Joe Biden

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, Senator Gramm and I are now offering a substitute amendment to S. 1675, a bill originally offered in April by myself and Senator Gramm along with Senators Hutchison, Faircloth, Dorgan, Kyl, Shelby, Campbell, McConnell, Stevens, McCain, and Thurmond. This legislation strengthens and improves the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act. The Jacob Wetterling Act, enacted as part of the 1994 crime law, requires States to enact laws to register and track the most violent, the most horrible--and least likely to be rehabilitated--criminals our Nation faces today. I refer to those criminals who attack our children and criminals who are sexually violent predators. These criminals must be tracked. And local law enforcement must know when these criminals are in their communities. This was the reason I worked to include this important measure in the 1994 crime law. And I will also point out that almost all States have taken great strides to build an effective tracking system. Now we seek to build upon this progress to meet three specific goals. First, we must have a nationwide system that will help State and local law enforcement track these offenders as they move from State to State and will help by providing a back-up system of tracking. Second, while most States have established or are about to establish these systems, if any States fail to act, we cannot allow there to be a ``black-hole'' where sexual predators can hide and are then lost to all States. A nationwide system will track offenders if States do not maintain registration systems. Third, we must ensure that the most serious sexual predators are required to remain registered with law enforcement officials for the rest of their lives. All of these key goals will be met by this legislation. In addition, our amendment will offer some improvements which are made possible by the nationwide system this amendment will provide. For example, our bill will-- Require all offenders to verify their address on a regular basis by returning verification cards with their fingerprints and recent photograph. Require that a nationwide warning is issued whenever an offender fails to verify their address or when an offender cannot be located. Institute tough penalties for offenders who willfully fail to meet their obligations to register with the nationwide system in States where there is no registration and in cases of offenders who move from one State to another. Notify law enforcement officials not only when an offender moves to their area, but also when an offender moves out of their neighborhood. To offer just one of the practical problems a national database will help local law enforcement address--Delaware law enforcement, because Delaware is so close to other States, will certainly need to know if a sexual predator lives just over the line in Pennsylvania. And only a national database can provide this information. To offer a real life example of why a nationwide system is needed--in Delaware, a sex offender was released last year. Fortunately, Delaware's offender registration law requires this offender--Freddy Marine--to be tracked by Delaware law enforcement. Since his release, Marine has moved to another State. The nationwide system established by this bill will help make sure that if Freddy Marine moves back to Delaware--our State law enforcement will know, and knowledge is the key to effective enforcement. In summary, the sex offender tracking and identification bill is possible because States such as Delaware and Texas have done the hard work to build statewide registration systems. We now seek to build a system where all movement of sexually violent and child offenders can be tracked and we will go a long way toward the day when none of these predators will fall between the cracks. I am glad that we can now offer and pass with the unanimous consent of the Senate this important legislation to protect our children from sexual offenders. I hope that our colleagues in the House of Representatives will take up and pass the companion bill to this legislation and enact these vital protections for our children. Mr. President, this is the next step in the approach to start action which Senator Dorgan, I, Senator Gramm of Texas, and others were doing with the crime bill. We decided that we were going to nationalize it-- it became known as Megan's Law, and it was also called the Jacob Wetterling Act, again named after a victim in this case--to make sure every State had the ability and the requirement, in order to get Federal funds, that they had a State registry so that we know the States and communities can know. It became known as Megan's Law because of the celebrated tragic case in New Jersey. It was included in the original crime bill. What we did not do that Senator Dorgan and Senator Kerry--first Senator Gramm came to me and asked me about participating in this, and Senator Kerry of Massachusetts and others, because all of a sudden it became pretty clear that there was a gaping hole. If, in fact, we have registration, for example, in Delaware, and our State is registering sex offenders so people know whether a pedophile has moved into the neighborhood after having been released from the jail, that gives the community some protection. But there was no vehicle or mechanism until we passed the Gramm-Biden law. We are going to rename the law. For the person in Delaware who is in a position where a pedophile who lived in Chester County, PA--literally 4 miles or 5 miles from Wilmington, DE--moves across the line, there is no vehicle. There is no mechanism for the Pennsylvania authorities to notify the authorities in the State of Delaware. The Senator from Massachusetts and I were talking about this. He points out that in his State, he has the same circumstance, if, in fact, you move from one State to another. As a matter of fact, his State does not even have a registry yet, which is one of his concerns he mentioned to me because it is sort of behind the rest of us. They are not moving. The bottom line of this is real simple. We want people to know. We want a system to be available where it is a nationwide system that will help State and local enforcement people track offenders as they move from State to State, providing a backup system for tracking. Second, while most States have established or are about to establish these systems, if any State fails to act, we cannot allow there to be a Pennsylvania black hole out there, a black hole that Massachusetts now, for example, is part of, because if folks who are pedophiles in Massachusetts are moving into Rhode Island, or any other place, or even into Massachusetts, there is nobody who knows. So we need a nationwide system. Third, we have to assure that the most serious sexual predators are required to remain registered with law enforcement officials for the rest of their lives. This is not just being unnecessarily punitive. The recidivism rates are high, and the notification saves lives. We require all offenders to verify their address on a regular basis by returning verification cards with their fingerprints and a recent photograph. We require that a nationwide warning is issued whenever an offender fails to verify their address or an offender cannot be located. We institute tough penalties for offenders who willfully fail to meet this requirement. We notify law enforcement officials not only when an offender moves to an area, but when they move from an area. Let me offer one practical example of the need for this nationwide