Joe Biden

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the ``Offender Reentry and Community Safety Act of 2001,'' a bill I first introduced last July. The bill is also a part of S. 16, the Democrat's omnibus crime legislation. Too often we have short-term solutions for long-term problems. All too often we think about today, but not tomorrow. It's time that we start looking forward. It's time that we face the dire situation of prisoners re-entering our communities with insufficient monitoring, little or no job skills, inadequate drug treatment, insufficient housing and deficient basic life skills. According to the Department of Justice, 1.25 million offenders are now living in prisons and another 600,000 offenders are incarcerated in local jails. A record number of those inmates--approximately 585,400 will return to communities this year. Historically, two-thirds of returning prisoners have been rearrested for new crimes within three years. The safety threat posed by this volume of prisoner returns has been exacerbated by the fact that states and communities can't possibly properly supervise all their returning offenders, parole systems have been abolished in thirteen states and policy shifts toward more determinate sentencing have reduced the courts' authority to impose supervisory conditions on offenders returning to their communities. State systems have also reduced the numbers of transitional support programs aimed at facilitating the return to productive community life styles. Recent studies indicate that many returning prisoners receive no help in finding employment upon release and most offenders have low literacy and other basic educational skills that can impede successful reentry. At least 55 percent of offenders are fathers of minor children, and therefore face a number of issues related to child support and other family responsibilities during incarceration and after release. Substance abuse and mental health problems also add to concerns over community safety. Approximately 70 percent of state prisoners and 57 percent of federal prisoners have a history of drug use or abuse. Research by the Department of Justice indicates that between 60 and 75 percent of inmates with heroin or cocaine problems return to drugs within three months when untreated. An estimated 187,000 state and federal prison inmates have self-reported mental health problems. Mentally ill inmates are more likely than other offenders to have committed a violent offense and be violent recidivists. Few states connect mental health treatment in prisons with treatment in the return community. Finally, offenders with contagious diseases such as HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis are released with no viable plan to continue their medical treatment so they present a significant danger to public health. And while the federal prison population and reentry system differs from the state prison population and reentry systems, there are nonetheless significant reentry challenges at the federal level. We need to start thinking about what to do with these people. We need to start thinking in terms of helping these people make a transition to the community so that they don't go back to a life of crime and can be productive members of our society. We need to start thinking about the long-term impact of what we do after we send people to jail. My legislation creates demonstration reentry programs for federal, state and local prisoners. The programs are designed to assist high- risk, high-need offenders who have served their prison sentences, but who pose the greatest risk of reoffending upon release because they lack the education, job skills, stable family or living arrangements, and the substance abuse treatment and other mental and medical health services they need to successfully reintegrate into society. Innovative strategies and emerging technologies present new opportunities to improve reentry systems. This legislation creates federal and state demonstration projects that utilize these strategies and technologies. The projects share many core components, including a more seamless reentry system, reentry officials who are more directly involved with the offender and who can swiftly impose intermediate sanctions if the offender does not follow the designated reentry plan, and the combination of enhanced service delivery and enhanced monitoring. The different projects are targeted at different prisoner populations and each has some unique features. The promise of the legislation is to establish the demonstration projects and then to rigorously evaluate them to determine which measures and strategies most successfully reintegrate prisoners into the community as well as which measures and strategies can be promoted nationally to address the growing national problem of released prisoners. There are currently 17 unfunded state pilot projects, including one in Delaware, which are being supported with technical assistance by the Department of Justice. My legislation will fund these pilot projects and will encourages states, territories, and Indian tribes to partner with units of local government and other non-profit organizations to establish adult offender reentry demonstration projects. The grants may be expended for implementing graduated sanctions and incentives, monitoring released prisoners, and providing, as appropriate, drug and alcohol abuse testing and treatment, mental and medical health services, victim impact educational classes, employment training, conflict resolution skills training, and other social services. My legislation also encourages state agencies, municipalities, public agencies, nonprofit organizations and tribes to make agreements with courts to establish ``reentry courts'' to monitor returning offenders, establish graduated sanctions and incentives, test and treat returning offenders for drug and alcohol abuse, and provide reentering offenders with mental and medical health services, victim impact educational classes, employment training, conflict resolution skills training, and other social services. This legislation also re-authorizes the drug court program created by Congress in the 1994 Crime Law as a cost-effective, innovative way to deal with non-violent offenders in need of drug treatment. This is the same language as the ``Drug Court Re-authorization and Improvement Act'' that I introduced with Senator Specter last Congress. Rather than just churning people through the revolving door of the criminal justice system, drug courts help these folks to get their acts together so they won't be back. When they graduate from drug court programs they are clean and sober and more prepared to participate in society. In order to graduate, they are required to finish high school or obtain a GED, hold down a job, and keep up with financial obligations including drug court fees and child support payments. They are also required to have a sponsor who will keep them on track. This program works. And that is not just my opinion. Columbia University's National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) found that these courts are effective at taking offenders with little previous treatment history and keeping them in treatment; that they provide closer supervision than other community programs to which the offenders could be assigned; that they reduce crime; and that they are cost-effective. According to the Department of Justice, drug courts save at least $5,000 per offender each year in prison costs alone. That says nothing of the cost savings associated with future crime prevention. Just as important, scarce prison beds are freed up for violent criminals. I have saved what may be the most important statistic for last. Two- thirds of drug court participants are parents of young children. After getting sober through the coerced treatment mandated by the court, many of these individuals are able to be real parents again. More than 500 drug-free babies have been born to female drug court participants, a sizable victory for society and the budget alike. This bill re-authorizes programs to provide for drug treatment in state and federal prisons. According to CASA, 80 percent of the men and women behind bars in the United States today are there because of alcohol or drugs. They were either drunk or high when they committed their crime, broke an alcohol or drug law, stole to support their habit, or have a history of drug or alcohol abuse. The need for drug and alcohol treatment in our nations prisons and jails is clear. Providing treatment to criminal offenders is not ``soft.'' It is a smart crime prevention policy. If we do not treat addicted offenders before they are released, they will be turned back onto our streets with the same addiction problem that got them in trouble in the first place and they will re-offend. Inmates who are addicted to drugs and alcohol are more likely to be incarcerated repeatedly than those without a substance abuse problem. This is not my opinion, it is fact. According to CASA, 81 percent of inmates with five or more prior convictions have been habitual drug users compared to 41 percent of first-time offenders. Re-authorizing prison-based treatment programs is a good investment and is an important crime prevention initiative. This legislation is just a first step--but a necessary one. Someday, we will look back and wonder why we didn't think of this sooner. For now, we need to implement these pilot projects, help people make it in their communities and make our streets safer at the same time. I am certain that in the end we will revel in the results. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the ``Offender Reentry and Community Safety Act of 2001,'' a bill I first introduced last July. The bill is also a part of S. 16, the Democrat's omnibus crime legislation. Too often we have short-term solutions for long-term problems. All too often we think about today, but not tomorrow. It's time that we start looking forward. It's time that we face the dire situation of prisoners re-entering our communities with insufficient monitoring, little or no job skills, inadequate drug treatment, insufficient housing and deficient basic life skills. According to the Department of Justice, 1.25 million offenders are now living in prisons and another 600,000 offenders are incarcerated in local jails. A record number of those inmates--approximately 585,400 will return to communities this year. Historically, two-thirds of returning prisoners have been rearrested for new crimes within three years. The safety threat posed by this volume of prisoner returns has been exacerbated by the fact that states and communities can't possibly properly supervise all their returning offenders, parole systems have been abolished in thirteen states and policy shifts toward more determinate sentencing have reduced the courts' authority to impose supervisory conditions on offenders returning to their communities. State systems have also reduced the numbers of transitional support programs aimed at facilitating the return to productive community life styles. Recent studies indicate that many returning prisoners receive no help in finding employment upon release and most offenders have low literacy and other basic educational skills that can impede successful reentry. At least 55 percent of offenders are fathers of minor children, and therefore face a number of issues related to child support and other family responsibilities during incarceration and after release. Substance abuse and mental health problems also add to concerns over community safety. Approximately 70 percent of state prisoners and 57 percent of federal prisoners have a history of drug use or abuse. Research by the Department of Justice indicates that between 60 and 75 percent of inmates with heroin or cocaine problems return to drugs within three months when untreated. An estimated 187,000 state and federal prison inmates have self-reported mental health problems. Mentally ill inmates are more likely than other offenders to have committed a violent offense and be violent recidivists. Few states connect mental health treatment in prisons with treatment in the return community. Finally, offenders with contagious diseases such as HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis are released with no viable plan to continue their medical treatment so they present a significant danger to public health. And while the federal prison population and reentry system differs from the state prison population and reentry systems, there are nonetheless significant reentry challenges at the federal level. We need to start thinking about what to do with these people. We need to start thinking in terms of helping these people make a transition to the community so that they don't go back to a life of crime and can be productive members of our society. We need to start thinking about the long-term impact of what we do after we send people to jail. My legislation creates demonstration reentry programs for federal, state and local prisoners. The programs are designed to assist high- risk, high-need offenders who have served their prison sentences, but who pose the greatest risk of reoffending upon release because they lack the education, job skills, stable family or living arrangements, and the substance abuse treatment and other mental and medical health services they need to successfully reintegrate into society. Innovative strategies and emerging technologies present new opportunities to improve reentry systems. This legislation creates federal and state demonstration projects that utilize these strategies and technologies. The projects share many core components, including a more seamless reentry system, reentry officials who are more directly involved with the offender and who can swiftly impose intermediate sanctions if the offender does not follow the designated reentry plan, and the combination of enhanced service delivery and enhanced monitoring. The different projects are targeted at different prisoner populations and each has some unique features. The promise of the legislation is to establish the demonstration projects and then to rigorously evaluate them to determine which measures and strategies most successfully reintegrate prisoners into the community as well as which measures and strategies can be promoted nationally to address the growing national problem of released prisoners. There are currently 17 unfunded state pilot projects, including one in Delaware, which are being supported with technical assistance by the Department of Justice. My legislation will fund these pilot projects and will encourages states, territories, and Indian tribes to partner with units of local government and other non-profit organizations to establish adult offender reentry demonstration projects. The grants may be expended for implementing graduated sanctions and incentives, monitoring released prisoners, and providing, as appropriate, drug and alcohol abuse testing and treatment, mental and medical health services, victim impact educational classes, employment training, conflict resolution skills training, and other social services. My legislation also encourages state agencies, municipalities, public agencies, nonprofit organizations and tribes to make agreements with courts to establish ``reentry courts'' to monitor returning offenders, establish graduated sanctions and incentives, test and treat returning offenders for drug and alcohol abuse, and provide reentering offenders with mental and medical health services, victim impact educational classes, employment training, conflict resolution skills training, and other social services. This legislation also re-authorizes the drug court program created by Congress in the 1994 Crime Law as a cost-effective, innovative way to deal with non-violent offenders in need of drug treatment. This is the same language as the ``Drug Court Re-authorization and Improvement Act'' that I introduced with Senator Specter last Congress. Rather than just churning people through the revolving door of the criminal justice system, drug courts help these folks to get their acts together so they won't be back. When they graduate from drug court programs they are clean and sober and more prepared to participate in society. In order to graduate, they are required to finish high school or obtain a GED, hold down a job, and keep up with financial obligations including drug court fees and child support payments. They are also required to have a sponsor who will keep them on track. This program works. And that is not just my opinion. Columbia University's National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) found that these courts are effective at taking offenders with little previous treatment history and keeping them in treatment; that they provide closer supervision than other community programs to which the offenders could be assigned; that they reduce crime; and that they are cost-effective. According to the Department of Justice, drug courts save at least $5,000 per offender each year in prison costs alone. That says nothing of the cost savings associated with future crime prevention. Just as important, scarce prison beds are freed up for violent criminals. I have saved what may be the most important statistic for last. Two- thirds of drug court participants are parents of young children. After getting sober through the coerced treatment mandated by the court, many of these individuals are able to be real parents again. More than 500 drug-free babies have been born to female drug court participants, a sizable victory for society and the budget alike. This bill re-authorizes programs to provide for drug treatment in state and federal prisons. According to CASA, 80 percent of the men and women behind bars in the United States today are there because of alcohol or drugs. They were either drunk or high when they committed their crime, broke an alcohol or drug law, stole to support their habit, or have a history of drug or alcohol abuse. The need for drug and alcohol treatment in our nations prisons and jails is clear. Providing treatment to criminal offenders is not ``soft.'' It is a smart crime prevention policy. If we do not treat addicted offenders before they are released, they will be turned back onto our streets with the same addiction problem that got them in trouble in the first place and they will re-offend. Inmates who are addicted to drugs and alcohol are more likely to be incarcerated repeatedly than those without a substance abuse problem. This is not my opinion, it is fact. According to CASA, 81 percent of inmates with five or more prior convictions have been habitual drug users compared to 41 percent of first-time offenders. Re-authorizing prison-based treatment programs is a good investment and is an important crime prevention initiative. This legislation is just a first step--but a necessary one. Someday, we will look back and wonder why we didn't think of this sooner. For now, we need to implement these pilot projects, help people make it in their communities and make our streets safer at the same time. I am certain that in the end we will revel in the results. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN

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

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, one of the reasons why the senior Senator from Virginia is so well respected in this place is not only the fact that he is a consummate gentleman, but he pays tribute to and honors the traditions of this great place. I am aware that today was the maiden speech of his new colleague and our new colleague, the former Governor of Virginia. I recall 28 years ago, when I got here, one's maiden speech was taken in a much more formal way, not by the speaker but by other Members of the Senate. I remember when I made my first speech, Senator John Stennis, Senator Allen, Senator Mansfield, Senator Javits all came and sat. I don't even remember what it was. It was an innocuous speech. They were all gracious enough to sit, turn their chairs, and act as if I was delivering the Declaration of Independence. I appreciated it very much. Unlike my maiden speech, the maiden speech of the former Governor of the State of Virginia portends well for this body. To come here in the first speech he makes, to be in support of not the process but the person, who the Senators from Virginia could easily have concluded, because it was a Democratic nominee originally, should no longer remain on the bench because of the recess appointment and the manner in which it was taken, I take the speech of the Senator from Virginia to be more than merely about the nominee, who I agree is incredibly well qualified, having sat on the Judiciary Committee and sitting on the Judiciary Committee and being aware of his background. I thank the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Allen, for making a maiden speech that meant something, that meant something about an individual and sent a signal to this body that I hope we on both sides of the aisle emulate for the next 2 years; that is, that we should look beyond partisan advantage and look to quality, the quality of what we are doing. I compliment him on his maiden speech. I compliment him on the substance of the speech. I compliment my friend from Virginia, senior Senator, for being here. Senator Allen could have spoken about the dome, and he would have been here because that is the nature of the man. He understands the traditions of this place. They mean something. I am glad I get to serve with him.