Joe Biden

Mr. BIDEN

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

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

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I know my colleagues are accustomed to seeing me leave the Chamber 5 minutes after the last vote to catch a train to go home. As a colleague said today when I indicated I was going to speak this evening, they are sorry to see I am not on the train today. They are very happy that I commute every day. The reason I am speaking at this time is that I did not want to postpone the vote on the bankruptcy bill which, I might add, to state the obvious, passed overwhelmingly, with overwhelming bipartisan support. Only 14 Democrats voted against it and 1 Republican, as I best counted. So this was an overwhelming vindication of the point that this bill is at least thought by the vast majority of the Senate in both parties to be a fair and equitable bill. But I want to go into some detail on this point, and it will take me somewhere in the range of 10 to 15 minutes to do it. This is the one portion of the bill that particularly Democratic colleagues most asked me about: Are women and children disadvantaged by the new bankruptcy law we passed today, assuming it becomes law after conference and is signed by the President? The resounding answer is: No. When some in the credit industry came to me and asked for my support for this legislation early on, I indicated I would be unable to support the legislation as initially proposed several years ago. I thought it required some significant changes. And not to my surprise, but to my satisfaction, there was little or no opposition to the proposed changes with which I was most concerned. I want to thank Christian Cabral, who is with me this evening on the floor, for putting together the material I asked for, which I am about to speak to, which will demonstrate just how much better off women receiving alimony or support payments are under the new proposed legislation, which just passed out of here with 83 votes, than they are with the present law. As I have indicated, I have heard a lot in recent days about how this bill lacks compassion--specifically, that it will hurt women and children who depend on alimony or child support. The critics claim that by making sure more money is paid back to other creditors, this bill will make it harder for women and children to get payments that should be coming to them through alimony and child support. Mr. President, I am particularly proud of my record in protecting women and children during my 28-year career in the Senate. I am most proud of my work in drafting and passing the Violence Against Women Act, to protect women who are victims of domestic violence and all violence. I am also proud of my work to track down and hold responsible deadbeat dads. As long ago as 1992, I was on the Senate Democratic task force for child support enforcement. While I was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, we enacted two major child support initiatives. As far as I am concerned, this bill is an extension of years of work on my part and others' to protect and enhance family support enforcement. I am here today to show that, contrary to a lot of the rhetoric we have heard tossed around on this floor over the last couple weeks, this bill actually improves the situation of women and children who depend upon child support. I specifically would like to speak to how this bill targets the problems they now face under the current bankruptcy law and turns the bankruptcy system into a virtual extension of the current national family support collection system. S. 420, the bill we just passed, is so far superior to current law that the National Child Support Enforcement Association, representing 60,000 child support professionals, supports it. These are the people from Salt Lake City to Wilmington, DE, in their family courts or whatever you call them in your respective States, who have the job of collecting support that is ordered by the court or agreed to in a settlement by a father for his children. Sometimes it is a mother, but overwhelmingly it is the father who has a support requirement to take care of the financial needs of the children who are with the mother. These are 60,000 child support professionals, hardly harsh people. The National Council for Child Support Directors supports the legislation we just passed. S. 420 is so far superior to current law that the National Association of Attorneys General supports this law. The association's letter of support is personally signed by 27 State attorneys general. The attorney general of the State of Vermont endorses the family support protection in this legislation. The attorney general of Minnesota endorses this law, along with the attorneys general of Illinois, Massachusetts, California, Montana, North Carolina, Michigan, Maryland, Iowa, Hawaii, and Washington. S. 420, the bill we passed tonight, is so far superior to current law that the National District Attorneys Association, representing more than 7,000 local prosecutors, supports this legislation. In particular, California embraces this bill, the California Family Support Council, whose 2,500 enforcement professionals carry out the child support program in California. The California District Attorneys Association, consisting of elected district attorneys from each and every one of California's 58 counties and over 2,500 deputy district attorneys--they all support this bill that we were told is so heartless to children and women. Support enforcement professionals west of the Mississippi support this bill. The Western Interstate Child Support Enforcement Council, composed of child support professionals from the private as well as the public sector west of the Mississippi, wanted this bill passed. Finally, the corporation counsel of the City of New York supports the domestic support provisions. Yes, even New York City loves this bill. Why has this legislation earned such overwhelming support from professionals who are out in the field, who are in the trenches trying to collect money from regular dads and deadbeat dads who owe child support for their children or alimony to their wives if this is such a compassionless bill? They support it because the system is broken and this bill fixes it. When a deadbeat dad files for bankruptcy under the current system, what happens to mom and the kids? If the dad is actually making payments, those payments stop. They stop now. That is right, the payments stop cold. Mom then has to find a lawyer or a government advocate, take time off from work, go to the bankruptcy court, and try to get those payments started again. When she goes to court, her claim may not be heard that day, so she will have to return again. If she is late, she will miss her day in court. In the meantime, the kids are getting no support payments. This bill changes all that. She will be paid, and her children will get their child support payments while every other creditor has to wait for the bankruptcy court proceedings to unfold. This is a major improvement over current law. Rather than putting women at a disadvantage, this bill empowers women. It gives them a say in the bankruptcy proceedings relating to her absent spouse. Once a father is under a bankruptcy plan and he fails to make his support payments, a mother can march to bankruptcy court and ask the court to dismiss his bankruptcy plan. The court will call the dad back to explain himself. He does not want to make payments during the bankruptcy plan: that is what he says. That is how it was before. He did not have to do it before. Fine. He can be thrown out of bankruptcy and find himself back at square one. Under current law, when the dad's bill collectors show up in the bankruptcy court, mom has to fight with them over the child support. In asserting her claim, she is not the No. 1 collector in the line, nor No. 2, 3, 4, or 5. She is No. 7 in line, the seventh to be paid. The current code handicaps her at the starting line by permitting other bill collectors to beat her in the race to get dad's assets. Why is this so important? As a practical matter, she does not have to find room in her hectic schedule to make an appearance in bankruptcy court, an intimidating place for most people. She can go to work without interrupting her day. She can run her errands. She can pick up her kids from school and, under this bill, she will automatically be first in line for her support and alimony claim. She will continue to receive her payments during the bankruptcy proceeding. When we pass this bill, she does not have to work her way through the bankruptcy system; the system will work its way for her, not against her. Another provision added to this bill in the managers' package was the moment the husband declares bankruptcy, the bankruptcy court is required to file with and notify, immediately, the spouse. So just in case the old man had not mentioned that he has these payments and there is not a record of it, she knows immediately. The court is required to notify the spouse if he files for bankruptcy. The system will work for the mother. That is the beauty of the bill. It is self-executing. The provisions to be added to the