Joe Biden

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BIDEN. If the Senator needs 10, go ahead.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce--along with Senator Daschle, Senator Leahy, and many other Senators--legislation which will be a key cornerstone of the Senate Democrats anti-crime, anti-drug focus for the new Congress. Our thrust is clear and straight-forward: We must continue the successes of the 1994 Biden crime law. And, at the same time, we must take up the new challenge of confronting crime and drug abuse among our youth with a commonsense strategy balancing tough sanctions, certain punishment and protecting literally millions of kids from the criminals and drug pushers who can target any kid from any family whose parents are at work when the school day ends. We must continue the success of the 1994 crime law. While I give the credit first and foremost to the police officers on our Nation's streets, the verdict from the FBI's national crime statistics is that since the 1994 crime law, violent crime is down and down significantly: 1996 is projected to have the lowest murder toll since 1988--and a murder rate that is lowest since 1971; 1996 is projected to have the lowest violent crime total since 1990; and the murder rate for wives, ex-wives and girlfriends at the hands of their ``intimates'' fell to an 18-year low in 1994--and is lower still in 1995. This is a record of success which should convince the Senate to extend the 1994 crime law. Adding 25,000 more police by extending the 100,000 cops program for two more years. Extending the Violence Against Women Act funding to shelter 400,000 more battered women and their children and continuing to help States arrest and prosecute batterers. Providing an additional $5 billion to build up to 80,000 more prison cells for violent criminals--we also propose to give States greater flexibility with these dollars to speed the prosecution of violent criminals and increase the use of drug testing. Provide $1 billion to extend such proven law enforcement programs as the Byrne anti-drug grants to State and local law enforcement. And, extend the crime law trust fund to fund all these initiatives from the cost-savings from downsizing the Federal Government--without increasing the Federal budget deficit. The bottom line--this bill calls on the full Senate to continue the successes of the 1994 Biden crime law. But, this legislation does not stop there. In the face of rising teen drug abuse and rising youth violence--despite some recent hopeful news--we must undertake a comprehensive effort to target these problems. This legislation offers just such a comprehensive effort: First, we propose to reform the juvenile justice system to crack down on violent youth by: Making some key changes to Federal law that respond to legitimate concerns which create the pressure to take the unwise step of prosecuting kids in our overburdened adult courts. Specifically, providing greater access to juveniles records and raising the mandatory release age for juveniles from 21 to 26--so juveniles will face up to 11 years in prison even if they are prosecuted as juveniles. Providing $1 billion to help States build prisons for violent juveniles as well as additional prosecutors and other improvements to State juvenile justice systems (including certain, graduated punishment for first-time and minor juvenile offenders). Creating special juvenile ``gun'' courts where juvenile gun offenders are tried and sentenced on an expedited basis. These are essential to controlling juvenile crime because, as every mother knows, immediate and certain punishment is the key to disciplining kids. Second, we must target one of the primary sources of youth violence-- street gangs. We propose aggressive steps to: Target gang paraphernalia by boosting the penalties for criminals who arm themselves with bullet-proof body armor and deadly accurate laser- sighting devices. And, as Senator Leahy has identified, we must make some commonsense reforms to speed law enforcement access to the numeric pagers so often used by youth gang criminals. Create a new crime of interstate franchise spread of street gangs--a step which better targets Federal law enforcement resources than simply federalizing ever more State crimes and encroaching upon the State's traditional handling of juvenile crime. Cracking down on street gangs also means that we should increase the penalties for witness intimidation, a favored tactic of criminal street gangs. This is a proposal outlined by the President just this weekend. Third, we must redouble our efforts to treat and prevent youth drug abuse. For the past several months, you have heard me modify one of the key arguments of the President's 1992 campaign by stating--``it's drugs, stupid, it's drugs.'' This statement is--unfortunately--necessary in the face of rising drug abuse among our children. While drug abuse among adults is holding steady, all the surveys tell us that more and more children are falling prey to drugs. We propose a multi-prong response, because drugs need to be fought not only in our communities, but also in our scientific laboratories where important breakthroughs are being made into medicines to treat drug addiction--we propose additional funding for the Federal Medications Development Program and to provide incentives to the private sector to develop new medicines to treat heroin and cocaine addiction. We must also expand drug courts to cover 50,000 children--a vast improvement on the no drug testing, no treatment, and no threat of punishment system which typifies too many juvenile courts today. As I proposed last year, we must tighten controls on the club drug-- ketamine--that is popular with too many children today. Funding drug treatment for 600,000 drug-addicted children is also key--particularly as our Nation stands on the edge of a baby-boomerang wave that will mean more teenagers--and more teen addicts. Reauthorizing the drug director's office as well as the Safe & Drug- Free Schools Program which is the core of Federal drug prevention efforts are two other necessary steps. In addition, and in response to the recent passage of so-called medical marijuana initiatives, we seek a measure which should be supported even by their proponents--a simple study to determine if drug abuse among children rises in these two States. Fourth, we call for a renewed effort to prevent youth violence. No where has the crime policy debate been subject to more distortions and misunderstandings than on a goal all of us should share--let's prevent kids from getting involved in crime, violence and drugs in the first place. To get past all the misunderstanding, we propose to call upon the prestigious, non-partisan National Academy of Sciences to answer the questions--can we prevent youth crime? And, if so, how do we do so in the most efficient way possible? Let me repeat a challenge I offered last week--I will live by the results of this study, if those who oppose prevention efforts will as well. If the national academy says we can't figure out this task, so be it, I will not seek appropriations for any funds we authorize through this legislation. But, if the national academy of sciences says that we can, I challenge all to support full funding for these crime prevention efforts. But, in the meantime, it seems to me that we do know at least one thing about preventing youth crime and drug abuse--my mom summarized what we know in the simple phrase used by mothers everywhere: ``Idle hands are the devil's workshop.'' This refers to the commonsense notion that if we can just get kids off the streets and into supervised programs during the after school hours when kids are likely to be the victims of gangs and criminals or the customers of drug pushers--if we can just do that simply thing, with boys and girls clubs or many other proven efforts, we can make important in-roads against drug abuse and crime among children. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the substitute language offered by myself and Senator Hatch. This substitute is offered for a simple reason, the House-passed bill cannot and will not pass the Senate. I must also point out that while I obviously support the language I am co-sponsoring with Senator Hatch and others, this bill leaves a serious shortfall that must be addressed next year. This shortfall is the failure of this legislation to take the single most important step we can to combat the rise of Rohypnol, the ``date- rape'' drug--that step is to shift this drug to schedule 1 of the Federal Controlled Substances Act. Why is rescheduling so important? Rescheduling is important for three simple reasons: First, Federal rescheduling triggers increases in State drug law penalties, and since we all know that more than 95 percent of all drug cases are prosecuted at the State level, not by the Federal Government, it is vitally important that we re-schedule. Second, Federal rescheduling to schedule 1 triggers the toughest Federal penalties. And, third, rescheduling has proven to work, in 1984, I worked to reschedule Quaaludes, Congress passed the law, and the Quaalude epidemic was greatly reduced and, in 1990, I worked to re-schedule steroids, Congress passed the law, and again a drug epidemic that had been on the rise was reversed. Still, despite the fact that this bill does not reschedule Rohypnol, I believe that it is important to pass this legislation because it takes the necessary and needed step of adding a new Federal offense for the crime of using a drug to commit any crime of violence--an offense that is punishable by up to 20 years behind bars. This bill also calls on the DEA Administrator to make a recommendation on rescheduling Rohypnol to the Congress within 180 days. I am confident that the DEA Administrator will recommend the step I have been calling for more than a year--rescheduling Rohypnol to schedule 1. The fact is that the DEA Administrator has already formally recommended schedule 1 to the Department of Health and Human Services which is now beginning the lengthy process of its formal review of the recommendation. This is the standard process for an administrative rescheduling, and in most cases, I believe it is appropriate--but, when we are faced with immediate and clear dangers, I do not believe that it is wise for Congress to refuse to take action. To offer a few more details about the importance of rescheduling Rohypnol, allow me to make a few more points. First, rescheduling Rohypnol is the most effective way to get State and local law enforcement to focus on Rohypnol--given the limited amount of resources for fighting drugs, cops focus on those deemed most dangerous and these are the drugs found in schedules 1 and 2. Second, and as I have stated, many State drug laws are