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, last weekend the nation inaugurated a new President, President George W. Bush. With the change of power now complete, the President and Congress must now get down to the hard business of governing. After eight years of Democratic leadership, it is obvious that a Bush Administration will propose policy changes on several fronts. One of the most important and complex issues for President Bush will be how to implement his national missile defense policy in a manner that contributes to our national security, rather than putting it at risk. For six solid years, Republicans have used national missile defense as a ``big stick''--a stick employed not against America's enemies, but against those who thought we did not need a national missile defense. Republicans repeatedly criticized the Clinton administration for its approach to national missile defense, and in the last two presidential campaigns, the promise of a ``robust'' national missile defense figured prominently in the Republican Party's platform and foreign policy speeches. Although it is always difficult to get into the minds of the American people, it does appear that, for the most part, the public has ignored this debate. The missile defense issue has commanded the attention of only a tiny minority of the American people. In a recent survey by the Pew Charitable Trust of priorities for the new administration, Americans rated missile defense in eighteenth place among twenty issues. Whether missile defense was on voters' minds or not, however, George W. Bush is now our President. He and his team are committed to a national missile defense that will be, in the President's words, ``effective,'' ``based on the best available options,'' deployed ``at the earliest possible date'' and ``designed to protect all 50 states and our friends and allies and deployed forces overseas from missile attacks by rogue nations, or accidental launches.'' That mantra will suffice for a campaign, but not for policy. Presidential campaigns bear little relation to actually being President, and campaign slogans are but the shadows of flesh and blood policy somewhat related to it, but lacking in both detail and substance. In short, the real test of President Bush on national missile defense is just beginning. It is to take those campaign slogans and turn them into coherent policies and strategies. The challenge for the President and his team is this: to pursue their dream of a ``robust'' national missile defense with: Full attention to the technological challenges; Full attention to the potential consequences for arms control; Full attention to the potential impact on strategic stability; and Full attention to its possible effect on America's relations with our allies. As our former colleague and Armed Services Committee chairman Sam Nunn said recently, ``I would hope the new administration would approach this subject as a technology, not a theology.'' Let me outline some of the key questions that I believe the Administration must consider. A national missile defense policy for the new administration will specify system objectives. Whom shall the system protect, against what level of attack, and with what level of success--or, on the other hand, allowing what rate of failure? As I noted earlier, then-Governor Bush set his initial objectives last May: ``to protect all 50 states and our friends and allies and deployed forces overseas from missile attacks by rogue nations, or accidental launches.'' That's a very tall order, Mr. President. Can current technology support its achievement any time soon, or at an affordable cost? I have my doubts. Taken literally, protection ``from . . . accidental launches'' requires an ability to intercept at least a small number of advanced Russian warheads, rather than just simple warheads from the so-called ``rogue states'' of North Korea, Iran or Iraq. And protecting ``our friends and allies and deployed forces overseas'' would require either multiple defenses against ICBM's or else a world-wide system like the space-based laser of Ronald Reagan's ``Star Wars.'' A serious national missile defense policy will give careful attention to possible Russian reactions to our actions. It is not enough to say, as President Bush did during the campaign, that ``I will offer Russia the necessary amendments to the ABM Treaty'' and that, ``if Russia refuses the changes we propose, I will give prompt notice'' of our intent to withdraw from the Treaty. What will happen if the President does what he proposed during the campaign? Will Russia suspend its compliance with other arms control agreements, such as the START Treaty and the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty? Will future arms reductions occur without agreed means of verification? Indeed, will Russia try to rebuild its nuclear forces, instead of reducing them? Will Russia ally itself more closely with China or--worse yet--with anti-American ``rogue states'' that seek weapons of mass destruction? Will our allies question America's leadership? Will our allies lose faith in the nuclear non-proliferation regime that we put in place? A serious national missile defense policy cannot wish away these risks. Rather, it must consider them and include a strategy for dealing with them. Let us suppose, however, that Russia agrees to work out an accommodation with the United States--which is another possible outcome. What sort of agreement should the President propose? Is there an agreement that would permit the sort of defense that the President seeks, while still being reliably limited? Would it be verifiable by Russia? How would it safeguard Russia against a U.S. ``breakout'' from its limitations? How shall a ``robust'' national missile defense be fielded at the same time that Russia and the United States are substantially reducing their nuclear forces, which is another stated goal of the new administration? Missile defense advocates argue that Russia has nothing to fear from a limited defense, because it has so many strategic warheads. But what happens as those numbers go down? How can mutual deterrence of full-scale war be maintained? How can Russia accept a system that undermines that deterrence? Does it make sense to establish a combined limit on offensive and defensive systems, as some experts have proposed both here and in Russia? Is it possible, at very low numbers of strategic forces or by adopting sweeping ``de-alerting'' measures as well, to deny either side the ability to mount a disabling first strike? If so, would each side then have to target its remaining missiles on the other side's cities-- as China does today--in order to maintain a residual capability to cause unacceptable damage to a country? How would a U.S.-Russian agreement allowing a ``robust'' national missile defense affect U.S.-Russian strategic stability across the whole range of possible conflicts? If a system were good enough to guard against accidental Russian launches, then it could also combat such purposeful acts as a so-called ``demonstration'' attack using a small number of warheads. In effect, it would ``raise the bar'' for initiating a strategic nuclear war; that's why it would frustrate ``rogue states'' with very small strategic forces. Would this extra ``firebreak'' against strategic nuclear war make tactical nuclear weapons more usable? If so, is that a problem? Would it also set a ``floor'' on strategic arms reductions, so that the United States (and Russia) could still deter ``the old-fashioned way'' any third-country attack that would overcome the missile defense? What about the START II ban on MIRV'ed ICBM's? Would an agreement with Russia require relaxation of that ban? What would the consequences be of allowing a given number of MIRV's? Would they be small if the number of MIRV's per missile were limited to 2 or 3, or if MIRV's were restricted to mobile launchers? How verifiable would such limitations be, if the MIRV's were on a missile that had both mobile and silo-based variants? Were all these issues solved, and if a U.S.-Russian agreement were to be reached, how would a U.S. national missile defense affect China's strategic force structure and its relations with the United States? Would a geographically limited national missile defense--such as a boost-phase intercept system deployed only near ``countries of concern''--permit China to maintain its nuclear deterrence at low force levels? With a numerically limited defense, could we accept China increasing its strategic forces from 18 warheads to 200 or more? Would that prompt an arms race between China and India (and then Pakistan), or even with Russia? Or would a ``robust'' national missile defense--whether deployed with Russian assent or without it--be so large as to simply strip away China's deterrent capability? If that were the case, what risk would we run of China deciding to attack Taiwan before that date arrived? How would we prepare for that possibility? These are serious and complex questions that I have not heard debated or sufficiently discussed. That does not mean that they cannot be solved. It does underlie my own feeling, however, that the world may not be ready yet for the missile defense system that President Bush would like to build, even if the technology were available. If the President seeks substantial world agreement on this course, then the ground must be prepared--not only in Alaska, but in world capitals from London and Paris to Tokyo, and from Moscow to Beijing. If he seriously intends to proceed in the face of world objection, then we--and, whether they like it or not, the rest of the world--must prepare for all the complications that may result. It would be unfair to expect President Bush and his team to have answered all these questions already. They have argued the case for a ``robust'' national missile defense only as a political issue, not as the carefully crafted policy of a government in power. That is understandable. But now they are the Executive Branch of government. They are in power. Now theirs is the burden of putting real flesh on the mere bones of a policy that sufficed while they were the opposition. What shall we say to those who take on that burden? On the one hand, we must wish them well. Nobody doubts the sincerity or morality of a belief in a national missile defense, only its practicality. On the other hand, we must also say: Do not go blindly crashing into this new venture. Remember Alexander Pope's line that ``fools rush in, where angels fear to tread.'' Remember also that the system you may wish to build does not yet exist. Neither has its feasibility or cost-effectiveness yet been adequately demonstrated. The complexity of the issues raised by a national missile defense-- and the lack of a proven design for even a limited missile defense, let alone a ``robust'' one--lead me to the following respectful suggestions to the President and his national security team: (1) fold these issues into the ``Nuclear Posture Review'' mandated by the Congress last year; (2) instruct our military experts to examine in that review the full range of interrelated offensive and defensive issues; (3) give them time to analyze those issues fully and thoughtfully; and (4) delay your decisions regarding missile defense architecture and deployment until that review has been completed and absorbed. If President Bush and his team proceed with caution and with fully articulated policies and strategies, perhaps they will transform the world. For that is, indeed, their goal, and it is a laudable goal. If they proceed rashly, however, the world is likely to be an unforgiving master. If they cannot develop a fully articulated policy, then perhaps a ``robust'' national missile defense is really an expression of the desire to be done with worldly cares, and not a truly rational approach to world leadership in the 21st century.