bankruptcy code will function automatically, and that is vital. Women who do not have a lawyer to help them will be most helped by this aspect of the bill. Under the current code, they have to get an attorney, go to court and assert their claims, and, again, they are No. 7 when they assert their claims. There are other important ways in which this bill will remove real obstacles to justice that exist in the current bankruptcy law. This bill not only lifts the stay on support payments in bankruptcy--let me emphasize that. The husband goes into Delaware and files for bankruptcy. What immediately happens is a stay on all the payments he makes occur. The family court wonders why he ``ain't'' paying. They automatically stay the payment when they get a notice that he has filed for bankruptcy. Bankruptcy can go on for weeks, months--a long time. In the meantime, what does that mother do? How does she feed her children if, in fact, that is her primary source of income for her children? That is how it works now. That is how it works now in almost every State. I have an order in my pile of papers. I will refer to the order. In my home State of Delaware, a woman went to court and requested a restraining order against her abusive husband. He had already filed for bankruptcy. Incredibly, the judge found that under the current bankruptcy code, a proceeding for a domestic abuse restraining order is automatically stayed. Did my colleagues hear what I just said? This is a woman who says she is being abused. She wants an order to keep her abusive husband away from her. The husband has filed for bankruptcy, and the court finds that under the current bankruptcy code, a proceeding for a domestic abuse restraining order is automatically stayed ``by operation of law.'' All those folks who stand on the floor--and I heard them lecture me about how abusive this law is--do not understand the present system and the part we are trying to correct and what we do correct in this bill. That is right. We have judges out there right now who look at today's bankruptcy code and find that filing bankruptcy stops all other proceedings. They find we have failed to write an exception for proceedings such as those for domestic violence. They find their hands are tied. Then they send a woman in here to get the bankruptcy court to lift the automatic stay so she can go back into court and get a stay to keep the abusive husband away from her. This bill permits that restraining order to go forward, while the current law does not do that. If anyone thinks it is fair, if anyone prefers this state of affairs--and I know the Presiding Officer does not--I guess you will think we passed a bad bill. Personally, I am proud of this bill. I am surprised opponents failed to take note of the important improvements this bill has made for women and children. If they have their way in a conference or when it comes back here, women and children in this country depending on alimony and child support will be robbed of real protections we have in this bill. I think that would be a crime. This is another way the bill provides women with the resources and the influence they now lack under the current bankruptcy code. Section 219 of the bill requires the U.S. bankruptcy trustee to notify a woman of her rights to use the services of her State child support enforcement agency, and gives her the agency's address and phone number the moment the husband files. Better yet, the trustee, likewise, notifies the agency independently of the woman's claim. That is striking. The bankruptcy judge is now, if we pass this law, required to notify the child support agency of what is going on, in addition to the woman. A woman who needs help will get information they need because the bankruptcy system is charged with reaching out to family support professionals, acting under the family Federal support collection law, which I helped pass, and putting them at the service of women and children who need these services. This last item needs stressing because so much has been made about what will happen after someone who owes family support payments comes out of bankruptcy. The claim is that ``a more powerful creditor will push women and children aside and strip the dad bare before he can make any payments to his family.'' That makes for a very moving story. However, it is plain, ordinary fiction. As one of our former colleagues used to say, with his great sense of humor, Senator Simpson of Wyoming, how many times through the years I served on this floor with him in the Judiciary Committee, and he turned and said: I understand the gentleman is entitled to his own opinion, but he is not entitled to his own facts. He is not entitled to his own facts. The facts are, that after the bankruptcy payment is made, after they have worked out if they are in a chapter 7, afterwards, the bankruptcy trustee is required to notify both the woman and the family support collection professionals about the dad's release from bankruptcy, his last known address, the name and address of his employer, and a list naming all of the bill collectors that will still be there trying to collect from dad. This section helps mother both during and after bankruptcy. The new notification procedures will help a mother and the support enforcement agencies keep track of the father, where he is working, and what other bills he is required to pay. Because of this monitoring, which would be put in place by the bankruptcy system under this bill, mothers and collection agencies can more easily go to court and get that portion of the father's wages that now belong to them. Dad may complete his bankruptcy plan, but his obligations to mom will not stop. These new procedures guarantee that family support claims of women and children will always receive No. 1 priority during and after bankruptcy. The process for obtaining a portion of the father's wages, through a wage attachment, already guarantees priority to women and children over all other collectors, whoever they are. Under the wage attachment, the money is taken out of his paycheck before he even sees it. He can't be forced ``by powerful creditors'' to choose between them and his alimony or child support. These payments are automatic. Again, the picture of the greedy bill collector, rushing in front, elbowing mom out of line, and the starving children, is a dynamic story-telling device, but it is only that--story telling. It is a plain story. As I said, quoting my friend from Wyoming, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. Even if a father does not earn wages, support enforcement agencies still have many tools to ensure that the mother and children get paid. Support enforcement agencies can intercept taxes, unemployment benefits, revoke driver's license, professional recreational licenses, deny passports, institute criminal and contempt proceedings. All of this she is unable to do now because she doesn't know where dad took off to but the bankruptcy court is required, even after he works out a bankruptcy, to tell her, and tell her who the collectors are. That is why, even compared to any imaginary powerful creditor you might be able to conjure up, mother and children have real, tangible, protections and resources at their disposal to bring a first priority claim against father's wages after bankruptcy, or anything else dad has. Finally, let me conclude where I began, with the enthusiasm for this legislation that we have heard from the folks in the trenches. This is what the National Association of Attorneys General asserts. The bill ``improves the treatment of domestic support obligations,'' and when the current code ``obstacles are removed, as this legislation seeks to accomplish, we believe that our State and local support enforcement offices will continue to be able to collect those moneys effectively, regardless of whether the lower priority creditors remain.'' The National District Attorneys Association, with more than 7,000 local prosecutors in their membership, is convinced that women and children will not be disadvantaged by this bill. ``To the contrary, support collectors have vastly more effective, and meaningful, collection readiness before a bankruptcy case is filed, or after the case is completed, than any other financial institution. It is under the current law, during bankruptcy, that support collectors have the greatest difficulty, because they are in competition with all other creditors for bankruptcy estate assets and because their most effective collection remedies have been stayed. This legislation provides a major improvement to the problems facing child support creditors in bankruptcy proceedings.'' I worked very hard to see that many of these things got in the bill. I support enthusiastically the reform that enforcement professionals call for from New York City to California, from Minnesota to Vermont, from Massachusetts to Michigan. I want to save women and children from having to fight their way through a broken bankruptcy system, and even if they get there, they end up seventh in line. I want to make some system work for them and not against them. I believe all those who voted for this bill today voted to do just that. That is why I so strongly supported the bill.