triggered by the Federal Government's scheduling system. The Uniform Controlled Substances Act provides that when the Federal Government reschedules a drug, the States which have signed this Uniformity Act will automatically have their State drug penalties changed to match the Federal penalties. In other words, without action on our part to reschedule, many States will not be able to address this problem until it is too late and Rohypnol has already infiltrated their communities. Third, I have heard some critics of my rescheduling proposal argue that rescheduling is wrong because Rohypnol is a medically accepted drug in other parts of the world. In response, I would simply point out that in 1984 when Congress rescheduled Quaaludes, they were a medically accepted drug right here in the United States. What is more, unlike the action taken on Quaaludes--in which Congress saw fit to go so far as to ban previously legal sales of the drug in this country--the rescheduling of Rohypnol in the United States will not hurt medical use here in America because there is no legal use of Rohypnol in America now. Doctors cannot prescribe this drug. The bottom line is that the Congress will be debating the rescheduling issue all over again in 6 months. I regret this delay. I abhor this delay. This delay has the potential of leaving more children in danger. But, this is the reality of the situation we face because of one simple reason--a huge, foreign company that manufactures Rohypnol does not want America to reschedule their drug, even though this company does not--indeed cannot--sell this drug in America. It is just as simple as that, because a company is afraid of losing some money, the effort to bring the maximum power of Federal law against the date rape drug has been defeated. I think we should take the partial step we are taking today, I think it is a positive that the Congress has agreed to accept a formal recommendation from the DEA Administrator, I believe that will ultimately be persuasive enough to gain a majority to support rescheduling, but let no one be under any misunderstanding that what we do today is all we should be doing to control the epidemic of the date rape drug.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, in this time of two-worker households, working parents are increasingly faced with the difficult task of balancing work and family. Every day in this country, families must find a way to meet the challenges that await them at home after a long day on the job. Some days it seems impossible to maintain a career while trying to figure out a way to get the shopping done, put dinner on the table and pick up the kids at soccer practice. That is why today, Mr. President, I am proud to stand here to announce that Delaware companies are taking the lead and making it easier for working parents to balance their careers and families. One particular company, MBNA America, which is based in Wilmington, DE, was recently honored as one of the top 10 family-friendly companies by Working Mother magazine. This is the second straight year that MBNA has been named as one of the top 10 companies for working mothers and the fifth straight year that it has been named in the top 100. Also, in the September 16 issue of Business Week, MBNA was named as one of the top 10 businesses in terms of their work and family strategies. This is the first time that Business Week has rated companies for their family-friendly practices, and it shows that businesses are most successful if they take their work and family strategies seriously. Speaking about MBNA, Business Week stated that ``the bank won the highest grades, from employees, who cited strong programs and job flexibility.'' MBNA is to be commended for instituting policies and programs that are sensitive to the realities of two-income families. None of this happens without leadership--especially leadership at the top. And in this case, it comes from Charles Cawley, chairman of MBNA and a renowned business and community leader. Let me tell you about some of the things that MBNA does for its workers. MBNA offers three on-site day care centers that serve MBNA employees. I have had the opportunity to visit one of the two centers that are in Delaware, and I cannot stress enough what a benefit it is for workers to be able to take advantage of these day care centers. In Delaware, these centers give the parents of around 400 children the peace of mind that their child is in good hands. Also last year, 109 men and 264 women took advantage of childbirth leave of absences that averaged 13 weeks. This is a wonderful opportunity for parents to be there for those precious first weeks of their child's life. Another important benefit that is offered by the company is adoption assistance of up to $5,000. This allows employees to provide a stable home and family to a child who needs that love and stability so badly. Just another way that companies can help build strong families. Employees can take advantage of $849,000 in company-sponsored college scholarships that allow those who wish to better themselves the opportunity to do so. After all, education is the greatest investment this country can make. Working Mother magazine also applauded MBNA for having flexible work hours by utilizing job-sharing strategies and compressed work weeks. And, the study showed that women account for a high percentage of executive positions at MBNA. Women make up 39 percent of vice presidents at MBNA and 16 percent of all senior executives are women. Besides MBNA, two other Delaware companies were honored recently as family friendly companies. DuPont and DuPont-Merck Pharmaceutical were named as 2 of the top 100 companies by Working Mother magazine for their leadership in creating job strategies that are sensitive toward families. DuPont was also named in Business Week's top 10 list, and other companies with facilities in Delaware, such as Hewlett-Packard and Nations Bank, have been praised for their family oriented policies. Mr. President, these work strategies that take into account everyday family life do not just benefit the employees, but also the employer. There is little doubt that recruitment, retention, morale, and therefore productivity all increase when companies implement family- friendly policies. I am proud that MBNA and other Delaware companies have emerged as leaders in creating family work strategies, and I hope that this trend continues throughout Delaware and throughout the country.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. I'm glad that I have been able to work closely with my Republican colleagues in a spirit of cooperation on a number of important issues that have come before the Senate this year. I must say, however, I am disappointed this bipartisan spirit has not allowed us to confirm seven judicial nominations remaining on the calendar--all well-qualified people who have had hearings and were reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee. I think that we should stop, right now, and talk about what's going on here. No one understands better than I the heat that can be generated over judges in an election year. But let me set the Record straight-- absolutely straight: The Senate, under Democratic leadership, faithfully confirmed Republican Judges in Presidential election years. All year, Republicans have been offering assurances that the Senate would continue this bipartisan approach and put judges through. But today, it has become crystal clear that the bipartisan spirit of the past has been broken. And let's tell it like it is: My Republican colleagues have decided to grind confirmations to a halt as we head toward the coming Presidential election. Currently, there are 63 vacancies on the Federal bench. This year, the Judiciary Committee has held only 5 nominations hearings, and reported out only 23 nominees to fill these vacancies. We should have done more. The Judicial Nominees who were fortunate enough to pass through the committee this session have been further held up here on the floor. Not one judge was confirmed before July 10 this year and none have been confirmed since August 2. As a result, the Senate has confirmed only 17 district judges and no circuit judges this session. Seven nominees are currently pending on the floor--three for the district courts and four for the circuit courts. Some have suggested that shutting down the confirmation process is par for the course in an election year. They are wrong. And let me set the record straight. George Bush made nearly one-third of his 253 judicial nominations in 1992, a Presidential election year. As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I held 15 nominations hearings that year, including 3 in July, 2 in August, and 1 in September. In 1992--the last Presidential election year--the Senate continued to confirm judges through the waning days of the 102d Congress. We even confirmed seven judges on October 8--the last day of the second session. As a result, the Senate confirmed all 66 nominees the Judiciary Committee reported out that year--55 for the District courts and 11 for the circuit courts. Let me repeat: This session, only 17 district judges have been confirmed and no circuit judges have been confirmed. And let me say: 1992 was not an off year. To the contrary: It represented the Senate's practices over the last decade: In 1988--an election year--we conformed 42 district and circuit court nominees, including 12 judges confirmed in October that year. In 1984--an election year--we confirmed 43 nominees, including 13 judges in October. And in 1980--an election year--we confirmed 64 nominees, including 10 judges on September 29. Overall, during the past 16 years, since 1980, the Senate has confirmed an average of 51 nominees each year. Overall, during the last 4 election years, the Senate has done even better, confirming an average of 54 nominees each year. Let me repeat: our track record this session: The Senate has only confirmed 17 judges. The Senate has been dragging its feet despite the undeniable fact that these judges are badly needed. The Federal trial and appellate courts to which we confirm judges apply our Federal laws. Without a steady supply of judges, these courts cannot enforce our laws. Right now, 12 of the Nation's 94 Federal judicial districts and 5 of the 12 circuit courts have judicial emergency vacancies--that's what the Judicial Conference of the United States calls vacancies that have existed for 18 months or more. These emergency districts had an average of 635 criminal case filings in 1995--almost twice the national average of 355 filings. There average backlog of 4,153 cases exceeds the national average of 2,853 cases by 46 percent--1,300 cases. The President has nominated judges for 15 of the 17 emergency courts. Three have received hearings and await a committee vote, three more are bottled up on the floor. This is not the way we should be doing business here--and this is most certainly not business as usual as far as I'm concerned. We should put a stop to the politics, and confirm these judges today.