Joe Biden

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. And I will yield to the Senator from Tennessee to continue his answer. Let me back up. If I can say to my friend from Tennessee, the language in the McCain-Feingold bill on page 15 says: In General.--The term ``electioneering communication'' means any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication which--[subsection] (i) refers to a clearly identified candidate for elective office[.] Is the interpretation of those who put that language in that it must mention the candidate by name?

Mr. BIDEN. I really don't know.

Mr. BIDEN. I will continue. Maybe the Senator moves on his time. It doesn't matter. Continue, if the Chair will allow it.

Mr. BIDEN. Can my colleague explain to me why is that?

Mr. BIDEN. So if a name is mentioned--it is the assertion of the sponsors and supporters of Snowe-Jeffords that if the name is mentioned in an ad, 60 days before election, by an advocacy group, that that would be subject to regulation under this legislation?

Mr. BIDEN. Even if they do not suggest whether to vote for or against that Senator?

Mr. BIDEN. I ask the Senator, it would not capture an ad that said: This is the NRA. The distinguished Senator from Tennessee wishes to take away your shotgun. We think you have a right to keep your shotgun. I hope you will consider this when you vote. It would not capture such an ad, would it?

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am a supporter of McCain-Feingold, so I am not inclined to be supportive of anything that is going to make the effort that is underway less effective in controlling these kinds of ads. The distinguished Senator from Wisconsin indicated to me while the Senator from Pennsylvania was speaking--and I apologize; I did not catch the intervention of the Senator from Tennessee because I was not on the floor, so I may be being redundant, but it was indicated to me that at least some who support this legislation, McCain-Feingold, fear that if the standard being proposed by the Senator from Pennsylvania, which I support, is adopted, we will have inadvertently put in a two- test hurdle. I see the distinguished Senator from Maine. Maybe she can be helpful--that it would require, not only that you reach the Snowe- Jeffords standard but that you then have to meet a second standard, thereby making it even more difficult to control the kinds of ads we are trying to get at here. I wonder if the Senator from Maine or the Senator from Wisconsin--or anyone--could tell me why they think the Snowe-Jeffords standard would, in fact, capture the kinds of ads that the Senator from Pennsylvania has been speaking to, which do not mention the name by name, or they mention by name but do not advocate whether to vote for or against that candidate. Why would such ads be captured by the language of the Snowe- Jeffords amendment? Would anybody wish to respond to that for me?

Mr. BIDEN. Five minutes.