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.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. BIDEN. I am not standing here seeking recognition to speak, although I would like to do that at whatever time is convenient, but I ask the question: Isn't it fair that the request--and I strongly disagree with Senator Wellstone's characterization of this bill, and I strongly disagree with Senator Durbin's characterization of this bill, but are they not entitled to have a vote? I am standing here to support their right to have a vote before cloture. I thought that was the general understanding, that we would have the ability to vote on both those amendments before cloture. I do not understand why they are not being given that right. Again, I strongly disagree with both of them. I think there has even been a little bit of demagoguery on the bill. I resent some of the ways they have characterized the positions of some of us who support the bill, but I think they have a right to have a vote on their amendments. I thought there was an understanding. My question is: Was there not an understanding that we would be voting today prior to cloture on some of these amendments that would be kicked out by cloture if cloture were invoked?

Mr. BIDEN. I cannot yield. The Senator from Utah has the floor. I asked a question so I cannot yield. That is my question. Does it also not make sense for the legitimacy of the cloture vote to let them have their votes on both those amendments?

Mr. BIDEN. I ask unanimous consent----

Mr. BIDEN. If the Senator will yield, I am not asking for any time to speak on NATO--that is what I want to speak on--because I thought this was a dead period. It is kind of a dead period for different reasons. I ask the Senator to consider the request. If the Senator from Minnesota is willing to knock down his time--the Senator can speak for himself--the staff of the Senator from Illinois tells me he will be willing to cut down his time as well so they both can get a vote on their amendments prior to 4 o'clock. What I am asking the Senator from Utah, whom I support on this bill, is to give them a chance, if they will cut down their time, to have a vote on both of their amendments. That is my request of the Senator from Utah. They are both here and can speak for themselves, obviously, better than I can.

Mr. BIDEN. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President.

Mr. BIDEN. Would it be appropriate at this time to be able to ask unanimous consent to change my vote on the last tabling motion? It will not affect the outcome of the vote. I intended to vote with Senator Wellstone. I did not realize it was a tabling motion. I voted ``aye.'' I would like to change my vote to ``no.'' I ask unanimous consent to do that.

Mr. BIDEN. I thank my friend.

