Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank the Senator from New Jersey for yielding me time. I want to commend Senator Kennedy and Senator Hatch for their leadership on this critical issue. I rise in support of their amendment. Let us be very clear. What we are talking about today is providing health care for the children of the working families of this country. And despite the budget agreement's impressive commitment of resources to Medicaid, particularly for children's health care, it is not sufficient to cover all the children in this country. The Senator from Utah was very eloquent and accurate in describing the vast gap that is still left despite the resources being made available to Medicaid. And why is it important that we provide health care for all of our children? Because every day we learn from medical science the critical--the critical--role of good health care in the development of children. Prenatal care, early infant care from zero to 3, and continuous health care for children are critical factors in providing for the intellectual and social development of children. If children do not have that health care, if we do not allow these young people access to high quality health care, we are incurring a huge cost to society and a huge limitation on their potential and their ability to contribute to society. Just last week, we celebrated the passage of the IDEA, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Part of it was a further commitment of significant Federal resources for special education. I wonder how much we could save in that account if we had a fully funded comprehensive health care program for all the children in this country. I think it would be significant. There is something else that is also very clear, and it is why this bill is so compelling in its logic. It is very clear that smoking is the No. 1 public health threat to this country. One out of five deaths in this society are attributed to smoking. And, sadly, 3,000 teenagers a day are turning to that habit. This legislation, the proposed amendment, recognizes the need for good health care for all of our children, and the way to fund that health care is through an increase in the tax on cigarettes. It is sound fiscal policy. It represents a pay-as-you-go strategy. Also, it represents a further deficit reduction because part of these funds will be applied to reducing the deficit. In effect, it is consistent with the very, very core of what we are about here today-- providing access to good health care, sound policies for public health, and being fiscally responsible by reducing the deficit. And there is something else worth pointing out today. Many of the opponents of this legislation will point to the dire consequences of increasing the tax on cigarettes to the tobacco industry and certain regions of the country. But let me share with you what the cigarette companies themselves are contemplating. Weeks ago, when there was discussion of a possible settlement for some of the liability claims, most financial analysts conceded that the companies would routinely raise the price of cigarettes by 50 cents a pack, causing a slight decline in their number of customers--which some would consider a sound business decision. And I do not think there can be anyone on the floor of this body claiming an increase in the price of cigarettes by the companies as an unfortunate tax on low-income Americans. In effect, this tax is not only sound policy for funding this particular program, but also would not lead to the horrendous consequences which are being conjured up on this floor. One of the opponents said that it is a regressive tax, because the richest smoker in America would pay the same as the poorest smoker in America. I can guarantee you, the richest smoker in America has a health insurance policy. I cannot make that same guarantee for the children of this country. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It is sound public health policy. It recognizes that we must make an investment in our children for our own productivity as a Nation and for their own ability to seize all the opportunities of this country. The amendment also is sound fiscal policy because the cigarette tax pays for the program and reduces the deficit. I do not think we can ask for more in this budget. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise as a cosponsor and strong supporter of Senator Moseley-Braun's school infrastructure amendment. One of the major problems facing elementary and secondary education today is the poor condition of our school buildings. In my home state of Rhode Island, many schools are in need of extensive repairs and upgrades. I have visited several of these schools, including the Harris Elementary School in Woonsocket which was built in 1876. To put this in perspective, in 1876 the nation celebrated the centennial of the United States; Rutherford B. Hayes was elected President by one vote; Custer confronted the Sioux at Little Big Horn; Alexander Graham Bell transmitted the first complete sentence by voice over wire; Henry Heinz put ketchup in a bottle; and Colorado became the 38th State. Sadly, the Harris Elementary School's library is a small trailer parked in the school's playground. In addition, I have received compelling footage of the condition of the schools in North Providence, including the Stephen Olney School, which has asbestos in the floors and water damaged classrooms, and the Centredale School, which has leaking classroom ceilings. These examples and numerous others across my State and the Nation show the urgent and real need for a school construction initiative. A problem of this magnitude demands a Federal response. Indeed, a recent General Accounting Office (GAO) report found that in Rhode Island 29 percent of schools report at least one inadequate building of any type; 61 percent have at least one inadequate building feature; 75 percent have at least one unsatisfactory environmental factor, such as heating and ventilation; and 37 percent have insufficient capability for computers. Nationally, the statistics are equally compelling. Fourteen million children, in one-third of the Nation's schools, are learning in buildings that need major renovations or should be replaced outright. Seven million students attend schools with safety code violations, such as the presence of lead paint, asbestos, or radon in the walls, floors, or ceilings. One-third of students study in classrooms without electrical wiring and power outlets to accommodate computers and multimedia equipment. We should not pass up this opportunity to repair our Nation's schools. While the budget resolution before us does include some increases in education funding and provides protection for important education initiatives, the agreement's caps on discretionary funding do not guarantee room for the school construction initiative. The same may also be the case for school reform and efforts to improve the recruitment, education, and mentoring of teachers, for which the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future report, What Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future, suggests almost $5 billion is needed. I urge my colleagues to support the Moseley-Braun amendment, which seeks to make $5 billion available for school repair, renovation, and construction. Indeed, this must be a top priority as we work to provide students a quality education and prepare them for the future. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Feinstein and Daschle amendments and in opposition to H.R. 1122. The decision to proceed with a potentially lethal pregnancy or one that would endanger the future health of the mother should rest with a woman and her doctor. As a general principle, the Government's role in such a difficult decision should be secondary to that of the woman who must inevitably come to terms with her own personal moral, religious, and philosophical beliefs. H.R. 1122 supersedes the medical judgment of trained physicians and criminalizes medical procedures that may be necessary to preserve the life and health of the woman. Indeed, it seeks to restrictively and coercively dictate what constitutes appropriate medical practice. Furthermore, H.R. 1122 does not provide an exception for the health of the mother, thus rejecting the constitutional standard governing postviability abortions set forth in the Supreme Court's decision in Roe versus Wade. Let us make no mistake, Roe versus Wade does not allow a healthy mother of a healthy fetus to have a postviability abortion. During this emotionally charged debate, it is important to keep in mind those unfortunate women who have faced unpredictable, tragic, and life-threatening pregnancies. For instance, two women who endured such grave circumstances shared their stories recently before a joint House- Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. They testified to the heart- wrenching circumstances surrounding their decision--a decision that would have been illegal under this legislation. We have heard these and other equally compelling stories shared by many of my colleagues during this debate today. The amendments offered by Senator Feinstein and Senator Daschle, however, both take into consideration the woman's life and health. The Feinstein amendment bans all postviability abortions, except those necessary to preserve the life of the woman or to avert serious adverse health consequences. The Daschle amendment also bans all postviability abortion, but makes an exception for those necessary to save the mother's life or to protect her from grievous injury to her physical health. I will support these amendments because their sponsors seek to preserve the core principles of Roe versus Wade. Of these two amendments, the Feinstein approach is preferable to meet the tragic and trying circumstances of women facing this agonizing decision. I am concerned that the Daschle amendment may not ensure appropriate medical options for all the possible health-related difficulties faced by some women. If it is the true intention of H.R. 1122's proponents to address late term abortions, I would urge my colleagues to support the Feinstein and Daschle amendments which accords with the Supreme Court's decisions in this area and have been endorsed by the President. Mr. President, the debate on the issue of abortion involves profound questions. Questions of a moral, personal, and religious nature. I do not personally favor abortion. However, my duty as a Senator is to uphold the Constitution and ensure that the power of the State is not used to compel citizens in a manner which contradicts an individual's protected religious and moral beliefs.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his gracious efforts. I rise today to support the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and also to oppose the proposed Gorton amendment. This legislation represents remarkable progress to date, building on progress in the last 20 years with respect to IDEA. In 1975, when IDEA was first passed, 1 million children were excluded from the public school system and another 4 million children did not receive appropriate educational services. Working in a bipartisan manner years ago, Congress passed IDEA, creating a situation in which all children are entitled to a free appropriate public education. IDEA has made a real difference in the lives of children throughout this country. Over 5 million children from birth through age 21 are now enjoying the benefits of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, and it has made a real difference. Indeed, the number of children with disabilities entering college more than tripled during the period between 1978 and 1991. The unemployment rate for those individuals with disabilities in the twenties is half that for the older generation. Simply put, IDEA demonstrates the positive and powerful role that Congress can play and has played. Today's bipartisan and bicameral effort builds on that great success of the last 20 years. I commend particularly Senator Lott, Senator Harkin, Senator Kennedy, Senator Jeffords, Senator Frist, and Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Judith Heumann, for all of their efforts in leading this reauthorization process. In March, I went up to Rhode Island and met with many of the teachers, administrators, parents and families who are deeply involved and deeply concerned about special education. We talked to them, we got their ideas, and I am very pleased to say this legislation incorporates so many of the important ideas that they expressed to us. For example, this legislation promotes greater parental participation by providing parents with regular reports about the progress of their children. It also includes parents in group placement decisions which is so critical to the success of their child. This legislation strengthens the individual education plan, the IEP, by including children with disabilities in school reform efforts and also ensuring that performance assessments includes all children, including children with disabilities. All of these efforts will strengthen the education that is provided to these young Americans. In addition, this legislation strengthens and emphasizes early intervention services which are absolutely critical. In my home State of Rhode Island, we screen every child for disabilities and follow through with those children. People up in Rhode Island speak with great conviction and passion about the success of this aspect of the IDEA bill, and we are building on that success today. This legislation also reduces the paperwork and the litigation that we have seen in the past and strengthening and emphasizing mediation and reconciliation processes rather than going to immediate litigation. Indeed, it also requires that complaints be specified so that we don't get into an endless litigation process. All these things together add, I think, to the sensibility and the streamlining that this legislation represents. With respect to the amendment before us at the moment, it would undercut, I think, most of the progress we have made to date in this reauthorization. It would essentially undercut all of the specific goals and objectives that we have laid out carefully after considering this legislation. It would also, in a sense, undo so much of what has been done so positively and progressively by all parties coming together to deal with this legislation. To defer, once again, to local control I think is to invite what took place before IDEA, not because of insensitivity or any maligned intent, but the fact is, quite frankly, that millions of children with disabilities did not receive an appropriate education. It was only with the passage of IDEA in 1975 that we committed ourselves to ensure that every child, including those with disabilities, would have an appropriate education. This is the commitment we continue today. This is the work of many months by my colleagues who worked so diligently. I hope today we not only will reject this amendment but that we will overwhelmingly reaffirm the work that has been done, pass this bill, move it forward, let the President sign it and let us build on more than two decades of success and, once again, reaffirm our commitment that in this country, every child, regardless of their abilities or disabilities, will have a free appropriate public education. I thank the Senator and yield back the remainder of my time. Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.