Mr. BIDEN. How much time does the Senator have? If he only has a few minutes--

Mr. BIDEN. I am on the side of the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I stand in support of the amendment of the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Minnesota, Senator Wellstone, for bringing this amendment to the Senate, and I am pleased to join him in this effort to finally break the ice on getting rid of special interest money in our campaigns--once and for all. He and I have been at this for a long time, a very long time. And while I support the McCain-Feingold bill, we have to remember that it only addresses a portion of the problems we have. Indeed, the effort to secure real reform of the way we finance political campaigns has been a central concern of my entire Senate career, almost three decades. In fact, the first Committee testimony I ever gave as a U.S. Senator, back in 1973, was to speak in favor of public financing and spending limits for campaigns. And if you think campaign finance reform is a tough issue today, let me tell you, as some of my colleagues well remember, it was truly unpopular then. As I continued to push for public funding of campaigns in 1974, my goal was to get rid of special interest money--money that pollutes the system and drowns out the voices of ordinary persons. Special interest money has a tendency to influence anyone running for public office, or at a minimum, casts that impression that elected officials are beholden to someone other than the American people. Public financing also helps to level the financial playing field for challengers taking on well established incumbents who had virtually all of the fund-raising muscle. But again, I encountered a lot of opposition, from colleagues on both sides of the aisle. A story I know I have told before: One senior Senator pulled me aside in the cloakroom, and told me that he had worked hard and earned his seniority, and he was not going to open the door for some challenger to be able to raise as much money as he could. He basically asked me--I expect when he would tell the story, he didn't ask me, he told me--to stop what I was doing. In that same year, 1974, I wrote an article for the Northwestern University Law Review, outlining the three principal reasons that I was pursuing campaign finance reform. First, a political process that relied totally on private contributions allowed for, at the very least, the potential of wealthy individuals and special interest groups exercising a disproportionate influence over the system. Second, such a process meant that wealthy candidates had an almost insurmountable advantage. And third, incumbents had an equally daunting advantage; the system virtually locked them into office. We did make some progress in 1974, largely because of documented abuses in the 1972 presidential campaign, with the passage of Amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, known as the FECA. The 1974 amendments, which I supported, established the Federal Election Commission to help ensure proper enforcement of campaign laws, and also set the now familiar federal campaign contribution limits of $1,000 for individuals and $5,000 for political action committees. The amendments further established campaign spending limits and expanded public financing for presidential campaigns. Not unexpectedly, the constitutionality of the 1974 amendments was challenged almost immediately, and the Supreme Court decided the issue in its 1976 landmark ruling, Buckley v. Valeo. The Court upheld the law's contribution limits, but overturned the limits on expenditures as a too severe restriction of political speech. The Court did leave open, however, the possibility of spending limits for publicly financed campaigns--which, so far, despite my best efforts, has been limited to presidential campaigns--because the candidates could disregard the limits if they rejected the public funds. There were additional issues in the case, not directly related to campaign financing, including a separation of powers question regarding how Commissioners to the FEC were appointed. In response to the Court's decision, Congress enacted additional amendments to the FECA in 1976, which again, I supported. One amendment repealed the spending limits except for publicly financed campaigns; another addressed the FEC appointment procedures; and another restricted and regulated PAC fund-raising. I also supported a third round of refining FECA amendments, which passed in 1979. In addition to those successes in the 1970s, there were also frustrations. In 1977, I introduced legislation to prohibit the personal use of excess campaign funds by defeated candidates, by retired or resigned Federal office holders, or by the survivors of a deceased office holder. The bill was debated on the floor, but ultimately failed. The greater frustrations of the late 1970s and early 1980s were, first, that partisan stalemate kept us from making additional progress, and second, that despite our efforts with the FECA amendments, individual campaigns and political parties were bypassing the laws by taking advantage of loopholes in the regulatory language and system. We finally broke the stalemate on reform legislation in the Senate, and on narrowing one of the biggest loopholes, by delineating more specific guidelines for the use of political action committees, or PACs, when we passed the Boren-Goldwater amendment in 1986, legislation I was proud to cosponsor. This would have reduced PAC contributions and put a total limit on the amount of PAC money a candidate could accept. But the celebration was short-lived, and progress on campaign finance reform stalled again, despite our continuing efforts to give it a legislative jump start. With my colleagues, Senator Kerry from Massachusetts and then-Senator Bradley from New Jersey, I offered public campaign financing bills in the 101st, the 102nd and the 103rd Congresses. Others among our colleagues were equally persistent during this era, perhaps most notably, Senators Boren and Mitchell, Senator Danforth and Senator Hollings, who has proposed a constitutional amendment to allow Congress to pass legislation setting mandatory limits on contributions and expenditures for federal campaigns. I have supported that proposal in the past, as well as other reforms suggested by the distinguished Senator from South Carolina and other colleagues. We did manage to pass several significant pieces of legislation through the Senate, only to have the process stalled again in the conference process. And as I know many of my colleagues will remember, we even managed to get a pretty good bill out of conference and through both Houses, in 1992--a bill that included voluntary spending limits in congressional campaigns, in exchange for certain public funding benefits, as well as restrictions on PAC receipts and soft money. But the legislation was vetoed by President George H.W. Bush, and our Senate override vote failed by 57-42. When we resubmitted the legislation the following year, with Senator Boren again as the lead sponsor and with President Clinton's support and, indeed, some additional provisions proposed by the White House, the Congressional Campaign Spending Limit and Election Reform Act again got pretty far. Just as I had done 20 years before, I testified before the Senate Rules Committee, arguing for public financing as the only road to true campaign finance reform. The bill, with one major compromise amendment, passed the Senate 60-38, but a compromise with the House proved more difficult, and our debate ended with a filibuster against appointing conferees. The 104th Congress saw a famous handshake between President Clinton and the Speaker of the House, Mr. Gingrich, signaling their ``agreement in principle'' to pursue campaign finance reform. And the two major sweeping reform bills, which continue to dominate our debates