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. I thank the chairman.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise with my friend Chairman Hatch to commend the inclusion of the Hatch-Biden child pornography bill in the omnibus continuing resolution. This bill will strengthen our ability to track down and crack down on child pornographers. Those who produce and traffic in child pornography--who exploit the most vulnerable and innocent among us--are, by my lights, among the worst of the worst. They cause a harm that is unspeakable and a damage that is often irreparable. Child pornography is not an art form and it is not a type of expression that we must tolerate even though we find it intolerable. To the contrary: We have an obligation--a moral obligation, in my mind--to protect our children from this type of abuse--which steals their innocence and shatters their dreams. I consider myself an unapologetic champion of the first amendment. Yet I believe that child pornography deserves no, and I mean no, first amendment protection. Over the years, the computer has become an increasingly powerful weapon of the child pornographer and today, technology is making it even easier for child pornographers to make and sell their wares. What we're seeing now is this: Pornographers are taking pictures of children and morphing them, with the help of computer technology, to make it look as if the children are engaging in sexual conduct. That means that it's not necessary, these days, to actually molest children in order to produce pornography that exploits and degrades them. All that's necessary is an inexpensive computer, some software, and a photograph of the little boy or girl down the street. We must move right here and now to put this new generation of child pornographers behind bars. But we must also be mindful that we live under a constitution which includes a robust Commitment to free and open speech and which necessarily tolerates what is sometimes called the speech we love to hate. As a threshold matter, any statute that we write must pass the first amendment's test. Otherwise, it will sit on our books, unconstitutional and unenforceable, doing not one child one bit of good. I am concerned that a provision in this bill which criminalizes the depiction of something that appears to be a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct will not pass constitutional muster. This proposal would cover purely imaginary drawings, as well as depictions of adults who appear to be minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct, like a documentary that deals with child sexual abuse, featuring a 19-year actress who looks like a very young girl. Don't get me wrong: like many Americans, I would like for a lot of the stuff that's out there today, even it it's just a figment of someone's warped imagination, involving no actual children at all, to be banished from the face of the Earth right now and forever. But I am not king. And it is our Constitution that still reigns supreme and whose first amendment principles will not, in my opinion, countenance this sort of broad and open-ended prohibition. The constitutional analysis begins with the famous 1982 case of New York versus Ferber, in which the Supreme Court first recognized the child pornography exception to the first amendment. In the case, the Court pointed to a number of compelling reasons to justify a total and outright ban of this sort of material: It causes psychological and physical harm to children used as subjects; It creates a permanent record of sexual abuse; It fuels the child pornography trade; and Its artistic and social value is limited, to say the least. At the heart of the analysis, and why the Court justified such a categorical and complete restriction on speech, is a very straightforward idea: Children who are used in the production of child pornography are victims of abuse, plain and simple. And the pornographers, also plainly and simply, are child abusers. In the cases following Ferber, strict restrictions on child pornography are predicated on the same rationale: The creation of the pornography hurts the children who are its subjects. That's why I am concerned that the appears to be standard, which does not in any way involve an actual child in the creation of child pornography, will not survive the inevitable constitutional challenge to this legislation. My view is shared, among others, by Harvard professor Frederick Schauer, who was the commissioner of the now famous Meese Commission on pornography. In testimony before our committee, Professor Schauer expressed the opinion that the appears to be standard in the bill would most probably fail the Ferber test and would therefore become a failed weapon in our crusade against pornography. That is why I introduced an amendment to Senator Hatch's proposal, which would make it a crime to create a visual depiction that makes it look like an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct, whether or not the child ever actually engaged in the conduct. Here's what this would mean: If a pornographer uses an image, a face or other identifying feature of an actual child, and, via computer morphing or any other means, makes it look like the child is engaging in sex, that will be a crime. Unlike images that are completely conjured up in someone's imagination, or which employ adults who look like children, these kinds of images do cause real harm to real children: Although the child may not have actually engaged in the sexual conduct, the image creates an apparent record of such conduct. In my book, that's abuse and that's harm, period. These kinds of morphed images can be used to blackmail a child into engaging in sexual activity, by intimidating him, or by threatening to show the pictures to others if he doesn't comply. Also, as the experts tell us, child pornography has a very long life as it often passes among many, many hands, thus victimizing a child who's in the picture time and again. The definition of identifiable minor in this bill makes it clear that proof of the minor's identity is not required for the prosecution to make its case, only that the child is capable of being identified as an actual person. It also does not matter whether the person depicted is a minor at the time the depiction is created, or whether the depiction is made from a childhood image of a person who is now an adult. I believe that my proposal is consistent with the Ferber standard with its bottom line focus on the well-being of actual children. Do not get me wrong: I am wholly sympathetic and supportive of Senator Hatch's view that even imaginary depictions that do not involve actual children can, indeed, cause harm. This kind of stuff can be used by pedophiles to entice other children into sexual activity. But the point is this: The act of enticement, of course, is itself a separate crime and I think we all agree that we should throw the book at anyone who would do such an unthinkable and despicable thing. But the Supreme Court has drawn a line in the sand when it comes to the production of the pornography itself and the constitutional line stops with the involvement of real children. And again, it is only a constitutional law, one that will be upheld and enforced, that will serve to protect our children. In order to more gracefully bring together my proposal and Senator Hatch's, this substitute merges our two approaches into one new section to be added to the criminal code. And though I have agreed to this stylish accommodation of our two ideas, let there be no mistake: We clearly intend that if any portion of the bill's definition of child pornography, such as the ``appears to be'' standard, is struck down as unconstitutional, the remaining provision, the prohibition on material involving an identifiable minor, will stand on its own, completely severable. Our intention here is made crystal clear in the substitute bill's new severability clause. I'd like to say a brief word about another aspect of this bill. It includes a number of penalties, many of which are properly tough and severe. And though I believe that we should give child pornographers no quarter, I do not think the creation of new mandatory minimums is smart sentencing policy. One of the main problems with mandatory minimums is that they treat different types of offenders the same, which means that the really bad guys get the same punishment as the less blame worthy. For example, under the proposal added to this bill by Senator Grassley: A person who puts out an ad seeking to buy soft core child pornography is going to get the same 10-year mandatory minimum sentence as the guy who actually employs or entices an 11 year old to make hard core, violent porn. By the same token, that person who advertises to buy child porn will get the same 10-year mandatory minimum as the parent who markets his child for child pornography. Make no mistake about it: All these guys should get a tough sentence. But they shouldn't get the same sentence. The same sentence may be too tough for the less culpable, and not tough enough for the most culpable. That's not smart sentencing policy. As Chief Justice Rehnquist has noted: One of the best arguments against any more mandatory minimums, and perhaps against some of those that we already have, is that they frustrate the careful calibration of sentences, from one end of the spectrum to the other. These reservations notwithstanding, I believe that we must get on with the very important business at hand which is to stem the tide of this new generation of child phonography. We have no time to waste, and I am pleased that this bill will soon become law. I thank my colleagues for their support. objecting to the summary exclusion and asylum provisions

Mr. BIDEN. The legislation that Senator Thompson and I introduced and passed through the Judiciary Committee includes some important reforms which have bipartisan support. We have worked together on the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Youth Violence to update the statute. I am disappointed that we were not able to pass reauthorization legislation this year. I look forward to trying again next year. I would ask the chairman of the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations Subcommittee if he is concerned that if reauthorization legislation is not passed next year, whether that will make it more difficult for the subcommittee to fund the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention?

