Joe Biden

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I was taught by a fellow from South Carolina when I first got here 23 years ago that when you won, sit down. I mean, we won in the sense that everyone wins here. Women of America win. I would like to ask unanimous consent--I will be very brief--that the following Senators be also added as original cosponsors: Senator Inouye, Senator Akaka, Senator Kohl, Senator Leahy, Senator Harkin, and Senator Santorum, the Presiding Officer, from Pennsylvania. Let me just say in closing, and then I will ask for the yeas and nays at that point, that there are certain facts people should keep in mind. I think of all the facts that affect women in this Nation as a consequence of violence, the thing that surprises me, that surprises most Americans most often are the following: That family violence is the No. 1 cause of injury to adult women in America--No. 1, No. 1--not breast cancer, not heart attacks, not strokes. The No. 1 cause of injury to women in America is family violence, in almost every instance the fist of a man, supposedly someone who loves them. The second point that people should keep in mind and why this is so important: Every 18 seconds a woman is beaten by her spouse, boyfriend, or other intimate partner in the United States, making the home the most dangerous place in the world to live for being a women in a democracy. As many as 35 percent of all the women who will visit an emergency room in any of our cities tonight, one-third of all the women who will walk into an emergency room in Washington, DC; Wilmington, DE; Boston, MA; Butte, MT, one-third of them tonight who walk in will be there as a consequence of the fist of a man. They will be there because a man has injured them. Three million children a year witness family violence in their homes. And as a consequence, the statistics are overwhelming. I will not bore you, but those children significantly have a greater likelihood of dropping out of school, becoming alcohol and drug abusers. They are the highest percentage of suicide attempts, and, most frightening of all, they become abusers--abusers. They become the abusers. So, for these and 1,000 other reasons we could all speak to, I think this is a very, very important error we are correcting in this bill. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, in the interest of time because there are other amendments and a lot more to do on this bill, let me briefly explain this amendment and then yield to the chairman of the subcommittee for any comments that he would like to make, and he surely knows the mechanics of this better than I. Mr. President, in order to restore every single piece of the Violence Against Women Act funding, there is a requirement that would be required that we would have to have had $76.7 million. Just to give my colleagues an idea what I mean about that, the violence against women grants; pro-arrest policy; rural domestic violence, court-appointed special counsel, national stalker reduction, training programs, Federal victims counselors, grants for televised testimony, State databases, national baseline study for campus sexual assault, equal justice for women in courts, training grants for State courts, training for Federal and judicial personnel, Federal Judicial Center, and Administrative Office of the Courts, are all recipients of some portion of the violence against women funding. Unfortunately, all we have available is $75 million, not $76.7 million to make this account totally whole. So my amendment lays out which portions of all of those functions that I have just read are fully funded and which are not able to be funded with this addition of $75 million. I want to put this in context. We are going to be funding $175 million out of $76.7 million. This is a $75 million increase. I wish it were a $76.7 million increase, but then again, as my friend, the chairman of the full committee is saying, I am being a little greedy in that regard. I realize every program has to take a little bit of hit. So what we do in a nutshell is we add $75 million in the accounts that we may call the violence against women grants, pro-arrest policy, the rural domestic violence, court-appointed advocate programs, national stalker legislation, training programs, Federal victims counselors--we are not able to fully fund the grants for televised testimony. That was originally in our legislation--$250 million. It is funded at only $50 million. We are able to fund fully the State database. We are not able to fund the national baseline study on campus sexual assault at this moment. We are not able to fund equal justice for women in State courts, training for Federal judicial personnel, Federal Judicial Center, and Administrative Office of the Courts. So that is what the additional $75 million goes to make whole. I would be delighted to yield to the chairman of the committee for any comments, and thank him, by the way, for keeping--as he always does with me and with everyone else I know--a commitment. He told me that if he had the money he would make this account at least mostly whole. He got the money, and he did just that. And I thank him for that. I yield the floor. Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I offer this amendment to restore $75 million in funding for the Justice Department programs contained in the Violence Against Women Act, and I am pleased that many of my colleagues, including Senator Gramm of Texas and Senator Hatch of Utah, are cosponsors of this amendment. Of all the legislation I have ever worked on here in the Senate, this one--the Violence Against Women Act--has been my first priority and my proudest accomplishment. When it passed the Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support, I thought we were well on our way to making a significant commitment to the women of America. I though we made more than a paper commitment. But passing the law, without following through and providing the funding is meaningless. For too long, we have looked the other way when it comes to this kind of violence. For too long, we have turned our back on the women injured by men who say they love them. For too long, we have considered this kind of violence a private misfortune rather than a public injustice. Last year, we took a historic step in the right direction when we passed the Violence Against Women Act. We made a commitment to the women and children of this country. We said: We will no longer look the other way--the violence your suffer will no longer be yours alone. Help is on the way. And just in case my colleagues have forgotten, let me once again remind them of the dimensions of this problem: The No. 1 threat to the health of America's women is a violent attack at the hands of a man. It is not breast cancer, it's not heart attacks, it's not strikes. Its violence against women by men. These attacks have many names. They are called rape, assault, felonies. And the attackers have many faces. They are friends, relatives, spouses, and strangers. The statistics are terrifying: Every 18 seconds, a woman is beaten by her spouse, boyfriend, or other intimate partner. Every 5 minutes, a woman is raped. Nearly two out of three female victims of violence are related to, or know, their attackers. As many as 35 percent of all women who visit emergency rooms are there because of family violence. This violence also takes a tragic toll on our children: Three million children each year witness violence in their homes. Studies show that these kids are more likely to drop out of school; abuse alcohol and drugs; attempt suicide; and, sadly, grow up to be abusers themselves. The violence women