today, were born McCain-Feingold in the Senate, and Smith-Meehan-Shays, now known as Shays-Meehan, in the House. Then in 1997, I again partnered with Senator Kerry, as well as Senators Wellstone, Glenn and Leahy, to introduce the Clean Money, Clean Elections Act. That proposal would have wiped private money out of the campaign system almost entirely, by greatly reducing the limit on individual contributions and imposing an additional limit for each state. Candidates would have received public funds and free media time, calculated by State size. Unfortunately, as with so many other proposals directed toward public financing for congressional campaigns, we got no further than a referral to committee. In recounting this history, I do not mean to sound downtrodden or discouraged. We have made progress through congressional action--with the FECA amendments and since 1979, the elimination of honoraria and the ``grandfather clause'' on the personal use of excess campaign funds, the National Voter Registration Act and the increase in the tax return checkoff for the Presidential Election Campaign Fund from $1 to $3. The 106th Congress saw no fewer than 85 campaign finance reform bills introduced, 24 of them in the Senate, including the McCain-Feingold bill that we are debating today, as well as the Hagel-Kerrey bill on which hearings were held last spring. While none of the sweeping reform proposals made it through the last Congress, we did take a small but important step, enacting a proposal initially offered by Senator Lieberman and later incorporated into an amendment he sponsored with Senators McCain and Feingold. The legislation, which in virtually identical form to McCain- Feingold-Lieberman was signed into law by President Clinton last July, addressed the problem of so-called ``stealth PACs,'' operating under section 527 of the tax code. Such organizations claimed tax exempt status, but at the same time also claimed exemption from regulation under the FECA. That meant these stealth PACs could try to influence political campaigns with undisclosed and unregulated contributions, all tax free. The new law closes that loophole, requiring 527 organizations to adhere to appropriate regulatory and disclosure requirements. Again, an important step. And I hope it is a step that gives us momentum to make further progress in the 107th Congress. My own legislative initiatives, throughout my career, have focused on public financing of federal campaigns, and I continue to believe that it is truest course to reform. But I have been in the past, and will be in our deliberations now, willing and eager to support other brands of reform that offer responsible regulation and close what can, at times, seem like an endless chain of newly exploited loopholes in existing law. Our goal, whatever proposal is at issue, must be to uphold the public trust and to secure public confidence in the integrity of our election process. We are not entitled to that confidence; we have to earn it. That is no small task, especially having just emerged from an election that was not only contentious but expensive--the total amount raised just by the two national parties was close to $1.2 billion, a $300 million increase from the 1996 election cycle. And half of that $1.2 billion was so-called ``soft money,'' raised and spent beyond the reach of federal regulation, although certainly with the intent of influencing some Federal elections. As the amounts and creative uses of soft money have grown, we must give the issue the serious consideration it merits, as, I might add, McCain-Feingold does, with its outright ban on soft money raising and spending in Federal races. In the past, as I've attempted to summarize today, we have made some progress, but time and time again, we have stopped short of how far we need to go on campaign finance reform. The amendment offered by Senator Wellstone today gives us at least a chance, for Senate races in some States, to discard the influences of special interests. Public financing allows candidates to compete on an equal footing where the merits of their ideas outweigh the size of their pocketbook. It frees members from the corroding dependence on personal or family fortune or the gifts of special interest backers. It ends the need for perpetual fundraising by elected officials. But above all else, it helps restore the American people's faith in our democracy. The truth is that campaigns are financed by people, and when they are financed by all the people--not just a small percentage--they will create much better government and will do the one thing that most needs to be done at this time, and that is to begin to restore public confidence in the system. Either all of America decides who runs for office, or only a few people. It's as simple as that. And if we cannot pass this at the Federal level, let's at least give the States the chance to do it, as Senator Wellstone is proposing. The fact is, the States have been leading the way when it comes to public financing. My home State is now considering such a proposal. If candidates can agree to spending limits, and choose public financing over special interest money, we should not stand in the way of allowing a state to pursue an avenue of reform that we are reluctant to take here in Washington. Public financing is the true, comprehensive way to reform. While I would prefer to enact public financing at the federal level, I nevertheless support my colleague's effort to restore faith in our electoral process by giving States the go ahead. Madam President, I don't understand what my friend from Kentucky gets so worried about. I know he disagrees with guys like me and the Senator from Massachusetts about public financing of elections, which I think is the only way we ever clean this up. This is a simple yet important amendment. All we are saying is, if your State decides it wants to put in a financing system and if both candidates running for office or three candidates running for that office agree to abide by it, then what is the big deal? I find it so fascinating that by and large my Republican friends talk about States rights so much. They are such great champions of States rights. They would love the Environmental Protection Agency to be subservient to the States. They think the 11th amendment means something the Supreme Court, unfortunately, has decided it means. The States are the repository of wisdom to my friends on the other side of the aisle, by and large. We are not going to even allow the States, if they choose, to set up a financing system for elections if all the candidates voluntarily agree. If they don't voluntarily agree, they can't do it constitutionally, in my view. Here we are with even this modest attempt. What we are afraid of on this floor is the public one day waking up and saying: Hey, the emperor has no clothes; this has been a big sham. Gosh, look at this, I didn't realize this. All they know now is generically they don't like the way we do business. All they know now is generically there is too much money involved in politics. In their home States, if they like the idea of too much money continuing to be involved in politics, so be it; they can decide that. But if they decide that there is a way to get the big money out and a way to make sure every single voter in the State has the same say as any wealthy person, then they might do this. This is so modest, it is almost embarrassing to have to argue for its passage. It is the single most insightful way to understand why what we are doing doesn't mean much.