Mr. BIDEN. If the Senator will yield, that is fine.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a true local hero in my State, Dover's Police Chief Keith Faulkner. Chief Faulkner retired his badge earlier this month after an unprecedented 28 years of service on the Dover Police Department. His service and leadership truly were unique. He joined the police force as a student cadet and is the first and only such officer to rise to the rank of Chief of Police. Personally, I have to admit I know what it must feel like when a police officer's long-serving, trusted partner retires. Keith Faulkner proudly first put on his Dover Police uniform the same year I took office as a U.S. Senator. Chief Faulkner and I have been through a lot together, and I will greatly miss his advice, counsel and support. Fortunately, Chief Faulkner isn't going far. He already has started a new venture at nearby Delaware State University in Dover as associate director of public safety. DSU just formed a police department last year, and I am confident the University, its students and faculty will benefit immensely from his nearly three decades of law enforcement experience. Chief Faulkner is widely credited with restoring and strengthening the Dover Police Department's reputation as a leading law enforcement agency in our State. Under his command, Dover achieved the coveted national accreditation, a distinction shared by only about 700 police forces nationwide. He also presided over the institutionalization of community policing on the Dover police force, which has contributed to reducing crime and boosting the confidence of local residents in the police. In fact, for the first time ever, crime rates for violent and non-violent crimes are down for the past two straight years. And his commitment to public service goes beyond Dover. Keith has served as Vice-Mayor on the Smyrna Town Council, Chair of the Delaware Police Chiefs' Council, and sits on my independent Military Academy Review Board to interview and select the high school students I appoint to our national military service academies. To be honest, the real purpose of this tribute to Chief Faulkner is not to wish him a ``happy retirement!'' I am confident he will continue to be a leader in our State on law enforcement issues. And I am hopeful that his role as a public servant has only just begun. I wish Keith and his family many more years of good health, safety and good fortune.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the important progress that has been made in the difficult post-war political and economic transformation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Some critics of American policy seem inclined to seize on every shred of negative news as alleged arguments for pulling up stakes and disengaging from the Balkans. I have never belonged to this ``cut and run school,'' and, in fact, the good news I have to report illustrates two fundamental truths: first, that persistence pays; and second, that more than ever, we need to continue to be engaged on the ground in Bosnia. Since the November 2000 elections--which, I might add, the international news media quickly, and incorrectly, dubbed a major setback for the Dayton Accords - several positive political and economic developments have occurred in Bosnia, at both the national and the entity level, that merit our close attention. In fact, the situation has progressed to the point where Bosnia and Herzegovina now stands at a critical juncture. For the first time there appears to be a fundamental shift away from the ultra-nationalist parties that have until now dominated Bosnia's post-war political process. As the Presiding Officer knows, immediately after the war ended, each of the main ethnic groups - the Bosniaks, or Muslims, the Croats, and the Serbs--rallied around ultra-nationalist leaders who had neither the capability nor the intention of bringing about a united Bosnia. But now there has been a fundamental shift away from these ultra- nationalist parties and toward a government that is more moderate and inclusive and less nationalistic. But the tide, Mr. President, has not yet definitively turned. Let me try to explain this fairly complex picture. At the level of both the Muslim-Croat Federation and of the national government of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the main agent of this remarkable shift has been a coalition of non-nationalist parties aptly known as the ``Alliance for Change.'' In the wake of the November elections, these parties found the political courage to put aside their disparate interests and agendas and push together to oust the hardline nationalists. In early February, the Alliance scored its first major victory at the national level when it closed ranks to defeat the election of nationalist candidate Martin Raguz for Prime Minister. In the process, in a truly remarkable breakthrough, the ultra- nationalist Serb presidency member joined the Muslim presidency member from the nationalist Bosniak SDA party in backing a non-nationalist candidate for Prime Minister, Bozidar Matic, who was put forward by the Alliance. I am told that Ante Jelavic, the third presidency member who leads the hard-line Bosnian Croat HDZ party, stormed out of the presidency session in a fury. Having met Mr. Jelavic in Bosnia several years ago, I am not surprised at his behavior. Two weeks ago on February 22--three months after the elections--Matic and his team of ministers were confirmed as the first ever non- nationalist government in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Then, on February 28, came word of a second stunning success, this time at the Federation level. In another political first for Bosnia, two non-nationalist candidates nominated by the Alliance for Change, Karlo Filipovic and Safet Halilovic, were elected as President and Vice-President of the Federation. Mr. President, these are momentous changes. These two gentlemen are genuine democrats who have bought into Dayton. I am confident that they and their allies will now push for full implementation, including adopting a new elections law, an effectively functioning Federation legislature, and honest economic reform. In a promising harbinger of the new political order, Prime Minister Matic gave the nationalist parties a clear indication of his priorities when he told them: ``I don't speak Serbian, Croatian, or Bosnian. I speak the language of competitive economic skills, because that's the only language that will help us survive.'' That would be an ordinary statement for anybody to make in any other democracy but it is a breathtaking statement in Bosnia. That, Mr. President, is the language of Bosnia's future. Unfortunately, Mr. Jelavic and his ultra-nationalist cronies in the HDZ appear unwilling to accept their defeat and leave power gracefully. Last Saturday, at a self-appointed congress held in Mostar, the Bosnian Croat National Assembly announced its intention to form a separate Croat political entity in all but name and to establish temporary self- administration. This move, which would be a clear violation of the Dayton Peace Accords, has been roundly condemned by the international community. In point of fact, the HDZ's actions reveal just how desperate Jelavic and his ilk have become. With the Alliance for Change poised to solidify its new political gains, Jelavic was forced to play the nationalist card once again by claiming that he alone is defending the interests of Bosnia's Croat community. This assertion, however, is patently false, for Jelavic does not speak for all Bosnian Croats. People like Kresimir Zubak, the newly appointed national Minister of Refugee and Human Rights, and Jadranko Prlic, the former foreign minister and currently Deputy Minister for Foreign Trade and Economic Relations, are both Croat moderates who are committed to Dayton's full implementation. Zubak called the Croat People's Assembly ``an illegitimate institution'' that ``cannot take lawful decisions.'' Yesterday, in response to this illegal behavior, High Representative Wolfgang Petritsch, an experienced Austrian diplomat, removed Jelavic from his post as Croat Member of Bosnia's collective presidency. Put another way, he said, you are no longer president. I met with Mr. Petritsch several weeks ago in Sarajevo, and I welcome his resolute action. I emphasize, Mr. President, that this move by the High Representative was backed by the reformist Mesic/Racan Government of Croatia--which in itself speaks volumes about recent political progress in the Balkans. This is the new leadership in Croatia that came to power in the wake of Franjo Tjudman, a man who was almost, in my view, as bad as Slobodan Milosevic. The new Croatian Government said it does not acknowledge or support Mr. Jelavic's attempt to set up a separate entity. Positive change is afoot even in the Republika Srpska, where the ultra-nationalist SDS, a party with the dubious honor of having been founded by one of the worst war criminals, in my view --but whether you believe me or not, someone who has been indicted for alleged war crimes--Radovan Karadzic, won a clear plurality of votes in the November elections. In what had to have been a delicate political dance, the non- nationalist Bosnian Serb Prime Minister, Mladen Ivanic, has succeeded in building a government in which the influence of the SDS has been formally neutralized, although some SDS-leaning individuals have been included in the Cabinet. I met with him for hours when I was recently in Sarajevo. It took great courage for him to do what he did. After all, the party of Karadzic had won. And what was said at the time by the Muslims, as well as the Croats in attendance, was if, in fact, you do not exclude all those who are active members of the SDS, we will not cooperate, but if you do, we will form a government with you. Incidentally, Mr. President, much of the credit for these success stories should go to our talented and hard-working Ambassador in Sarajevo, Tom Miller. In addition, two other dedicated Americans--Ambassador Jacques Klein, the head of the U.N. Mission in Bosnia, and General Michael Dodson, the Commander of SFOR, have greatly improved the cooperation between their respective organizations, which had been sorely wanting for some time after Dayton. An illustration of this fruitful cooperation is the fact that refugees are returning in record numbers to their pre-war homes. The 2000 total was 65 percent higher than the 1999 total. And the 1999 total was 100 percent higher than 1998. This development is due in large part to the atmosphere of security made possible by the presence of SFOR and the International Police Task Force, run by the United Nations Mission. Returns are up even in areas where some of the worst ethnic cleansing took place, and even in Srebrenica--the site of Europe's worst massacre since World War II, people are returning. The other link in the international chain is the United Nations' Office of the High Representative, whose head, Mr. Petritsch, acted so swiftly against the ultra-nationalist Bosnian Croat leader. Had he not, I believe the Dayton accords would be in shambles, and we would be back on the verge of chaos. This action followed a move in February in which he removed one of the most corrupt Bosnian officials, former Prime Minister Adhem Bicakcic, from his post at the head of the country's largest electric utility, which he was using as his own private little till for his party, and banned him from holding future public office. It is estimated that Bicakcic diverted hundreds of thousands of dollars in public funds to the Party of Democratic Action, the country's largest Muslim political party, and to private bank accounts. He is a fitting poster-boy for the kind of behavior that can no longer be tolerated in Bosnia if Bosnia is ever going to turn its economy around. There is more to cheer about on the economic front. Large-scale privatization is finally underway, and the communist-era payment bureaus, long a source of petty corruption, were shut down in early January, a move which should pave the way for a viable banking system to take hold. Let me again stress that I do not believe by any stretch of the imagination we have definitively turned the corner in Bosnia and Herzegovina. But thanks to the strikingly positive developments that have occurred in the last few months, Bosnia finds itself at an important crossroads, which makes our continued, active engagement there all the more urgent. As I have said many times, we have come too far and accomplished too much to simply abandon the people of this region to the purveyors of ultra-nationalism and ethnic division who are waiting and hoping that our resolve will dissipate over time. We need to support those forces--embodied in the Alliance for Change--that are struggling to end the post-war status quo of nationalist party dominance and to implement Dayton's political structures in a meaningful and durable way. They represent the best hope for Bosnia's full integration into Europe's political and economic structures. When that day comes, with mission accomplished we and our allies can close up shop and head home secure in the knowledge that we have helped extend the zone of European stability to include another Balkan country. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. That does mean it would include somebody grossing $100 million, $50 million.

Mr. BIDEN. I am just asking a question. I hope it does include them. I want to know what you are including. That is all. Would that be included?