suffer reflects as much a failure of our Nation's collective moral conscience as it does the failure of our Nation's laws and regulations. How else can we explain the results of a study of junior high school students conducted in Rhode Island a few years ago? In the study, the students were asked: When does a man have the right to have sexual intercourse with a woman without her consent? It seems like an outrageous question doesn't it? but 80 percent of the students said that a man had the right to use force on his wife, 70 percent said he had the right to use force if the couple was engaged, and 61 percent said force was OK if the couple had already had sexual relations, and 30 percent said force was justified if the man knew that the woman had had sex with other men. And the appalling answers do not stop. About 25 percent of the boys said it was OK to force sex on a girl if the boy had spent $10 on her--and, astoundingly, 20 percent of the girls who were interviewed agreed. If these are the attitudes we have communicated to our youth, it is hardly surprising that we tolerate a level of violence against women unprecedented in our history. Somehow, we seem to forget that a society suffers what it tolerates. That's why we cannot retreat from the commitment we made last year with passage of the Violence Against Women Act. The act, let me remind my colleagues, has four basic goals: To make our streets and homes safer for women; to make the criminal justice system more responsive to women; to start changing attitudes--beginning with our kids--about violence against women; and to extend to women the equal protection of our Nation's laws. The Senate, the House, and the President--we all agreed last year that Federal dollars should be committed to these goals. Specifically, we authorized funding to: Hire more police and prosecutors specially trained and devoted to combating family violence; Train police, prosecutors, and judges in the ways of family violence--so they can better understand and respond to the problem; Implement tougher arrest policies, including mandatory arrest for anyone who violates a protection order--so that the burden of seeking an arrest does not fall on the women who may fear further violence; Expand and improve victim-service programs and provide specially trained family violence court advocates; Fund rape crisis centers and open more battered women shelters; and Fund family violence education courses in our schools. In the past 12 months, the Violence Against Women Act has already been put into action. In States and communities all across the county, Federal dollars are helping coalitions of police, prosecutors, judges, and victim service organizations work together--to make arrests, win convictions, secure tough sentences, and offer women the information and practical resources they need. As many of you may already know, the first conviction and sentencing under the act took place recently in West Virginia. It is a case about Christopher Bailey and his wife, Sonja, and it is enough to take your breath away. Christopher Bailey severely beat Sonja, forced her into the trunk of his car, and drove aimlessly across West Virginia and Kentucky for 6 days. Sonja suffered massive head injuries and severe kidney and liver dysfunctions. Her face was black and blue, and her eyes were swollen shut. She had burn marks on her neck, wrists, and ankles. Today, Sonja remains in a coma. Christopher Bailey was convicted under a new provision in the Violence Against Women Act, and for kidnapping. Early this month he was sentenced to serve the rest of his days in prison. Obviously, Bailey's conviction won't bring Sonja out of her coma. But it does send a clear message all across our land: violence against women will not be tolerated--it will be punished, and it will be punished severely. Today, we here in the Senate must send that same message. We must keep the promise we made last year, and restore funding for the Justice Department programs authorized by the Violence Against Women Act. Last year, the Congress authorized over $176 million for the Violence Against Women Act Justice Department programs. This bill as reported by committee cut more than $76 million from these programs. The most devastating cut was made to the grant program at the heart of [[Page S 14507]] the act: The program to bring together State and local police, prosecutors, and victims advocates to target family violence and rape. Last year, we authorized $130 million for that program. This bill only allocates $61 million--so $69 million dollars were cut from the police, prosecution, and victim services grants--that means more than 1 out of every 2 dollars were cut. This is money for more police and prosecutors to crack down on violence against women; to train police, prosecutors, and judges so they can understand better and respond more effectively to violence against women; and to develop, enlarge and strengthen programs for victims of violence--like rape crisis centers, battered women's shelters, and special victim advocates. This bill also cuts $1 million earmarked especially for rural areas to combat family violence, and the bill completely eliminated the $1.5 million targeted to combat stalking against women. In restoring $75 million in funding for the Violence Against Women Act, this amendment does not take any new money out of the taxpayer's pockets. Instead, the money comes out of other places in the bill-- where there's much more money appropriated than was requested by the President. These cuts would have had a devastating impact on the lives of women and children in America. I am pleased that so many of my colleagues are joining me in restoring virtually all of the funding for the Violence Against Women Act. Let me also point out: the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, chaired by my distinguished friend and colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, has recommended full funding for the Violence Against Women Act programs within the jurisdiction of the Department of Health and Human Services for rape education and prevention, domestic violence community demonstration projects, a domestic violence hotline, and battered women shelters. In fact, recognizing the urgency of this problem, the subcommittee wrote in an additional $2.4 million for battered women shelters-- shelters which serve as a refuge for women and their children when they are hurt and most vulnerable--and in greatest need of our compassion and support. I applaud the subcommittee's efforts to honor the commitment that we made last year to the women and children of America. And I hope that when the HHS appropriations bill comes to the floor, the full Senate will honor that commitment as well. But right here, right now, we must not retreat on the bill at hand. We cannot--we must not--turn back now. For too long, our society has turned its back on the nightmare that is violence against women. Obviously, we cannot legislate humanity and kindness. And we cannot outlaw hatred and ignorance. But we can help make America a safer place for women--and I call on everyone here to help do just that. I hope all of my colleagues will join me in restoring full funding to the Violence Against Women Act programs. The women and children of America are counting on us. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Hollings be added as an original cosponsor, and Senator Kerry of Massachusetts, Senator Gramm of Texas is already the original cosponsor, Senator Hatch, Senator Boxer, Senator Wellstone, and others who will come to the floor I am sure who wish to be part of this amendment. I ask unanimous consent that they be added.