Mr. REED. If I may, I would like to comment on the bill in general and the Gorton amendment specifically, if the Senator will yield?

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Yes.

Mr. REED. Approximately 2 minutes.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to S. 4, the Family Friendly Workplace Act. At a time when we should be debating ways to raise the wages of working Americans to reverse two decades of decline, S. 4 proposes comptime policies which will place additional downward pressure on the standard of living of working Americans. Rather than seeking a bipartisan solution to give great flexibility to workers without jeopardizing their income, S. 4 unnecessarily undermines longstanding wage protections afforded American workers. The problem is simple: Working families today find both their time and financial resources stretched to the breaking point. The average working family has not seen their income increase over the past 20 years. In almost two-thirds of families, both mom and dad have to work to make ends meet. Financial resources and family time both are at a premium. Manifestations of the problem are easy to manage, and they occur in various forms every day. We have heard much discussion about the working mom and her problems. The working mom, for example, might get a call from her daughter's school, and the teacher requests a meeting explaining that the child's grades have slipped, and normally the child is a very attentive child, but she has become disruptive. Concerned about her daughter, who is usually a good student, mom seeks to schedule a teacher conference as quickly as possible without diminishing her income. The factory where she works is currently busy, so she approaches the manager and requests to work an hour of overtime this week so she can take an hour and a half to see her daughter's teacher next Thursday. How would S. 4 address this problem? Unfortunately, the answer is, inadequately, if at all. First, under S. 4, a worker cannot avail herself of the program. Comptime is provided solely at the discretion of the employer. It is a program that only the employer can offer. Second, even if the employee had been offered comptime and, indeed, had already worked an hour of overtime, there is no guarantee that she will receive the time off that she needs. The Republican bill nebulously allows an employee to take time off within a reasonable period after making the request time does not unduly disrupt the employer. There are no further guidelines. So, if an employer found the timing of the mother's request was not reasonable or if the time would be unduly disruptive, the request could be denied. Considering the fact that the worker has already earned the right to this compensation, her request for a particular time off deserves deference. Inexplicably, the sponsors of S. 4 rejected an amendment offered in the Labor and Human Resources Committee that would have ensured a worker receive the time requested if the request was made 2 weeks in advance and would not cause the employer substantial injury. This bill offers quite a bit more flexibility to the employer than it does to the employee, and it does not represent another real option for the wage earner, the hourly wage earner in America. In addition, there are serious concerns regarding how much choice employees actually will have. The bill contains hortatory language dictating that programs be the voluntary choice of the employee and that employers cannot coerce employees into taking time off in lieu of pay. However, S. 4 fails to provide a verifiable system by which employees choose to take comp time. Indeed, the bill fails to stipulate safeguards concerning potential discrimination. Under the bill, employees will be quickly divided into two groups: those who accept time off as overtime and those who want pay. The bill does not explicitly or effectively prevent an employer from offering overtime only to those who will accept time off. Again, in committee, the sponsors of S. 4 rejected amendments which would have clarified the principle that employees cannot be distinguished based on their willingness to take nonpaid overtime. Most seriously, the current Family Friendly Workplace Act contains a provision which devastates the family's ability to both schedule time together and make ends meet: the evisceration of the 40-hour workweek. Under this legislation, an employer would be permitted to schedule employees to work 50, 60, 70, even 80 hours a week without providing any overtime pay. Overtime pay would only be required after working 80 hours in a 2-week period. It is difficult to contemplate how an employee scheduled to work 70 or 80 hours a week at the discretion of the employer will be able to better schedule time to attend to the needs of his or her family. Supporters of the bill may argue that the program is voluntary. Yet the bill's sponsors have denied workers the ability to refuse this voluntary program when the employers offer it. S. 4 proposes to eliminate a very clear standard; namely, that employees who work more than 40 hours in a week are entitled to premium wages for those extra hours. In its place, the so-called Family Friendly Workplace Act leaves workers with a nebulous framework. Most of S. 4's provisions are aimed at hourly employees who depend upon their overtime pay. Eight million overtime workers will hold down two jobs in an effort to make financial ends meet and are the most likely targets of this legislation. More than 80 percent of these individuals make less than $28,000 a year. For these people, overtime pay can represent as much as 15 percent of their wages. These workers already face precarious financial situations. The reality is that they cannot risk their job by challenging their employer's application of comptime or realistic demanding wages rather than comptime or flextime. Without clear rules, these workers will be left without redress and left extremely vulnerable. Would most employers implement comptime in an equitable