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, in this time of two worker households, working parents are increasingly faced with the difficult task of balancing work and family. Every day in this country, families must find a way to meet the challenges that await them at home after a long day on the job. Some days it seems impossible to maintain a career while trying to figure out a way to get the shopping done, put dinner on the table and pick up the kids at soccer practice. That is why today, Mr. President, I am proud to stand here to announce that Delaware companies are taking the lead and making it easier for working parents to balance their careers and families. One particular company, MBNA America, which is based in Wilmington, DE, was recently honored as one of the top 10 family-friendly companies by Working Mother magazine. This is the second straight year that MBNA has been named as one of the top ten companies for working mothers and the fifth straight year that it has been named in the top 100. Also, in the September 16 issue of Business Week, MBNA was named as one of the top 10 businesses in terms of their work and family strategies. This is the first time that Business Week has rated companies for their family friendly practices, and it shows that businesses are most successful if they take their work and family strategies seriously. Speaking about MBNA, Business Week stated that ``the bank won the highest grades from employees, who cited strong programs and job flexibility.'' MBNA is to be commended for instituting policies and programs that are sensitive to the realities of two income families. For example, MBNA offers three on-site day care centers that serve MBNA employees. I have had the opportunity to visit one of the two centers that are in Delaware, and I cannot stress enough what a benefit it is for workers to be able to take advantage of these day care centers. In Delaware, these centers give the parents of around 400 children the peace of mind that their child is in good hands. Also last year, 109 men and 264 women took advantage of childbirth leave of absences that averaged 13 weeks. This is a wonderful opportunity for parents to be there for those precious first weeks of their child's life. Another important benefit that is offered by the company is adoption assistance of up to $5,000. This allows employees to provide a stable home and family to a child who needs that love and stability so badly. Just another way that companies can help build strong families. Employees can take advantage of $849,000 in company-sponsored college scholarships that allow those who wish to better themselves the opportunity to do so. After all, education is the greatest investment this country can make. Working Mother magazine also applauded MBNA for having flexible work hours by utilizing job-sharing strategies and compressed work weeks. And, the study showed that women account for a high percentage of executive positions at MBNA. Women make up 39 percent of vice presidents at MBNA and 16 percent of all senior executives are women. Besides MBNA, two other Delaware companies were honored recently as family friendly companies. DuPont and DuPont-Merck Pharmaceutical were named as two of the top one hundred companies by Working Mother magazine for their leadership in creating job strategies that are sensitive toward families. DuPont was also named in Business Week's top10n list, and other companies with facilities in Delaware, such as Hewlett-Packard and Nations Bank, have been praised for their family oriented policies. Mr. President, these work strategies that take into account everyday family life do not just benefit the employees, but also the employer. There is little doubt that recruitment, retention, morale, and therefore productivity all increase when companies implement family- friendly policies. I am proud that MBNA and other Delaware companies have emerged as leaders in creating family work strategies, and I hope that this trend continues throughout Delaware and throughout the country.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, last week the Senate took a few moments to pass a resolution honoring the service of Sergeant-at-Arms Howard Greene, who is leaving after a 28 year career with this body. I was away from the Senate floor during the discussion of that resolution, but I did not want this Congress to adjourn without having had the opportunity to share my appreciation for Howard Greene's service to the Senate, and for his personal friendship during my tenure here. Mr. President, much of the important work which we do here in the Senate could not be accomplished without the dedication of the professional staff members who serve the Senate, and Howard Greene has been the consummate professional. His love for the Senate; his keen understanding of its workings and its constitutional role; his discretion and his tact, have gone hand-in-hand with Howard Greene's fundamental decency and sense of public service to make him one of the Senate's greatest assets for many, many years. I doubt that there is a single Member of this body who has not benefited from Howard's counsel, his industry, his knowledge of the Senate, or his friendship. I know that I have gained a great deal from each. I am especially proud that Howard is a fellow Delawarean, and have always believed that his sense of public service embodies the bipartisan tradition that is the hallmark of our State. As Sergeant-at- Arms, or Secretary to the majority, or in any of the roles he has undertaken during his long career here, Howard has been a source of wisdom and assistance, counsel and comfort to all Senators, Republican and Democrat alike. He has been a fundamental believer in the idea that once the election is over, we are all public servants, and he has worked tirelessly to enable us to fulfill the trust that the people of our States have placed in us. Mr. President, the halls of Congress are filled with idealistic young people who have come to Washington hoping for a career in public service. They are the lifeblood of this institution, and are the democratic system's hope for the future. For any of those young people searching for a model of integrity, commitment, and public spiritedness upon which to base their career, I would suggest that they look to the long and distinguished career of Howard Greene. We will miss him a great deal. And I will always be proud to call him my friend.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I proudly join with the distinguished ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Baucus, to correct a serious accounting error that will cost my home State of Delaware millions of dollars in badly needed Federal highway assistance. Federal-aid highway funds are for the creation and maintenance of our Nation's interstate highways--literally the lifelines of our economy. The east coast's largest, most important interstate, I-95, runs through the northernmost part of Delaware, carrying hundreds of millions of tons of goods and products from Maine to Florida and beyond. Tens of thousands of Delawareans commute daily on I-95. In fact, the Delaware Department of Transportation is just now beginning a massive, $73 million project to repave and resurface key parts of I-95. This undertaking is vitally important not only to the people of Delaware, but to commuters and businesses across America. Yet, next fiscal year, Delaware--partly because of a 1994 bureaucratic snafu--is going to receive approximately $8.2 million less than it received in 1996. That is an 11-percent cut. This will occur even though the Federal Government will spend a record $18 billion on Federal highway assistance--roughly $455 million more than the current year. During consideration of the Transportation Appropriations bill this past July, Senator Baucus successfully offered an amendment that I supported to correct this miscalculation and restore the needed funding. Yet despite the strong vote in support, and the best efforts of Senator Lautenberg, conferees dropped the Baucus amendment, thus preserving the slip-up and cutting funding to 28 States. Because of this fundamental unfairness, and the egregious, short- sighted cuts in Amtrak funding, I voted against the Transportation Appropriations conference report. The legislation introduced by Senator Baucus that I am cosponsoring today, the Highway Funding Fairness Act of 1996, corrects the 1994 highway fund credit mistake and gives the 28 affected States their rightful allocations. This 1994 accounting error skims the surface of the issue, however. The root cause of the $8 million cut in funding to Delaware is the skewed allocation formula put in place by the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act [ISTEA], which fails to accurately reflect highway needs. This formula, particularly the so-called 90 percent of payments guarantee, unfairly rewards selected States at the expense of smaller, less populated States, such as Delaware. I intend to work hard next year during consideration of the ISTEA reauthorization bill to correct this fundamental unfairness, and ensure that States, like Delaware, receive their proper share of highway funds. I hope my colleagues representing the other 27 affected States will seriously consider cosponsoring the Highway Funding Fairness Act of 1996, and I commend and thank Senator Baucus for all of his work.