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

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I would like to ask unanimous consent that anyone who wishes to be added as a cosponsor on this amendment be able to do so.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, one of the things that is deficient, in my view, about the legislation before us--and I will shortly send an amendment to the desk about it that I think we have worked out--and that is, in fairness to my friend from Texas, the chairman of the committee, in his, if I have this correct, 602(b) allocation, initially he got less money in that allocation. I am not being critical of the chairman. He got less money in that allocation than was needed to fund some of the things I think he believes should have been funded, and I strongly believe, along with Senator Hatch and a number of my Republican as well as Democratic colleagues, should be funded. In this case the present appropriations bill before us funds the Violence Against Women Act law at $75 million less than is needed. It is funded at $100 million. I am going to shortly send an amendment to the desk to increase that funding. I ask to be corrected if I am mistaken here, but I will, on behalf of Senator Gramm and myself, send to the desk, along with Senators Hatch and Wellstone and others, an amendment that would restore the $75 million in this account. I understand the reason we have been able to work this out is a consequence of the generosity of the distinguished chairman of the full committee and the ranking member of the subcommittee, this subcommittee, who have come up with this agreement that, in turn, has had the effect of providing an additional $75 million for the violent crime trust fund. It is that from which this is funded. Of all the legislation I have ever worked on here in the Senate, this one, the Violence Against Women Act, has been, in my case, my first priority and proudest accomplishment. When it passed the Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support I was hopeful that support would be maintained. Frankly, I lost faith there for a little while when the appropriations bill first came out. I am actually waiting for the amendment so I can send it to the desk. I will explain the rest of it while I am waiting.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. I have no objection.

Mr. BIDEN. Surely, I will be happy to.

Mr. BIDEN. The answer is no, if in fact the chairman of the committee, the ranking member of the committee and other members who had that information made available to them did not reach that conclusion. I am confident that I could find in the Agriculture Committee, in every other committee here, a staff member who would say after we voted something out, if they knew all of that information they probably would not have voted that way. If we operate with that as the basis for whether or not it is worthy to refer back to a committee a nomination or a piece of legislation, we are not going to get very far. Again, I am not in any way--please let my colleague understand and the record show--I am not in any way questioning the motivation of my colleague from Mississippi. What I am suggesting is that a close look at the facts and the law makes an overwhelming and compelling case that Justice Dennis did exactly the right thing when he concluded that there was no need to recuse himself. I see my other friend from Mississippi and my two colleagues from Louisiana, who are very interested in this, are here. I will be available if they want to ask me any more questions. So I will in the meantime yield the floor and stand ready to answer questions if anybody has them.

Mr. BIDEN. I will yield for a question.

Mr. BIDEN. Let me respond to the Senator, if I may. I have not seen today's Times-Picayune. However, it is not unusual for staff, as well as Member of the Senate, to have different perceptions of a given situation but I am not sure that is relevant. Let me explain the procedure. What happens is the majority staff goes to a gentleman named Manus Cooney, who has been on the staff for a long time, first-rate lawyer. He goes and speaks to the chairman of the committee. Karen Robb, a seasoned lawyer, who has been here a long time, comes to me and says now this is what the facts reveal. I then ask what I expect Orrin also asks: What do you think? My staff shows me the information. I look at it, and I say I think there is nothing here. The next step in the procedure is to make this information available to committee members directly or through staff. Again, this is standard operating procedure. And I am the one who as chairman initiated this rule. Orrin has followed the precedent--whatever investigative information we have, from the FBI, from any source, where there is any question raised. We notify members of the committee, and we say, hey, folks, there was a new issue raised or an old issue reraised. We have looked at it. If you want to know about it, come here, look at the information. A lot of this information is FBI-related material on which we only brief [[Page S 14461]] Senators. And a lot of it is non-FBI material, like this on which we brief staff. This is all non-FBI stuff here. It's not confidential. And so I say to my friend there is nothing unusual about this case. There has not been a single time since I have been on this committee that I can think of where we have not voted somebody out and after having voted on it received new information. The most celebrated case? A Supreme Court nominee. Were we to reopen a full committee hearing and a full committee vote every single time after we voted anybody raised an allegation, we would effectively shut down the nominating process. Every single time, if we had to reopen a hearing, have a new public hearing and have a vote, we, the Democrats, would effectively be able to keep nominees from being on the bench. And the Republicans could do the same. It is just not a way we could possibly operate. Now, let me say one other point. If, for example, we came forward and the information received after we voted we believed was of such a consequence, Senator Hatch and I, or any member of the committee, that it warranted further hearings, we would have them. Case in point: a Supreme Court nomination. They have to be issues where the staff, Senators, or the ranking member and chairperson, somebody says, ``This is a big problem. We better take a look at this thing.'' Nobody said that here because nobody that I am aware of believes that here. So that is why we did not open up a new hearing.