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 15 minutes notwithstanding the previous order.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. When Father Trainor put his hand out--Senator Thurmond was introduced to Father Trainor a moment before the prayer--he looked at Senator Thurmond and said: ``Senator, you are an inspiration.'' And you are an inspiration, Strom. You are an inspiration to all of us and you are a darned good friend of mine and I'm glad you got to meet my buddy, Father Jim Trainor. My colleagues do not know this, but Father Trainor prays for us every Sunday in Wilmington. I think he prays particularly hard for me because he is always making an extra prayer--maybe the Irish part of him-- praying for the politicians and public officials. I say to the majority leader, Senator Lott, I go to a church called Saint Joseph's on the Brandywine, an old church that was built by the Du Pont family for ``their Irish'' back at the turn of the century, the turn of the 19th century, the early 1800s. But my daughter and my wife like to go to Saint Patrick's Church, which is an inner-city church that, when I was a kid growing up, was in an Irish parish, and is now in the middle of the city and the parish is predominantly African American. It has become the haven for everyone in need in the city. Father Trainor has been there for about 25 years and has built and rebuilt that parish. There is a long series of steps to go up to the church. It is an old- fashioned church where the actual church altar is on the second floor and below are all the meeting rooms. You walk up these two flights of stairs and occasionally--I know my colleagues will find this hard to believe--I am late. It is such an honor to be invited here and an honor to have an opportunity to invite someone here. As you all know, this invitation went out over 6 months ago, a long time ago. So I made the mistake of walking in a little bit late this Sunday evening for 5 o'clock mass. As I walked in the door, I knew I made a mistake. It was like being back in school. Father Trainor was up in the pulpit and I missed part of his sermon. He looked down to the congregation and he said: By the way, one other thing I want to tell you all. I want to tell you that I have had the great honor of being invited to open a session of the U.S. Senate this week. It came from the late Joe Biden--who just walked in the door. And then he proceeded to tell a story I hope he won't mind my telling. He was standing in front of the entire congregation last Sunday--and by the way, this congregation attracts most of its people not from the parish. They are young professionals who come from all over the city to come into that 5 o'clock mass at night because of Father Trainor. It is always packed. It is literally standing room only. The few of us who are occasionally late, we stand a lot. He told the following story: ``I want the congregation to pray for me,'' he said, ``because I hope I don't make the mistake I made the first time I was in Washington.'' I was a young seminarian, in graduate school, and I came to Baltimore to drop off my trunk early in the summer. I had a good friend with me who was wheelchair bound. It was his car. We decided to go visit Washington. The only thing I remember in Washington is everything is steps, steps, steps, steps. I was a pretty tough guy, and I would take that wheelchair and move it up the stairs. He is going like this in the pulpit. So we went all over the city. We finished up at the Capitol. That was before, thanks to Bob Dole and others, we had accessible entrances to our buildings in 1961 or 1962. I don't remember the exact year. He said: I got to the Capitol steps and I looked up and said, ``Sweet Lord, I can't do that.'' I walked around the side. There was a nice Capitol Policeman there. I said, ``You guys have elevators here?'' He said, ``Sure, bring your friend in.'' I brought my friend in, and the officer said, ``You can use those elevators. You can use them. I am sure they won't mind because of the circumstances.'' Then two senatorial fellows got in the elevator and he said they both looked at him. He said: I didn't know what to say. I hope I am saying this accurately. He said: Senators, I am sorry we are in here, but the police officer told us that because the other umbrella was broken, we could take this umbrella to the second floor. He said: I hope I don't do that when I say my prayer this time. I told him a story. The first time I came here, I was a student at the University of Delaware. A number of my friends went to Georgetown, and I loved coming up here. On a Saturday morning, I came up. There was an unusual Saturday session which had just closed down. There were no metal detectors. A lot of you guys worked here as pages and had experience as staff. I walked through the double doors. The Senate had just gone out. I just walked in. The doors were open. I walked back by the Marble Room. No one was around. I opened the Chamber doors, and I was in awe. I think we all felt that the first time we ever stood in this Chamber. I was in awe. Literally, it took my breath away. I walked in, looked around, and I walked up and sat in the chair. I was not being a wise guy. I was in awe. I sat down in the President's chair, looking out, and all of a sudden this officer grabs me, spins me around, and stands me up. He scared the devil out of me, understandably. He knew what I was doing and arrested me. Most of you do not know that there is a police station downstairs underneath this building. He took me down. By the time we got down there, he realized I was just a college student in total awe of this place. I was elected to the Senate 10 years later. The first day I walked into the Senate Chamber, and a police officer tapped me on the shoulder. He said: Do you remember me, Senator? I said: No, I don't. He said: I arrested you 10 years ago when you came in. We both had inauspicious starts in the Senate. I say to you, Father, your prayer was right on target, and the finish was much stronger than the finish I have had. I thank you for being here. I conclude by saying it is genuinely an honor for the State of Delaware to have a Senate host Chaplain today. Reverend Ogilvie, I thank you. You are a consummate gentleman, and I appreciate the hospitality you offered to Father and always to all of us in the Senate. I note for the Record and say to my colleague from Delaware, Senator Carper, I only know of a total of three other Delawareans since I have been here who have ever been guest Chaplains. Senator Carper knows them all: Rabbi Kenneth S. Cohen from Congregation Beth Shalom was a guest Chaplain in 1982, and Father Robert Balducelli from St. Anthony's Parish. We need a little Irish levity brought into this. Now we have it all covered in my State. I thank you again, Father Trainor. I know the majority leader wishes to speak. After he does, I want to ask permission to yield to my colleague from Delaware for brief comments.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, it is my honor to welcome Father Jim Trainor to the Senate this morning, but I think it was his honor to be escorted to the President's chair by one of the great men of the Senate, Senator Strom Thurmond. I am sure one of the things that Father Trainor will take from this experience is, not particularly the fact that he gets to see Senator Carper and me--he sees us all the time at home--but the fact he got to meet Strom Thurmond, the legendary Strom Thurmond.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. If there be no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to speak to the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations legislation that is contained in this bill. Unfortunately, I've got some good news and some bad news. The good news is that this bill recognizes the need to dedicate more resources to foreign policy needs; the bad news is that the bill fails to contain funding for three important programs in the Justice portion of this legislation. The State Department does important work--protecting our citizens and pursuing our foreign policy objectives--in some of the most dangerous and difficult places in the world. Unlike the U.S. military, State Department employees go into areas of conflict unarmed, and generally unprotected. We have State Department officials in Sierra Leone, in Syria, in Lebanon and Liberia, and throughout the war-torn corners of the former Yugoslavia. That is why I am particularly pleased to see that funding for embassy security in the Commerce-Justice-State bill is at the levels requested by the Administration. I strongly support full funding of two critical accounts--embassy security and maintenance, and embassy security equipment and personnel--in the legislation to authorize State Department activities which was initiated by the Committee on Foreign Relations last year. Failure to fully fund the State Department's security account would have had a devastating effect on the safety of the Americans who serve us overseas, both in the number of security agents who protect them against terrorist threats and construction of new, safe embassies. Fortunately both these security programs will be well-funded. I regret, however, that agreement was not reached to fund a new Center for Anti- terrorism and Security Training. I hope we can give this careful consideration next year. In addition, after many years of decline, funding for the State Department's most basic needs--including salaries and administrative expenses--has been increased. The final funding for this account exceeds the Administration's original request by $65 million, which should help