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce on behalf of the Administration the Presidential Honors Scholarship Act of 1996. I want to commend President Clinton for this particular initiative and for his overall outstanding leadership on behalf of education. Over the past 4 years, I have worked with President Clinton most closely on anti-crime and drug legislation. But, I have watched, admired, and tried to help his efforts on behalf of education as well. George Bush said he wanted to be the education president. Bill Clinton has been. And, this bill on merit scholarships is an important part of his agenda. In August, I introduced comprehensive legislation to make college more affordable for middle-class families. The Growing the Economy for Tomorrow: Assuring Higher Education is Affordable and Dependable Act-- GET AHEAD for short--would provide tax cuts for the cost of college, encourage families to save for a college education, and award merit scholarships to high school students in the top of their classes academically. I included merit scholarships in the Get Ahead Act and I have agreed--even though our proposals differ in a few minor details--to introduce the administration's bill today for one simple reason. We need to reward students who succeed in meeting high academic standards. If we are going to reform education--I mean, really reform education so that our children will be an educated workforce able to compete in the international economy--then we must first set tough academic standards. Students must know what is expected of them. Parents must know what their children should be learning. Teachers must stay focused on the mission of educating children. And, we all should know that a high school diploma means something. But, Mr. President, not only should States be setting high academic standards for our students--with support and assistance from the Federal Government--but we should be rewarding those students who meet the high standards. The best way to reward them is to make it just a little bit easier to go to college, which is by the way, another key incredient--in addition to tough standards--in ensuring a highly educated American workforce. The Presidential Honors Scholarship Act would provide a $1,000 scholarship to all graduating seniors in public and private schools who finish in the top 5 percent of their class. These Presidential honors scholars could use the scholarship in their freshman year at the college of their choice, and the scholarship would not be used in determining eligibility for other financial aid. Although $1,000 may not seem like a lot, it is about two-thirds of the cost of the average tuition at a community college. And, more importantly, it is the principle that counts. Those who work hard and succeed ought to be recognized and rewarded. Now, there are some--and I have heard from them already--who believe that the money for merit scholarships would be better spent helping those in financial need. I do not disagree with the notion that we should help all students who are qualified to go to college get to college. But, of those who finish in the top 5 percent of their high school graduating class--those who would benefit from this bill--81 percent come from families with incomes under $75,000 per year. I suggest they are exactly the ones in need, given the high cost of college today--and there were reports in this morning's paper that tuition costs at public colleges have gone up another 6 percent, more than double the rate of inflation. But, regardless of who benefits, I also believe that we should start to reward excellence for excellence's sake. I have no illusions--and the administration does not either--that this bill is going to pass here in the waning days of the 104th Congress. Our intent is merely to introduce the bill now, and to come back next year to try to see it become law as part of the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. I encourage my colleagues to take a look at this legislation and to support the idea of merit scholarships.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce on behalf of the Administration the Presidential Honors Scholarship Act of 1996. I want to commend President Clinton for this particular initiative and for his overall outstanding leadership on behalf of education. Over the past 4 years, I have worked with President Clinton most closely on anti-crime and drug legislation. But, I have watched, admired, and tried to help his efforts on behalf of education as well. George Bush said he wanted to be the education president. Bill Clinton has been. And, this bill on merit scholarships is an important part of his agenda. In August, I introduced comprehensive legislation to make college more affordable for middle-class families. The Growing the Economy for Tomorrow: Assuring Higher Education is Affordable and Dependable Act-- GET AHEAD for short--would provide tax cuts for the cost of college, encourage families to save for a college education, and award merit scholarships to high school students in the top of their classes academically. I included merit scholarships in the Get Ahead Act and I have agreed--even though our proposals differ in a few minor details--to introduce the administration's bill today for one simple reason. We need to reward students who succeed in meeting high academic standards. If we are going to reform education--I mean, really reform education so that our children will be an educated workforce able to compete in the international economy--then we must first set tough academic standards. Students must know what is expected of them. Parents must know what their children should be learning. Teachers must stay focused on the mission of educating children. And, we all should know that a high school diploma means something. But, Mr. President, not only should States be setting high academic standards for our students--with support and assistance from the Federal Government--but we should be rewarding those students who meet the high standards. The best way to reward them is to make it just a little bit easier to go to college, which is by the way, another key incredient--in addition to tough standards--in ensuring a highly educated American workforce. The Presidential Honors Scholarship Act would provide a $1,000 scholarship to all graduating seniors in public and private schools who finish in the top 5 percent of their class. These Presidential honors scholars could use the scholarship in their freshman year at the college of their choice, and the scholarship would not be used in determining eligibility for other financial aid. Although $1,000 may not seem like a lot, it is about two-thirds of the cost of the average tuition at a community college. And, more importantly, it is the principle that counts. Those who work hard and succeed ought to be recognized and rewarded. Now, there are some--and I have heard from them already--who believe that the money for merit scholarships would be better spent helping those in financial need. I do not disagree with the notion that we should help all students who are qualified to go to college get to college. But, of those who finish in the top 5 percent of their high school graduating class--those who would benefit from this bill--81 percent come from families with incomes under $75,000 per year. I suggest they are exactly the ones in need, given the high cost of college today--and there were reports in this morning's paper that tuition costs at public colleges have gone up another 6 percent, more than double the rate of inflation. But, regardless of who benefits, I also believe that we should start to reward excellence for excellence's sake. I have no illusions--and the administration does not either--that this bill is going to pass here in the waning days of the 104th Congress. Our intent is merely to introduce the bill now, and to come back next year to try to see it become law as part of the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. I encourage my colleagues to take a look at this legislation and to support the idea of merit scholarships.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise this morning to speak not to an issue but to speak to a man--about a man. Mr. President, I rise this morning on the floor of the Senate to perform a task that I am anxious to perform but, at the same time, reluctant to perform. I have been in the Senate now for 24 years. I have had the opportunity in those 24 years to serve with some very famous, significant political figures in modern American history. When I arrived here in 1972, Richard Nixon was President. The Senate was markedly different in terms of its makeup and membership, so much so that I now find myself--I was No. 100 in seniority--I now find myself somewhere in the low teens in seniority, and finding only a half a dozen or so Democrats who have been here longer than I have. The reason I bother to mention that is I have had an opportunity to meet and work with and become friends with some truly great and famous Members of the U.S. Senate. The loss--in some cases by death, such as in the case of Hubert Humphrey and Dewey Bartlett and others; in some cases as a consequence of having lost an election, in the case of people like Frank Church and other great leaders such as Jacob Javits; the loss in some cases on the part of a Senator deciding he did not wish to run again, like Senator Mansfield and others--has impacted on the Senate and has impacted on the country. I know my Grandfather Finnegan--God rest his soul--was right when he always used to say, ``Joey, don't forget Paddy's a 9-day wonder. When you're gone, you're gone.'' In one sense that is true. In another sense it is not true because every once in a while someone passes this way. Every once in a while someone assumes a position in the U.S. Senate, or takes the place on the floor of this august body, who changes not only the nature of our laws and the attitude of our country about major issues but who impact upon how this institution functions. In my mind, and I believe I reflect the view of the American public in this case, one of the things that is most troubling in our discourse is a growing lack of civility, not only in our public discourse but in our private discourse. You need only go down this long aisle to the next, patterned after the Parliament in Great Britain. Look out this door. Many people who watch us on C-SPAN don't realize that you walk through the door of this institution, this floor, and look out that door, and you look straight all the way through, you will see a similar set of doors at the other end that lead into another Chamber called the House of Representatives. For years and years, we have avoided the kind of invective that seems to have infected the debate on that end of the Capitol. And one of the reasons we have avoided it is because there have been