database. A sexual offender in Delaware named Freddie Marine is notorious. While in Delaware, every community was notified. But he moved out of Delaware. He may be over in Maryland or New Jersey. He is as much of a threat to a child in New Jersey or Maryland as he was in Delaware. But no one knows. There is no way they can know. So this nationwide database will provide that. It has been a pleasure. People kid--when they said, ``This is the Gramm-Biden amendment, well, we will let this go through. It must be OK.'' But the truth is the Senator from Texas and I work an awful lot on these criminal justice issues, and we are more in agreement than not. I thank him for, quite frankly, pointing out this black hole that I referred to early on. It is a pleasure to work with him. And I thank my friend, Senator Dorgan, for not only letting this go through but being on the ground floor when we put the Jacob Wetterling legislation together; and my friend from Massachusetts, who has been very, very concerned about the failure of his State to move, as it should have, in making sure to help fill this black hole. I thank him very much. I yield the remainder of my time, which is a rarity for me to do on the floor.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Anti-Gang and Youth Violence Control Act of 1996. This is the President's juvenile justice bill, and I am introducing it at his request. Over the last several years, a consensus has been building in our Nation, and we are now in the unusual position of having the public and the experts in agreement that juvenile crime and violence is the most pressing problem facing America. Moreover, we now have the statistics to back up the consensus: This past February, the U.S. Department of Justice released an update to its first national report on juvenile offenders and victims. The numbers in this report, as well as those in the FBI's most recent uniform crime report, demonstrate what many have been warning of for the last several years--we are facing a devastating rise in juvenile violence and crime. Between 1988 and 1994 the juvenile violent crime arrest rate has increased by more than 50 percent. In 1994, there were more than 125,000 juvenile arrests for violent crime offenses and another 131,000 juvenile arrests for drug abuse violations. A total of more than 2.2 million juveniles were arrested for crimes in 1994. Between 1993 and 1994, while adult arrest rates remained virtually stable, the total number of juvenile arrests increased 11 percent. Over this same period, the number of juvenile arrests for violent crime increased 6.5 percent. Most frightening, the Justice Department study also forecast that, even if the overall crime rate stops growing, the rising number of juveniles will nonetheless produce a 22-percent rise in violent crime arrests. And, should the violent crime rate continue to grow as it has between 1983 and 1992, the number of juveniles arrested for violent crimes will double by the year 2010 to more than 260,000 arrests. The President's Anti-Gang and Youth Violence Control Act includes important provisions to address these increases in chronic, violent offenders, including transferring the most serious offenders to adult court for prosecution, increasing the range of sanctions available to the courts in sentencing a juvenile, increasing the length of time a juvenile can be incarcerated, and increasing the access courts have to a juvenile offender's prior record. In my view, these provisions take an important first step toward beginning a needed dialog about a problem that is complicated and must be addressed over the long term. I hope that we can build on what the President has proposed, because we face a three-tiered challenge in reforming the juvenile justice system. As juvenile violence grows, both in rate and intensity, it is, of course, important to reform the juvenile justice system to address the most violent young criminals. The current system was never designed to handle either the number of juveniles or the level of violence being perpetrated by a small number of juveniles. The President's bill focuses on this aspect of juvenile justice reform. Just as critical--if not more so--if we are to effectively end the rise of juvenile crime rates is to focus on where this new breed of criminals is coming from and work to prevent future increases like the ones we have seen over the past decade. Allow me to put some of the aforementioned statistics in context. First, even with the increases in juvenile crime and violence, juveniles accounted for just 14 percent of all violent crimes and 25 percent of all property crimes in 1994. Second, a small proportion of all children commit most of the violent juvenile crimes--less than one-half of 1 percent of all juveniles were arrested for a violent crime, and approximately 7 percent of youth who commit crime are violent offenders. This last number is both heartening and frightening. On the one hand, it indicates that there is a small target population which demands our immediate attention, and that targeting this population could have significant results in lowering juvenile crime rates. As I noted, the President's bill addresses this need to crack down on this group. On the other hand, the President's bill does not address the very real need to address the 95 percent of kids who are not yet committing serious crimes, but are on the crime path and will become part of this 5 percent if left unchecked. In other words, we must do more to identify those offenders who will end up a part of that dangerous 5 percent and turn them around before they are too far down the road to violence. Focusing attention only on the violent 5 percent misses the essential point that most kids in the juvenile justice system--95 percent of all juveniles arrested--are not violent. They are also often first-time offenders. These are the juveniles the system was originally designed to handle, and rightfully so, because these are the children who can still be deterred from becoming life-long criminals if we provide juvenile courts with the appropriate prevention and intervention resources at this critical stage. Today, in most States, a juvenile can commit multiple, nonviolent offenses before they get any real attention from the juvenile justice system. This must change. We must help these 95 percent of juvenile offenders at the time of their first misbehavior and keep them from becoming repeat or serious offenders. This means giving juvenile court judges the ability to impose a range of graduated sanctions designed to prevent additional criminal behavior. Finally, we must realize that most children are not delinquent--94 percent of children in 1994 did not come before a judge--but these children are in danger of becoming delinquent due to the risk factors many of them face. Any truly comprehensive juvenile justice plan must address not only those children already in the system, but it must also focus on those children who may enter the system if their needs are not addressed. This task may sound like an impossible task, but it is not. We know what works and we can implement it. For example, we know that nearly 50 percent of all youth crime occurs during the hours after-school and before dinnertime, as these are the hours that 80 percent of America's children during these hours return to homes where no adults are present to provide supervision. By providing ``safe-havens'' such as boys and girls clubs and police athletic leagues where children can go after school, we can remove children from the streets and keep them