Mr. BIDEN. Yes.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. I thank my friend. Mr. President, the Tenant Opportunity Program--known as TOP--was created by the Department of Housing and Urban Development to provide technical assistance and training for public housing residents to organize their communities. Its goal is tenant empowerment. That may be a noble goal. But, TOP is not, in my view, the best way to achieve it. The program is poorly designed, loosely structured, and ripe for abuse. Just how ripe was evident earlier this year in the city of Wilmington, DE. Six Wilmington public housing projects were each awarded $100,000 TOP grants, and a consultant--a consultant--tried to claim $60,000 of each grant. Incredible as it may sound, my colleagues heard me correctly: 60 percent of each TOP grant in Wilmington, DE was going to be paid to a consultant. That's a total consultant fee of $360,000 from just six grants. Mr. President, this may sound like one bad apple. And, the Department is to be commended for investigating this case, discovering that the application procedures were violated by the consultant, and canceling these particular six grants. But, the more I look into the whole program, the more I am convinced that the problem here is with the program itself. For example, the most disorganized public housing projects in Wilmington--the ones that need this program the most--were unable to get a TOP grant because they were not organized enough. That is a classic Catch-22 situation. Another example: no where does the program require that the recipients of the grants specify exactly how the taxpayers' money will be used. And, the major beneficiary of this program seems to be consultants, not public housing residents. Now, I would like to ask the chairman of the Subcommittee about the Committee's intention regarding funding for TOP. The House, in its version of the VA-HUD Appropriations bill, provided $15 million for the program. As I read the Senate version of the bill, no funding is provided for TOP. I want to ask the chairman if my understanding is correct--that it is the committee's intent to kill this program. And, before he answers, let me just say that I ask this question because the Department created TOP in the first place without an explicit authorization from Congress. My concern is that without an explicit statement from Congress that TOP is to receive no funding, I fear that the Department may try to fund the program anyway, using unearmarked funds from the annual contributions for assisted housing account or funds from the Supportive Services Program under the Community Development Grants. In other words, I am concerned about the Department playing shell games, and I want to be absolutely clear for the record. Is it the Committee's intent that no money whatsoever is to be spent on the Tenant Opportunity Program?

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am wondering if the Chairman of the Subcommittee will engage in a colloquy with me regarding the Tenant Opportunity Program.

Mr. BIDEN. I thank the Senator, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. Mr. President, I rise to join with my colleague, the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee, Senator Mikulski, in support of our environmental protection laws. Mr. President, I think our Republican friends should be straight up. Why do they not just eliminate the Clean Air Act, eliminate the Clean Water Act, and drastically reduce the requirements? Why do you not just do that? Otherwise, the local municipalities, the cities, and the States are not going to be able to meet the requirements of these acts. I heard all of this talk last year about unfunded mandates. My Lord, did my Republican colleagues bleed over what we were doing to the poor States. They bled and they wept and they talked about the unholy Federal Government, and about what it was hoisting upon States. Folks, you cannot have it both ways. I say to my friends from New Hampshire and Missouri: Either do it or do not do it. Step up to the plate with a little truth in legislating. OK? This bill is the ultimate unfunded mandate. They know darned well the voters will kill them if they denigrate the Clean Water Act; and they will kill them politically if they denigrate the Clean Air Act. They know what will happen if they attempt to gut these environmental laws. I have not had a single mother or father, or anyone, come up to me and say, ``You know, you folks in the Federal Government are spending too much time determining whether my water is clean.'' Not one has complained about a Federal bureaucrat trying to clean their water. So what do you do here? You do what you are getting real good at. You say, ``OK, we are not going to denigrate the Clean Air Act nor the Clean Water Act. We are just not going to give the EPA the money, and we are not going to give the States money.'' So all the little communities now, like one in my State which has a toxic waste dump with 7,000 drums of toxic waste sitting there contaminating the water supply, have to fend for themselves. That site is contaminating the area with 2,000 people living within 1 mile of it. And what do we say with this one? We say, ``We think they should still clean that up, and we do not want to give you an unfunded mandate. But you find the money, State. Clean it up.'' Look. This bill is an unfunded mandate, or a backdoor way of trying to lower the water quality and lower the air quality. It is one of the two. If it is done in the name of balancing the budget, I understand that mantra. I voted for a constitutional amendment on balancing the budget. I am for balancing the budget. Let us balance people's checkbooks in terms of how much money they pay the Federal Government in taxes. Do you want to balance something? Balance it that way. Balance it that way. But do not say to the States, ``We want you to keep the water clean and the air clean. We are not changing the Federal standard on that. But, by the way, we are not going to send you the money. We are not going to step in there.'' What do you think you are all going to do to local taxes, folks? What do you think is going to happen here? These folks are going to save you money. Oh, they are going to save you money all right. One of two things will happen. Your water is dirty, or your local taxes are going up--one of the two. But in the meantime, people making over $100,000 bucks will get a tax cut. That is not right. Mr. President, though not as severe as the House version, the bill before us today does much to protect businesses from liability but little to protect American families from pollution. The addition of nearly one dozen legislative riders--or loopholes for polluters--is, in my view, just plain wrong. An appropriations bill is not the place to hastily form policies which will affect the drinking water of every American family, the air every American child breathes. We hear so much about unfunded mandates, in fact, one of the first pieces of legislation passed by this Congress was an unfunded mandates bill which