men and women on the floor of this Senate who will not tolerate that kind of discourse and constantly remind us of our moral conscience: that we, as the greatest institution--not as individuals, but as an institution--should not stoop to the level of engaging in uncivil conduct. If the Presiding Officer, the former Governor of Missouri, will excuse my personal reference, it is like using profanity. You know that one may engage in using profanity in the locker room with a bunch of guys when you are in high school, but you would never do that in front of your mother. You would never do that in front of your grandmother. You would never do that in front of the people you most respected, even if you slipped and did it in front of the guys. Well, the presence of Claiborne Pell on the floor of the U.S. Senate--just, literally, his physical presence on the floor-- inhibits Members from yielding to the temptation of engaging in uncivil conduct, in conduct that, quite frankly, we should all realize is beneath us and demeans the public debate and demeans this institution. And I can say, without reservation, that in the 24 years I have served here there is not a single, solitary person whose mere physical presence in a committee, in a caucus room, on the floor of the U.S. Senate--just his presence inhibits negative behavior on the part of all of us. He is a man of such character, such gentility, such class, and such persuasion by his actions. I mean it. Think about it. I say to my colleagues who may be listening to this in their offices: Name for me a single solitary person with whom we have ever served who has that kind of impact--he walks into a room, and his mere presence exposes demeaning conduct that any of us, including myself, may be engaging in in the course of political discourse. He likes to point out--and he never lectures, but he likes to point out--that he has never negatively referred to any one of his opponents. I remember one of the highest compliments I ever received. We were at a candidate forum. The chairman and I, Senator Pell, a Democratic candidate, were getting ready for the last election. And one of the leading political advertisers for Democrats was up there showing us the latest ad, all the Members of the Senate who were running in the 1990 race, when Senator Pell and I ran together the last time. He was saying, ``This is what works, and this is what the Republicans are doing, and this is what we should do.'' This particular guy has great wit and was actually the guy doing my advertising, and may have been the one doing Senator Pell's as well. I can't recall. His name is Bob Squire, one of the leading political advertisers in the country, and a fine man. Actually he was doing the President's campaign, if I am not mistaken. Bob Squire with his dry wit looked down at all of us, and said, ``There are only two men in America that do not get it''--that you must respond to negative ads and you must be negative. And I do not know whether it is true, if it was only two. It does not matter for purposes of what I am going to say. He literally said, ``Claiborne Pell and Joe Biden.'' Just for me to be mentioned in the same sentence with Claiborne Pell--just to be mentioned in the same sentence--was one of the highest compliments I have received since I have been in the Senate. I am not in Claiborne Pell's class. Few are. If you will forgive me, as we say, a point of personal privilege here, when I first came to the Senate, I say to the Presiding Officer, I came under circumstances that were not the most ideal. I was not anxious to come. There had been an accident involving my family, and I lost my wife and daughter. Almost everybody, when I came, embraced me, Democrat and Republican, and they were very generous with their time and their concern. But I remember four people, only one of whom I will name today: Claiborne Pell. Claiborne Pell came to me, and in his inimitable way. He did not do what Hubert Humphrey did. Hubert Humphrey literally came over to my office and sat on my couch and cried with me, I mean literally cried with me. Claiborne Pell did not do that. I give you my word that there was not a week that went by without him at least twice a week personally coming to me and inquiring of me how I was doing, inviting me to his home, inviting me to stay with him in his home, offering me a room in his lovely home in Georgetown because he knew I commuted and my boys were still in the hospital. And that did not stop when my boys became healthy. That has continued for 24 years. And his wife, Nuala, is equally as wonderful. In addition to that, Claiborne Pell did something few were able to do for me at the time, and again continuing on this point of personal privilege. He invited me to dinner parties, private parties, private dinners at his home, knowing that it was important for me, in retrospect, just to get out, just to be somewhere with someone. He never did it in a way that made me feel beholden. He never did it in a way as if he were doing me a favor. He never did it in a way other than the way he does everything: in a purely genuine, straightforward, embracing way. Mr. President, that has characterized everything about Claiborne Pell. Let me conclude by saying that everything about Claiborne Pell's public life has in fact emulated his private life. There are not many people who can say there is simply no distinction between their private conduct and their public conduct. Claiborne Pell would not say that, but he can say that, and I can say that for him. The last point I wish to make, and I will elaborate on this later when we finish this treaty or at another time before we leave, is this man is a man who is, to use a trite-sounding phrase, a quiet visionary. This is a fellow who wrote about the transportation system in the Northeast and predicted what would be needed and used a word I learned as an undergraduate that no one had ever heard of-- ``megalopolis''--and he talked about Richmond to Boston and what would have to be done to accommodate the needs of this area of the country. He is the guy who came up with the notion of ACDA. He has been the single most consistent, persistent spearheader of the notion of bringing about the diminution of the number of nuclear weapons that exist in this world. He is the man who has been devoted to the notions and concepts embodied in the United Nations. He is a man who has been the leader in education and learning, a man who comes from considerable standing in terms of his own personal wealth and education but has bent down to make sure that people of competence, regardless of their economic status, would be able to achieve the same intellectual competence, capability, and background as he has achieved. This is a wonderful man, I say to my friends. You all know it. But not many have passed this way who have his personal characteristics and capabilities, and I doubt whether very many will come this way again. I will truly miss his presence in the Senate. I yield the floor and thank my colleagues. Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to proceed for up to 10 minutes as if in morning business.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise as a cosponsor of the Federal Law Enforcement Dependents Assistance Act and to call on all of my Senate colleagues to support this bill. Unfortunately, over the past 2 years, many in this Congress have taken the occasion--time and again--to second-guess and criticize law enforcement officers. We heard these criticisms throughout the debate on terrorism legislation--beginning last year, and it continues to this day. As I have pointed out on the floor of the Senate before, I call on us all to remember that it is the terrorists and the violent criminals who deserve our contempt and it is law enforcement officers who deserve our trust and respect. This bill offers modest recognition of the tremendous service to our Nation by Federal law enforcement officers--DEA agents, FBI agents, U.S. marshals, border patrol officers, Customs officers, ATF agents, Secret Service agents among many others. This bill does so by authorizing the Federal Government to pay education benefits to the children and spouses of Federal law enforcement officers who are killed or suffer a total and permanent disability in the line of duty. In doing so, this bill recognizes that by virtue of these officers supreme sacrifice to the Nation, the families of these fallen officers are no longer provided for. And, more importantly, this bill will offer a tangible sign of the Nation's respect for those who gave their lives in service to us all. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I also want to put my colleagues on notice that in the years ahead we must follow up by actually appropriating the dollars necessary to deliver on today's commitment. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am very pleased that this bill will soon become law. I commend my cosponsor, Senator Hatch. And I also commend Representative Conyers, who championed this bill over in the House, and with whom I was proud to work on it. A few months ago, the first circuit court of appeals made a mistake. It made, in my view, a very big mistake: It said that the term ``serious bodily injury'' in one of our federal statutes does not include rape. Let me tell you about the case. One night near midnight, a woman went to her car after work. While she was getting something out of the back seat, a man with a knife came up from behind and forced her back into the car. He drive her to a remote beach, ordered her to take off her clothes, and made her squat down on her hands-and-knees. Then he raped her. After the rape, he drove off in her car, leaving her alone on the side of the road. This man was convicted under the federal carjacking statute. That statute provides an enhanced sentence of up to 25 years if the defendant inflicts serious bodily injury in the course of a carjacking. When it got time to sentence the defendant, the prosecutor asked the court to enhance the sentence because of the rape. Mind you, there was no dispute that the defendant had, in fact, raped the victim. The trial judge agreed with the prosecutor, and gave the defendant the statutory 25 years maximum, finding that the rape constituted serious bodily injury. But when the case went up to the first circuit, that court said `no'--rape is not serious bodily injury. To support its ruling, and I'm now quoting the opinion, the court said that ``there was no evidence of any cuts or bruises in her vaginal area.'' That, in my view, is absolutely outrageous--and Senator Hatch and I proposed this bill to set matters straight. Under the code, ``seriously bodily injury'' has several definitions. It includes: a substantial risk of death; protracted and obvious disfigurement; protracted loss or impairment of a bodily part or mental faculty; and it also includes extreme physical pain. It takes no great leap of logic to see that a rape involves extreme physical pain. And I would go so far as to say that only a panel of male judges could fail to make that leap and even think--let alone rule--that rape does not involve extreme pain. Rape is one of the most brutal and serious crimes any woman can experience. It is a violation of the first order, but it has all too often been treated like a second-class crime. According to a report I issued a few years ago, a robber is 30 percent more likely to be convicted than a rapist; a rape prosecution is more than twice as likely as a murder prosecution to be dismissed; a convicted rapist is 50 percent more likely to receive probation than a convicted robber. No crime carries a perfect record of arrest, prosecution, and incarceration--but the record for rape is especially wanting. And this first circuit decision helps explain why: too often, our criminal justice system just doesn't get it. If the first circuit decision were allowed to stand, it would mean that a criminal would spend more time behind bars for breaking a man's arm than for raping a woman. For 5 long years, I worked to pass a piece of legislation that I have cared about like no other: The Violence Against Women Act. The act does a great many practical things: It funds more police and prosecutors specially trained and devoted to combating rape and family violence. It trains police, prosecutors, and judges in the ways of rape and family violence--so they can better understand and respond to the problem; It provides shelters for more than 60,000 battered women and their children; It provides extra lighting and emergency phones in subways, bus stops and parks; It provides for more rape crises centers; It set up a national hotline that battered women can call around the clock--to get advice and counseling when they are in the throes of a crisis; And we're getting rape education efforts going with our young people--so we can break the cycle of violence before it gets started. But the Violence Against Women Act also meant to do something else, beyond these concrete measures: it also sent a clarion call across our land that crimes against women will no longer be treated as second class crimes. For too long, the victims of these crimes have been seen not as innocent targets of brutality, but as participants who somehow bear shame or even some responsibility for the violence. This is especially true when it comes to victims who know their assailants. For too long, we have been quick to call theirs a private misfortune rather than a public disgrace. We have viewed the crime as less than criminal, the abuser less than culpable, and the victim less than worthy of justice. We must remain ever vigilant in our efforts to make our streets and our neighborhoods and our homes safe for women. And we need to make sure--right now--that no judge ever misreads the carjacking statute again. With this bill, we are telling them that we intend, that we always intended, for those words ``serious bodily injury'' to mean rape--no if's, and's or but's. I thank my colleagues for their support. The bill (S. 2007) was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed; as follows:

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, last Wednesday evening, with a 6-4, 11th-inning victory over the Kinston Indians, the Wilmington Blue Rocks captured the Carolina League championship for the second time in their 4-year history. I would like to take this opportunity to join all Delawareans in congratulating Manager John Mizerock, his players and coaches, and the entire Blue Rocks' organization for their oustanding season, and--again on behalf of all Delawareans--I'd like to thank them for providing us with yet another summer of enjoyable family entertainment. For 40 years, up until the spring of 1993, Wilmington was without professional baseball until our late Mayor Dan Frawley, former State Representative Steve Taylor, and dozens of other public officials, businesspersons, and community leaders made a commitment to build a stadium and lure a minor league franchise to the city. Now, ``The Boys of Summer'' have returned each spring, averaging more than 300,000 fans annually as the Blue Rocks have captured the Northern Division title in each of their 4 years, winning the League Championship in 1994 and again this year. But for all of their success on the field, the Blue Rocks' real contribution has been the sense of community pride which they have brought to the Wilmington area. The people of Wilmington have welcomed these young men from around the country and from as far away as Latin America into their homes and their hearts, and in droves have brought their families out to Frawley Stadium on spring and summer afternoons and evenings to share a few hours of family fun watching their boys in action. In return, the Blue Rocks players and management have involved themselves in the community, visiting schools and conducting baseball clinics, providing our youngsters with fine role models. What's more, the construction of Frawley Stadium and the activity at the stadium has led to the revitalization of an old neighborhood, with the South Madison Street corridor becoming a prime location for restaurants and community events. Matt Minker and his partners, including my good friends Frank and Fran Long, have given the club ownership with a local flavor, ensuring that the franchise is more than just a business, but an integral part of community life in Wilmington. Ken Shepard, the vice president of baseball operations, and his fine staff have run a first-rate operation where excellent baseball is played in a stadium that is fan-friendly-- and especially kid-friendly--and always immaculately clean. A friend of mine remembers hearing Ken Shepard tell his staff just minutes after the Blue Rocks concluded their championship season of 1994, that even though there wouldn't be another game for more than 6 months, he wanted the stadium cleaned up ``as if there was going to be a game here tomorrow night''--and it was. That commitment to excellence has led to national recognition of the Wilmington Blue Rocks' as one of the premier minor-league organizations in the Nation. Blue Rocks' fans will remember another season of first-rate baseball on the diamond at Frawley Stadium; the dramatic win last Wednesday night on Matt Smith's 11th-inning home run; Sean McNally's ninth-inning scamper around the bases to score all the way from first-base on Michael Evans' hit to right-center field clinching the Northern Division title on Labor Day night; Jimmy Byington playing all nine positions in a single game in June; and countless other late-inning rallies, dramatic home runs, and superb pitching performances. But they've taken home a lot of other memories this summer as well. Memories of clear blue-sky afternoons when the yard work took a back seat to a couple of hours with the kids in the sun at Frawley Stadium; and of summer evenings with the sun setting beyond the stands down the left-field line as a crowd of 5 or 6,000 stood and cheered as the Blue Rocks' pitcher fired a strike to open the game. There'll be memories of legions of kids trailing along behind Rocky Bluewinkle, the blue moose who is the team's mascot; and memories of the mad scrambles to catch the souvenir frisbees that Rocky threw into the stands; of the hilarious Dizzy Bat Races which every evening left several volunteers from the audience sprawled on the green grass, disoriented, and having the time of their lives; and of The Macarena dance at the end of the fifth inning and thousands of fans moving in unison to ``YMCA'' during the seventh-inning stretch each evening. Nor will fans forget some of the characters who highlighted their afternoons and evenings at our ``Field of Dreams''; Blue Rocks employee Chris ``The Dancing Machine'' Parise standing on the third-base dugout and leading the fans in ``The Chicken Dance''; stadium organist Mike Mixon playing ``McNamara's Band'' whenever third-baseman Sean McNally came to bat; Jimmy, the soft-pretzel vendor in the stands whose energy and charisma probably doubled the sale of soft pretzels at the stadium; the ``Balloon Man'' enchanting the younger children with hats and animals made out of balloons; and countless other players, employees, and fans who made each trip to the ballpark a memorable one. For most fans, however, the Blue Rocks memories of summer 1996 will revolve around the family and friends who shared those good times with them. It is the sharing of good times like that that binds families and friends together, and as we congratulate the Blue Rocks on their Carolina League championship, we thank them for allowing us to share their success with one another.