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I appreciate what the Senator is trying to do. It is confusing me a little bit, though--not his intention but the way he phrases it. He talks about the fact that if someone has a serious medical bill that causes them to move into bankruptcy, which I might add is a real problem, and it is the reason why most people move into bankruptcy, it is not credit cards--you can't have it both ways and stand up on the floor and say the reason people go into bankruptcy is credit card debt. There is no evidence of that. The GAO report doesn't say that. The Congressional Research Service doesn't say that--and then point out, which is accurate, that medical bills cause people to go into bankruptcy in considerable numbers. I do not know the exact number. I don't know whether it is 20 percent, 50 percent, or 70 percent. But it is a lot. I understand what he is saying. By the way, there is one generic point to which I am sympathetic-- that people in fact have real serious medical problems and are forced to liquidate everything they have to pay the medical bills. It is an absolute tragedy. I agree with my friend. That is why I support the national health insurance plan and the need to cover all of those folks. I also appreciate the fact that he is not engaging in and he never has the idea that because a particular group or group of people support a position, and they have power, that anybody who votes with them is because of the power. My friend and I voted against the position of the Chamber of Commerce yesterday notwithstanding the fact that labor poured tens of thousands of dollars into the campaigns of Members on this side. And I suspect that labor PACs gave my friend from Wisconsin hundreds of thousands of dollars. They did not give a cent to the Senator from Delaware because I don't take PAC money, and I haven't taken PAC money. I appreciate the honesty that he is exhibiting, but it confuses me on a couple of points. One, I am from Scranton, PA. That is an area of the country that has been on hard times for a long time. My grandfather Finnigan used to have an expression. He would say: When the fellow in Throop--that was a community south of Scranton--loses his job, it means there is an economic slowdown. When your brother-in-law loses a job, it means there is a recession. When you lose your job, it means there is a depression. I wonder why we don't include people who lose their jobs and have to declare bankruptcy and can't find employment. I have a little bit of a problem in terms of singling out one type of that debt that is exempt, but not because it has anything to do with any other industry. I don't know any other industry that cares a whole lot about that. My point is, that is a conceptual problem I am having difficulty getting over. But the second point I wish to make is that his amendment wouldn't affect what this bill is about. It would affect bankruptcy law tremendously, present bankruptcy law, future bankruptcy law, future bankruptcy changes, and present. It would have a profound impact. But the reason for this bill is to set a standard on the basis of someone moving from chapter 7 to chapter 13. I remind anybody who is listening to this at home that chapter 7 means if you file in that chapter, all your debts are discharged, and you start brand new. You don't owe anybody anything. You don't try to pay anything off. It is done. Chapter 13 means that the vast majority of your debts are discharged, but you work out a payment plan because you can think you can pay some of it. Most people who chose chapter 13 in the old days chose it to avoid the embarrassment of chapter 7 so they could pay something off in good faith. They had something to pay, but they couldn't pay everybody. They wanted the court to help them figure out how to divvy out what they could pay. That is what it is about. There is no standard now that a judge uses. There is a generic standard saying substantial abuse. Right now, a bankruptcy court judge or master has to move someone from 7 to 13 if that judge says, look, you are able to pay something so you should be in 13. My dad always said: Keep your eye on the ball. The ball here is what this is about. This bill is about whether or not there is a standard we are now going to set beyond the broad standard of substantial abuse that says when you must move from chapter 7 into chapter 13 to pay some of your bills. By the way, you only get moved into that if you have at least $10,000 to distribute after all of your necessities are taken care of, or you are able to pay 25 percent of your debt over 5 years. If you can't meet that standard, you are not in 13 either. You don't get into chapter 13. Again, keep your eye on the ball. This bill is about whether or not you can pay some of your bills. Along comes my friend who says--which may be good public policy. I am not disagreeing with the possibility that anybody who declares bankruptcy because of medical bills can discharge those debts outright, period. They are just in chapter 7. They can, in fact, go there. I point out to my friend about the case in Delaware. The individual filed in chapter 7. He chose to file in chapter 7. He discharged all of his debts. Unfortunately, my State has what I thought the Senator from Minnesota had been saying. You shouldn't have a homestead exemption. My State doesn't. Had he filed 13, he could have kept his home theoretically. He was not required. He filed in chapter 7.

Mr. BIDEN. Then he would have been able to keep his home in chapter 13. If I am wrong about that, I will correct the record. But in Delaware, under chapter 7, we don't have this way to hide assets in a house. I think you should be able to keep up to $100,000 of the value of your house. But in 13, you get to keep your house as long as you keep your mortgage payments, and you are allowed to have that portion taken out to keep your house just as you can have that portion taken out to pay your medical bills, or pay ongoing expenses that you have-- gas for your car to go back and forth to work, et cetera. That is the case that would not be affected by this legislation. It would not be made better or not be made worse by this will. What would happen is arguably he wouldn't have to go to 13 if he didn't want to because under this bill, the means test in S. 420 establishes a standard. It establishes a standard. And it goes on to point out that in terms of this whole argument about medical bills, which I went into a little while earlier, unless your means test--in my State, by the way, the means test for a family would be $46,000, and you would have to make more than that to even be considered in the means test, but once you are in the means test, then what happens is special circumstances can be counted, whether or not you can still stay in chapter 7 or get bumped to chapter 13. And the special circumstances relate to medical expenses. The medical expenses are your special circumstances. If you are in a situation where not only do you have medical expenses that you have to meet but you have the medical expenses and other necessary expenses that are not limited to your own medical expenses-- for example, the medical expenses you are paying for your mom, the medical expenses you are paying for your adopted child, the medical expenses you are paying for your sister, the medical expenses you are paying for a family member --those get included so you do not get knocked out of chapter 7 under this law. You can count those medical expenses. So a judge says: OK, look, under the means test, you have this amount of money. You do not make more than $46,000 in Delaware, so you can stay in chapter 7. We are not even going to consider looking at whether or not you have a right to file in chapter 7. And then, by the way, if you are 150 percent above that income, which gets you up to, what, $60,000, or something like that, whatever the exact number is, then you can say: Hey, wait a minute. I have all these medical expenses so I get to stay in chapter 7 anyway. My confusion is how this amendment relates to this bill. It relates to bankruptcy generally; I acknowledge that. It is a new standard that we are considering, but it does not go to the assertions made by others that people, because of their medical bills, are getting killed with this legislation. The very example my friend gave already was an example that occurred in Delaware that had nothing to do with this legislation. His medical bills were so high, the poor devil, and his income was so limited, he lost everything. That is tragic. That is why we need national health insurance. But the passage of this bill would not alleviate that problem. So it is kind of a non sequitur. They are not related. I yield the floor. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mr. BIDEN. We sure do. Check home. Any automobile dealer that has 20 or more people.

Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield? Would this include an automobile dealer with 20 people that grosses $70 million a year?