manner? I am sure many would. However, S. 4 gives managers the authority to effectively eliminate all overtime pay, and truth be told, there are significant numbers of employers who already abuse the current system. Indeed, last year, the Department of Labor awarded $100 million in overtime pay which was wrongly denied by employers. Labor examiners report that half the garment industry now fails to pay the minimum wage. This bill would only protect those who currently violate the law. We should simply exempt these troubled industries from comptime legislation. Yet this was another suggestion rejected by the sponsors of S. 4. Many Democrats, including myself, would be interested in crafting legislation which ensures flexibility while guaranteeing protections to ensure employee choice--true employee choice. Last year, President Clinton suggested legislation addressing many of these goals. My colleagues should make no mistake, there are solutions to the growing time demands on working families such as the extremely successful Family and Medical Leave Act. The Family and Medical Leave Act guarantees employees the right to take 12 weeks of unpaid leave for certain family emergencies. Since being enacted in 1993, the Family and Medical Leave Act has been embraced by the vast majority of employers and employees who have been governed by its regulations. Employers have found that it has only incrementally increased the benefits, hiring, and administrative costs they face. The law readily defines eligibility and lengths of benefits. The Family and Medical Leave Act administration costs have been low, if nonexistent, and its benefits extraordinary. Comptime, properly structured comptime, legislation protecting the workers, particularly the most vulnerable workers, could provide the same types of benefits. Now, proponents of this bill claim that this legislation provides flexibility to needy families. We should be clear. The bill will impact the 50 percent of American workers who receive hourly compensation and are thus classified as hourly wage employees. These are our most economically vulnerable citizens. A recent article in the Wall Street Journal points out that more and more progressive employees are implementing, under current law, flexible workplace schedules for both hourly and salaried employees. Indeed, as the article points out, one such company, Chevron, has implemented a flexibility option which would allow an employee to work four 10-hour days and have the fifth day off to tend the family. Again, these options are provided under current law. Now, I compliment these progressive companies for their policies. But I also believe that the Wall Street Journal article points out the reality of some of the fears that are being expressed today on the floor. Businesses are appropriately concerned, first and foremost, with their bottom line. As one corporate manager was quoted in the Wall Street Journal article, ``You have to look at [the work-friendly arrangements] as a business strategy, rather than an accommodation'' because the accommodation doesn't get to the bottom line. Employers will move toward plans that make economic sense to them. Yet, S. 4 provides all the wrong incentives. It potentially discriminates against workers who request pay instead of time off, as well as being inflexible in granting workers' requests for time off.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I would like to take one moment on a point that has been addressed periodically throughout the course of the debate. First is the argument that this legislation simply gives to private sector employees the same benefits enjoyed by public employees. Public employees do have certain flexibilities, but they also have a great deal more protection than typical hourly wage earners. When we tried to provide some of these additional protections to the private sector at the committee level that are enjoyed by public sector workers, they were rejected. Public employees can only be fired for cause, unlike most private sector employees, who have at-will contracts. Most public sector employees have grievance systems, which assure them that any disagreements with their employer will receive equitable redress. Public employees need not worry about the bankruptcy of their employer. The list goes on. Public employees have the power to ensure that flexibility works for them. If the sponsors of this legislation had been willing to provide any of these types of protections to those impacted by this bill, I think their argument would have some merit. Unfortunately, my colleagues have been unwilling to incorporate any significant worker protections into their bill. Mr. President, I believe that this bill has been offered in good faith. Many employers would implement this legislation equitably. However, some employers would not. And, sadly, large sectors of employers do not follow even the current rules. Unfortunately, portions of this legislation have been hijacked by those same interests who opposed an increase in the minimum wage, the implementation of the Family and Medical Leave Act, and who now impose the implementation of employee-oriented flexible work schedules. This well-intentioned idea now contains large loopholes by which some employers could dramatically reduce the pay of employees. Mr. President, I hope these problems can be addressed so we can provide today's workers stretched thin by demands of work and family, the power with which to make use of flexible work schedules. I hope we can work to amend this so that it would reflect a bill that is balanced between the needs for employees and time with their families and giving them the opportunities to make the choices so that they can effect the policies for their families and improve the quality and climate of the workplace. I hope that we all can work toward that end. I thank the Chair and yield back my time. Mr. ENZI addressed the Chair.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 5 minutes as if in morning business.