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am very pleased that this bill will soon become law. I commend my cosponsor, Senator Hatch, and I also commend Representative Conyers, who championed this bill over in the House, and with whom I was proud to work on it. A few months ago, the first circuit court of appeals made a mistake. It made, in my view, a very big mistake: It said that the term ``serious bodily injury'' in one of our Federal statutes does not include rape. Let me tell you about the case. One night near midnight, a woman went to her car after work. While she was getting something out of the back seat, a man with a knife came up from behind and forced her back into the car. He drove her to a remote beach, ordered her to take off her clothes, and made her squat down on her hands and knees. Then he raped her. After the rape, he drove off in her car, leaving her alone on the side of the road. The man was convicted under the Federal carjacking statute. That statute provides for an enhanced sentence of up to 25 years if the defendant inflicts ``serious bodily injury'' in the course of a carjacking. When it got time to sentence the defendant, the prosecutor asked the court to enhance the sentence because of the rape. Mind you, there was no dispute that the defendant had, in fact, raped the victim. The trial judge agreed with the prosecutor, and gave the defendant the statutory 25 years maximum, finding that the rape constituted ``serious bodily injury.'' But when the case went up to the first circuit, that court said ``no''--rape is not serious bodily injury. To support its ruling, and I'm now quoting the opinion, the court said that ``There was no evidence of any cuts or bruises in her vaginal area.'' That, in my view, is absolutely outrageous--and Senator Hatch and I proposed this bill to set matters straight. Under the code, ``serious bodily injury'' has several definitions. It includes: a substantial risk of death; protracted and obvious disfigurement; protracted loss or impairment of a bodily part or mental faculty; and it also includes extreme physical pain. It takes no great leap of logic to see that a rape involves extreme physical pain. and I would go so far as to say that only a panel of male judges could fail to make that leap and even think--let alone rule--that rape does not involve extreme pain. Rape is one of the most brutal and serious crimes any woman can experience. It is a violation of the first order, but it has all too often been treated like a second class crime. According to a report I issued a few years ago, a robber is 30 percent more likely to be convicted than a rapist; a rape prosecution is more than twice as likely as a murder prosecution to be dismissed; a convicted rapist is 50 percent more likely to receive probation than a convicted robber. No crime carries a perfect record of arrest, prosecution, and incarceration--but the record for rape is especially wanting. And this first circuit decision helps explain why: too often, our criminal justice system just doesn't get it. If the first circuit decision were allowed to stand, it would mean that a criminal would spend more time behind bars for breaking a man's arm than for raping a woman. For 5 long years, I worked to pass a piece of legislation that I have cared about like no other: The Violence Against Women Act. The act does a great many practical things: It funds more police and prosecutors specially trained and devoted to combating rape and family violence; It trains police, prosecutors, and judges in the ways of rape and family violence--so they can better understand and respond to the problem; It provides shelters for more than 60,000 battered women and their children; It provides extra lighting and emergency phones in subways, bus stops, and parks; It provides for more rape crises centers; It set up a national hotline that battered women can call around the clock--to get advice and counseling when they are in the throes of a crisis; And we're getting rape education efforts going with our young people--so we can break the cycle of violence before it gets started. But the Violence Against Women Act also meant to do something else, beyond these concrete measures: it also sent a clarion call across our land that crimes against women will no longer be treated as second class crimes. For too long, the victims of these crimes have been seen not as innocent targets of brutality, but as participants who somehow bear shame or even some responsibility for the violence. This is especially true when it comes to victims who know their assailants. For too long, we have been quick to call theirs a private misfortune rather than a public disgrace. We have viewed the crime as less than criminal, the abuser less than culpable, and the victim less than worthy of justice. We must remain ever vigilant in our efforts to make our streets and our neighborhoods and our homes safe for women. And we need to make sure--right now--that no judge ever misreads the carjacking statute again. With this bill, we are telling them that we intend, that we always intended, for those words ``serious bodily injury'' to mean rape--no if's, and's or but's. I thank my colleagues for their support. The bill (S. 2007) was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed; as follows:

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I submit a resolution designating October 18, 1996 as National Mammography Day. Over the course of the past 3 years, I have submitted resolutions that designate a special day to encourage women to get mammograms as part of the early detection process in the fight against breast cancer. Historically this day has been designated as October 19, but because it falls on a Saturday this year, October 18 will be National Mammography Day. In 1992 and 1993 a joint resolution was adopted by the Congress and signed into law by the President. And, last year, even though the House refused to take up commemoratives, this resolution was approved by the Senate. I feel that the Senate should again go on record to continue to educate and raise the consciousness about the importance of early detection and the value of mammography. Mr. President, according to the American Cancer Society, national figures on breast cancer indicate that, in 1996 alone, 184,300 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer. Forty-four thousand three hundred women will succumb to this disease. My home State of Delaware still ranks among the worst in breast cancer mortality among the 50 states, with an estimated 660 new breast cancer cases and over 160 breast cancer deaths for 1996. Although a cure for breast cancer may be some time away, early detection and treatment are crucial to ensure survival. Studies have shown and experts agree, that mammography is one of the best methods to detect breast cancer in its early stages. Mammograms can reveal the presence of small cancers up to 2 years before regular clinical breast examinations or breast self-examinations [BSE], saving as many as a third more lives of those diagnosed with the disease. With 50 percent of the breast cancer cases occurring in women over age 65, no women can be considered immune from the disease; in fact, at least 80 percent of the women who get breast cancer have no family history of the disease. Mr. President, the resolution I am submitting today sets aside 1 day in the midst of National Breast Cancer Awareness Month to encourage women to receive or sign up for a mammogram, as well as to bring about greater awareness and understanding of one of the key components in fighting this disease.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, in response to my friend's question, and in response to his counsel, I will seek no more time. I, frankly, was going to attempt a filibuster on this bill but I think--I am not being facetious when I say this--the wisdom of the chairman is correct. I probably would end up no better off, even if I succeed, in terms of what would come out of a continuing resolution. But I will tell the chairman, although I am not going to pursue any strategy other than voting ``no'' on this legislation and on a continuing resolution, I am hoping to convince some of our colleagues, notwithstanding the fact we will have passed this legislation today, and I expect it will pass, that we get a supplemental to, in fact, give us an opportunity to work out things we are working out with the Senator from Oregon. But I do not seek recognition beyond voting ``yes'' or ``no'' when the time comes.

Mr. BIDEN. I say to my friend from Oregon, I truly do understand that. At the beginning of my comments, which started some time ago, I started off by saying that the more things change the more they remain the same. I cited my experience as a county councilman dealing with bus service in our most populous county. Some of my friends said it had to be totally self-sufficient. So the bus service was put in the position of having to cut routes that were not, in fact, profitable. As they cut routes that were not profitable, exponentially ridership dropped off. The more they cut one route, twice as many riders dropped off because fewer options were available because of transit changes. Once you start down that road, you are headed for the demise of the system. What I am saying to the Senator is that this is only one of the three pieces of effort we have to have underway. I am suggesting that I, personally, and I suspect everyone who supports Amtrak, understands and appreciates that it is in everybody's best interests if eastern Oregon has access, if eastern Oregon has the Pioneer. The more you invest, the more ridership you generate. But I think we put an artificial timeframe on Amtrak and a standard, a bar, so high they cannot possibly meet it. I see my colleagues are standing on the floor here. Before I yield to the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member, I would like to acknowledge, because he asked for a couple of minutes and I will let the ranking member conclude when that should occur, but the man who, in fact, wrote the book about the megalopolis, I mean literally, not figuratively, literally, literally the guy who wrote the book is the senior Senator from Rhode Island. I say to my friend from New Jersey-- he asked whether or not at some point, shortly, we would be willing to yield him 2 minutes. But I will yield the floor and let the chairman make the decision.

Mr. BIDEN. Surely.

Mr. BIDEN. With no compacts, we are not going to be able to run certain lines. And unless we provide an alternative source of revenue for capital investment, we are not going to be able to maintain the system. So why don't we look at transportation needs as a whole? That is why this is so debilitating. I will yield the floor----