Joe Biden

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I will be very brief. First of all, this is not about midnight basketball. That is a great thing to talk about. The States are not using this for midnight basketball. Let me tell you what they are using it for, to give you one example. I can pick almost any one of your States. The thing States use this money for, for example, is boys clubs and girls clubs. Let me tell you about boys clubs and girls clubs. There is a study the Judiciary Committee did and it has been done by others, and no one disputes it. If you put in a boys club and girls club--the study was done in Chicago and New York--you take two housing projects, the same type of housing projects, and put a boys club and girls club in the basement of one and no boys club and girls club in the basement of the other, the difference in the rate of crime is as follows: 31 percent fewer arrests in the project that has a boys club and girls club in it; 27 [[Page S 14646]] percent less use of drugs, arrest for drugs; and 19 percent fewer arrests for any acts of violence. As my dear old mother would say, an idle mind is a devil's workshop. You put these kids out there, and you have nothing for them. Let me tell you what these boys and girls clubs do with the money we have in here. One example: There is not a single one of these clubs that has midnight basketball. I will tell you what they have. They have the following deal: If you join the club and you are involved--and particularly, they put them in housing projects, which they are now doing in most of your States, putting in public housing projects. What they are required to do is to have computer classes before they can play in the gym. Second, they are required in a State like mine, and many of yours, to have mentoring programs. They bring the mentoring programs into the schools. Of the people who volunteer in the boys and girls clubs, 80 percent are uniformed police officers. Third, what they do is they get these kids into these programs, and part of the requirement to stay in the program and to be able to use the boys and girls club is you have to stay in school and have passing grades. What they have done is changed the culture in those communities. I will give you one example by limiting it to boys and girls clubs. YMCAs and church groups are all involved in these programs. We are not talking about midnight basketball. Second, we are talking about the weed and seed program, which started under President Bush. I can pick 50 quotes. I will pick one from a Republican U.S. Attorney from Georgia, Joe Whitley, former U.S. Attorney from the northern district of Georgia: I have said that this is the most important matter I have ever dealt with as U.S. Attorney. It's a simple but fundamentally sound idea that people in communities really seem to believe. . . . The program is responsive to the concerns of citizens. It's positive because residents thought it had real and credibility--combining law enforcement and prevention. I can talk about Michael Chertoff, former U.S. Attorney for New Jersey, a Republican, and Debra Daniels, former U.S. Attorney, southern district of Indiana, a Republican. The list goes on. Crime prevention is an issue that has been the subject of more misinformation and outright mischaracterization than perhaps any other in the crime debate-- Whether we should work to prevent crime before it happens, instead of waiting until after the shots are fired, until after our children become addicted to drugs, until after more Americans' lives are ruined. The anticrime law enacted last year answered that question unapologetically. In addition to fighting crime--the law made a commitment to preventing crime. A commitment supported by virtually every criminologist, every legal scholar, every sociologist, every psychologist, every medical authority, and nearly everyone's common sense. Those who study this issue agree that breaking the cycle of violence and crime requires an investment in the lives of our children-- With support and guidance to help them reject the violence and anarchy of the streets in favor of taking positive responsibility for their lives. In fact, the Fraternal Order of Police, the National District Attorneys Association, and the International Brotherhood of Police Officers cite prevention programs as critical to a long-term cure for crime. Prevention is what cops want--what virtually everyone in law enforcement wants. Every police officer I have talked to, every prosecutor, every prison warden, every probation officer says the same thing--we can't do it alone. And listen to local officials--the very people the Republicans say they want to give greater voice. Republican Mayors Giuliani of New York and Riordan of Los Angeles say this: By funding proven prevention programs for young people, the crime bill offers hope--hope that in the future we can reduce the need for so many police officers and jails. Listen to Paul Helmke, the Republican mayor of Fort Wayne, IN: It's a lot less expensive to do things on the prevention side than on the police side. And prevention of crime--particularly juvenile crime--is more important now than ever before. Last week the Department of Justice released its first national report on juvenile offenders and victims. The report found that between 1988 and 1992 the juvenile violent crime arrest rate has increased by more than 50 percent. It further estimated that even if the crime rate ceases to grow in future years, juvenile population growth alone would produce a 