Mr. BIDEN. That is very generous of the Senator. I would like to make three points, and I will try to make them quickly. One, the point of the Senator's amendment is--and I agree with the thrust of it because there should be no discretion--no discretion--if, in fact, you are bankrupt because of medical bills, then you automatically are out, period. It is done. You do not owe anybody anything; finished, over, done, period. I understand that. And I sympathize with that. I do not want anybody to mix apples and oranges unintentionally or in listening to this debate. What would be implied from this debate or assumed from this debate is somehow, by the passage of this bill, people with medical bills will be put at a greater disadvantage than they are under the present system. That is not true. In the broader question of whether or not bankruptcy law--period-- should be for people who have no ability to pay their bills because they have medical bills, or have no ability to pay their bills because of the loss of their job, or have no ability to pay their bills because they are deemed to be incompetent, even though they have an estate that exists out there--they are all different things that have nothing to do with the question of whether or not this legislation should pass or should fail. Based on the argument my friend from Wisconsin is making, we should eliminate the bankruptcy law that exists now. We should have no bankruptcy law because this does not exist in the present bankruptcy law. It doesn't exist in present bankruptcy law. Let's not get confused. If the Senator wishes to make the argument that this is an important exemption that should be written into bankruptcy law as it exists or as it is amended, I understand that; I empathize with it. But if it is to make the case that people with severe medical bills are more disadvantaged under the changes we are proposing than the law that exists now, I don't buy that argument. I will conclude by saying the only reason I spoke to the question of and agreed with the Senator that I think at least 50 percent of all bankruptcies are filed because of medical bills--at least 50 percent-- if that is true, then my friend from Illinois and my other friend from Wisconsin and my friend from Massachusetts are dead wrong when they say the majority of bankruptcies are filed because of credit cards. That means that that can't be true. Let's just look. I ``ain't'' slow; I did pretty well in math. It is really simple. With fifty percent of 100 percent based upon the fact that you have too many medical bills and you are required to go bankrupt, that means that all other bankruptcies, for whatever reason, amount to 50 percent, which means that credit card bankruptcies must be less than 49 percent--at least less than 49 percent. According to the study we have gotten, there is no evidence that they have contributed at all to the increase in bankruptcy. I might add, I am anxious to debate the predatory practice of sending the kids the credit card and all that stuff. With the limits they put on the credit card, those limits that you get when you get that credit card at the front end, these people that can't pay that back are so few that they are not even in the game of declaring bankruptcy. They are not even in the game. The college student who gets a credit card and blows it up and spends $1,000 on the credit card, they don't declare bankruptcy because of a $1,000 debt they don't pay. That is malarkey. They declare bankruptcy because they run up tens of thousands of dollars in loans to go to college. That is why you should support the Schumer-Biden amendment to make sure that people can deduct the cost of college from their taxes. That is why we should provide for health care for all Americans so we don't have them declaring bankruptcy because of this. Bankruptcies increase in direct proportion to people losing their health insurance--in direct proportion. Senator Kennedy stands on the floor--and no one knows more about it than he--and points out that fewer and fewer people have health care coverage since we started this debate on health care because my friends on the other side of the aisle are reluctant to provide for health care for people. I just want a little truth in advertising here; that is all. It is OK, beat up on the credit card companies, don't like them. Beat up on the big companies, don't like them. This is an ironic position for me to be in after 28 years in the Senate. No one has ever accused me of being a friend of the banking industry. I have been around for a long time. Let's get it straight; you can't have it all ways here. My friend comes to talk about the predatory practices. There are predatory practices, I acknowledge that. But are they the reason bankruptcies are increasing? Maybe. I see no evidence of it. No one has shown any evidence of that. The only report that was done indicates the opposite. If 50 percent related to health care, then obviously it isn't because of any particular industry. I thank my colleague for his generosity. I ask my friend from Iowa--he was not on the floor--I am defending his position. The Senator from Minnesota yielded me 5 minutes of his time. If he needs time, I hope the Senator will lend him the 5 minutes he would have lent me. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. I ask unanimous consent to proceed in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the situation in North Korea. Today President Kim Dae-jung of South Korea is meeting with President Bush as part of his official state visit. His visit occurs against a hopeful backdrop of the third round of family reunions on the divided Korean peninsula. Fathers are greeting their grownup sons; sisters are hugging their sisters they haven't seen for a generation. Grandmothers are meeting their grandchildren who they have never met. Tomorrow the distinguished chairman of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee and I will host the President of South Korea for coffee here on Capitol Hill. Kim's visit will give us a chance to renew the close bonds forged in blood in the common struggle against the forces of oppression which unite our people in the United States and South Korea. I rise today to talk a little bit about the Korean peninsula and the important role the United States can play in concert with our South Korean allies and other friends to help build lasting peace on that peninsula. Yesterday the New York Times published an article by veteran defense correspondent Michael Gordon which suggests that a missile deal with North Korea may have been within reach last year. As fascinating as this rendition of events was and as fascinating as the policies were, we now have a new President. The failure or the judgment to not proceed with negotiations into the month of January of this year on the part of the new President is in fact at this moment irrelevant. We have a new President and a new administration. The question squarely now is not whether President Clinton should have gone to North Korea; the question is whether this administration, the Bush administration, is going to build on the progress made over the past 5 years since we narrowly averted a nuclear showdown on the Korean peninsula. I was pleased to see Secretary of State Powell quoted in a Washington Post article today, suggesting this administration was going to pursue the possibilities of a better relationship with North Korea and was going to leave nothing on the table. I was slightly dismayed to read of an informed source in the administration who chose not to be identified, demonstrating a great deal more of what seemed to me in the article to be not only skepticism, which I share about the intentions of North Korea, but willingness to pursue vigorously the possibilities of further negotiations. Hopefully, I am misreading that unidentified highly placed administration official. In my view, there is only one correct answer and that is the one Secretary Powell has indicated today. For it would be irresponsible not to explore to discover whether North Korea is prepared to abandon its pursuit of long-range missiles in response to a serious proposal from the United States, our friends, and our allies. North Korea confronts the United States with a number of security challenges. North Korea maintains a huge army of more than 1 million men and women in uniform, about 5 percent of its entire population. Many of that army are poised on the South Korean border. The threat that North Korea opposes extends well beyond the Korean peninsula. Its Nodong missile can not only strike all of South Korea but can also threaten our ally, Japan. North Korea sells those same missiles to anyone who has the cash to buy them. North Korean missile exports to Iran and Pakistan have guaranteed, unfortunately, that any future war in the Middle East or South Asia will be even more dangerous and more destructive than past conflicts in that region. North Korean missiles and the very real concern that North Korea might even build longer range missiles capable of striking the United States are a driving force behind our plans to build a national missile defense system. If we can remove that threat, that is, the