out of trouble. In addition, we know that most juvenile offenders target other juveniles as their victims. By providing safe, supervised activities for children, we also achieve the goal of ``target-hardening''--that is, we can reduce juvenile crime by removing potential victims from offender's paths. Mr. President, as I have stated, although I generally support the efforts and initiatives of the President's Anti-gang and Youth Violence Control Act, it can only be one component of an overall juvenile justice initiative if it is to be successful. The President's bill does contain some important initiatives to deal with the most violent youth offenders. Among others, these provisions--which incorporate proposals made by me and other Members of Congress, include programs to initiate drug and gun courts in the juvenile system, to increase penalties for engaging children in drug trafficking, and for increasing controls on dangerous drugs such as Rohypnol and methamphetamine which are becoming increasingly popular among youth. I commend the President on his efforts, and I urge the President and my colleagues to continue to address the issues of juvenile justice by working with me to develop a comprehensive youth violence control and delinquency prevention plan.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Vermont. Amendment No. 5018

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am not going to speak to the merits of the legislation. I see my friend from Iowa is in the Chamber. I was going to remain silent on this, but because of the constant partisan references to the President not caring about it, I just want the Record to show one thing. This administration since it came into office has asked for $801 million for this very purpose, and my good friend from Iowa knows the Republican Congress gave him $540 million. Now, I find it fascinating the Senator from Iowa stands up and berates the administration for its lack of interest, and the Senator from Kansas stands up and says there is no reason we should give this much money because it is better used other places. There is some merit to her argument, but the irony, I just want the Record to show, is that fiscal year 1994 is the only year the President asked for less than the Congress gave him. He asked for 148; he got 170. In 1995, he asked for 227; the Congress gave him 105. In 1996, he asked for 213; the Congress gave him 115. And in 1997, he asked for 213, and the Congress up to now has given him, the proposal is 160, and now our friend from Georgia is getting in line with the President of the United States and getting their act together in asking what the President asked for. So, I cannot let it go. I am trying not to respond to everything that occurs here. But the fact is, $801 million asked by the President for this function; $540 million thus far granted by the Congress. If this succeeds, and I will support them to raise it up to the President's level of $213 million, from $160 million, that $540 million will move up in the commensurate amount. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield me 1 minute?

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I heard again, this time from our friend from Arizona, about the President's flagging effort on drugs and Bush up, Clinton down. Let's get the record straight. There was over $300 million more requested by the President for this very function than the Congress is willing to give him. The Republican Congress in the Senate last year cut the FBI by $112 million, cut the drug task force by $19 million, cut the number of prosecutors by $19 million. Let's stop this. I think it makes sense to do what the Senator from Georgia wants to do. Let's do it and stop this partisan malarkey. The facts do not sustain the assertions. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I know this is asking a lot, but let's just examine the logic of what is being said here. My friend from Utah stands up and says, ``Restore what we need to restore. Make the President do what he should do.'' What are we doing? The Senator from Georgia is restoring the request of the President. What are these guys talking about? The President is the one who asked for the money the Senator from Georgia says he should get. Now my friend from Utah says, ``Now what we must do is restore this war on drugs.''

Mr. BIDEN. So has the logic in this place.

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I rise today to support the modifications to the amendment by the Senator from Colorado, the NATO Enlargement Facilitation Act of 1996. Mr. President, my principal modification is straightforward: it adds the Republic of Slovenia to the current list of three countries that Congress finds as having made significant progress toward achieving the stated NATO membership criteria and are therefore eligible for additional assistance described in the bill. Mr. President, Slovenia should join Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary on this list for the following reasons: First, Slovenia's progress in meeting the NATO membership criteria has been second to none, and probably the very best in Central Europe. Second, Slovenia would provide the essential land-bridge linking current NATO member Italy and likely future NATO member Hungary. Third, Slovenia is the only country in the area that has recently proven its military tenacity and, hence, its ability to contribute to the security of NATO, having successfully defeated the invasion attempt of the Yugoslav National Army in 1991. Mr. President, in offering this amendment I want to underscore that I have not yet made up my mind about how I will vote on the NATO candidacy of any individual country. The answers to the questions posed by the senior Senator from Georgia in this amendment to the Defense authorization bill for fiscal year 1997 will help form my opinion on NATO enlargement in general. How well applicant countries fulfill Alliance membership criteria will, of course, be a determining factor in my ultimate vote on individual candidacies. I do believe, however, that the amendment to the Foreign Operations appropriations bill currently offered by the Senator from Colorado is a prudent one, in that it seeks in a modest way to assist a small group of countries who have made the greatest progress toward meeting the NATO membership criteria. My amendment simply recognizes the fact that Slovenia indisputably belongs in that small group. Mr. President, Slovenia is a small country of 2 million citizens in the far northwestern corner of the former Yugoslavia. Without fanfare and without the publicity that has accompanied change elsewhere behind the former Iron Curtain, Slovenia has rapidly created a solid democracy and a prosperous market economy. Its Western European-style coalition government is a model of stability. Economically, Slovenia now can boast of a per capita GNP approaching ten-thousand U.S. dollars, by far the highest of any country wishing to join NATO. Moreover, Slovenia has put its nose to the grindstone, strenuously attempting to fulfill the membership criteria that the Alliance has announced. What has been the result? Mr. President, no less an authority than U.S. Secretary of Defense William Perry flatly stated last year that of all the countries of Central and Eastern Europe ``Slovenia has made perhaps the greatest progress in the transition to democracy, the transition to a market economy, and the smooth turnover of the military to civilian control.'' That, I would submit, is no small praise. Slovenia's geographical location also