John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

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

Mr. KERRY. There is objection.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of our time. Mr. HAGEL addressed the Chair.

Mr. KERRY. I yield an additional minute to the Senator.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia for those views and for entering into this colloquy with me.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his explanation and his views. I believe that the administration must pursue the development of these tools and initiatives and their inclusion in any binding treaty that is arrived at in order to reduce any negative impact of higher energy prices on our economy. And I believe this would certainly enhance the prospects of Senate approval of any treaty that is arrived at.

Mr. KERRY. I yield to the Senator for his views on that.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to ask the views of the Senator from West Virginia on the proposal by the Europeans to erect the so-called European bubble, and its effect on U.S. competitiveness. It appears to me that this proposal is driven more by economic considerations than concern for limiting carbon dioxide emissions.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, not necessarily. I am going to wait until I have had a moment to discuss this with Senator Chafee. But we can proceed with the debate. There are people on his side that would like to speak. I will reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. KERRY. We will let the Senator from West Virginia speak for himself. But it is my understanding that the Senator from West Virginia has a different view.

Mr. KERRY. To answer the Senator, since he wanted to engage in this discussion, no one has suggested any such thing, and I would be against that, also. Second, the Senator would have to agree with me that this resolution is silent on the issue of emissions trading. That is what I said; I said it is silent.

Mr. KERRY. How doesn't it reflect on it?

Mr. KERRY. Let me answer the Senator by saying we don't disagree with that at all.