Mr. REED. I thank the Chair.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on an issue that is important to many Rhode Islanders and I believe touches on the credibility of this body. I would like to add my voice to the voice of many of my colleagues in support of Alexis Herman as the Secretary of Labor. The appointment of Alexis Herman was approved by the Labor and Human Resources Committee unanimously on April 10, almost 3 weeks ago. This unanimous vote came after an appropriately arduous examination of Ms. Herman's record. She spent months successfully completing a far- reaching questionnaire submitted by the majority. She subsequently came before the committee and spent hours testifying as to her past accomplishments and her vision for the Department of Labor. She completed these tasks successfully, and a full vote of the Senate was originally scheduled for April 16. Yet, that vote has now been placed on indefinite hold. I believe this reflects poorly on this body. We have asked Ms. Herman to defend her record and outline her agenda for the Department of Labor. She has done that. Indeed, she has performed that task well enough to gain the unanimous support of our committee. We now owe her the courtesy of consideration by the full Senate. Not only do we owe this courtesy to Ms. Herman, but we have a duty to hard-working men and women in this country to have their interests adequately represented in the Cabinet of the President of the United States. Every day policy decisions affecting workers go unaddressed because there is no Secretary. While some may take financial stability for granted in today's economy, we in Rhode Island certainly do not. The Department of Labor has played a consistent and productive role in helping Rhode Island to cope with the economic challenges that it faces. We need a Secretary of Labor to help us continue in these efforts. Economically, Rhode Island has been hard hit by changing economic conditions and defense downsizing. In the late 1980's and early 1990's we lost over 10 percent of our manufacturing jobs due mostly to defense downsizing but also to changes in the economy. These effects continue to plague our economy. Thankfully, the Department of Labor, under the leadership of then Secretary Reich, was there consistently to provide assistance in lessening the burden of this impact on working Rhode Islanders. For example, in December of 1995, Rhode Island's largest grocery store, Almacs, declared bankruptcy immediately before Christmas. This bankruptcy resulted in Rhode Island's single largest layoff, over 2,000 workers, immediately before the 1995 holidays. The private sector committed what they could, volunteering food, holiday gifts and job placement services, but the former employees faced severe hardship. Then the Department of Labor stepped in to assist. They provided a total of $4.3 million to retrain 90 percent of the former Almacs workers who did not find employment in other grocery stores. This assistance came about because I was able to directly share the hardship of my constituents with the Secretary of Labor. Indeed, because the Congress had shut down the Federal Government at that time, several additional hurdles had to be overcome to help the people from Almacs. Thankfully, because of the work of the Secretary, those hurdles were overcome and my constituents were provided the services they desperately needed and, indeed, deserved. Just as in 1995, I am afraid that we are again confronted with a callous disregard for the working people of this country. They deserve a Secretary of Labor. Ms. Herman deserves a vote. Let us get on with this process. If you will, vote against her, but give her the opportunity to have her case heard here on the floor of the Senate and the decision made, not by inaction, but by the votes of the men and women of this body. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I would like to express the common sentiment of the Senate, and that is the great respect and esteem we have for the people of the Northwest in their great trials in this historically unprecedented flooding, and particularly to indicate how hard and tirelessly their Senators are working to make sure the people of America respond to their needs--Senator Dorgan and Senator Conrad of North Dakota, Senator Daschle and Senator Johnson of South Dakota, Senator Wellstone and Senator Grams of Minnesota. So we are all admirers of the great courage of the people of the West.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I do suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED. I would like, if I may, to talk about Senate bill 562. I am pleased the Senate took favorable action today. This legislation, the Senior Citizen's Home Equity Protection Act, would protect seniors from unscrupulous market activities of a very small group of business people. We have, throughout the United States and through the auspices of HUD, introduced a program called the reverse mortgage program. This allows seniors who have their house mortgage paid off, they have all the equity in the home, rather than selling the home to confront the costs of being a senior, they are allowed through this program to essentially go to the bank and have a monthly or a lump sum payment in lieu of the equity in their home. This allows many seniors to stay in their homes. It allows them to meet the needs of health care and all the pressing needs of seniors. What has happened though is that a group of unscrupulous operators have come in, under the guise of estate planning, and now are charging exorbitant fees to inform seniors of this reverse mortgage program, sometimes collecting up to $10,000. What is particularly alarming, indeed, and particularly reprehensible is the fact that all of this information is absolutely free from the HUD office in their locality. So what this legislation proposes to do--I am so pleased it was favorably responded to this morning--is to give HUD the authority to step in with very, very stern measures to preempt these practices, to move these unscrupulous operators out of the marketplace, and allow seniors to reap