realistic need of the average first responder's salary. This will cover first responders including firefighters. If you think about it, there are very few people in law enforcement--none goes into it because they think they are going to make a lot of money, and very few in law enforcement come from families who have trusts or endowments or inheritances that are left. They are working-class people, almost all these days college educated. But they make a decision because of their sense of duty, their sense of honor, and their sense of just wanting to take on difficult tasks. When they die, their families are left in a very difficult circumstance. I need not tell anyone in here that a $150,000 death benefit--which is what the original death benefit is up to now because of inflation-- is insufficient. It is not going to pay even for the college costs of one of Corporal Collender's daughters, if she goes to a private institution, by the time they get there. It will not even pay for the college costs of her younger daughter if she goes to my alma mater, the State University of Delaware. So I think it is time, particularly in this period of incredible surplus we are talking about, when we can decide that the inheritance tax should be eliminated for billionaires, when we decide we are going to give hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax breaks to people who make over a million bucks and up, that we ought to be able to, for the relative handful, thank God--we are talking hundreds now, not talking thousands--we ought to be able to raise the death benefit for those who give their lives to make us safer. Since 1972 with the shooting of a New York deputy sheriff, over 15,000 public safety officers have been killed in the line of duty; 30 officers from my State. Thirty from my little State have paid the ultimate price, with Corporal Collender being the most recent loss. This past Sunday, 313 names were added to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial. Yesterday, as I said, families paid tribute to those fallen officers by laying a wreath at the National Peace Officers Memorial Service. I was there. The President paid tribute to Corporal Collender and her family and to the families of all officers who were lost. There are too many--there are too many--line-of-duty deaths each year, and for too long our response to their families just hasn't been enough. The Justice Department runs the Public Safety Officers' Benefits program, an initiative begun 25 years ago to make one-time payments to assist public safety officers and their families when they become disabled, or lose their lives, in the line of duty. For the first 12 years of its existence the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program issued $50,000 payments to qualifying officers and their families. In 1988, we recognized this figure was inadequate both to express the gratitude of a grateful nation and to try to put these families on sound financial footing. So 13 years ago we raised the payment to $100,000 and indexed it for inflation. This year the program began at $151,000. Last year, 181 claims were paid, and the Public Safety Offices' Benefits program has successfully helped disabled officers, their families, and the families of those officers killed in the line of duty put their lives back together. It is time to take another look at the Public Safety Officers' Benefits program. Recently, the other body approved legislation that would increase to $250,000 the maximum death benefits for families of military personnel killed in the line of duty. We should do the same thing for the families of slain public safety officers, including firefighters. So today I am introducing the Frances Collender Public Safety Officers' Benefits Improvement Act, legislation that will increase the payment under the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program from $100,000 to $250,000. Payments will continue to be indexed for inflation. We have not adjusted the payment under this program for almost 15 years, and the families of those who have paid the ultimate price deserve some more help than they are getting. I have raised this issue with my good friend and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch. He has indicated he may very well want to join as an original cosponsor of the bill. I have not been able to get in touch with him this morning, so I have not added his name. The reason I am introducing the bill now is because the afternoon will get so busy and I may not have an opportunity to speak to the introduction of this legislation. If my friend from Utah decides to join me on this bill, as I hope he will, I am prepared to rename this act in the name of both Frances Collender and a slain Utah police officer that my friend from Utah would like to add to this legislation. I would be happy to do that if he decides and wishes to join me. During Police Week, while the Collenders and other heroic families of public safety officers are in Washington to pay tribute, let's show our gratitude as well, beyond our sympathy. Washington can pay tribute. They can pay tribute by us voting and agreeing to increase this death benefit. It is the least Congress can do to express our gratitude to the peace officers for all they have done. If we cannot afford it now, we can never afford it. I do not see how we can afford not to do this for the public safety officers of this Nation. I thank the Chair. I thank the family of Frances Collender for their bravery because it is sometimes much harder to be in the waiting room than the operating room. Sometimes it is much harder to be at the grave site than being the one buried, I suspect. They have shown great class. They have shown great resolve. And the one thing all of us who deal with law enforcement and firefighters know, they never forget their own. Although those two beautiful young girls of Frances Collender do not have their mother, they have inherited, for as long as they live, the entire police force of the State of Delaware, who, for real--it is not hyperbole--will be there for them, whether they ever knew their mother or not, until the day they die. It is part of the tradition, it is part of the honor, and it is part of our responsibility as well. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BIDEN. I am happy to yield.