22 percent rise in violent crime arrests. Should the violent rate continue to grow as it has between 1988 and 1992, the number of juveniles arrested for violent crimes will double by the year 2010--to more than 260,000 arrests! Attorney General Janet Reno specifically cited prevention and intervention programs as one of the fundamental ways to combat this type of growth in juvenile crime. Prisons, though essential, are a testament to failure: They are the right place for people gone wrong. On the other hand, when a life about to go wrong is set back on the right track--that is a testament to hope. We build hope by showing children that they matter, by challenging disaffection with affection and respect, and by contrasting the dead- end of violence with the opportunity for a constructive life-- I would now like to briefly comment on the three programs in this amendment. local crime prevention block grants Local crime prevention block grants were created to allow cities and towns to develop their own prevention programs to combat child abuse, youth gangs, drug abuse by children, and crimes against the elderly-- including the D.A.R.E. Program and the boys and girls clubs. Local crime prevention grants enable communities to institute successful initiatives such as: Measures to prevent juvenile violence, juvenile gangs, and the use and sale of illegal drugs by juveniles, programs to prevent crimes against the elderly, midnight sports league programs to keep kids off the street and away from drugs, supervised sports and recreation programs after school and on holidays, the establishment of Boys and Girls Clubs of America in public housing facilities, and the creation of special crime units to deal with crimes in which a child is involved, to name a few. These prevention strategies and programs have proven effective in reducing the incidence of crime in both the short and long term. Here are some examples of programs that have proven track records: In hundreds of public housing projects across the country, boys and girls clubs give kids a safe place to hang out after school--a place with positive activities and positive role models. A recent, independent evaluation has reported that housing projects with clubs experience 13 percent fewer juvenile crimes, 22 percent less drug activity, and 25 percent less crack use, than do projects with clubs. In Honolulu, professionals identify families at risk for neglect or abuse when children are born and then visit their homes regularly over several years to help parents learn to care for their children. In Houston, Texas, a core of professionals provides one-on-one counseling, mentoring, tutoring, job training and crisis-intervention services to students at risk for dropping out. And in Delaware, ``Stormin' Normin'' Oliver runs an award-winning summer basketball league--in which team members must participate in supervised study sessions and perform community-service work in addition to their time on the courts. Although many communities are putting their best foot forward, the need and demand for prevention programs far outpace the supply. And yet the republicans have targeted prevention grants in the crime law for complete elimination--a move some charge is cold-hearted and mean. But I say it is just plain dumb. Local crime prevention block grants are one of the best means we have to ensure States and localities have the funding they need to reduce crime over the long haul. Weed and seed is a republican, Bush administration program, the brainchild of former Attorney General William Barr. The program funds prevention efforts and comprehensive law enforcement efforts. [[Page S 14647]] The weed and seed program has achieved notable success primarily because it requires the kind of community policing that works, and then requires that law enforcement, social service agencies, the private sector, and the community work together to prevent crime. So this is a program that works because it utilizes both law enforcement and community participation. In a number of cities--such as Madison, Houston, Trenton, and Camden--notable reductions in crime have been achieved in weed and seed areas. Many of weed and seed's biggest fans are former Republican U.S. attorneys. Let me tell you what a few of them have said: Joe Whitley, former U.S. attorney from the northern district of Georgia: I have said that this is the most important matter I have ever dealt with as U.S. attorney. It's a simple but fundamentally sound idea that people in communities really seemed to believe. * * * The program is responsive to the concerns of citizens. It's positive because residents thought it had real credibility--combining law enforcement and prevention. Michael Chertoff, former U.S. attorney for New Jersey: Trenton was a pilot city. It was a very successful project and I think very highly of it. * * * Community policing worked very well in closing the distance between the police and the community, and it deterred crime because it gave the police a better reputation within the community. Debra Daniels, former U.S. attorney from the southern district of Indiana: In a nutshell, it is the kind of program that you want. ``Program'' is the wrong word because it connotes money only--you want to emphasize the aspect of weed and seed that has to do with planning at the grassroots level. Weed and seed requires collaboration of all governmental agencies working closely at all levels with people in neighborhoods to create a complete package of crime fighting, policing, human services and