argues strongly for its inclusion in the likely first group of new NATO members. Wedged between the northern Adriatic Sea and the Alps, it connects Italy, a charter member of NATO, with Hungary, which appears in the bill's list of preferred applicants and, solely on the basis of its accomplishment, would likely be in the first group admitted to the Alliance. Without Slovenia in the Alliance, however, Hungary would not be contiguous with NATO territory, a situation which could harm its chances for admission in the first group. It must be added that this spring Italy and Slovenia settled a long- standing dispute over property rights, thereby clearing the way for Slovenia to sign an Association Agreement with the European Union and further cementing its ties to Western Europe. Finally, Mr. President, little Slovenia--alone among NATO applicants--has proven that it can defend itself and be a net contributor to the security of the Western Alliance. After declaring its independence from the crumbling Yugoslavia in the spring of 1991, Slovenia had to face an invasion by the Serbian-led Yugoslav National Army or J.N.A. For ten days Slovenia stunned the world by routing the better armed and numerically superior invaders, until they withdrew, tacitly acknowledging Slovene independence. So, Mr. President, by any standard Slovenia deserves to be included with Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary in the list of countries that are eligible for targeted United States transition assistance. I would close with two brief observations. First, including Slovenia in this group would not only constitute recognition of its remarkable political, economic, and military record over the past 5 years; it would also serve to destroy the unfortunate stereotype emerging from the dreadful Balkan warfare that all South Slavs are incorrigibly violent people who cannot cooperate to improve their situation. Finally, adding Slovenia to the bill's preferred list would lend more credibility to Congress's response to the NATO enlargement process. It would demonstrate that we are clearly focused on strengthening NATO and not, as some assert, only responding to interest-group politics. There are, to be sure, Slovene-Americans who undoubtedly have a special desire for Slovenia to join NATO, but they have not been especially active on Capitol Hill. There are undoubtedly Delawareans of Slovene descent, but to the best of my knowledge I have never been approached by any of them in regard to this issue. Mr. President, because of its outstanding criteria-based accomplishments, its geostrategically important location, and its proven military record, Slovenia deserves to join Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary as eligible for additional transition assistance for NATO membership. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Brown Amendment as modified. I thank the chair and yield the floor. Mr. LIEBERMAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Anti-Gang and Youth Violence Control Act of 1996. This is the President's juvenile justice bill, and I am introducing it at his request. Over the last several years, a consensus has been building in our Nation, and we are now in the unusual position of having the public and the experts in agreement that juvenile crime and violence is the most pressing problem facing America. Moreover, we now have the statistics to back up the consensus: This past February, the U.S. Department of Justice released an update to its first national report on juvenile offenders and victims. The numbers in this report, as well as those in the FBI's most recent uniform crime report, demonstrate what many have been warning of for the last several years--we are facing a devastating rise in juvenile violence and crime. Between 1988 and 1994 the juvenile violent crime arrest rate has increased by more than 50 percent. In 1994, there were more than 125,000 juvenile arrests for violent crime offenses and another 131,000 juvenile arrests for drug abuse violations. A total of more than 2.2 million juveniles were arrested for crimes in 1994. Between 1993 and 1994, while adult arrest rates remained virtually stable, the total number of juvenile arrests increased 11 percent. Over this same period, the number of juvenile arrests for violent crime increased 6.5 percent. Most frightening, the Justice Department study also forecast that, even if the overall crime rate stops growing, the rising number of juveniles will nonetheless produce a 22-percent rise in violent crime arrests. And, should the violent crime rate continue to grow as it has between 1983 and 1992, the number of juveniles arrested for violent crimes will double by the year 2010 to more than 260,000 arrests. The President's Anti-Gang and Youth Violence Control Act includes important provisions to address these increases in chronic, violent offenders, including transferring the most serious offenders to adult court for prosecution, increasing the range of sanctions available to the courts in sentencing a juvenile, increasing the length of time a juvenile can be incarcerated, and increasing the access courts have to a juvenile offender's prior record. In my view, these provisions take an important first step toward beginning a needed dialog about a problem that is complicated and must be addressed over the long term. I hope that we can build on what the President has proposed, because we face a three-tiered challenge in reforming the juvenile justice system. As juvenile violence grows, both in rate and intensity, it is, of course, important to reform the juvenile justice system to address the most violent young criminals. The current system was never designed to handle either the number of juveniles or the level of violence being perpetrated by a small number of juveniles. The President's bill focuses on this aspect of juvenile justice reform. Just as critical--if not more so--if we are to effectively end the rise of juvenile crime rates is to focus on where this new breed of criminals is coming from and work to prevent future increases like the ones we have seen over the past decade. Allow me to put some of the aforementioned statistics in context. First, even with the increases in juvenile crime and violence, juveniles accounted for just 14 percent of all violent crimes and 25 percent of all property crimes in 1994. Second, a small proportion of all children commit most of the violent juvenile crimes--less than one-half of 1 percent of all juveniles were arrested for a violent crime, and approximately 7 percent of youth who commit crime are violent offenders. This last number is both heartening and frightening. On the one hand, it indicates that there is a small target population which demands our immediate attention, and that targeting this population could have significant results in lowering juvenile crime rates. As I noted, the President's bill addresses this need to crack down on this group. On the other hand, the President's bill does not address the very real need to address the 95 percent of kids who are not yet committing serious crimes, but are on the crime path and will become part of this 5 percent if left unchecked. In other words, we must do more to identify those offenders who will end up a part of that dangerous 5 percent and turn them around before they are too far down the road to violence. Focusing attention only on the violent 5 percent misses the essential point that most kids in the juvenile justice system--95 percent of all juveniles arrested--are not violent. They are also often first-time