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am privileged to be a cosponsor of the Veterans' Higher Education Opportunities Act of 2001, S. 131, and I will explain why this legislation is so important. No one from either side of the aisle questions the importance of education as the steppingstone to success in the 21st century. We all know that the economy of the future is going to require people with specialized training and skills, while the unskilled labor that typified the 18th and 19th centuries is becoming less and less useful. In this regard, it is hardly surprising that Congress is flooded with proposals to enhance access to high-quality elementary education, secondary education, and higher education. I myself have strongly supported expansion of Pell Grants, broadening of student loans, and tax incentives to help families pay for a college education. As we rightly promote the importance of government help for higher education, it might be useful to recall that one of the first, and most successful, of these higher education initiatives was the GI bill that was enacted back in 1944. Following World War II, millions of veterans were able to obtain college educations through the GI bill, with the result that many were able to attain a standard of living they could not have imagined. Furthermore, all this college-trained talent contributed to the burst of economic advances that improved life for all of us over the ensuing decades. Fast forward 57 years. We still have a GI bill, and in our highly successful all-volunteer military, it turns out that the single most important factor that attracts many young people to join the military is the availability of educational benefits after discharge. Yet the current GI bill suffers from one big flaw: the educational stipend is no longer sufficient to pay for the cost of a college education. The current monthly payment in the GI bill has not come close to matching the rate of inflation in educational costs over the past 50 years. Just consider these statistics. At present, the standard GI bill benefit is $650 per month for 36 months. That is it. Moreover, we now ask servicemembers who want educational benefits after discharge to contribute $1200 while they are in the military. By contrast, when it began in 1944, the GI bill benefit included full tuition and fees at any educational institution to which the veteran could gain admittance, PLUS a monthly stipend equivalent to $500 in 2001 dollars, $750 for married veterans. We thus find ourselves in an anomalous situation: at the same time that the Government is ramping up its support and subsidy for non- veterans seeking college educations, the program that started this whole thing, and which provides key benefits for those who put their lives at risk for the country, is lagging way behind. The Veterans' Higher Education Opportunities Act of 2001 goes a long way toward redressing this situation. The key provision of this bill is quite simple: the total VA educational stipend under the Montgomery GI Bill will be increased to a level equal to the average cost of tuition at 4-year public colleges. In other words, the standard 36 months of GI bill benefits will be sufficient to allow a veteran to attend college and complete a degree. The Veterans Higher Education Opportunities Act of 2001 provides the minimal benefit that we should be offering to those who are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice to keep our country free and prosperous, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation to authorize the establishment of nonprofit entities to provide grants and other assistance for international educational, cultural and arts programs through the Department of State. This is an initiative that was developed last year in discussions with officials of the Department of State. I am pleased to be joined by Representative Jim Leach of the other body, who is introducing the same bill today. We are in an era in which cultural issues are increasingly central to international issues and diplomacy. Trade disputes, ethnic and regional conflicts, and issues such as biotechnology all have cultural and intellectual underpinnings. Cultural programs are increasingly necessary to promoting international understanding and achieving U.S. national objectives. American multinational companies and other Americans doing business overseas welcome opportunities to support the unique cultures of nations in which they do business, as well as telling the story of America's diversity in other countries. One way they could do this is by helping to sponsor cultural exchange programs arranged through the Department of State. Department officials tells us, however, that there is apparently no easy way to do that. Moreover, many people in our own government are uncertain whether they should engage in presenting the creative, intellectual and cultural side of our nation. Under this legislation Congress would authorize the Secretary of State to provide for the establishment of private nonprofit organizations to assist in supporting international cultural programs, making it both easy and attractive for private organizations to support cultural programs in cooperation with the Department of State. In so doing, we would affirm support for the promotion and presentation of the nation's intellectual and creative best as part of American diplomacy. This initiative would support a broad range of cultural exchange programs. Its priority would be to support the organization and promotion of major, high-profile presentations of art exhibitions, musical and theatrical performances which represent the finest quality of creativity our nation produces. These should be presentations that reach large numbers of people, which contribute to achieving our national interests and which represent the diversity of American culture. The bill would provide authority to solicit support for specific cultural endeavors, offering individuals, foundations, corporations and other American businesses engaged overseas the opportunity to publicly support cross-cultural understanding in countries where they do business. The non-profit entity would work with the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs as well as the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy at the Department of State. I understand that the House International Relations Committee is planning to consider a version of this bill later this week. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate on this legislation in the coming weeks. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today, I address once more the subject of violence against women. It is still a problem. According Justice Department statistics, violence against women by intimate partners is actually down, falling 21 percent from 1993 to 1998. Luckily, we can thank the programs created by the Violence Against Women Act, which I introduced almost a decade ago, and the efforts of advocates all across this country, from Dover to Denver, in educating us to confront domestic violence head-on. Yet, unfortunately, we are far from eradicating this crime. It is a crime which harms women, leaving them battered and blue, sending them to the hospital, and causing them to miss work. We have also a crime that affects their children--children who cower while watching their mother get battered, children who too often then act out their own aggression. I would love to say that, in my lifetime, we will break this cycle of family violence. But, we are not there yet. One way of working towards this goal, however, is to preserve the Violence Against Women Office at the Justice Department. Today I, along with Senators DeWine, Levin, Specter, Carnahan, Hutchison, Miller, Collins, and Carper, have introduced a bill making the Office permanent. This office is vital because it has been instrumental in our efforts to help women harmed by domestic violence. Since its inception, the Violence Against Women Office has distributed over one billion dollars in its first five years to states, localities, tribal governments, and private organizations. These governments and groups, in turn, have used these precious funds to improve the investigation and prosecution of