makes it harder for the Federal Government to impose costs upon States. As a former county councilman I support this effort. Yet, the bill before us cuts the Environmental Protection Agency's budget by a whopping $1 billion. Who is going to pick up the cost for these necessary protection efforts? State and local governments--an unfunded mandate. That is why this amendment is so necessary. By cutting hazardous waste cleanup efforts by 36 percent, this bill will prevent additional progress from being made at our most dangerous toxic sites. [[Page S 14353]] One such site in my home State of Delaware--an industrial waste landfill in New Castle County--contains over 7,000 drums of toxic liquids and chemicals. The soil is contaminated with heavy metals. The ground water is contaminated. About 2,000 people live within 1 mile of the site. I want that site cleaned up. I want those families to live and raise their children in a clean, safe environment. The level of funding in the bill would jeopardize future progress at this site--and I am not going to put Delaware's communities at risk. The bill as currently written also cuts by over $328 million assistance to local governments in meeting their Clean Water Act responsibilities. These funds are desperately needed by local communities to modernize facilities which treat wastewater pollution. The cut means that raw sewage will pollute local waters, potentially reaching America's coastline, places such as Rehobeth and Dewey Beaches in Delaware. Years ago, I literally dredged raw sewage from the floor of the Delaware Bay to demonstrate just how polluted that waterway once was. Today it is much cleaner, and raw sewage is no longer as severe a problem. I am not going to turn back the clock on that progress--America's beaches should be littered with vacationers, not sewage. Lastly, Mr. President, the amendment provides an extremely modest amount of funding for the Council on Environmental Quality. The former Republican Governor of Delaware, Mr. Russ Peterson, a man whom I have the utmost respect and admiration for, formerly chaired this Council. It's mission is simple: To eliminate duplication and waste by coordinating the Government's use of environmental impact statements, in the process saving the taxpayers' money. It is a wise use of resources, the return is far greater than the investment and we ought to support it. Mr. President, this amendment will not add one penny to the Federal deficit or debt. It is funded by simple fairness--any future tax cut provided in the budget bill both Chambers are now working on should go to the middle class only. It is as simple as that. The middle class has been taking a beating over the past two decades. They have played by the rules, paid their taxes, done right by their children, and yet their standard of living has fallen. Violence has encroached upon their lives unlike any other time in our history. Women, and even men, no longer feel safe walking to their cars at night across dimly lighted parking lots. Armed robberies at automatic teller machines are now commonplace in safe suburban areas. The middle class have earned a tax break, they deserve help sending their children to college, or buying their first home. Mr. President, this amendment puts environmental protection for America's families, ahead of liability protection for polluting special interests and I urge its adoption.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, Howard Schroeder first encountered southern Delaware during his Army service in World War II. His job was to protect the coast, which he did by applying his military training and muscle to help lay mines in the bay, and by applying his artist's eye and talent to help record the landscape of the area. Some of those first Schroeder landscapes remain on display today in the Lewes, DE, public library and middle school, testaments to a love affair that lasted a lifetime. Even beyond a lifetime--when he died at his Lewes home on Friday, September 8, at the age of 84, Howard's family announced that, in accordance with his wishes, his ashes would be scattered over the sand dunes and in the water at nearby Cape Henlopen State Park. The people of my State take great comfort in knowing that Howard Schroeder is still guarding our coast, not only in the resting place he chose but in the legacy of his love for the beaches, the small towns, the fishing boats, the marshes, the old buildings, the people-- everything that is the beauty and heart of Delaware's coastline. It is a recorded legacy of work, literally thousands of sketches and paintings that, as one Delaware reporter wrote, ``virtually define our mental image'' of parts of our State. Howard said that he was always ``looking for the unspoiled,'' and he was able to find it, and to share it, not because he knew where to look but because he knew how to look. It is a living legacy of teaching, because Howard Schroeder was, always, inspired to inspire others. He taught at the St. Andrew's School, at the Rehoboth Art League, which he had served as president, and in workshops that he founded in towns through Kent and Sussex Counties. He started the Artists' Sketch Group to help local artists bring out the best in each other, and he was a founding member of the Sussex County Arts Council. He was, as his friend and fellow artist Jack Lewis wrote, ``a champion for the arts,'' and his drive to teach wherever there was someone willing to learn has left a permanent and deep imprint on the artistic community in and well beyond Delaware. Howard Schroeder's personal legacy is rich in family and friends. His wife, Marian, was his partner in every way, including the years she and Howard sold his work at their Rehoboth Beach art supply and gift store. Together, they raised six children, at a time when it was, as Jack Lewis said, ``unheard of'' to make a family living on an artist's earnings. Marian and Howard succeeded in doing the unheard of. Their son John, a Delaware State legislator, published a biography of his father, and remembers Howard as working until late at night in his studio but always making time for his children. Daughter Carole memorialized her father in a poem, in which she wrote: ``You showed me the beauty of life Through your music and your art Through history and words of prose But mostly, by living it.'' Howard shared his life's lessons also with sons Stephen, Howard, and Robert and daughter Gail, with their families, and with countless fortunate friends and admirers. Mr. President, Howard Schroeder worked all over the world, he was profiled on national television, he was raised in the Bronx and in northern New Jersey. But he chose Delaware, and we remember him, gratefully, as a Delaware State treasure, a treasure that we were proud to share in his lifetime and that I am proud to share, and to honor, in the Senate today. Howard Schroeder was a neighbor with a special gift to see, and to teach us to see, the unspoiled in our own backyard. By his vision and his talent, and by the sincerity of his love, he led us to the best in ourselves, which may well be the greatest accomplishment and contribution of all.