economic development. * * * The community leadership development was miraculous and the crime rate decreased. The consensus of all the law enforcement experts around the country is that youth gangs are a serious problem and a growing problem. The most recent report on juvenile offenders from the office of juvenile justice and delinquency prevention at the department of justice reports that the number of jurisdictions affected by youth gangs has increased substantially in the last 20 years and that gang- related crime has increased since the late 1980s. Yet very little is done to directly target youth gangs. This amendment would boost funds for the two Department of Justice programs that specifically target this problem. One of these is the gang free schools and communities program, which funds counseling, education, and crisis intervention through coordinated social service, substance abuse treatment and other means. The other is the community based gang intervention program, which: (1) develops regional task forces of state, local and community organizations to fight gangs; (2) encourages cooperation among local education, juvenile justice, employment, and social service agencies and community based organizations; and (3) funds programs offering effective punishment options, including restitution, community service, home detention, and boot camps. So this amendment provides an absolutely critical prevention element to our overall anti-crime efforts. The 1994 crime law provided over $300 million of authorized funding for prevention programs for the next year but the Republican appropriations bill eliminated virtually all of it. Offset: this amendment would restore $80 million--one quarter of the lost prevention funds--to fund these three programs. The money is taken from a portion of new FBI salaries and expenses that were increased above the president's request. I urge my colleagues to support this vital amendment. I will conclude by saying that I have great respect for the abilities of my friend from Texas. But this is about weed and seed and other good programs, not about midnight basketball. Whenever I debate him on issues relating to guns, he pulls out his mama's gun and says, ``You ain't going to take my mama's gun from her.'' I am not after his mama's gun or midnight basketball. This works. I challenge anybody in this Chamber to go home and ask 10 police chiefs in your State--10--and I am prepared to bet you that 9 of those 10 will tell you that they desperately need these local prevention programs. The reason they got put in the bill in the first place is because of the cops. Not a single social worker came to me and said: You have to put in prevention when this bill is written. Not one single bleeding heart liberal came to me and said: You have to put in prevention. The cops want the prevention money. Senators Cohen and Kohl are correct. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I have an amendment and I have a speech. I have no problem with it being accepted. If other people are going to speak to it then I will speak to it. I hope that we all will have learned by now, when you win, accept the victory, put the speeches in later. I hope we do that. Stemming the tide of frivolous prisoner lawsuits is certainly an important goal. Our courts are flooded with lawsuits brought by prisoners. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts reported that in fiscal year 1994, 39,100 Federal and State prisoner civil rights cases were filed in Federal court. This volume of cases drains precious court resources, further burdening an already overburdened court system. But in solving these problems, we must not lose sight of the fact that some of these lawsuits have merit--some prisoners' rights are violated--some prisons are terribly overcrowded. In one case, for example, children in a severely overcrowded juvenile detention center in Pennsylvania--a facility that was at 160 percent of capacity--were beaten by staff--sometimes with chains and other objects. These problems were not resolved until a court order was entered.--(Santiago versus City of Philadelphia.) In a recent case right here in the District of Columbia, Judge June L. Green found that correctional officers had routinely sexually assaulted women prisoners--one had raped a woman prisoner, another had forced a prisoner to perform oral sex. When these conditions were reported to the D.C. correction officials, nothing was done. It was when court entered an order that the district take steps to prevent these incidents from recurring that the prisoners were able to get relief.--(Women Prisoners of D.C. Dept. of Corrections versus D.C.) Senator Hatch's amendment has two overriding problems--first, in an effort to curb frivolous prisoner lawsuits, the amendment places too many roadblocks to meritorious prison lawsuits. Second, in an effort to relieve the courts and State and local governments from the overwhelming task of dealing with frivolous lawsuits, Senator Hatch's amendment, in fact, creates restrictions on the power of those governments from voluntarily negotiating their own agreements and would place an even greater burden on the courts to litigate and relitigate these suits. Because Senator Hatch's amendment makes only marginal improvements over what is already in the bill, I oppose this amendment, just as I oppose the similar provision in the committee bill. I am willing to withhold if others are. I ask that the Senator maybe reconsider his request and accept it by voice vote and make speeches later.