crimes of domestic violence, stalking, and sexual assault; to train prosecutors, police officers, and judges on the special aspects of cases involving violence against women; and to offer the needed services to victims and their families. In particular, this funding includes the incredibly successful STOP grants--grants which fund the Services for the Training of Officers and Prosecutors. These STOP grants--the largest grant program created by the Violence Against Women Act, are especially effective because each grant must be used to upgrade three vital areas: prosecution, law enforcement, and victim services. Likewise, the Violence Against Women Office has awarded grants to encourage arrest policies, which seek to educate our police officers that, when they answer a call for help by a woman being battered, they should not turn away. This battery is not a private matter, to be left behind closed doors--where a man as king of his castle can do as he pleases. No, not anymore. That woman's abuser is committing a crime and he is subject to arrest and prosecution. The Office has also distributed monies to our rural areas as part of the program for Rural Domestic Violence and Child Abuse Enforcement. I am sorry to say but this problem is in every part of this nation, and the Violence Against Women Office has sent funds to every corner of America, all the way from Orem, UT to Waterbury, VT. Yet, despite its pervasiveness, domestic violence itself is under attack. And the Violence Against Women Office is leading the fight. Given the success of the many programs of the Violence Against Women Act as administered by the Office, I believe that the time has come to make the Violence Against Women Office permanent by statute. This Office is long overdue a strong foundation. Moreover, the Office is due the prestige it deserves. My bill realizes this aim in a couple of ways. First, my bill provides that the Office be separate from any division or component of the Justice Department. In this regard, with the Office's Director reporting directly to the Associate Attorney General, as my bill requires, the Office will be shielded from any attempts to undo the great work it has historically accomplished. Why mess with success? Second, my bill provides that the Director of the Office shall now be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. This, too, raises the prestige of the work that the Violence Against Women Office seeks to accomplish day-in and day-out. It also subjects the selection of the Director, who performs the essential job of implementing the Violence Against Women Act, to the democratic process--thereby insuring that we attract the best candidates. Yes, indeed, we are far from solving the crime of domestic violence. But let us take a step in the right direction. Join me in making the Violence Against Women Office permanent. The safety of women and their families depends on it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today, I address once more the subject of violence against women. It is still a problem. According Justice Department statistics, violence against women by intimate partners is actually down, falling 21 percent from 1993 to 1998. Luckily, we can thank the programs created by the Violence Against Women Act, which I introduced almost a decade ago, and the efforts of advocates all across this country, from Dover to Denver, in educating us to confront domestic violence head-on. Yet, unfortunately, we are far from eradicating this crime. It is a crime which harms women, leaving them battered and blue, sending them to the hospital, and causing them to miss work. We have also a crime that affects their children--children who cower while watching their mother get battered, children who too often then act out their own aggression. I would love to say that, in my lifetime, we will break this cycle of family violence. But, we are not there yet. One way of working towards this goal, however, is to preserve the Violence Against Women Office at the Justice Department. Today I, along with Senators DeWine, Levin, Specter, Carnahan, Hutchison, Miller, Collins, and Carper, have introduced a bill making the Office permanent. This office is vital because it has been instrumental in our efforts to help women harmed by domestic violence. Since its inception, the Violence Against Women Office has distributed over one billion dollars in its first five years to states, localities, tribal governments, and private organizations. These governments and groups, in turn, have used these precious funds to improve the investigation and prosecution of crimes of domestic violence, stalking, and sexual assault; to train prosecutors, police officers, and judges on the special aspects of cases involving violence against women; and to offer the needed services to victims and their families. In particular, this funding includes the incredibly successful STOP grants--grants which fund the Services for the Training of Officers and Prosecutors. These STOP grants--the largest grant program created by the Violence Against Women Act, are especially effective because each grant must be used to upgrade three vital areas: prosecution, law enforcement, and victim services. Likewise, the Violence Against Women Office has awarded grants to encourage arrest policies, which seek to educate our police officers that, when they answer a call for help by a woman being battered, they should not turn away. This battery is not a private matter, to be left behind closed doors--where a man as king of his castle can do as he pleases. No, not anymore. That woman's abuser is committing a crime and he is subject to arrest and prosecution. The Office has also distributed monies to our rural areas as part of the program for Rural Domestic Violence and Child Abuse Enforcement. I am sorry to say but this problem is in every part of this nation, and the Violence Against Women Office has sent funds to every corner of America, all the way from Orem, UT to Waterbury, VT. Yet, despite its pervasiveness, domestic violence itself is under attack. And the Violence Against Women Office is leading the fight. Given the success of the many programs of the Violence Against Women Act as administered by the Office, I believe that the time has come to make the Violence Against Women Office permanent by statute. This Office is long overdue a strong foundation. Moreover, the Office is due the prestige it deserves. My bill realizes this aim in a couple of ways. First, my bill provides that the Office be separate from any division or component of the Justice Department. In this regard, with the Office's Director reporting directly to the Associate Attorney General, as my bill requires, the Office will be shielded from any attempts to undo the great work it has historically accomplished. Why mess with success? Second, my bill provides that the Director of the Office shall now be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. This, too, raises the prestige of the work that the Violence Against Women Office seeks to accomplish day-in and day-out. It also subjects the selection of the Director, who performs the essential job of implementing the Violence Against Women Act, to the democratic process--thereby insuring that we attract the best candidates. Yes, indeed, we are far from solving the crime of domestic violence. But let us take a step in the right direction. Join me in making the Violence Against Women Office permanent. The safety of women and their families depends on it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation to authorize the establishment of nonprofit entities to provide grants and other assistance for international educational, cultural and arts programs through the Department of State. This is an initiative that was developed last year in discussions with officials of the Department of State. I am pleased to be joined by Representative