offset the many reductions in the State Department budget during the 1990s. As the Secretary of State has said numerous times, diplomats are our first line of defense. Just as we are concerned about military readiness, so we must be attentive to diplomatic readiness overseas. We need to do as much as we can--and in my opinion, this funding goes only part way--to ensure that we retain the best and the brightest in our Foreign Service. I am pleased that the amount of money dedicated to United Nations Peacekeeping operations exceeds the Administration's original request. The final figure is based on more recent calculations of the U.S. dues to the United Nations and will allow us to help fund these important missions, thereby alleviating suffering and improving stability around the world. I understand the frustration that many of my colleagues feel toward the United Nations. Earlier this week, I visited the UN. I want to assure my colleagues that reform is happening. Ambassador Holbrooke has kept his commitment, made to the Committee on Foreign Relations during his confirmation hearings, that reform will be his ``highest sustained priority.'' He and his team in New York continue to push effectively for needed reforms in the areas of peacekeeping and general operations. The recommendations made by the Brahimi panel, in particular, will result in better focused, trained and equipped peacekeeping missions-- changes I believe that we all agree are needed. I wish that I could be as positive about the Justice Department portion of the bill, but I cannot. I am disheartened that the legislation does not contain three crucial provisions--reauthorization of the COPS program, the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund, and full funding for the Violence Against Women Act. Although we have 49 co-sponsors from both sides of the aisle and letters of support from every major law enforcement organization, a few powerful members on the other side have refused to allow a vote on the continuation of the COPS program. In 1994, we set a goal of funding 100,000 police officers by the year 2000. We met that goal months ahead of schedule. As of today, there have been 109,000 officers funded and 68,100 officers deployed to the streets. Because of COPS, the concept of community policing has become law enforcement's principal weapon in fighting crime. Community policing has redefined the relationship between law enforcement and the public. But, more importantly, it has reduced crime. And that is what we attempted to do. All across the country, from Wilmington to Washington--from Connecticut to California, we are seeing a dramatic decline in crime. Just a few weeks ago, the FBI released its annual crime statistics which showed that once again, for the eighth year in a row, crime is down. In fact, crime was down 7 percent from last year and 16 percent since 1995. But we can't become complacent. We have to continue to help state and local law enforcement by putting more cops on the street. Mark my words, the day we become complacent is the day that crime rates go up again. And refusing to even allow a vote on this bill is even worse than complacency--it is irresponsible. And I will say again that I firmly believe that reauthorization of the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund is the single most significant thing that we can do to continue the war on crime. Since the Fund was established in the 1994 Crime Act, Congress has appropriated monies from the fund for programs including the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program and numerous programs contained in the Violence Against Women Act. The money has gone to hire more cops and it has brought unprecedented resources to defending our southwest border. It has funded runaway youth prevention programs and numerous innovative crime prevention programs. And there are many more. The results of these efforts have taken hold. Crime is down--way down. And we didn't add 1 cent to the deficit or the debt. This was the single most important paragraph in the 1994 Crime bill because no one can touch this money for any other purpose. It can't be spent on anything else but crime reduction. It is the one place where no one can compete. It is set aside. It is a savings account to fight crime. This fund works. It ensures that the crime reduction programs that we pass will be funded. It ensures that the crime rate will continue to go down instead of up. It ensures that our kids will have a place to go after school instead of hanging out on the street corners. It ensures that violent crimes against women get the individualized attention that they need and deserve. It gives States money to hire more cops and get better technology. This bill also is unsatisfactory because it leaves the landmark Violence Against Women Act underfunded, seriously jeopardizing the tremendous strides we have made in every State across this country to reduce domestic violence and sexual assault against women. Congress originally approved this legislation in 1994 and then reauthorized it unanimously this past October. In the bill before us, however, Congress fails to live up to its commitment to women and children who are the victims of domestic violence and sexual assault by not appropriating the necessary funds authorized in the Violence Against Women Act of 2000. Reauthorization of the COPS program, the Trust Fund, and full funding for the Violence Against Women Act should have been a part of this package, and I'm disappointed that some on the other side have decided to put politics ahead of the people.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. We should do that. I get the feeling--maybe because it is the Christmas season and I want to believe it--there is a growing recognition that rail service in our neck of the woods, as well as other parts of the country, are as essential to our interests as water is to the far west. It is as essential. I thank my colleagues for their commitment and absolutely close by saying to Senator Byrd that I appreciate the fact that he understands, maybe better than anyone in this place, when another colleague cares about an issue that he believes is absolutely indispensable for his region. I thank him for acknowledging that. I thank him for his--it is no new commitment; he has always been committed to Amtrak--acknowledgment of that and for his continued pledge of commitment to Amtrak. With this combination of the majority leader, the Democratic leader, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, and the ranking member of the Commerce Committee, if we cannot get it done, then shame on us. I thank all of my colleagues. Sorry to have taken so much time, but as my colleagues said all day, this is a big, big, big, big deal to me personally, to my State, and I think to the Nation. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I want to, before the majority leader leaves the floor, thank him.

Mr. BIDEN. No, I beg your pardon, I do not wish to object or seek recognition.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask the Senator to yield me a very brief time.

Mr. BIDEN. Before the majority leader leaves the floor, I want to personally thank him. I want to thank the minority leader, the Democratic leader, and I guess most of all I want to thank Senator Byrd and Senator Stevens as well. I have been here for 28 years. I have never once come to the floor to threaten to engage in an extended debate on a matter. I did that this morning in our caucus. I am not suggesting my colleagues responded because I did that. I am suggesting that I believed my colleagues who are on their feet felt extremely strongly about what was about to happen; that is, Amtrak cannot make it through the year 2001 and meet the obligation that has been imposed upon it without being brought up to speed, figuratively and literally, in terms of equipment, track, and the like. When this proposal that had 56 cosponsors and passed in another vehicle with 60-some votes and with 260-some votes in the House was not going to be included in this omnibus bill, I must tell my colleagues, I was very upset. In light of the fact that the leadership of the Appropriations Committee of the Senate as a whole and of the Commerce Committee, at least on one side of the Commerce Committee, have indicated to me they will introduce and move rapidly, as best they can, funding for Amtrak-- I will not take the time to go into what it all does and what it means--then that is good enough for me. I will withdraw any attempt to delay consideration of this final bill. Also, I know Senator Moynihan and Senator Lautenberg are leaving. Senator Lautenberg has been Mr. Amtrak. Senator Lautenberg, since he has been here, in large part because of his disposition and in no small part because of the particular position of authority he occupied on the Appropriations Committee, has been--I ride a train every day and people say to me: You know, Joe, thanks for defending Amtrak. I say: No, don't thank me, call Senator Lautenberg. I literally say that because it is true. Also on the floor is a Senator who is Mr. Transportation. He has given us all a lesson, as only he can, for the past 18 years on the necessity of Amtrak not merely in the Northeast corridor, but there is no alternative in this Nation to not have a mass transit interstate system. I want everybody to understand--again, I will put something in the Record; I won't take the time now--this is not just parochially important to the Senators from Delaware, New Jersey, Vermont, Massachusetts, all of whom are on the floor. This is important to Florida; it is important to the Southeast corridor; it is important to Oregon, Washington, Nevada. This is the only alternative we have. It seems to me, after discussion with the men I have named today--the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, the Senator from Mississippi, the Senator from North Dakota, and others--that we are all singing from the same hymnal now. There seems to be for the first time in my recollection, I say to my friend from New York who is standing, a genuine acknowledgment that there is no transportation scheme in America that will serve America without a major component of it being a rapid transit interstate system for passengers. I am looking forward to this being the first bipartisan effort next year. I sincerely hope the incoming President will understand our regional needs. I conclude by saying I thought federalism was about one section of the Nation helping other sections of the Nation that, in fact, had needs but needed additional assistance. There would be no water flowing in Arizona were it not for the people of Massachusetts, the people of New York, the people of New Jersey, Delaware, and other States subsidizing that water extensively to the tune of probably somewhere above $16 billion over time, and we should do that.