threat from North Korea long-range missile possibility, the impact will be huge, not only on the security of Northeast Asia but also on our own defense strategy as we debate how best to deal with our vulnerability to weapons of mass destruction. For most of the past 50 years, U.S. soldiers of the 2d Infantry Division have looked north from their positions along the DMV at North Korean adversaries that appeared unchanging--a hermit kingdom, locked in a Stalinist time warp. Indeed, 2 or 3 years ago if I had spoken to the American people about landmines, the 38th parallel, and the armies of North and South Korea, it would have been to discuss the latest northern incursion along what remains the most heavily armed border in the world. The troops of the 2d Infantry Division are still standing shoulder to shoulder with our South Korean allies. The landmines are still there. And much of the tension along the DMZ remains unabated, at least for now. But maybe, just maybe, things are beginning to change. The United States should end our ``prevent defense'' and go on the offensive to advance our vital interests--particularly the dismantlement of North Korea's long-range missile program. Now is not the time for lengthy policy reviews or foot-dragging on existing commitments. Now is the time to forge ahead and test North Korea's commitment to peace. A few weeks ago what had been unthinkable--the opening of direct rail transport across the DMZ--became a near term achievable objective. The militaries of North and South Korea will soon begin to reconstruct the rail links connecting Seoul not only to Pyongyang, but also to China, Russia, and Western Europe. I remember vividly the moment when the people of East and West Berlin decided to tear down the Berlin Wall. The Berlin Wall had become a true anachronism: a graffiti-strewn relic of a morally, politically, and economically bankrupt Soviet regime. Once the East German people had torn down the ideological walls in their own minds, tearing down the concrete was a piece of cake. The people of North and South Korea are not there yet. But the walls are under siege. The establishment of direct rail links will represent a major breach in the walls of fear, insecurity, and isolation which have built up over the past 50 years. Last October, I spoke to this body about testing North Korea's willingness to abandon its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. At that time, I pointed to some of the hopeful signs that North Korea was interested in improving its relations with its neighbors--a missile launch moratorium now more than 2 years old, summit meetings with South Korea, Russia, and China, and the first tentative steps toward economic reform. I attributed these North Korean actions to the ``Sunshine Policy'' crafted by South Korean President Kim Dae-jung, and to the hard-headed engagement strategy implemented by former Secretary of Defense William Perry on behalf of the Clinton administration. Since last fall, evidence has mounted steadily that North Korea's leader Kim Jong-il has indeed decided that nothing short of a major overhaul of his economic system and diplomatic relations is likely to pull his country back from the brink of starvation and economic collapse. In addition to the progress on rail links, here are some of the other recent developments: North Korea has expanded cooperation to search for the remains of Americans missing in action from the Korean war. Uniformed U.S. military personnel are working along side their North Korean counterparts, searching the rice paddies, often in remote areas, in an effort to solve 50-year-old mysteries. The North has continued modest steps to allow family reunions across the DMZ, exposing people from the North to the quality of life enjoyed by their brothers and sisters in the South. More than 300 families have enjoyed reunion visits, and more are scheduled. The North has toned down its customary harsh rhetoric about the U.S. and South Korea, substituting a steady diet of editorials outlining the North's plans to make economic revitalization its top priority. North Korea for the first time last November opened its food distribution system to South Korean inspection and also provided a detailed accounting of food aid distribution. North and South Korea have held defense talks at both the ministerial level and subsequently at the working level, and have agreed, at the urging of South Korea, to improve military to military communications. This is the first step toward confidence building measures that can reduce the likelihood that a relatively minor incident along the DMZ might escalate into war. North and South have established an economic cooperation panel and launched a joint study of North Korea's energy needs. North and South Korean flood control experts met last month in Pyongyang for talks on cooperation in efforts along the Imjin River, which crosses the border between the two countries. The North Koreans have dispatched a team of financial experts to Washington to examine what it would take for North Korea to earn support from international financial institutions once it has taken the steps necessary to satisfy U.S. anti-terrorism laws. And, as I mentioned above, the North has not test-fired a missile for more than 2\1/2\ years, and has pledged not to do so while negotiations with the United States on the North's missile program continue. Five years ago when people spoke of ``North Korean offensives,'' they were referring to the threat of a North Korean assault across the DMZ. Today, Kim Jong-il is mounting an offensive, but it is a diplomatic and economic offensive, not a military one. Over the past 12 months, North Korea has established diplomatic relations with almost all of the nations of Western Europe. Planning is underway for an unprecedented trip by Kim Jong-il to Seoul to meet with President Kim Dae-jung later this year. Finally, Kim Jong-il's has publicly embraced China's model of economic reform. His celebrated January visit to Shanghai and his open praise of Chinese economic reforms indicates that Kim is driving North Korea toward a future in which it would be more closely integrated economically and politically to the rest of East Asia and the world. What are we to make of all of this? How should we respond? I want to be clear about why I find these developments so promising. I am not a fan of Kim Jong-il. No one should think that his motives are noble or humanitarian. Over the years, Kim Jong-il has shown himself willing to go to any length--including state-sponsored terrorism--to preserve his regime. I have no reason to believe he has abandoned his love of dictatorship in favor of constitutional democracy. Far from it. Kim Jong-il is betting that he can emerge from a process of change at the head of a North Korean society that is more prosperous, stable, and militarily capable than it is today, but still a dictatorship. But frankly, the reasons why Kim Jong-il is pursuing economic reform and diplomatic opening are not as important as the steps he will have to take along the way. If North Korea's opening is to succeed, the North will have to address many of the fundamentals which make it so threatening-- especially the gross distortion of its domestic spending priorities in favor of the military. The North cannot revitalize its economy while spending 25 percent of its gross domestic product on weaponry. The North cannot obtain meaningful, sustained foreign investment without addressing the lack of transparency in its economy as well as the absence of laws and institutions to protect investors and facilitate international trade. North Korea's pursuit of economic reform and diplomatic opening presents the United States with a golden opportunity, if we are wise enough to seize it. We should welcome the emergence of North Korea from its shell not because North Korea's motives are benign, but because we have a chance, in concert with our allies, to shape its transformation into a less threatening country. If we play our cards right, North Korea's opening can lead to a less authoritarian regime that is more respectful of international norms-- all without any shots being fired in anger. I point out, a number of old Communist dictators had thought they could move in an easy transition from the Communist regime that has clearly failed to a market economy, or integration with the rest of the world, and still maintain their power. None, none--none has succeeded thus far. I believe it is an oxymoron to suggest that North Korea can emerge and become an engaged partner in world trade without having to fundamentally change itself and in the process, I believe, end up a country very different from what we have now. I am delighted that Secretary Powell has expressed his support for this hard-headed brand of engagement with North Korea. As he testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last month: We are open to a continued process of engagement with the North so long as it addresses political, economic, and security concerns, is reciprocal, and does not come at the expense of our alliance relationships. This is precisely the kind of engagement I have in mind. I think we should get on with