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. I thank the Senator from Maryland. Mr. President, I will be necessarily brief. There is very little the Federal Government can do about moral values. That is something that is shaped by families and communities and churches. One of the things we can do is the Government can help teach young people that they owe something to their country and to each other and that membership in the community conveys both rights and responsibilities. The Senator from Georgia is on the floor. He had a national service piece of legislation which I and several others supported over the years. The notion that we are going to instill in our children that they have an obligation to their community and to their country--my own experience, we focus, I believe, too much on just what the benefit to the recipients of this service is. I suggest one of the greatest benefits of AmeriCorps is what it teaches those who participate in AmeriCorps. My son was in the Jesuit Volunteer Corps. No relationship, no remuneration, but he spent a year in a community service project in a homeless shelter out in Portland, OR. I know he benefited more from that experience, quite frankly, than almost anybody he helped benefit. That is one of the payoffs of this program. One of the payoffs is a generation of young people who, in fact, are instilled with a sense of obligation and responsibility to the community. I heard my friend from Arizona stand up and talk about this as if it were need-based. There is nothing need-based about the military; the Peace Corps is not need-based. The point is to pass on these values to children or young people of all economic strata. We need broad-based support from the next generation in terms of what their responsibility to the communities is. I think that is the most overlooked aspect of this program. I also add, Mr. President, that I hear some of my friends--not the chairman of the subcommittee, but some of my friends on the floor-- talking about the need for other programs. I notice they also cut those programs. I find it somewhat interesting the talk about this could pay for x amount of Pell grants or y amount of this. I notice from their records they do not vote for the Pell grants, they do not vote for the other things. I find it somewhat interesting that they use as a straw man--I am not speaking about the Senator from Missouri but others who have spoken and talked about this off the floor--they use as a straw man the idea if we just were not spending the money on AmeriCorps, we would be spending it on other worthwhile programs that I note they also vote against and voted to cut. Mr. President, I must admit that I find this debate--and the opposition to AmeriCorps--somewhat fascinating. We have been hearing for about a year now--including the last few weeks during debate on the welfare reform bill--that we need to return power to States and local communities. That the Federal bureaucracy needs to get out of the way of local solutions to problems, that we need to make better use of nonprofit community organizations and church groups in addressing the problems this country faces. And that individuals helping each other, not the paternalism of big government, is the ultimate answer to our problems. Fine and good, Mr. President. And, to an extent, I agree. But, that is exactly what AmeriCorps does. AmeriCorps says to States and communities, you decide how to meet the needs of your people how to solve the problems you face. AmeriCorps says, private, nonprofit organizations should be the main focus of the program. And, AmeriCorps teaches young people about responsibility, opportunity, and citizenship. The fact is, President Clinton's national service program is probably the most Republican program ever enacted by a Democratic President. It is not the Federal bureaucracy trying to solve problems, it is State, local, and private organizations working together to solve problems. It is not solutions conceived inside the Washington Beltway. It is solutions conceived where the problems are, at the local level. It is not government taking over the role of charities. It is, as almost all local charities will tell you, a way to make volunteer efforts more useful and effective. All the Federal Government does is to provide some money and some dedicated young people to help. Let me tell you about some of those people from my State of Delaware--both those who help and those who are helped. Tammy is a single parent who used to be on welfare. Today, Tammy is an AmeriCorps member who helps teenage mothers do what she did--move from welfare to work. Tammy says, ``AmeriCorps gave me my voice back.'' Dora is another woman supporting her two children. After leaving the military, she took a job waiting tables. But, this past year, she spent working for AmeriCorps, helping elderly public house residents get preventive health care. Dora will be using her tuition voucher to go back to school, something she admits she never would have done without AmeriCorps. As she put it, ``AmeriCorps gave me direction.'' Jeff was a Maryland AmeriCorps member, but he did his service by tutoring at-risk elementary school children in the Colonial School District in Delaware. For many of the boys, Jeff was their only male role model. And, the boys could hardly wait for Jeff to show up each day. After just 1 week, one of the teachers said, ``There's already been a difference.'' Many teachers are now begging the principal to have an AmeriCorps member in their classroom. And, finally, let me tell you about Camille, who is a homeless teenage mother who dropped out of high school. She met an AmeriCorps member named Chan. And, Chan gave her hope. Chan got Camille to sign up for an adult education program. He supported her and tutored her. And, Camille will soon graduate from the adult education program and receive her GED. Mr. President, there is very little the Federal Government can do about moral values. That is something that is shaped by families and churches and communities. But, what each of the examples I just gave proves is that the Federal Government can do at least a little bit about this country's values. The Federal Government can help teach young people that they owe something to their country and to each other, that membership conveys both rights and responsibilities. And, what these examples also show is something I have long believed about community service--and I saw it with my own son after he served a year with the Jesuit Volunteer Corps. Those who benefit from community service are not just those who are helped, but also those who do the helping. AmeriCorps helps instill the values of responsibility and citizenship. It makes a difference in lives of thousands of Americans and makes our problems just a little bit smaller. There are children who will walk through their neighborhoods today safer because of the AmeriCorps members who are helping the police in community policing. There are neighborhoods tonight that are safer because AmeriCorps members closed down the crack houses. There are children in school today because an AmeriCorps tutor gave them hope and they did not drop out of school. There are families who have homes today because of houses built by AmeriCorps members. There are senior citizens in nursing homes whose days are just a little bit brighter because of the work of an AmeriCorps member. Mr. President, AmeriCorps is not the solution to all of our problems. And, it is not the entire answer. But, I dare say, it is making a difference. And, it would be truly regrettable if AmeriCorps was eliminated after just 1 year.