offenders. These are the juveniles the system was originally designed to handle, and rightfully so, because these are the children who can still be deterred from becoming life-long criminals if we provide juvenile courts with the appropriate prevention and intervention resources at this critical stage. Today, in most States, a juvenile can commit multiple, nonviolent offenses before they get any real attention from the juvenile justice system. This must change. We must help these 95 percent of juvenile offenders at the time of their first misbehavior and keep them from becoming repeat or serious offenders. This means giving juvenile court judges the ability to impose a range of graduated sanctions designed to prevent additional criminal behavior. Finally, we must realize that most children are not delinquent--94 percent of children in 1994 did not come before a judge--but these children are in danger of becoming delinquent due to the risk factors many of them face. Any truly comprehensive juvenile justice plan must address not only those children already in the system, but it must also focus on those children who may enter the system if their needs are not addressed. This task may sound like an impossible task, but it is not. We know what works and we can implement it. For example, we know that nearly 50 percent of all youth crime occurs during the hours after-school and before dinnertime, as these are the hours that 80 percent of America's children during these hours return to homes where no adults are present to provide supervision. By providing ``safe-havens'' such as boys and girls clubs and police athletic leagues where children can go after school, we can remove children from the streets and keep them out of trouble. In addition, we know that most juvenile offenders target other juveniles as their victims. By providing safe, supervised activities for children, we also achieve the goal of ``target-hardening''--that is, we can reduce juvenile crime by removing potential victims from offender's paths. Mr. President, as I have stated, although I generally support the efforts and initiatives of the President's Anti-gang and Youth Violence Control Act, it can only be one component of an overall juvenile justice initiative if it is to be successful. The President's bill does contain some important initiatives to deal with the most violent youth offenders. Among others, these provisions--which incorporate proposals made by me and other Members of Congress, include programs to initiate drug and gun courts in the juvenile system, to increase penalties for engaging children in drug trafficking, and for increasing controls on dangerous drugs such as Rohypnol and methamphetamine which are becoming increasingly popular among youth. I commend the President on his efforts, and I urge the President and my colleagues to continue to address the issues of juvenile justice by working with me to develop a comprehensive youth violence control and delinquency prevention plan.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, many Members of this House and thousands of residents of this city are familiar with Rehoboth Beach, DE, as the Summer Capital of the United States--and there's more to that expression than merely a nickname. The Delaware seashore resort has for decades welcomed vacationing Presidents, Cabinet Secretaries, Members of Congress, representatives of the diplomatic community, and thousands of other Washingtonians of every description. Rehoboth Beach's attractions include its sparkling Atlantic surf; broad beaches; a lively, multi-lingual boardwalk echoing languages from all over the world; a faithfully family-oriented atmosphere; and safety in the water for younger and older visitors alike. Next Saturday, in fact, the Rehoboth Beach Patrol--the courteous and skillful young women and men who protect the resort's ocean swimmers-- will hold its first lifeguards' reunion, celebrating not only 75 years of service to the community and its visitors, but a remarkable three- quarter-century record of perfect safety of the swimmers under their protection. Since 1921, when the Rehoboth Beach Patrol was established with just two lifeguards, until today, when as many as 37 guards are on duty during peak periods along the mile and a half of protected beach, the Rehoboth Beach lifeguards have never lost a swimmer. That is a record any beach patrol would be proud of, and it was not achieved by accident. Guarding a crowded ocean beach is a constant challenge--every summer the Rehoboth Beach lifeguards pull scores of troubled swimmers from the surf, treat hundreds of injuries, and reunite more than 400 lost children with their parents. It is a task that requires ceaseless alertness, well-conditioned bodies and highly trained skills, and unflinching personal courage when the ocean attempts to claim a victim. It is more than just a job to those who undertake it. It is a valued tradition that has sustained Rehoboth Beach as a desirable ocean resort for 7 decades and has called to its service generations of families-- fathers, brothers and, since the late seventies, sisters--from Delaware, from its neighboring States of Maryland and Pennsylvania, and from this very city. These young men and women are athletes who thrive on competition, and their competitive instincts pit them every day against the sea, and often, to heighten their morale and sharpen their skills, against other beach patrols in national and international contests. They train constantly; they dedicate their days to the safety of others, often at the risk of their own; and their service is vital to the pleasure and the security of the hundreds of thousands of vacationers who visit Rehoboth Beach every summer. Mr. President, we Delawareans are very proud of the Rehoboth Beach Patrol and its 75-year record of perfect safety. We believe these brave young women and men represent the best that Delaware and the Nation have to offer in the way of idealism, energy and a willingness to risk all in the service of others. And we invite our neighbors in the Middle Atlantic States to join us in congratulating the Rehoboth Beach Patrol and its Alumni Association for calling together for the first time lifeguards who have served the resort over the past 75 years, including a 91-year-old who last mounted a guard stand in 1926 as well as the 46 current members of the patrol. They deserve our admiration and our thanks, and we all wish them a successful and rewarding reunion this week.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. I believe I have 1 minute in support of this legislation. I said yesterday the Biden-Specter bill is a question of, is it better than the underlying bill? The underlying bill does the same thing the Senator just suggested that this bill does. The differences are, we save $53 billion. There is $3 billion in work funds for the States, individual responsibility contracts, no food stamp block grants, as the underlying bill has, and the State option for vouchers, among other things. I think this is a much preferable bill than the underlying bill, and I would encourage my colleagues to vote for the Biden-Specter amendment, which is better known, quite frankly, as the Castle-Tanner bill.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. As I understand it, Mr. President, it was a general understanding that after the Senator from North Carolina finished, the Senators from Pennsylvania and Delaware would have the floor to offer their amendment. That was my understanding. I know it is not a UC.