Jim Leach of the other body, who is introducing the same bill today. We are in an era in which cultural issues are increasingly central to international issues and diplomacy. Trade disputes, ethnic and regional conflicts, and issues such as biotechnology all have cultural and intellectual underpinnings. Cultural programs are increasingly necessary to promoting international understanding and achieving U.S. national objectives. American multinational companies and other Americans doing business overseas welcome opportunities to support the unique cultures of nations in which they do business, as well as telling the story of America's diversity in other countries. One way they could do this is by helping to sponsor cultural exchange programs arranged through the Department of State. Department officials tells us, however, that there is apparently no easy way to do that. Moreover, many people in our own government are uncertain whether they should engage in presenting the creative, intellectual and cultural side of our nation. Under this legislation Congress would authorize the Secretary of State to provide for the establishment of private nonprofit organizations to assist in supporting international cultural programs, making it both easy and attractive for private organizations to support cultural programs in cooperation with the Department of State. In so doing, we would affirm support for the promotion and presentation of the nation's intellectual and creative best as part of American diplomacy. This initiative would support a broad range of cultural exchange programs. Its priority would be to support the organization and promotion of major, high-profile presentations of art exhibitions, musical and theatrical performances which represent the finest quality of creativity our nation produces. These should be presentations that reach large numbers of people, which contribute to achieving our national interests and which represent the diversity of American culture. The bill would provide authority to solicit support for specific cultural endeavors, offering individuals, foundations, corporations and other American businesses engaged overseas the opportunity to publicly support cross-cultural understanding in countries where they do business. The non-profit entity would work with the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs as well as the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy at the Department of State. I understand that the House International Relations Committee is planning to consider a version of this bill later this week. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate on this legislation in the coming weeks. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the Retired Pay Restoration Act of 2001, which corrects a long-standing inequity that has resulted in a major slap in the face of our dedicated service men and women. Current law bans so-called concurrent receipt of VA disability compensation and military retired pay, so that the amount of any VA disability payment to a military retiree is subtracted from the monthly retirement check. In operation, this rule seems to turn logic and common sense on its head, and its repeal is long overdue. Let's be clear what we're talking about. This provision only applies to military retirees, those who have served their country in uniform for at least 20 years. Such retirees receive a taxable monthly pension based on their length of service and their final pay, which is determined primarily by their rank and length of service. In this regard, the military retirement pay system resembles the civil service retirement system with which we are all familiar. VA disability compensation is completely different. VA disability compensation consists of tax-free monthly payments to veterans who served in uniform for any length of time and who, during their time in the military, incurred a service-connected disability. These monthly payments are based only on the severity of the disability and nothing else: not on the length of service, the person's rank, the active duty pay, and so on. So at first blush, it seems that there is no logical reason why VA disability compensation should be offset against military retired pay: they are disbursed for completely different reasons and are calculated by totally different methods. But the incongruities of the present rules are nothing short of mind- boggling. Let us hypothesize that twins Jack and Jill sign up for the military at age 18. After 1 year in the military, Jack and Jill both incur identical knee injuries after stepping into a hole while running the obstacle course. The military disability system evaluates both Jack and Jill, confirms a mild disability in both due to intermittent swelling and locking of the knee, but determines that this disability is not severe enough to render them unfit for continued military service. At this point, Jack and Jill decide to pursue separate paths. Jack decides to leave the military when his enlistment is up, at age 22, and joins the Federal civil service in the Defense Department as a procurement specialist. Immediately after leaving the service, Jack applies to the VA for disability compensation, which is granted, and Jack then receives monthly payments from the VA for the rest of his life. At age 55, Jack retires from the Federal civil service and begins receiving his full monthly civil service retirement check in addition to the VA disability compensation that he has been receiving all along. Jill, on the other hand, decides to stay in the military after her injury, working as a procurement specialist. Of course, while she remains in the military, she receives no VA disability compensation, even though her twin Jack is receiving VA disability payments for the same injury all along. At age 55, Jill retires from the military, and starts to receive monthly military retirement checks. Jill applies to the VA for disability compensation based on her knee injury, and it is granted. However, when she begins to receive her VA disability checks, the amount of those checks is subtracted from her monthly military retirement pay. How can we rationalize this disparate treatment of Jack and Jill? We can't. It makes no sense that those in uniform who suffer a service- connected disability end up being penalized for deciding to remain in the military, while those who leave the military are amply rewarded.The longer you serve in the military, the more you are penalized. Does this make sense? I don't think so. Or let's consider another option. Twins John and Jane both enter the military at the same time, serve in the same position, and retire at the same age. Both receive the same monthly retired pay. John has incurred a service-connected injury, and after retirement, he is granted a disability compensation from the VA. Jane was never injured in the military. However, they both end up getting the same amount of pay, since John's VA disability payment is subtracted from his military retired pay. Does it make sense that we have an elaborate system for disability compensation that ends up treating the injured John and the uninjured Jane the same? I don't think so. The logical inconsistencies of the present rules are overwhelming. It is time to repeal the provision in current law that prohibits military retirees from receiving concurrent receipt of full military retirement pay along with VA disability compensation. Those who put their lives at risk by putting on the uniform of this country, and who are then disabled as a result of their military service, must be treated fairly and awarded all the benefits they have earned and which they deserve. To do any less makes a mockery of the sacrifices of all our service men and women.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, since he has the floor, whether I can use up to 5 minutes of the hour I have under cloture.