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to David B. Hermelin, former U.S. Ambassador to Norway, who passed away on November 22. After a distinguished business and philanthropic career in his native Michigan, Mr. Hermelin was nominated as envoy to Norway by President Clinton in 1997 and confirmed by the Senate that same year. Members of this Chamber know that, as might be expected with any large group, over the years the performance of our ambassadors, both career diplomats and political appointees, have varied widely. By any standard, David Hermelin's tenure was spectacularly successful. In the short space of two years, Ambassador Hermelin managed a remarkable feat: strengthening the already close ties between our ally Norway and the United States. His diplomatic and personal charm led to unprecedented reciprocal visits within three weeks of each other last year--the Norwegian Prime Minister's to Washington, and President Clinton's to Oslo, the first ever visit of an incumbent President to Norway, in this case in pursuit of a Middle Eastern peace settlement. But Ambassador Hermelin's accomplishments were not limited to such highly publicized events. Through behind-the-scenes daily efforts, he was directly instrumental in the success of Lockheed Martin's bid, as part of a consortium, to sell the Norwegian Navy five new frigates equipped with the Aegis missile system, a sale worth more than one billion dollars. Ambassador Hermelin was recognized for his many contributions by being awarded the Royal Norwegian Order of Merit, the highest honor the country bestows upon non-Norwegians. Even after Ambassador Hermelin was diagnosed with a terminal illness, he vigorously played a major role to help others through an international initiative to provide prostheses to victims of civil conflict, such as in Sierra Leone. On his visit to Oslo in November 1999, President Clinton, in speaking of Ambassador Hermelin, reflected on this kind of behavior: ``I don't know anyone who has such a remarkable combination of energy and commitment to the common good.'' After diagnosis of his terminal illness, he and a group of friends donated ten million dollars to establish a brain tumor center at Henry Ford Hospital in Michigan. Ambassador Hermelin felt deeply connected to Israel and to Jewish causes, raising millions of dollars for local Detroit and overseas needs. After the Ambassador's death, the U.S. State Department's Norway desk officer offered this heartfelt testimony: ``David Hermelin was the kind of man who made a friend out of everybody he met, and the people who worked for him at the embassy regarded him with an affection that is unmatched by the feelings I've seen for any other ambassador at any time to any country.'' Ambassador Hermelin is survived by his wife, five children, and eight grandchildren. He will be sorely missed by all who knew him, particularly by his colleagues in the U.S. Government.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today we reach a point that has been far too long in coming: a vote on final passage of bankruptcy reform. Just two days ago, the Senate voted overwhelmingly--67 to 31--to end debate on this legislation. I expect the same strong endorsement in today's vote. For reasons that we are all aware of, it has been a prolonged and complicated process that has brought us to this point today. In one of our very first votes this year, the Senate passed bankruptcy reform legislation by the overwhelming margin of 83 to 14. Similar legislation passed the House last year, 313 to 108. I personally believe that we should not have waited for legislation that passed both Houses by overwhelming margins, many months ago, to finally reach the floor of the Senate in the last hours of this session. For vast, bipartisan majorities of both houses, the idea that we need to restore some balance to our bankruptcy code is not controversial. The legislation before us today does indeed tighten current law. It assures that those who have the ability to pay--but only those with the ability to pay--will have to complete at least a partial repayment plan. This fundamental change will affect probably fewer than 10 percent of the people who file for bankruptcy, and only those who have the demonstrated ability to pay. I would bet, that most of our constituents would be surprised to find that is not the case today. Today's code makes no clear distinction between those who have the income to pay some of their debts and those whose only recourse is to sell off whatever assets they have to pay their creditors. The bill before us corrects that basic flaw. I am convinced that flaw has a lot to do with the fact that bankruptcy filings have been at record levels in recent years, in spite of the strongest economy we have ever enjoyed. And--contrary to some of the assertions we have heard recently, those filings are not going down. After a leveling off, following interest rate reductions a couple of years ago that made credit easier, the latest statistics show a revival in the record wave of bankruptcy filings in recent months. The problem has not gone away--and the growing evidence of a slowing economy means we should expect even more filings in the coming months. The fact is, Mr. President, that we have before us legislation that is the result of weeks of debate and amendment here on the Senate floor last year. Although we could not convene a formal conference, further bipartisan discussions continued this summer, including the direct participation of the White House. I ask my colleagues to consider how closely the legislation before us today matches the letter and the spirit of the bill that had such overwhelming support earlier this year. I also strongly urge the President to reconsider his threat to veto this legislation, that contains many provisions that are the product of direct negotiations with his White House. I know that important voices in his administration continue to support bankruptcy reform, and I hope that he will heed their advice. We still have a strong safe harbor, to protect families below the median income, along with adjustments for additional expenses that will assure that only those with real ability to pay will be steered from Chapter Seven to Chapter 13. Senate language, that gives judges the discretion to determine whether there are special circumstances that justify those expenses, prevailed over stricter House language. Beyond that, the Senate-passed safe harbor provision has actually been strengthened, with additional protection for those between 100 and 150 percent of the national median income, who are largely exempted from the means test. Compared to current law, this legislation provides increased protections against creditors who try to abuse the reaffirmation process. This bill also imposes new requirements on credit card companies to explain to their customers the implications of making minimum payments on their bills every month. And a feature of this legislation that I think deserves much more emphasis is its historic improvement in the treatment of family support payments--child support and alimony. Compared to current law, there are numerous specific new protections for those who depend on those payments. The improvements are so important that they have the endorsement of the National Child Support Enforcement Association, the National District Attorneys Association, and the National Association of Attorneys General. These are the people who are actually in the businesses of making sure that family support payments are made. One passage from a letter sent to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee deserves repeating here, Mr. President. Referring to the very real advantages which this legislation would provide to the women and children who depend on those support payments, they say that, and I quote ``defeat of this legislation based on vague and unarticulated fears'' would be ``throwing out the baby with the bathwater.'' I think this last line from the letter deserves special stress: ``No one who has a genuine interest in the collection of support should permit such inexplicit and speculative fears to supplant the specific and considerable advantages which this reform legislation provides to those in need of support.'' Mr. President, I can think of no stronger rebuttal to the arguments we have heard recently about the supposed effects of this legislation on the women and children who depend on alimony and child support. Finally, Mr. President, I want to briefly address two issues that have been raised by the President, and by opponents of this legislation. I honestly believe that compared to the many substantial victories for Senate positions, those two issues fall far short of justifying a change in the overwhelming support bankruptcy reform has received in the last two sessions of Congress. First, there is the issue of the homestead cap. One of the most egregious examples of abuse under current law is the ability of wealthy individuals, on the eve of filing for bankruptcy, to shelter income from legitimate creditors by buying an expensive house in one of the handful of states that have an unlimited homestead exemption in bankruptcy. It is one of the most egregious abuses, Mr. President, but it is actually pretty rare, involving only a very few of the millions of bankruptcies that have been filed in recent years. Nevertheless, it is an abuse that should be eliminated. Senator Kohl and Senator Sessions have been the leaders in the Senate on this. They are the reason why the Senate included a strong provision--a ``hard cap'' of $100,000 on the value of a home that could be exempt from creditors in bankruptcy. That provision is not in the bill before us today, Mr. President, but the worst abuse--the last-minute move to shelter assets from creditors--has been eliminated. To be eligible for any state's homestead exemption, a bankruptcy filer must have lived in that state for the last two years before filing. If you buy a home within two years of filing, your exemption is capped at $100,000. That is a huge improvement over current law. So I say to my colleagues: if you want to eliminate the worse abuse of the homestead exemption, then you will vote for the conference report before us today. That brings us to the last of the major issues--one that we have come to call the Schumer Amendment, because of the energy and dedication of my friend and colleague from New York. We all know of the confrontations--sometimes peaceful, sometimes tragically violent--that have occurred in recent years between pro-life and pro-choice groups over access to family planning clinics. Because of the threat to the Constitutional