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise to join with my colleague from Vermont, Senator Jeffords, in support of the Montreal Protocol Fund--an extraordinarily successful multilateral agreement to phase out the use of ozone-depleting chemicals. Since the early 1970's, scientists from both academia and the business community have warned us that the use of chlorofluorocarbons--commonly known as CFC's--as refrigerants and solvents damages the Earth's stratospheric ozone shell. This ozone shield absorbs some of the sun's harmful ultraviolet, or UV radiation. Increased amounts of this radiation will raise the risk of skin cancer and cataracts, impair the functioning of human immune systems, and could adversely impact the global food supply. As a direct consequence of CFC use, scientists identified literally a hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica, in 1985. An intensive investigation concluded that this hole, which increased each consecutive year from 1990 to 1994, and which is expected to enlarge again this year to over 3.9 million square miles--roughly the size of Europe, was caused by chlorine from dissolved CFC compounds. The ensuing inquiry also detected falling concentrations of ozone over the North and South Temperate Zones--the former includes the United States incidentally. In response to this growing threat, 47 of the world's developed and developing countries joined together in September 1987, and formed the Montreal Protocol. This agreement bound the leading ozone-using countries to first freeze, and later phaseout, the use of these chemicals. At present, over 120 countries have voluntarily signed onto the Protocol, making it the broadest and most successful international collaboration in world history. Protocol member nations have accelerated the CFC phaseout schedule twice, and have agreed upon a complete [[Page S 14286]] elimination of halons in 1994, and of CFC's by the end of this year. Protocol member nations also recognized that the disproportionate reliance upon ozone-depleting substances by the developing world threatens to eliminate any progress. Consequently, 30 developed nations formed the Montreal Protocol Fund in 1990, to provide technical assistance to developing nations, as they make the transition to less harmful technologies. To date, roughly $350 million has been committed for 900 projects in more than 85 developing countries. When fully implemented, these projects are anticipated to cut the developing countries' use of ozone- depleting chemicals by almost one-third--55,000 tons. A recent report produced under the auspices of the United Nations Environmental Program indicates we are making some headway--since 1989, the rate of growth of major ozone-depleting substances in the stratosphere has declined significantly. Yet, further reducing CFC's remains critical. Earlier this year, the World Meteorological Organization reported that ozone levels were 10 to 15 percent below long-term averages, with a 35-percent depletion over Siberia. In fact, the past 3 months saw the most depletion ever. Mr. President, the United States is responsible for a small portion of the Montreal Protocol Fund's resources. Yet, even though we have the most to gain, we are currently $28 million in arrears. Shrinking away from our commitment, going back on our word as the committee has suggested by eliminating the account, will severely hamper developing countries' transition to non-CFC technologies. Additionally, our industrial allies will likely refuse to adopt added measures to further reduce ozone-depleting chemicals which are not currently controlled. Many American businesses, which are now world leaders in the manufacturing of non-CFC refrigerants and solvents, will also suffer. Mr. President, regrettably, my home State of Delaware is one of the national leaders in terms of the incidence of cancer. Delaware ranks among the top 10 nationally in breast, lung, and bladder cancer. We have put a lot of work into identifying the causes, but we don't yet know what in our environment, or what aspects of our behavior, are leading to these cancer cases. For that reason alone, Mr. President--and perhaps it is a selfish reason and I make no apologies--I want to prevent the increase of cancer-causing UV radiation. Delaware is a coastal State, and during the summer months hundreds of thousands of people flock to our shoreline to enjoy our beaches. I don't want these people or anyone in America, to unknowingly be exposed to harmful doses of UV radiation because this Nation walked away from its responsibility. The Montreal Protocol is enormously successful, and we are making solid, substantial progress in decreasing the use of CFC's in the developing counties. This success needs to be continued. I urge my colleagues--support this worthy program and send a signal to the world community that America remains a leader.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment of the senior Senator from Colorado. I am deeply concerned about the signal that adoption of this amendment would send to the rest of the world, particularly to the numerous countries with nuclear ambitions. The effect of allowing the proposed transfer of sophisticated military equipment and the resumption of economic aid would be to legitimize Pakistan's nuclear program. The issue here is much larger than just Pakistan and the military equipment they want to take delivery of--it is about the credibility of our entire nuclear non-proliferation policy. The proposal before us rewards a country that repeatedly lied to us about its nuclear ambitions. It tells other would-be nuclear states that there is no price to be paid for seeking the most destabilizing weapon a country can acquire. Mr. President, I want to make clear my view that Pakistan was a valuable ally in resisting the Soviet occupation of neighboring Afghanistan. In the course of our common fight against Soviet expansionism, we forged a strategic relationship that served both of our countries. But, Mr. President, the Soviet threat was not the sole concern in our dealings with Pakistan in the 1980s. Throughout this period, this body repeatedly expressed its concerns regarding Pakistan's nuclear program. It is instructive to examine the record, because what many people forget is that at the time we were given ironclad assurances that Pakistan was not pursuing nuclear capability. In fact, the Reagan administration told us that if we did not