Mr. BIDEN. This is a modification being proposed at the request of Senator DeWine. When the terrorism bill passed several months ago, Senator DeWine, with the unanimous consent of the U.S. Senate, authorized a technical assistance program for the FBI to upgrade their computers and a number [[Page S 14621]] of other things, a technical upgrade for the FBI. Senator DeWine has come to me and asked me whether I would be willing to include not the full funding of that amount, but $60 million as opposed to the $200 million that was authorized. I am more than happy to do that. The offset for that is the money that, quite frankly, has been saved as a consequence of the adoption of the amendment by the Senator from New Mexico relating to Legal Services. So it does not require an offset. It has been agreed to by Senator Hollings--agreed to in the sense that I am able to modify this amendment, and I believe it has been agreed to by the majority to modify it. I am asking to be able to modify my amendment, which is pending, with the DeWine language that I have sent to the desk.

Mr. BIDEN. I send the modification to the desk.

Mr. BIDEN. A modification of the Biden amendment, which is the pending business. The Biden amendment, which was introduced and debated for an hour and a half yesterday, relates to the drug courts, relates to drug treatment in prisons and to boot camps. The modification I am sending to the desk is a modification of Mr. DeWine in the Biden amendment which, in a nutshell, I will explain to my colleagues. In the terrorism bill that passed the Senate, Senator DeWine----

Mr. BIDEN. I have a second issue. I do not want to confuse the Senator. There are two amendments: One, the Biden amendment referred to earlier was debated yesterday. That amendment has a number of offsets in it which we discussed for 2 hours yesterday. That is the one I just amended to accommodate a DeWine proposal. There is a second issue here and that is a managers' amendment going to the funding in this bill for the police program. I have reached an agreement, to the best of my knowledge, with the Senator from Kansas, with the Senator from Texas, the manager of the bill, and with the Senator from South Carolina. I have that agreed upon language between the manager and the parties I suggested. That goes to another big chunk of the difference of the debate. All that relates to is, one sentence --it takes out the block grant language for the police and reinstates the original language. That is a separate issue than the Biden amendment. I am not sure if I am answering the Senator's question. If that is the answer, I am prepared to move that amendment right now. That is, the so-called managers amendment and ask for a voice vote on it. I am not looking for a rollcall vote because we have all agreed as of at least 10 minutes ago. Does that answer the question of the Senator from Mississippi?

Mr. BIDEN. I yield.

Mr. BIDEN. Yes, I will.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am ready to vote on my amendment.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I think the Biden amendment is pending. I already debated the amendment. I ask unanimous consent that I be able to amend my amendment. The managers are aware of the amendment. It relates to a $60 million offset--not offset--$60 million offset to accommodate the Senator from Ohio. I ask unanimous consent that I be able to so amend my amendment.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I beg the Senator's pardon?

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, unless there is a resurrection that occurs here, talking in metaphorical terms, there is no possibility that the President will sign the bill with your amendment in it or not--zero, none, no possibility. I have been told that by the White House. There is not enough money, there is not enough time, there is not enough ingenuity and enough anything to make this bill palatable to the President, in just talking about the criminal justice side of things. So I think the majority leader is absolutely, positively correct. I think we should do a managers' amendment on a few of the major chunks of the bill and get on with the show. This really is an exercise in futility.

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

Mr. BIDEN. As modified by Senator DeWine?

Mr. BIDEN. Parliamentary inquiry. What is the business before the Senate?

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BIDEN. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, if I can get the same time limit pertaining to a second-degree amendment, if there is a second-degree amendment.

Mr. BIDEN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, and I shall not object, I just want to tell my colleagues, there are two of my colleagues on this side who are going to seek to modify the Senator's amendment. I am not sure that is going to actually happen, so he is not caught blindsided by that. I am not at liberty to agree to a time agreement that is not subject to an amendment in the second degree. I do not know that will happen, so I do not object.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. BIDEN. I urge adoption of the amendment and ask for a voice vote.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, one more parliamentary inquiry. The amendment is modified by the DeWine language; correct?

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I will just urge adoption of my amendment and ask for a voice vote on the amendment.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered on the Biden amendment?

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I stand here to pledge my support for the amendment offered by my colleague, Senator Domenici, which preserves the Legal Services Corporation. This organization has been both efficient and effective in providing legal services to the poor, so that those who are most vulnerable in our society have access to the courts, not just those who can afford it. Contrary to the rhetoric of some of my colleagues who oppose the Domenici amendment, the vast majority of cases handled by the Legal Services Corporation are not controversial--they are individual cases arising out of everyday unfortunate problems--losing a job, suffering a serious illness, facing the breakdown of family relations of simply dealing with Government redtape. As someone who has long sought to do what I could do to prevent and to fight against family violence, I am most grateful for the help that the Legal Services Corporation provides to victims of family violence. In fact, representation of victims of family violence is the single largest category of cases handled by local legal services programs-- accounting for one out of every three cases processed last year. In 1994 alone--the year we passed the Violence Against Women Act-- local [[Page S 14606]] legal services programs handled more than 50,000 cases in which women sought legal protection from abusive husbands, and over 9,000 cases involving neglected and abused children. This amendment places a number of prohibitions on the Legal Services Corporation, but keeps this much-needed organization intact, enabling it to continue to provide traditional legal services to those who desperately need them. I hope all of my colleagues will join me in supporting Senator Domenici's amendment.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2816, As Modified