the full benefit of the reverse mortgage program. In my State of Rhode Island, over 500 seniors have taken advantage of the reverse mortgage program. In fact, we had our State program in place before the Federal program was initiated. Much of the effort at the Federal level has been led by the Assistant Secretary for Housing, Nick Retsinas, who is a Rhode Islander and who in fact was a leader in Rhode Island for this program. So we in Rhode Island understand very well the effect and the efficacy of this program. Our Rhode Island Housing and Mortgage Finance Corporation, RIHMFC, has done a remarkable job promoting these programs and also a remarkable job of policing these programs because we have not seen any evidence in Rhode Island of these scandals. However, throughout the country, as I indicated before, these unscrupulous operators have tried to move in and take advantage of very vulnerable seniors. We know so many seniors are house rich but cash poor. They have equity in their home but do not have the means to make ends meet each week. This reverse mortgage program should help them. It should not be an opportunity to be taken upon or set upon by unscrupulous operators. In Rhode Island, for example, the Providence Journal reported a typical story, that of George Tarbox and his wife. Mr. Tarbox and his wife were the perennial house rich and cash poor family. They purchased their home in 1958. They paid off the mortgage, but they were facing very difficult circumstances. They were on a fixed income, like most seniors. And they needed the resources to simply live. The choice between eating and buying medicine is very difficult. The reverse mortgage program allowed them to meet their needs. They were able to pay off their original mortgage. They were able to make their daily expenses. They were able to get the proceeds and resources that they needed to live. And this is just a typical story, a very, very good typical story of the effectiveness of the reverse mortgage program. Today, with action on S. 562, we are sending a very strong message out to those unscrupulous operators who might try to prey on seniors that we are going to take a tough, tough hard stand. This program is there. It is for seniors. It is not for speculators. It is for seniors. It is not for those who prey on seniors. And it allows seniors to have access, through their home, to the resources they need to lead lives of decency and dignity. I am so pleased with Senator D'Amato and Senator Mack for their leadership on this, and for my colleagues who joined in sponsoring this legislation. I hope that it will move quickly through the Congress, the President will sign it, and we will give HUD the tools that it needs to eradicate this detestable practice, and allow the seniors of America to fully enjoy what they have worked so hard for, their homes and the proceeds of their homes. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to commemorate the 82d anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. In the 1930's, someone questioned Adolph Hitler about the possible consequences of his plan for the systematic elimination of the Jews. Hitler seemed to believe that there would be none. He allegedly responded, ``Who, after all, today remembers the Armenians?'' One of my constituents, Noyemzar Alexanian, remembers. On a spring morning in 1915, when she was 6 years old, the Kurdish calvary surrounded her village. They rounded up all the men and teen-aged boys, tied their hands with rope, took them to a distant field and stabbed them to death. Her father escaped to a neighboring village but was soon discovered. Noyemzar says she remembers her father being led away while her mother cried for help. This little 6-year-old girl then ``watched the white shirt of her father as he was led up a mountainside by the soldiers. The white shirt became a dot, and then it was gone.'' Noyemzar's father was stabbed to death. Over the next few years, as she was shuttled from the houses of strangers to orphanages, Noyemzar lost her two sisters. But still she did not lose hope. After several years, she and the remaining members of her family escaped to Cuba. She later settled in Rhode Island with her husband, Krikor, another refugee from Armenia. Noyemzar Alenanian is now 88 years old, and every day she remembers. Mr. President, old and young around the world today remember the Armenian holocaust. We remember that on this date in 1915, the Ottoman Empire and the successor Turkish nationalist regime began a brutal policy of deportation and murder. Over the next 8 years 1.5 million Armenians would be massacred at the hands of the Turks and another 500,000 would have their property confiscated and be driven from their homeland. Engrossed in its own problems at the time, the world did little as the population was devastated. Despite having already undergone such terrible persecution and hardship, the people of the Armenian Republic still suffer today. The peace talks recently concluded in Moscow regrettably made no progress toward the resolution of the Karabagh conflict. Turkey continues to blockade humanitarian aid to Armenia. However, the Armenian people look hopefully to the future. Their quest for peace and democracy continues to inspire people around the world. Armenians who have emigrated to other countries, especially those in my home State of Rhode Island, bring their traditions with them. They enrich the culture and contribute much to the society of their new homelands. The continuing reports of the recent atrocities committed in Bosnia reaffirm the importance of our commitment to always remember the Armenian genocide. As long as hate and intolerance are a part of our world, we must be vigilant. We must stand as witnesses to protect people from persecution for the simple reason that they are different. I hope to visit Armenia in the near future. I wish to see the treasures of that land firsthand and pay tribute to the indomitable spirit of the people of Armenia. Until that time, I want to ensure the Armenian community that we remember. Menk panav chenk mornar.