Mr. BIDEN. The credit card company, as you point out, will send you the bill. That is your receipt.

Mr. BIDEN. Excuse me, $1,075. You walk in now and say: Judge, here is my form. You get a date to show up or you are going to be discharged from bankruptcy, whether you are going to be in chapter 7 or chapter 13. You walk in--with or without a lawyer--and say: Your Honor, here is the deal. And you list your debt. You list your obligations and you list your assets. You have to do that no matter what. If you list $1,075 now, and it turns out you bought $1,075 worth of good wine, the creditor can come in and say: Whoa, they bought wine with that--in grocery stores like when I used to stack Schaefer beer in New York State when I was in law school working for the Schaefer beer company. They do not sell alcohol in those stores in my State, but in New York State I think they still do. If you say you bought $1,075 worth of beer, then it is not dischargeable. That would not be dischargeable, any more than $250 or $750 would be. Look, it is easy to make it sound complicated. When you take out your credit card, it lists what you bought. You have a receipt. You walk in and file and say: Judge, I used five credit cards, and I spent $5,000 in the last 90 days on food and clothing. Here is the deal. That is dischargeable. But if you walk in with those credit cards, and you spend it on, say, Versace----

Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield for 2 seconds?

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I associate myself with the remarks of the Senator from Tennessee, as well as the Senator from Texas. International relations, this would be a very serious mistake for us to make. Beyond commerce, this will do damage, in my view, to our relations also with Great Britain. This will make it difficult for us to make the case that when we want foreign courts to make concessions based upon our needs, for them to be willing to do so, I think it is a mistake. I understand and admire the Senator from Alabama for his desire to protect the interests of a citizen or citizens of his State, or others, but I think this is a mistake. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the agreement concluded this week under which NATO is allowing limited, selected units of the armed forces of Yugoslavia to reenter a part of the so- called Ground Safety Zone in extreme southern Serbia, opposite the southeastern tip of Kosovo. This decision, which I consider to be a wise one, was prompted by the escalating violence of three loosely organized ethnic Albanian guerilla groups, which collectively call themselves the ``Liberation Army of Presevo, Medvedja, and Bujanovac'', or UCPMB. These insurgents have taken advantage of the unintended military vacuum in the GSZ to operate with virtual impunity and take control of much of the small border area. In this context, it is important to note that NATO's decision was quickly followed by a one-week cease-fire agreement between the rebels and the Yugoslav Government. The Ground Safety Zone was created in the Presevo Valley as part of the Military-Technical Agreement concluded in June 1999 at the end of Operation Allied Force, the Kosovo Air War. It is a five-kilometer-wide strip, which was intended to separate the NATO-led troops occupying Kosovo from the Yugoslav Army and Serbian police in Serbia proper. In the last half-year the situation has changed fundamentally. Slobodan Milosevic, the authoritarian war-criminal who was responsible for starting four bloody wars in eight years, was deposed last October after he tried to thwart the will of the Yugoslav electorate. Although some of his successors have extreme nationalist backgrounds of their own and, in the case of Yugoslav President Kostunica, often voice rather other-worldly anti-American pronouncements, they are democrats and represent a significant break with Milosevic. Therefore, NATO believes that the troops under its command in Kosovo no longer must fear attacks from Yugoslav units across the border in Serbia proper. In short, NATO, through this week's agreement, has given an important, if limited, vote of confidence in the new administration in Belgrade. Again, this ground security zone, which coincidentally, as I know the Presiding Officer knows, is an area of southern Serbia bordering Kosovo which is predominantly Albanian. We did not put that ground security zone there because we were worried about the Albanian extremists, although we worry about them. We put it there so you wouldn't have the Serbian Army under Milosevic's command facing off border to border with NATO forces. That is why it was put there. In the meantime, there is no evidence that the KLA, the Kosovo Liberation Army, and its former leaders, Mr. Hashim Thaci and Mr. Ramush Haradinaj, are involved in these raids going on in that area of the Presevo Valley. In light of that, when I spoke to Major General George W. Casey, who is in charge of Camp Bondsteel and the KFOR forces in that sector, about a month ago, he proposed two things: One, that the Serbs have to come up with a political solution to deal with the plight of the Albanians living in Serbia who are denied political representation. In the meantime, we had to think about working out an agreement whereby in at least part of the Ground Safety Zone, we would allow patrols by the Serbian military to stop the infiltration of these renegade Albanian guerrilla forces who are seemingly not united, but who could cause the spark for a new war in the region. Meanwhile, the UCPMB attacks have grown bolder, and small groups of ethnic Albanian gunmen have begun attacks in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, just across from southern Kosovo. This latter outbreak of violence stems from local conditions, not the least of which is common criminality. Although the two insurgencies are fundamentally different--the ethnic Albanians in Macedonia have full rights and are represented in the highest levels of the national government--there has been a steady stream of smuggling of arms between the two areas. Moreover, this smuggling route goes directly through the sector of the GSZ that is to be re-occupied. NATO obviously hopes that one beneficial aspect of this week's agreement will be the interdiction of this smuggling route. Incidentally, I believe that the Bush Administration made a mistake by refusing to go along with the proposal by our British allies for entry of KFOR troops into the Groud Safety Zone to help pacify the area. Here I must underscore that the overall plan for the Presevo Valley is not a purely military one. It has an important civilian component, worked out by Serbian Deputy Prime Minister Covic. I will return to that aspect in a few minutes. Several articles in today's press have given sketchy outlines of what has been agreed upon. I believe, however, that since American troops are directly involved in this new situation, it would be wise to go into greater detail for the benefit of the Members of this chamber and for American citizens. First of all, the GSZ, Ground Safety Zone, has not been narrowed or otherwise reduced. The Commander of KFOR intends to permit certain forces of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, popularly known as the FRY, to