it. North Korea knows that under our nonproliferation laws it cannot gain unfettered access to trade, investment, and technology without first halting its development and export of long-range ballistic missile technology and submitting its nuclear program to full-scope safeguards under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency. North Korea knows it won't get World Bank loans as long as it remains on our list of nations that condone international terrorism or provide sanctuary for terrorists. In order to get off that list, North Korea must end all support for terrorist organizations and must cooperate fully with the Japanese government to resolve the question of Japanese citizens abducted from Japan--some more than 20 years ago. In other words, Mr. President, if North Korea is to turn around its moribund economy and fully normalize relations with its neighbors, it will have to take steps which are demonstrably in our national interest and in the national interests of our allies. We should do everything in our power to ensure that North Korea does not diverge from the path it is now on. Specifically, we should continue to provide generous humanitarian relief to starving North Korean children. Nothing about the situation on the peninsula will be improved by the suffering of North Korean children racked by hunger and disease. We should continue to abide by the terms of the Agreed Framework, so long as North Korea does the same. We should not unilaterally start moving the goal posts. The Agreed Framework has effectively capped the North's ability to produce fissile material with which to construct nuclear weapons. Under the terms of Agreed Framework, North Korea placed its nuclear program under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards and halted work on two unfinished heavy water nuclear reactors in exchange for the promise of proliferation-resistant light water nuclear reactors and heavy fuel oil deliveries for electric power generation. Without the Agreed Framework, North Korea might already have sufficient fissile material with which to construct dozens of nuclear bombs. missile agreement possible--patience required Finally, Mr. President, we should engage North Korea in a serious diplomatic effort aimed at an iron-clad agreement to end forever the North's pursuit of long range missiles. In discussions with U.S., Russian, and Chinese officials, North Korea has signaled its willingness to give up the export, and possibly the development, of long-range missiles, in response to the right package of incentives. Such an agreement would remove a direct North Korean threat to the region and improve prospects for North-South reconciliation. It would also remove a major source of missiles and missile technology for countries such as Iran. Getting an agreement will not be easy, but it helps a lot that we are not the only country which would benefit from the dismantlement of North Korea's missile program. Our allies South Korea and Japan, our European allies who already provide financial support for the Agreed Framework, the Chinese, the Russians, all share a desire to see North Korea devote its meager resources to food, not rockets. The only countries which want to see North Korea building missiles are its disreputable customers. A tough, verifiable agreement to eliminate the North's long-range missile threat might be possible in exchange for reasonable U.S. assistance that would help North Korea feed itself and help convert missile plants to peaceful manufacturing. Some people are impatient for change in North Korea. They want to adopt a more confrontational approach, including rushing ahead to deploy an unproven, hugely expensive, and potentially destabilizing national missile defense system. I understand their frustration and share their desire for action against the threat of North Korean ballistic missiles. But foreclosing diplomatic options by rushing to deploy NMD is not the right antidote. Sure, a limited ground-based national missile defense might someday be capable of shooting down a handful of North Korean missiles aimed at Los Angeles, but it will do nothing to defend our Asian allies from a North Korean missile attack. Nor will it defend us from a nuclear bomb smuggled into the country aboard a fishing trawler or a biological toxin released into our water supply. NMD will not defend U.S. forces on Okinawa or elsewhere in the Pacific theater. It will do nothing to prevent North Korea from wielding weapons of mass destruction against Seoul, much of which is actually within artillery range of North Korea. Moreover, a rush to deploy an unproven national missile defense, particularly absent a meaningful strategic dialog with china, could jeopardize the cooperative role China has played in recent years on the Korean Peninsula. Given our common interest in preventing North Korea from becoming a nuclear weapons power, the United States and China should work in concert, not at cross purposes. Opening North Korean Eyes North Korea's opening has given the North Korean people a fresh look at the outside world--like a gopher coming out of its hole--with consequences which could be profound over the long haul. Hundreds of foreigners are in North Korea today, compared with a handful just a few years ago. Foreigners increasingly are free to travel widely in the country and talk to average North Koreans without government interference. North Korea has even begun to issue tourist visas. The presence of foreigners in North Korea is gradually changing North Korean attitudes about South Korea and the West. One American with a long history of working in North Korea illustrated the change underway by describing an impromptu encounter he had recently. While he was out on an unescorted morning walk, a North Korean woman approached him and said, ``You're not a Russian, are you? You're a Miguk Nom aren't you?'' Her expression translates roughly into ``You're an American imperialist bastard, eh?'' The American replied good-naturedly, ``Yes, I am an American imperialist bastard.'' To which the woman replied quite sincerely, ``Thanks very much for the food aid!'' Another American, a State Department official accompanying a World Food Program inspection team, noted that hundreds of people along the road waved and smiled, and in the case of soldiers, saluted, as the convoy passed. He also reports that many of 80 million woven nylon bags used to distribute grain and emblazoned with the letters ``U.S.A.'' are being recycled by North Koreans for use as everything from back-packs to rain coats. These North Koreans become walking billboards of American aid and generosity of spirit. North Korea is just one critical challenge in a region of enormous importance to us. We cannot separate our policy there from our overall approach in East Asia. We cannot hope that decisions we make about national missile defense, Taiwan policy, or support for democracy and rule of law in China will be of no consequence to developments on the Korean Peninsula. To the contrary, we need to think holistically and comprehensively about East Asia policy. Our interests are vast. Roughly one-third of the world's population resides in East Asia. In my lifetime, East Asia has gone from less than 3 percent of the world GDP in 1950 to roughly 25 percent today. Four of our 10 largest trading partners--Japan, China, Taiwan, and South Korea, are in East Asia. Each of those trading partners is also one of the world's top ten economies as measured by gross domestic product. China, Japan, and South Korea together hold more than $700 billion in hard currency reserves--half of the world's total. East Asia is a region of economic dynamism. Last year Singapore, Hong Kong, and South Korea grew by more than 10 percent, shaking off the East Asian financial crisis and resuming their characteristic vitality. U.S. exports to the region have grown dramatically in recent years. U.S. exports to Southeast Asia, for instance, surpass our exports to Germany and are double our exports to France. U.S. direct investment in East Asia now tops $150 billion, and has tripled over the past decade. And of course these are just a few of the raw economic realities which underscore East Asia's importance. The United States has important humanitarian, environmental, energy, and security interests throughout the region. We have an obligation, it seems to me, not to drop the ball. We have a vital interest in maintaining peace and stability in East Asia. We have good friends and allies--like President Kim Dae Jung of South Korea--who stand ready to work with us toward that goal. It is vital that we not drop the ball; miss an opportunity to end North Korea's deadly and destabilizing pursuit of long range missiles. I don't know that an agreement can be reached. In the end North Korea may prove too intransigent, too truculent, for us to reach an accord. But I hope the Bush administration will listen closely to President Kim today, and work with him to test North Korea's commitment to peace. We should stay the course on an engagement policy that has brought the peninsula to the brink, not of war, but of the dawning of a brave new day for all the Korean people. I yield the floor.