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, what is the order of business? Was there agreement as to the order? I was not sure whether the Senator from North Carolina--I am told he has 3 minutes; is that correct? I do not want to usurp his order.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, pursuant to Section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act, I move to waive all applicable points of order under the act for the purposes of the Biden-Specter amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I compliment my friend from Connecticut and our Republican colleagues. Mr. President, it was not too long ago--1990-- that we first put the child care health and safety standards in place. The Senator from Connecticut--who led the effort--remembers all too well the extensive discussion--and, bipartisan compromise--that went into enacting these standards. It would be unfortunate if we repealed them today. They were the product of a bipartisan effort 6 years ago. They were retained in the bipartisan Senate bill that passed here last September. And they are retained in the bipartisan Castle-Tanner bill. Frankly, I am not sure why we are repealing them. Usually, we hear the argument about Federal requirements being a burden on people. But, in fact, in my State of Delaware, the people who are the strongest supporters of these health and safety standards are the very people who have to comply with them--the child care providers. Yes, child care providers in Delaware have come to me and said, ``Don't get rid of the safety standards. Don't get rid of the quality in day care.'' It may sound strange. But, think about it. They want Federal standards and Federal requirements because they remember what it was like before there were standards. And, they do not want to go back. And at a time when we are increasing child care funding--and going to see significant increases in the number of children in day care as welfare mothers are required to work--it is crucial that the child care providers who will be caring for kids meet minimum standards. I don't think that's too much to expect. In fact, I think every parent with a child in day care would expect no less. Parents who drop their children off every morning want to know that their kids will be safe. They want to be sure that they are not leaving their child at some fly-by-night, shoddy, unsafe, unhealthy day care center. So, I just urge my colleagues to think about what is being proposed here. I add one point, I do not know how we can, in fact, have the kind of bill we want without this amendment. I think it is very important. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN. For the benefit of my colleagues who are waiting in line to introduce their amendments, we had 45 minutes on this amendment, and we will not take that amount of time, but will probably take considerably less than half of that. In offering this amendment with Senator Specter, the reason we offered it is I believe we have gotten off track on welfare reform. We need to return to bipartisanship on this issue and, quite frankly, on many others. This amendment is the text of the only bipartisan welfare reform bill that has been introduced in this Congress and the only bill that President Clinton has promised he would sign. It is not to suggest it is the only bill he will sign, but it is the only bill he has promised to sign, and the only bill I am aware of that has relatively wide editorial support from the leading papers in the country. My colleagues will probably know it as the Castle-Tanner welfare reform bill. I, frankly, like to call it the Biden-Specter bill because Senator Specter and I did introduce it on the Senate side. But, the heavy lifting on this bill and the drafting of the legislation was done by Congressmen Castle and Tanner. It is perhaps appropriate that everyone know it as the Castle-Tanner bill, and they did a first-rate job. Before talking about the substance of the proposal, I want to briefly review how we got to this point of offering the amendment. Last September, the Senate passed a bipartisan welfare reform bill by an overwhelming majority, as my colleague, Senator Specter, indicated. We, along with the vast majority of our colleagues, voted for it. Since then, however, we have been faced with gridlock, politics, and paralysis. Both sides of the aisle have been using welfare reform as a political football, and we have accomplished nothing thus far. Last April, Congressmen Castle and Tanner, and several other moderates from both parties in the House, decided to leave the bickering behind, sit down, and write a bipartisan welfare plan. This amendment is that bill. There is nothing shocking or hidden in this bill. It has all been out there before. Block grants to the States, a 5-year time limit, work requirements, child care, and child-support enforcement. The genius of this particular amendment is that it is bipartisan and has been from day one. Let me mention just a couple of differences between this amendment and the underlying bill. Before I do, I want to compliment my senior colleague from Delaware, Senator Roth, for the changes that he has made in the bill in the Finance Committee. When I introduced the Biden- Specter bill, or Castle-Tanner bill, in the Senate last month, the differences between the Finance Committee proposal and what we are proposing today were much larger than they are today. There is still, in my view, much room for improvement in the so-called leadership bill, and I believe we should still go forward with the bipartisan bill. However, I want to recognize Senator Roth's effort at accommodating some bipartisan changes. Some of the major differences that remain--one we settled just a couple hours ago, the child care health and safety standards, to ensure that kids are being cared for in a safe environment. We accepted that amendment. I guess we voted, actually, overwhelmingly, for the amendment to become part of the leadership bill. Second, the Biden-Specter bill provides States with additional funds to set up work programs, because getting welfare recipients into jobs is going to cost a little bit of money on the front end. Third, the Biden-Specter bill allows--not requires, but allows-- States to provide noncash benefits for those who reach the time limit, so that States have the flexibility to design a program that meets the needs of the children in their State. This provision is the same as an amendment which was independently introduced by the distinguished Senator from Louisiana, and just discussed. Fourth, the Biden-Specter bill would not allow food stamps to be converted into block grants, so that the ultimate safety net, ensuring that all Americans have food on the table, will not be taken away. Fifth, the Biden-Specter bill would retain for all families, not just those who are below the poverty line, the transitional Medicaid coverage, where those who go to work can keep their health insurance for 1 year. It is acknowledged that the vast majority of welfare recipients in that first year in jobs will not have jobs that, in fact, provide health insurance for their children. Welfare recipients are not stupid; they know most of the jobs will not have any health insurance for their kids. If we really want to move them off of welfare and on to work, and not just on to the streets, an extra year of health care, in my view, and in the view of the bipartisan group, is critical. Sixth, the Biden-Specter bill says that anyone who wants to receive welfare must sign an individual responsibility contract, so that they are forced to agree