amply supply Pakistan with military hardware, then we would be encouraging it to pursue the nuclear option. Thus, high levels of assistance to Pakistan became an integral part of our nuclear nonproliferation policy. Well, Mr. President, we supplied Pakistan with over $4 billion in military and economic aid during the eighties, and I must say that I have yet to see any evidence that massive American aid in any way deterred Pakistan's nuclear program. One could argue that our assistance had the opposite effect. It freed up resources which would otherwise have been used for conventional defenses. And in fact, if you piece together the evidence, you will find that Pakistan's greatest nuclear strides correspond with the highest levels of American aid. This can only lead you to conclude that we helped to underwrite the Pakistani bomb. The proposal which is before us today at the request of the Clinton administration strikes me as suffering from the same flawed logic as those advanced during the Reagan and Bush administrations. In exchange for easing the Pressler ban, we are getting absolutely nothing to address our non-proliferation concerns: No rollback, no freeze, not even a pause. The supporters of this amendment want to lavish Pakistan with destabilizing conventional weapons while that country proceeds full throttle with its nuclear program. The Pressler amendment unambiguously states that no assistance can be supplied to Pakistan unless the President certifies that Pakistan does not possess a nuclear explosive device. It is unambiguous. It does not allow for any fudging. And fudging is what the Brown amendment amounts to. The proposed transfer of military hardware not only contradicts the Pressler ban, it also fails to meet the standards of the licensing policy for commercial military sales to Pakistan. I might add that many in Congress strenuously objected to the Bush administration's decision to license commercial sales in the first place. Under that policy, any equipment which could upgrade Pakistan's military capability is to be denied a license. By the administration's own admission, many of the items they want to transfer now would be denied a license according to this standard. There you have it. The administration is willing to eviscerate the Pressler amendment, and it is willing to waive its already lax standards while getting nothing in return. If we are asked to undo a decade-old pillar of our non-proliferation policy, then the least we can ask for are some restraints on Pakistan's nuclear program. I expect that some will say that Pakistan already paid for this equipment--it is rightfully theirs, and we ought to send the goods or return the money. Setting aside the argument that Pakistan knew a situation like this would result if it failed to be certified, I would favor finding a way to compensate Pakistan in some manner. I would propose that the administration sell this equipment to third parties, and send the proceeds from such sales to Pakistan, just as it plans to do in the case of the F-16s. Mr. President, invoking the Pressler amendment achieved what billions of aid dollars could not--a halt to fissile material production by Pakistan. Congress is not always right, but in this case we were. Now is not the time to discard a policy that has worked. Press reports indicate that Pakistan has clandestinely acquired M-11 missiles from China, that it is quietly cooperating with Iran's nuclear ambitions, and that it has openly engaged in military exercises with Iran. Mr. President, unless we reject the Brown amendment, we will be putting our imprimatur on these very dangerous developments. The late Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the present prime minister's father, once declared that his countrymen would eat grass in order to acquire nuclear capability. And Mr. President, Pakistan, like neighboring India, has more or less followed through on this promise. It has built a clandestine nuclear weapons program of unknown safety at tremendous cost, while doing nothing to improve the plight of its tens of millions of citizens trapped in poverty. Well, Mr. President, if Pakistan's leaders choose to sacrifice the greater welfare of their people to further develop a nuclear arsenal, then that is a decision they will need to justify to their citizens. We should not make their job any easier in this regard. Unfortunately, that would be the effect of resuming economic assistance. [[Page S 14004]] I fully understand the complex security situation that exists among India, Pakistan, and China. And I believe that we should be doing more to address the sources of instability among these three countries if we are to successfully deal with the nuclear menace in that part of the world. But I do not think that the nuclear capability of Pakistan's neighbors should be an excuse for not enforcing our laws with respect to Pakistan. The fact is there is no Pressler amendment for India, but there are laws that have been used to invoke sanctions to blunt India's nuclear weapons ambitions. I would also note that India, unlike Pakistan, did not receive billions of dollars in aid for the expressed purpose of preventing the development of a nuclear weapon. The point is that we have to uphold the laws that are on our books. Pakistan was well aware of the Pressler amendment. It supported the amendment's adoption. And it chose to ignore the consequences of non- compliance with the amendment. It is that simple. And it is up to us to demonstrate that on an issue of such vital importance to our national security, we mean what we say. Mr. President, we must not reward the kind of behavior Pakistan has demonstrated. Others are watching this debate closely, and how we act in this situation could well affect the decisions of many other potential nuclear states.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield for another brief question?

Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield for a brief comment?

Mr. BIDEN. I say to my friend, the poultry industry in my State, which is divided, by the way--some of the poultry people who are in my State share the Senator's view--is not looking for there to be no rule. They are looking for some flexibility in the 26 degree mark--2 or 3 degrees either way. They are not asking there not be a demarcation. They are not saying that the rule should say zero and below is frozen, above that is fresh. They are not asking for that. So I am not standing here making the argument that there is no rationale related to having a third category here. I am suggesting that it is not workable as the standard proposed by the Department now which, to use the term freeze, is being frozen by the committee until there can be some more rational way to look at this. So I wish to make it clear, we are not asking and I am not of the view that there not be a distinction made among the categories of how a chicken or a piece of poultry is packaged and sold.

Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator tell me whether she thinks consumers know what ``hard chilled'' means?