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to add my voice to the chorus of support for the ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention. As a former company commander in the 82d Airborne Division, I have a keen interest in an international diplomatic agreement that will protect soldiers from one of the most terrible perils of war. As a Senator, I believe that the United States has a duty to assume a leadership role in this ambitious, global effort to not only reduce, but eliminate, an entire class of weapons of mass destruction. U.S. ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention is a paramount first step in removing the threat of chemical warfare on the battlefield. Soldiers in World War I were the first to know the terror of the release of poison gas. Over 1.3 million soldiers were injured or killed by chlorine and mustard gas during the Great War. This enormous number of casualties led to the negotiation of the Geneva Protocol in 1925 which banned the use of chemical weapons in wartime. Eighty years later, however, young soldiers are still plagued by the dangers of chemical warfare. Many veterans of the Persian Gulf war fight illness and lie awake at night, worrying and wondering, ``Was there something in the air?'' But this is not a treaty which will just protect soldiers in a time of armed conflict, it is a treaty which will protect innocent civilians from terrorist attacks. The 1995 Sarin gas attack in a crowded Tokyo subway that killed and injured dozens made this scenario a reality for everyone. It is imperative that we do what is necessary to ensure that such an incident becomes a distant memory rather than a daily fear. The Chemical Weapons Convention bans the development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, transfer or use of chemical weapons by signatories. It requires the destruction of all chemical weapon stockpiles and production facilities. Parties to the convention must begin to destroy weapons within 1 year and complete the process within 10 years. If we ratify this treaty, we will take an important step toward eliminating the production, storage and use of blister agents, like mustard gas, which destroy exposed skin tissue; of choking agents that inflame the bronchial tubes and lungs and cause asphyxiation; of blood agents that block the circulation of oxygen when inhaled; and of nerve agents that cause the nervous system to overload, resulting in respiratory failure and death. The goal of this treaty is to ensure that these deadly chemicals will never again be dispersed over troops or civilian populations by bombs, rockets, missiles, artillery, mines, grenades or spray. Chemical weapons are terrifying because they kill quickly, silently, and indiscriminately. Even more disturbing is the fact that their production is easy, cheap and simple to conceal. With a little know- how, a solvent used in pen ink can be converted into mustard gas and a chemical common in pesticides becomes an ingredient in a deadly nerve agent. It must be acknowledged that eliminating chemical weapons is a herculean task. But the Chemical Weapons Convention, which we are finally considering today, addresses this challenge. This treaty is the most comprehensive arms control agreement ever negotiated. It institutes an extensive and intrusive verification regime which will include both government and civilian facilities. International teams of inspectors will conduct instrument-monitoring as well as routine and random onsite inspections of facilities known to work with chemical agents. Furthermore, it allows challenge inspections, without right of refusal, of sites suspected of producing or storing chemical weapons. The convention also requires export controls and reporting requirements on chemicals that can be used as chemical warfare agents and their precursors. In addition, the treaty establishes the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons [OPCW], a permanent body which will oversee the convention's implementation and ensure compliance. The enemy is elusive but 162 signatory countries decided this treaty was the best means of waging war against chemical weapons. In January 1993, President Bush joined dozens of other nations in Paris and agreed to meet the challenge of eliminating chemical weapons by signing the Chemical Weapons Convention. Now some members of this chamber, members of President Bush's own party, are second-guessing that decision. The problem is that if we drag our feet any longer, the United States will be left behind. April 29, 1997 is not an artificial deadline imposed by a political party. One of the provisions of the treaty is that it enters into force 180 days after the ratification by the 65th country, and in 6 days, on April 29, the 74 nations who have ratified the treaty will begin its implementation. If we do not vote to ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention, we will not stop it. In fact, we will not even become a passive bystander. Instead, we will become the target of the trade restrictions that make this treaty so powerful. Now, no one can say the Senate has not had ample opportunity to consider this agreement. Thirteen years and two administrations ago, President Reagan proposed this treaty to the United Nations. It was approved by the United Nations in 1992 and President Bush signed the convention weeks before he left office. Several months later, President Clinton presented the CWC to the Senate for consideration. The Committees on Foreign Relations, Armed Services, Intelligence, and Judiciary held 17 hearings over three Congresses. The administration has provided the Senate with over 1,500 pages of information. In the past 2 months, the administration and a task force formed by the majority leader have held almost 60 hours of discussion. Twenty-eight additional conditions, statements, understandings, and declarations to the resolution of ratification have been reached. The overwhelming evidence persuasively argues that now is the time to ratify this treaty. Ratifying the Chemical Weapons Convention complements the existing military strategy of the United States. We are already