Mr. KERRY. I will finish up, and then I want to reserve some time for Senator Chafee, and others. If I can complete, then and the Senator, on his time, can certainly ask any question that he wants to. Let me just say that we believe very strongly that we need to put a structure in place that will provide incentives for nations and industries to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases. And we believe, obviously, the developing world is poised to undertake a massive infrastructure investment in energy, transportation, and other potentially high-emitting sectors. These investments are going to have long-term capital stock lifetimes, and if we were to exclude that discussion of them being part of this, it would be an enormous error of judgment, I think, for the longrun of this effort. One final comment I will make on the science. Even if we were to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions today to 1990 levels, you will still continue to have the greenhouse gas warming effect, because the life of these gases in the atmosphere will go on for 75 years, or longer, into the future and because of the cumulative effect and the lack of knowledge about where you may have a saturation point or a devastating impact, caution and common sense predicate that we should do everything possible in order to avoid the potential of that kind of catastrophe. I reserve the balance of our time. Mr. HAGEL addressed the Chair.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. It is my understanding the majority leader in the prior order already requested 30 minutes.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--I will not object--I simply ask the majority leader if he would modify that further, per our agreement, that they would be first-degree amendments with no second-degree amendments.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this amendment continues the successful COPS ``Community Policing to Combat Domestic Violence'' Program. Police departments currently use these COPS funds for domestic violence training and support. This amendment would allow local law enforcement agencies to renew their grant funding so they can continue to employ innovative community policing strategies to combat domestic violence. Mr. President, domestic violence is a very serious national problem. Almost four million American women were physically abused by their husbands or boyfriends in the last year alone. A woman is physically abused every 9 seconds in the United States. Women are victims of domestic violence more often than they are victims of burglary, muggings, and all other physical crimes combined. In fact, 42 percent of women who are murdered are killed by their intimate male partners. In Massachusetts, 33 women were killed in domestic related cases in 1995. This amendment is necessary to fight this epidemic of domestic violence. Mr. President, this problem of domestic violence affects all classes and all races. More than one in three Americans have witnessed an incident of domestic violence according to a recent nationwide survey released by the Family Violence Prevention Fund. Mr. President, battering accounts for one-fifth of all medical visits by women and one-third of all emergency room visits by women in the U.S. each year. As Dartmouth, MA, Police Chief Stephen Soares said recently, domestic violence ``goes from the lowest economic planes to the highest in terms of professional persons. There isn't a line drawn in terms of profession or money.'' Domestic violence hurts women and hurts our economy. The Bureau of National Affairs estimates that domestic violence costs employers between $3 billion and $5 billion each year in lost work time and decreased productivity. In a recent survey of senior business executives, 49 percent said that domestic violence has a harmful effect on their company's productivity. Forty-seven percent said domestic violence negatively affects attendance and 44 percent said domestic violence increases health care costs. Mr. President, domestic violence also has tragic effects on children. Children who witness the violence often do poorly in school, repeat the pattern of either victim or abuser as adults, and are more prone to have a variety of emotional problems. According to Linda Aguiar, the head of ``Our Sisters' Place'' in Fall River, Massachusetts, ``One child that was at the shelter, we found out he had taken knives from the kitchen and hid them in the bedroom. He did this because he was afraid his father would come. He thought his father would come and put a ladder to the window.'' To attempt to deal with these problems, Congress in the 1994 Crime Act provided that up to 15 percent of the funding for the COPS program could be made available for innovative community policing activities. A small part of that money, $47 million, was made available to police departments for domestic violence training and support. I would like to read excerpts from a letter I received from the Chief of Police of Chelmsford, MA, about the COPS Domestic Violence program. He said, ``It has come to my attention that the federal grant entitled `Community Oriented Policing Services Combating Domestic Violence' '' (COPS) has not been approved--As you know, domestic violence is a serious law enforcement and societal problem that we are just beginning to face. Every year, millions of women are abused and hundreds are murdered by members of their own family. It's time that society began viewing these atrocities as a crime. We must put forward the necessary attention and funding to solve this problem. The COPS grant does exactly that. It provides advocacy, training, and research toward ending this problem. Without this funding victims of domestic abuse and police officers will have nowhere to turn for support, education, resources and training.'' Mr. President, the COPS Domestic Violence Program has been a success. In Massachusetts, police departments have used the money to fund many anti-domestic violence activities: The Gardner Police Department and a local battered women's resource center were able to establish school-based support groups for children affected by violence in their homes. More than 250 children ages 5-10 have benefited from this program. In Somerville, nearly 100 city police officers and an equal number of representatives of local non-profit service agencies received anti- domestic violence training. As a result, a young woman who appeared in the Emergency Room seeking assistance for domestic violence was referred to a nurse supervisor who helped her get a restraining order, safety planning, and other support. Officers in the Domestic Violence Unit of the Fall River Police Department, in coordination with a local battered women's and children's shelter, have been able to conduct personal follow-up in more than 1,100 incidents of domestic violence since September of 1996. Mr. President, before these funds were available, many local law enforcement agencies lacked the resources to provide anti-domestic violence training and support. In 1995 prior to the awarding of the COPS domestic violence grant, police in Gardner, MA were called to intervene in a dispute involving domestic abuse. Due to the lack of cooperation from the victim, officers did not have sufficient evidence to arrest her boyfriend, but instead were only able to escort him off the property. Two hours after the incident, the victim's boyfriend returned to the property and set it afire, and the woman was killed by asphyxiation. Subsequent to this crime the suspect was arrested, convicted of the crime with which he was charged and sentenced to time in prison. This incident demonstrated the need for a victim's advocate employed by the police department who might have been able to convince the woman of her need for help and then intervene on her behalf. Due to the COPS Domestic Violence grants, the Gardner Police Department now has the resources to more successfully combat domestic violence. When the Department of Justice announced these Community Policing to Combat Domestic Violence grants on June 1, 1996, police departments were promised 1 year of funding with the ability to receive two additional years of funding. Unfortunately, these successful Domestic Violence programs will be denied the additional 2 years of funding because of a little-noticed change, included in the appropriations bill report language, which no longer allows up to 15 percent of COPS funds to be used for innovative community policing activities such as anti- domestic violence training and support for local law enforcement agencies. Our amendment earmarks $47 million of the $503 million provided by the Commerce/State/Justice Appropriation bill for the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) to renew funding of grants made under the COPS Domestic Violence Program. It is appropriate that this money be earmarked for this purpose because the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program was designed to provide funds to local governments to fund crime reduction and public safety improvements broadly defined. Additionally, the LLEBG already contains several earmarks in the C/S/J Appropriations bill: $2.4 million for discretionary grants for local law enforcement to form specialized cyber units to prevent child sexual exploitation, and $20 million for the Boys and Girls Clubs. Some will argue that this appropriations bill increases funding for the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and that therefore no additional funds are needed to confront domestic violence. However, that is incorrect for three reasons. First, the increase in funding for the Violence Against Women Act is only $15 million, far less than the $47 million needed to renew the COPS Domestic Violence grants. Second, only 25 percent of the VAWA money goes to police departments--most of the rest goes to prosecution and direct victims services. Third, most of the VAWA money for police departments goes to buy equipment, not for training and support. Mr. President, this funding is necessary to help police departments to deal with the epidemic of domestic violence. I would like to thank Senators Dodd, Lautenberg, and Johnson for joining me in proposing this important amendment and urge all my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. KERRY. I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we temporarily lay aside the amendment for the purpose of introducing my amendment, and the moment my introduction is completed that the pending amendment will return and be the pending amendment.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I had a discussion with the Senator from North Dakota. I am going to be very, very brief, with his indulgence.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, point of personal privilege, I would simply like to indulge the attention of the Chair. I do this in the most gentle, appropriate way as possible. I have the utmost respect for the Senator from Indiana. The rules of the Senate are, Senators are recognized as a right of first voice heard by the Chair. Three voices were raised on this side of the aisle. And while I have enormous respect and affection for the Senator from Indiana, I do not think his voice had even been expressed, but he was recognized. I think the Chair should proceed, if I may say, by the rules of the Senate.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I understand while I was reserving the right to object somebody else actually lodged an objection.