up front to the conditions placed on receiving the benefit, and so that they will have a plan from day one on how to get themselves off of welfare. Again, Mr. President, these are not all of the differences that exist in the bills, but they are among the most important. Now, I know that every Member of the Senate will be able to find something that he or she does not like in the Biden-Specter proposal and all other proposals. I can do that, too, and it is my own amendment. The point is this: If we really want welfare reform, and not a political issue, we must do it in a bipartisan way, with each of us compromising and doing it in a form the President can sign. This amendment fits that bill. It is the only bipartisan welfare reform bill to be introduced in Congress. It is a bill the President said he would sign, a bill that has gotten wide editorial endorsement, and a bill that makes compromises by definition of being bipartisan on both sides. I do not like the idea that we are block granting welfare and that it is no longer an entitlement, but in return for that, my Republican colleagues agreed they would come up with sufficient dollars for a 1- year transition for health care and they would come up with money for child care, and so on. It is a genuine compromise that I think is a solid proposal. I proposed a concept of welfare to work in 1987, and I was pilloried by my colleagues on the Democratic side at the time for suggesting that there be mandatory a work requirement for anyone receiving welfare. We have all sort of come to the same general proposition. The issue is, are kids going to be left out there? Are women going to be able to go to work, or single fathers be able to go to work, knowing that there is no reasonable prospect for anyone to take care of that child, and not have day care? And are they going to make that judgment to do it, knowing once they do, they are going to lose their Medicaid-- which is translated as health care for their children--by going to a job where they will not get health care for their children? This is not just about money, although the Biden-Specter bill is estimated to achieve savings of $53.1 billion. But that is only one of the purposes, I thought, of this legislation, this change. We hear speech after speech after speech about changing the ethic that is involved in the welfare syndrome. We just heard our good friend from North Carolina talking about the generational nature of this problem and how to break the spiral, and so on. Part of this effort is to, in fact, not just take people off of welfare and put them on the streets, but put them to work and make them want to go to work and make it reasonable for them to go to work. I respectfully suggest it is not just about money. It is about changing attitudes. It is time to say that we do not care who gets credit for reforming welfare. It is time to just do it in a bipartisan fashion. For the sake of the American people and the sake of the people on welfare, I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan Welfare Reform Act. And depending on what my friends on the other side have to say in opposition, I reserve the remainder of my time. I do not expect to use any more time if there is no reason to respond. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I support random drug tests, and I have voted for random drug tests for welfare and food stamp recipients--as recently, in fact, as last May in Senate vote 133. But the big distinction between that and what Senator Ashcroft is proposing here is that he is making it mandatory--and not providing the money to pay for it. We spent the first part of this Congress in 1995 debating the entire issue of unfunded mandates. And, here is an unfunded mandate. If this amendment had provided the funding or allowed States to do random drug tests, I would have supported it, as I have similar proposals in the past. But I cannot support this. Madam President, I support the right of States to require welfare recipients to submit to drug tests and to fulfill a commitment to remain drug free as a condition for receiving public assistance. Drug abuse is serious, and is all-too-often a heartbreaking problem, particularly among young people. And we have to attack it on as many fronts as we can. Just yesterday, I joined my friend and colleague, Senator Hatch of Utah, in introducing a bill to crack down on the manufacture and importation of methamphetamine, or crank. But whether a State chooses to combat drug abuse among welfare recipients through random testing and punishment, or through other methods of screening drug use and efforts to help people get off drugs permanently, is a decision that should be left to the States. Random drug testing is not cheap, and this amendment, as written, would force the States to spend up to $200 million--even if they had in place another means to go after drug use money recipients. While I support the right of States to test welfare recipients for drug use, I cannot support this unfunded mandate.

Mr. BIDEN. I assume we will do that. If we do not, I will not yield the floor. So I ask unanimous consent that upon the completion of the 6 minutes on the Faircloth amendment, then myself and Senator Specter be recognized to offer our amendment.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I will yield back my time if the Senator from Delaware is prepared to yield back his time. Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

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

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, with the death of the Reverend Dr. Otis A. Herring on Friday, July 12, the Wilmington, DE, community--and indeed a much larger community of family, friends and faith--suffered a loss we can not help mourn. It is the loss of a husband and father, a son and brother, a grandfather and uncle, a nephew and cousin--a man who deeply loved and was deeply loved by his family It is the loss of a inspiring preacher and inspired pastor who devoted 35 years of spiritual leadership of Wilmington's Union Baptist Church and the surrounding community. It is the loss a morally engaged citizen who spoke fearlessly and worked tirelessly for the less fortunate among us; the loss of a man who created out of his own determined faith and the conscience of the community resources to serve the poor and the disadvantaged. It is the loss of a friend and mentor, whose example made better people and a better community out of all of us. But despite that catalog of loss we feel so keenly, Reverend Herring's death is not, in fact, an occasion fit only for grieving. In the first place, if we can ever be sure that any man has attained the spiritual goal that is the promise of the faith many of us share, Otis Herring was beyond a doubt just such a man. His memorial service was rightly called a ``Homegoing Celebration,'' for the most important thing about reverend Herring was that he believed. His whole life was an expression of that belief, and even as we sorrow for our loss, we must celebrate the final victory that he never for one moment doubted. And we celebrate, too, with lasting gratitude, the living legacy of Otis Herring, a legacy that endures because he lived his faith with a steadfastness and a power that literally reshaped the community to which he was so devoted. It is a legacy that lives in Union Baptist Community Services, a nonprofit organization that Reverend Herring founded and served for 22 years as executive director, and that counts among its neighborhood- designed programs a day-care center, anti-drug