rights of the people who run those clinics and their patrons, Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, the Free Access to Clinic Entrances Act in 1993. That law makes it a crime--punishable by fines as well as imprisonment--to block access to family planning clinics. Some of those who have been arrested and prosecuted under that law have brazenly announced that they plan to file for bankruptcy, to escape the consequences of their crimes--specifically, to avoid paying damages. Some of these individuals have in fact filed for bankruptcy. But in no case--in no case that I am aware of, Mr. President, or that the Congressional Research Service has been able to find--has any individual escaped a single dollar's liability by filing for bankruptcy. Not a dollar, not a dime, not a penny. It hasn't happened, and it won't happen. The reason is simple: current bankruptcy already states that such settlements--for ``willful and malicious'' conduct-- are not dischargeable in bankruptcy. If that were not enough, current case law supports a very strong reading of that provision of current law. When one clinic demonstrator--who violated a restraining order--attempted to have the settlement against her wiped out in bankruptcy, her claim was rejected out of hand. The violation of a restraining order setting physical limits around a clinic has been ruled to be ``wilful and malicious'' under the current code. The penalties she was assessed were not dischargeable. Mr. President, the Congressional Research Service, as of October 26, conducted an exhaustive, authoritative search which, and I quote: ``did not reveal any reported decisions where such liability was discharged under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.'' So the current bankruptcy statute--and the most recent case law on this point--all say that the Schumer Amendment is not needed. That is to take nothing away from the hard work and dedication of my friend and colleague on the Judiciary Committee, or to minimize the frustration and outrage many Americans feel at the announced attempts to abuse the bankruptcy code. It is simply to say that the women who use and who operate family planning clinics are not without recourse, and not without the full protection of the law, under the current bankruptcy code. I repeat, Mr. President: no one has escaped liability under the Fair Access to Clinics Entrances Act through an abuse of the bankruptcy code. No one. So, Mr. President, we will vote today on a conference report that has a strong Senate stamp on it, that contains important victories for Senate positions, victories that make the bill in some ways fairer and more balanced than the version that passed here in January by an overwhelming vote. While the homestead provision is not what I hoped it would be, I will vote for closing the worst aspects of the homestead loophole in the current code. I will not let the best be the enemy of the good. And I will vote for this conference report confident that family planning clinics, and the women who need and use them, will continue to enjoy the full protection available under current law. I urge my colleagues to join me.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I will not use all of the time. We will hear from our friend from Massachusetts and others on this floor about how this has harmed women and children in support payments. That is simply, flat out not true. We have improved the position of women. We have improved the position of children. We have improved the position of people who do not have much money. We have included a safe harbor provision, saying that unless you meet a certain minimum income level, you don't even get considered in this process. This is a good bill subject to a lot of exaggeration. My good friend from New York had a very good provision which I supported relating to abortion clinics and bombs. There can't be any intimidation of any kind. You cannot declare bankruptcy in this country under present bankruptcy law if you engage in activities which under the FACE Act are prohibited. There is no court in the Nation that has said that. People are trying to get out of bankruptcy. They are trying to be discharged. But the courts have not discharged them and will not discharge them. I would like to see the Schumer amendment become law. But, in fact, it is not necessary to protect the very people we want to protect and to hold responsible those who engage in that kind of activity under the FACE Act. I hope reason will overcome passion. I hope the truth will overcome exaggeration. But I have been in this institution 28 years and who knows? I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I understand that I have possibly up to 2 minutes.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor our respected colleague, my friend, and a true gentleman of the United States Senate--Bill Roth. I have had the honor to serve side-by-side with the senior senator from Delaware for nearly 28 years. Never once have any of you nor anyone in our home State of Delaware--ever heard me say an ill, unkind or negative word about him. And I might add --nor he of me. In my case, there is a good reason for this. He has never given me cause to say anything negative. I, personally, and my state collectively--genuinely respect and like Bill Roth. He is a true gentleman--with all the politeness, honesty and integrity that word connotes. Personally, I will greatly miss his companionship and friendship. We have racked up more miles on Amtrak between Wilmington and Washington than probably anyone in history! On our train rides, we would often talk about how we could best work together on a project for Delaware. And we would discuss pressing legislative business. But we'd also talk about family and children and grandchildren. Bill Roth has served Delawareans with great distinction for 34 years. Since 1970, he has served in the Senate, and before that, four years in the U.S. House of Representatives. Bill Roth is a living legend in Delaware. In a sentence--he is the longest-serving elected official in the history of Delaware. And he has made his name known across this country, and throughout the world. Think about the men and women who have served in the United States Senate--the true giants. Only a handful have programs or laws named after them and for which they will forever be known. Bill Roth is one of those giants. He has not one, but two historic laws that bear his name--the Roth-Kemp tax cut of the 1980s, and of course, the Roth I.R.A. On foreign affairs, Senator Roth is an internationalist. He has met with and is respected by more world leaders than most U.S. Presidents. There is no doubt in my mind that without Bill Roth, we would not have NATO enlargement or Normal Permanent Trade Relations with China. He is the former President of the North Atlantic Assembly--which is a parliamentary arm of NATO--and served as co-chair with me of the Senate NATO Observer Group. As a staunch believer in strong security alliances in not only Europe, but also Asia, he helped lead the effort for NATO enlargement and currently serves on the boards for the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Board of the Pan-Pacific Association. He also is active in the Asia Pacific Parliamentary Forum. Beside the international and financial arenas, Senator Roth has made his mark on environmental issues as well. He is a recipient of the Wilderness Society's prestigious ``Ansel Adams'' Award for his work to protect pristine lands, such as the coastal plain of Alaska--fighting many in his own party who want to open up that national treasure to oil exploration. The breadth of Bill Roth's contributions to this nation seem to be without limits. He understands how government works and when it doesn't serve the public the way it should, he's stepped forward to fix things. Whether it's general government restructuring, overhauling the IRS to end taxpayer abuses, or reforming the welfare system, he has left his mark. And when Amtrak needed critical support to advance to high speed rail, he championed the act to commit more than $2 billion for capital improvements. With all his distinguished awards and landmark legislation, Bill Roth also is part of the so-called ``Greatest Generation,'' serving our country in World War II. He rose to the rank of captain and earned the Bronze Star for his service in the Pacific. Like his war service, there is much Senator Roth does in Delaware for which he never seeks headlines nor credit. Every year, for the past 30 years, he has hosted and organized a Youth Conference for high school students throughout the State. This is an enormous undertaking to coordinate--involving high school principals, teachers, students and well-known keynote speakers. He has done it all solely for the kids. I am certain many of those students over the years are now serving as leaders in our businesses, non-profit organizations, and some even hold public office now themselves. I realize it's rare, and somewhat awkward, for one member of this body to stand up and so publicly honor his fellow, distinguished Senator. But Bill Roth deserves that and much more. Senator Roth has been a friend, partner and confidant to me over the years. Delawareans also will miss the pleasant, extremely competent and caring service of Senator Roth's staff. From veterans to members of the business community--from seniors to school students--from the fire service to the armed forces--from the City of Wilmington to the beach communities--Senator Roth and his staff were highly regarded for their friendly, responsive and highly-professional constituent services. And I know that beyond all his legislative accomplishments, Senator Roth is most proud of his wife of 35 years--The Honorable Jane Richards Roth--his son Bud who is an attorney in Delaware--his daughter, Katy who is a physician--and his two grandsons, Bobby and Charlie. This body is losing more than a powerful Committee chairman, who used that power wisely, judicially and compassionately. The United States Senate is losing a genuine gentleman. He has served the citizens of Delaware with honor and integrity for nearly 34 years. Our State, our country and the United States Senate are so much better for his service. The British statesman and philosopher, Edmund Burke, said in a speech at Bristol: The worthy gentleman who has been snatched from us at the moment of the election, and in the middle of the contest, whilst his desires were as warm and his hopes as eager as ours, has feelingly told us what shadows we are, and what shadows we pursue. Senator Roth's shadow will stay with this body for years to come as we pursue the principles he stood for.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed in morning business for 10 minutes.