enter the small Sector C, East, of the GSZ on specified dates and times. The presence of FRY forces is subject to the authorization of the KFOR Commander, who retains the right to revoke his authorization in the event of a violation of the specified terms and conditions. Now to the most important specific military conditions in the agreement. First, no FRY forces or authorities will be permitted to enter Kosovo. The agreement applies only to the GSZ in Serbia proper. Second, no FRY or Serbian irregular or paramilitary forces are to enter the GSZ. Only regular forces are involved. I will not take the time, but there is a gigantic difference between the regular FRY forces and the paramilitary forces that were responsible for the horrible damage and the horrible atrocities in Kosovo and other places. Third, several categories of equipment and weapons systems are prohibited from the sector to be re-occupied by FRY units, and are not to be used to fire into Kosovo. They include: tanks, helicopters, towed and self-propelled artillery, multiple launch rocket systems, mortars greater than eighty-two millimeters, anti-tank guns and guided missiles, and cannon greater than thirty millimeter caliber, anti-aircraft and air defense weapons systems, and mines and booby-traps of all types. I am sorry to go into such detail, but it is important that this be in the Record. Fourth and finally, FRY forces and authorities will at all times respect and ensure fundamental human rights and will abide by the provisions of all international humanitarian law conventions and covenants and the Geneva Convention. Monitoring of FRY forces will be conducted by the European Union. NATO has insisted that the commanding officers of the FRY forces going back into the GSZ must not have been involved in any of the atrocities committed in Kosovo in 1998 and 1999. Nonetheless, today's New York Times reported that the returning forces included General Pavkovic, the Chief of the General Staff of the Yugoslav Army, and General Lazarevic, the head of the national paramilitary police, both of whom compiled a record of brutality in Kosovo two years ago. Upon hearing this, my staff contacted U.S. Ambassador William Montgomery, who was on the scene in the Presevo Valley, to ascertain what had happened. His report illustrates both the progress in democratization that Serbia and Yugoslavia have made, and also how much more there is to do in that regard. Serbian Deputy Prime Minister Covic--as I said, who I met with for hours and is a democrat and a decent man--had been given authority to set up a special military unit to conduct the reentry of Yugoslav forces into the small southernmost area of the Ground Safety Zone. He placed in charge a general, with loyal subordinates, all of whom were not associated with the brutality in Kosovo 2 years ago. And, in fact, as of this morning there has not been any real violations of the cease-fire by either side. Now comes the intrigue that illustrates the split in the Belgrade Government. Without informing anyone in advance, General Pavkovic went down to the Presevo Valley and went into the Ground Safety Zone in a white jeep--in a white jeep, like some tinhorn dictator--stayed about an hour to assert his authority as Chief of the General Staff of the Army, and then left. Deputy Prime Minister Covic, a decent man about whom I will shortly speak, was apparently livid. In a press interview he snapped: ``The dogs of war must go, no matter how important the positions they occupy''--obviously referring to the Chief of the General Staff of the Army who rode around in his white jeep like some tinhorn dictator. We should not kid ourselves. Milosevic is gone from power, but many of his most important henchmen in the military and the police are trying to hang on to their posts. I hope, and expect, that President Kostunica--who personally emphasized his commitment to constitutional government to me 2 months ago in Belgrade--will shortly dismiss General Pavkovic, and General Lazarevic, and other military leaders who have Kosovar blood on their hands. President Kostunica must realize that this is a litmus test for Yugoslav democracy. Mr. President, earlier I mentioned the so-called Covic Plan, drawn up by the Deputy Prime Minister of Serbia. In January, I had a lengthy meeting with Mr. Covic and his senior advisors. I judge him to be a genuine democrat who can be trusted. In fact, he already has won the grudging confidence of most ethnic Albanians in the Presevo Valley with whom he has been in negotiations. The Covic Plan has six fundamental elements, which are intended to create long-term stability, but keep the Presevo Valley as part of Serbia. First, Serbia and the FRY commit to solving the crisis by political and diplomatic means. Second, there will be no special status or border changes for Presevo, Medvedja, and Bujanovac. I am getting good at these names, but not good enough, Mr. President. Third, there will be no constitutional changes. Ethnic Albanians in the area will be integrated into the existing system. Fourth, representatives of human rights organizations and the media will have free access to the area. Fifth, both the Serbian and ethnic Albanian sides in the area will demilitarize. And sixth, and most important, the ethnic Albanians will be integrated into the political, economic, and social systems of the Presevo Valley--in other words, the new government in Belgrade pledges to reverse the shameful discrimination and persecution of ethnic Albanians in the area carried out by Milosevic and his thugs. Mr. President, NATO's move this week was calculated, and it was a two-part gamble. First, we are betting that the new government in Belgrade has made a clean break with the ruthless, racist, and exploitative policies of Milosevic. Second--and this is probably more of a stretch--we are hoping that the majority of ethnic Albanian guerillas will permanently lay down their weapons if they see that Covic and his plan are being implemented in good faith and is producing tangible results. I should add that if the Serbian and Yugoslav authorities meet their part of the bargain, we should be ready to provide economic and humanitarian assistance to the Presevo Valley. Mr. President, one, or even both of these gambles may not pan out. If that happens, we, in concert with our allies, will have to recalibrate our policies. But in the highly complex and emotionally charged current situation, this agreement is, I believe, a risk necessary to take. As I have said innumerable times on this floor and elsewhere, the stakes for the United States in creating stability in the Balkans are too high for us to walk away from this problem. Either we remain intimately engaged politically, militarily, and economically or, I am firmly convinced, at some future date we will have to go back into a newly devastated Balkan area with a much higher cost. I thank the Chair, and I thank the pages. I thank the staff. I thank everybody for indulging me until 7:20 at night. But, Mr. President, I think it is vitally important that we all know what we are undertaking in the Presevo Valley and what we are undertaking in Kosovo. I am convinced we have no choice but to proceed as we have. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.