outreach, crisis assistance, mentoring and counseling for at-risk youth and families, housing for the disabled, tutoring and job training, a housing corporation, a neighborhood-improvement program, and a food closet. It is a legacy that lives because Reverend Herring was a leader who called on us to come together as members of one community, a leader who made us not only see but feel our common bond and common obligation to one another as citizens and as children of God. Reverend Herring's own exceptional citizenship earned wideranging respect and recognition. In addition to high honors from the State of Delaware and the city of Wilmington, he received tributes from numerous organizations and institutions, including the University of Delaware and Delaware State University, the Delaware Businessmen's Association and the Brandywine Professional Association, the News Journal newspaper and the Jefferson Awards, the National Conference of Christians and Jews, the Mental Health Association, the National Urban Coalition, and many fraternal and civic organizations. The record of Otis Herring's achievements and contributions, and the list of awards and tributes recognizing them, is all the more extraordinary when we recall that he began to lose his eyesight when he was just a senior in high school, and that he was blind throughout his adult life. Otis Herring was, in fact, a magnificent irony among us. He lived in darkness, yet he illuminated the world around him; he was blind, yet he saw his way through life with a clarity both humbling and inspiring to the rest of us; he lost his sight, but he never lost his way, and he never failed to lead us to a higher ground. As an editorial in Delaware's News Journal paper said, accurately and eloquently, of Reverend Herring, ``His vision of his role in the world was unimpaired.'' And to that I would add only that our vision of our role in the world is brighter, more challenging and more rewarding because of the way he lived his life among us. In extending our sympathies to Reverend Herring's wife, Carol, to his son, Steven, to his mother, brother, sister, grandson, and loving extended family, we do indeed share their deep sadness and sense of loss. But we also share their sure and certain faith that, long after the sadness of his death has passed, Otis Herring's life will stand as a triumph and as a neverending cause for celebration.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the story of our failure to foresee--and prevent--the crack cocaine epidemic is one of the most significant public policy mistakes in modern history. Although warning signs of an outbreak flared over several years, few took action until it was too late. We now face similar warning signs with another drug--methamphetamine. Without swift action now, history may repeat itself. So today, Senator Hatch and I, along with Senators Feinstein, Specter, Harkin, Wyden, D'Amato, and DeWine are introducing legislation to address this new emerging drug epidemic before it is too late. Within the past few years the production and use of methamphetamine have risen dramatically. Newspaper and media reports over the past few months have highlighted these increases. I have been tracking this development and pushing legislation to increase Federal penalties and strengthen Federal laws against methamphetamine production, trafficking, and use since 1990. And what I and others have found is alarming: From 1991 to 1994 methamphetamine-related emergency room episodes increased 256 percent-- the increase from 1993 to 1994 alone was 75 percent--with more than 17,000 people overdosing and being brought to the emergency room because of methamphetamine. A survey of high school seniors, which only measures the use of ``ice''--a fraction of the methamphetamine market-- found that in 1995 86,000 12th graders had used ``ice'' in the past year, 39,000 had used it in the past month, and 3,600 reported using ``ice'' daily. This same survey found that only 54 percent of high school seniors perceived great risk in trying ``ice''--down from 62 percent in 1990. And 27 percent of these children said it would be easy for them to get ``ice'' if they wanted it. The cause for concern over a methamphetamine epidemic is further fueled by drug-related violence--again something we saw during the crack era--that we can expect to flourish with methamphetamine as well. Putting the problem in perspective, drug experts claim that ``ice surpasses PCP in inducing violent behavior.'' In addition to the violence--both random and irrational--associated with methamphetamine users, there is also the enormous problem of violence among methamphetamine traffickers and the environmental and life-threatening conditions endemic in the clandestine labs where methamphetamine is produced. The bill we are now introducing addresses all of the dangers of methamphetamine and takes bold actions to stop this potential epidemic in its tracks. The Hatch-Biden methamphetamine enforcement bill will take six major steps toward cracking down on methamphetamine production, trafficking, and use, particularly use by the most vulnerable population threatened by this drug--our young people. First and foremost, we increase penalties for possessing and trafficking in methamphetamine. Second, we crack down on methamphetamine producers and traffickers by increasing the penalties for the illicit possession and trafficking of the precursor chemicals and equipment used to manufacture methamphetamine. Third, we increase the reporting requirements and restrictions on the legitimate sales of products containing these precursor chemicals in order to prevent their diversion, and we impose even greater requirements on all firms which sell these products by mail. This includes the use of civil penalties and injunctions to stop legitimate firms from recklessly providing precursor chemicals to methamphetamine manufacturers. Fourth, we address the international nature of methamphetamine manufacture and trafficking by coordinating international enforcement efforts and strengthening provisions against the illegal importation of methamphetamine and precursor chemicals. Fifth, we ensure that methamphetamine manufacturers who endanger the life on any individual or endanger the environment while making methamphetamine will receive enhanced prison sentences. Finally, we require Federal, State and local law enforcement and public health officials to stay ahead of any potential growth in the methamphetamine epidemic by creating national working groups on the protecting the public from the dangers of methamphetamine production, trafficking, and abuse. The Hatch-Biden bill addresses all of the needs with a fair balance between the needs of manufacturers and consumers of legitimate products which contain methamphetamine precursor chemicals and the need to protect the public by instituting harsh penalties for any and all methamphetamine-related activities. This legislation is the crucial, comprehensive tool we need to stay ahead of the methamphetamine epidemic and to avoid the mistakes made during the early stages of the crack-cocaine explosion. I want to thank Senator Hatch and my other colleagues who share my desire to move now on the problem of methamphetamine. I also want to thank the Clinton administration, which also was determined to act now on this issue and worked with us in developing several of the provisions in this bill. I urge all my colleagues to join us in protecting our children and our society from the devastations of methamphetamine by supporting this vital legislation.