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

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, we just had a vote on a cloture motion on the bankruptcy bill, which did not prevail; that is, cloture was not invoked. I just want to make a short statement now because we will be back at this again. This has been a prolonged and complicated process that brought us to this point today. I personally believe it need not have been so long nor have been so complicated. We should not have had to wait for this legislation as long as we have. We should have just stepped up to this earlier. But here we are. I heard a number of things stated in the well of the Senate as we were voting on cloture relative to this legislation about which I think people were misinformed. A lot of statements were being made that did not reflect what is actually in this bankruptcy bill. I know many of my colleagues are not happy with the bill. But on balance the bankruptcy reform bill still deserves the strong support of the Senate. We will return to this issue later this month, and I would like to put to rest some of the assertions made. We have what we call a very strong safe harbor provision in this bill, to protect families that are below the median income, along with allowing them adjustments for additional expenses, that will assure that only those with the real ability to pay in bankruptcy are steered from chapter 7 to chapter 13. The Senate language, giving judges the discretion to determine whether or not there are special circumstances that justify those expenses, prevailed over the very strict House language. The bottom line is, if you are someone who is listed by the national statistics as being poor--many folks keep saying poor folks will be hurt by this--you are not even in the deal here. You are not even in the deal. You are protected. That is what we mean by the safe harbor. This provision has been strengthened with an additional protection for those between 100 and 150 percent of the national median income. So if you have an income that is 150 percent above the median income, you will get only a very cursory means test. I heard on the floor today people saying how poor folks and lower middle income folks were really going to be hurt by this. That is simply not true. Compared to current law, this provision provides increased protection against creditors who try to abuse the so-called reaffirmation process. This bill imposes new requirements on credit card companies to explain to their customers the implications of making minimum payments on their bills every month. A feature of this legislation that I think deserves much more emphasis is historic improvement in the treatment for family support payments, child support, and alimony. I heard my colleagues on my side of the aisle down there saying this hurts women and children. Compared to current law, there are numerous new, specific protections for those who depend on support payments and alimony payments. The improvements are so important that they have the endorsement--I want everybody to hear this--they have the endorsement of the National Child Support Enforcement Association. This is the outfit that comes to us and says: Look, you have to provide additional help in seeing to it that child support payments are paid by deadbeat dads. The National Child Support Enforcement Association, the National Association of District Attorneys, the National Association of Attorneys General, they all support this bill because of these protections. These are the people who actually are in the business of making sure family support payments are made. One passage from the letter sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee deserves repeating. Referring to critics of the legislation, those men and women who are on the front lines of the struggle to enforce family support agreements say: For the critics appear content to sacrifice the palpable advantages which this legislation would provide to support creditors-- That is, the women and children who depend on support payments. to defeat of this legislation, based on the vague and unarticulated fears that women will be unfairly disadvantaged as bankruptcy creditors--in more ways than one, the critics would favor throwing out the baby with the bath water. This is a letter from the people who go out on behalf of women, collecting child support payments for their children. They say this bankruptcy bill is a good bill. I think the last line from the letter deserves special stress. I quote: No one who has a genuine interest in the collection of support should permit such inexplicit and speculative fears to supplant the specific and considerable advantages which this reform legislation provides to those who need support. I can think of no stronger rebuttal to the arguments we have seen and heard recently about the supposed effects of this legislation on women and children who depend on alimony and child support. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I want to briefly address two issues that have been raised by the President and by the opponents of this legislation. I honestly believe, compared to the many substantial victories for the Senate position in this legislation, these two issues fall short of justifying a change in the overwhelming support bankruptcy reform has received in the last two sessions of Congress. First, there is the issue of this homestead cap. I heard people on the floor voting, saying: There is no protection in here, no protection at all. You just let people get away. You allow the Burt Reynolds of the world to go out there and buy multimillion-dollar homes and then declare bankruptcy. This is unfair. First of all, do you think any of the creditors want that to happen? The companies are concerned about this, along with interest groups that are concerned about this. And on the consumer side, do you think they want people being able to escape having to pay what they owe because they are able to bury assets in a multimillion-dollar home? So where is this coming from? First, the homestead cap. One of the most egregious examples of abuse under the current law is the ability of wealthy individuals, on the eve of filing for bankruptcy, having the ability to shelter their income from legitimate creditors by buying an expensive home in one of a handful of States that have an unlimited homestead exemption in bankruptcy. This is one of the most egregious abuses, but it is actually pretty rare, involving only a few of the millions of bankruptcies that have been filed in recent years. Nevertheless, it is an abuse that should be eliminated. There are reasons that the Senate included a strong provision. That was a hard cap of $100,000 in the value of a home; that is, if your home was worth more than $100,000, your creditors could go after the remainder of that money, but if it was $100,000 or less, your creditors could not get it because we have a principle in this country of not taking away your home based on bankruptcy. This provision, though, was struck by the House. They did not like the hard cap of $100,000. So what we did was we reached a compromise to avoid the worst abuses as a last-minute move to shelter assets from creditors. That last-minute move to avoid legitimate debts has been eliminated. To be eligible under any State's homestead exemption, a bankruptcy filer must have lived in that State for the last 2 years before filing. If you buy a home within 2 years of filing, your exemption is capped at $100,000. Put another way, you have to have a pretty good estate plan in order to escape bankruptcy by buying a multimillion-dollar home. You have to know, under the law, if we had passed it today--and 2 years from now you go bankrupt--so you go out 2 years ahead of time and move into a State that allows you to buy a multimillion-dollar home to escape bankruptcy. So you move into that State 2 years ahead of time, and 2 years ahead of time you buy the home. You take all your assets that you are worried it is going to cost you, and you put them into a home. Let me tell the Senate, that is a pretty good plan. I don't know how many people know over 2 years ahead of time that they are going to go bankrupt and take all their money out and put it into a home. Granted, I would prefer a hard cap, but the truth is, if you don't buy the home 2 years prior to declaring bankruptcy, the cap is $100,000. So there are a lot of canards that have been used to defeat this cloture motion. I might say to my colleagues, if they want to eliminate the worst abuse of the homestead exemption, then they should have voted for the conference report. That brings me to the last major issue, the one that has, unfortunately, generated a lot more heat than light. That is what we have come to call--and I saw my colleague a moment ago--the Schumer amendment, because of the energy and dedication of my friend and worthy opponent, in this case--hardly ever in any other case--Senator Schumer. We all know of the confrontations, sometimes peaceful, sometimes tragically violent, that have occurred in recent years between pro-life and pro-choice groups over access to family planning clinics. Because of the threat to the constitutional right of the people who run those clinics and their patrons, Congress, with my support and President Clinton's signature, passed a bill, the strongest proponent of which was the Senator from New York, the Free Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1993. The law makes it a crime punishable by fines as well as imprisonment to block access to family planning clinics. Some of those who have been arrested and prosecuted under the law have brazenly announced that they plan to declare bankruptcy to escape the consequences of their crimes, specifically to avoid paying damages. Some of those individuals have, in fact, filed bankruptcy. But in no case--in no case that I am aware of or anyone else can show me or no case that the Congressional Research Service was able to find--has any individual escaped paying a single dollar of liability by filing bankruptcy. Not a dollar, not a dime, not a penny, it hasn't happened. I don't believe it will happen. The reason is simple: Current bankruptcy law already states that such settlements for ``willful and malicious conduct'' are not dischargeable in bankruptcy. If that were not enough, current case law supports a very strong reading of the provisions of the current law. When one clinic demonstrator who violated a restraining order attempted to have a settlement against her be wiped out in bankruptcy, her claim was rejected out of hand by the court. The violation of the restraining order setting physical limits around the clinic has been ruled to be willful and malicious under the current code. The penalties assessed against the violator were not dischargeable in bankruptcy. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a letter from the Congressional Research Service confirming, as of October 26, that an exhaustive authoritative search did not reveal any reported decisions where such liability was discharged under U.S. bankruptcy code.

Mr. BIDEN. Again, Mr. President, the only case I could find, in fact, held, as I had predicted, that willful and malicious conduct denies you from being discharged in bankruptcy, in a case where a woman was arrested for violating a restraining order or getting too close to the clinic, tried to discharge the fines against her in bankruptcy, and could not. I repeat: No one has escaped liability under the Fair Access to Clinic Entrances Act through the abuse of the bankruptcy code, not one. As strongly as feelings are on both sides of this issue, the Schumer amendment is, I must say, a solution in search of a problem. I would support it just to make sure we have the extra protection, but in the absence of the Schumer amendment, there is no reason for the Senate to reverse its opinion on the legislation that had received such strong support. We voted today on trying to get to a conference report that had a strong Senate stamp on it. I think we made a mistake. I think part of the reason why we made a mistake in not invoking cloture was we had a number of absences. There are 16 or 17 or 18 absences, as I count it; 15 or thereabouts were for cloture. But we will come back to it again, as the majority leader has said. This does not in any way do anything to allow people to violate the free access to clinics law. And it actually helps women and children who depend on support payments and alimony payments. I will speak to it more later. I see the majority leader is on the floor for important business. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.