committed to unilateral destruction of our chemical weapons. In the early 1980's, the Department of Defense declared about 90 percent of our Nation's chemical weapons obsolete. In 1985, Congress directed destruction of these weapons. President Reagan signed the law that would eliminate approximately 30,000 metric tons of blister and nerve agents by the year 2004. Even President Reagan, one of the greatest advocates of a strong military, decided that chemical weapons were not needed to remain the most powerful fighting force in the world. We have much to gain by ratification. This treaty will force other nations to adopt the same standard as the United States. The monitoring regime and trade restrictions imposed by the convention will make the production and storage of chemical weapons by rogue states infinitely more difficult and costly. The CWC improves our ability to keep our troops safe and makes the enemy more vulnerable by reducing its options of weaponry. If we do not ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention, we will abdicate our leadership role in the world. As I have said before, the United States initiated this treaty. It was American leadership that led the negotiations through to completion. It would be irresponsible, both to Americans and the world, to abandon the convention on the eve of implementation. If we do not ratify this treaty tomorrow, the United States will not be able to participate in the executive council which will oversee the implementation of the treaty. Furthermore, U.S. citizens will not be eligible to become international inspectors and serve in other key positions. The ratifying countries will be forced to carry on our idea without us, and the United States will have no choice but to stand aside and watch. Without our expertise and support, the entire convention may be jeopardized. One of the key elements of the treaty is intelligence gathering. The United States has the most sophisticated intelligence network in the world. If our country refuses to participate, we deny our intelligence community the opportunity to tap into new sources of information and we may cripple the verification regime by denying the international community the benefits of our knowledge. In addition, the United States is the only nation with extensive experience in destroying chemical weapons. We are also the only country investing heavily in research and development to find methods other than incineration to destroy these weapons. Without our advice, participants in the convention risk inadvertent but dangerous accidents and may squander scarce financial resources attempting to reinvent the wheel in learning how to destroy weapons. Furthermore, if the entire international community pools its resources, both intellectual and financial, to discover safe, environmentally sound methods of destruction, the development time would certainly be reduced. If we show reluctance to ratify the treaty, we will undermine the confidence and commitment of the entire international community. It is counting on us to continue to lead the way. There are critics of this treaty, but their criticism, I think, misses the mark. This will not inhibit our business, it will help our chemical business. This treaty is not perfect, but it is a better tool for controlling weapons than having no treaty whatsoever. We are, I hope, committed to the path of destruction of our own weapons and to ensure that the rest of the world follows this very prudent, indeed, noble course. Vocal critics of the Chemical Weapons Convention claim that it is fatally flawed. They state that we should not ratify this treaty because we will not be able to verify that chemical weapons are completely eliminated. Of course this treaty is not perfect. But we will have increased our capability to find and eliminate large scale production of chemical weapons which can cause the most damage. The verification regime will also enable us to discover production and storage of small quantities of chemical weapons that we have little or no chance of discovering now. The CWC is not a panacea, but no law or treaty is. It is a tool that can help us solve a problem. Isn't it better to use the tool to try and fix the problem rather than simply admit defeat? Critics also contend that the treaty cannot be effective until all nations, particularly those who are known to possess chemical weapons, ratify the convention. It will be impossible to convince every rogue state to sign the treaty. It is also safe to say that some who sign the treaty will cheat. But the CWC is designed to isolate and cajole those who do not join. The treaty uses a most effective weapon against rogue states--economics. Trade restrictions will be implemented against these nations and they will soon be unable to acquire ``dual use'' chemicals which they need for the production of common items. As these nations begin to feel the pressures from shortages, they may find it advantageous to sign the treaty. Trade restrictions are one of the most effective weapons that the international community has. In an era when balancing the budget is of primary importance, it is not sunrising that opponents cite the cost of joining the treaty as a reason for not ratifying it. I cannot dispute that there is a financial price for joining the convention. Most of the costs will be incurred for maintaining the activities of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons [OPCW]. These costs will be apportioned according to a system similar to the one used by other international organizations. In addition, each signatory which destroys its stockpile must repay the OPCW for costs associated with verification. In his budget, the President requested about 20 cents per American to pay for CWC costs, a small price for the elimination of chemical weapons. Furthermore, members of this body can ensure that this cost does not escalate in the future, because the conditions agreed to in the Senate Executive Resolution allow Congress to control future payments by granting it the authority to authorize and appropriate any funds above this level. The cost of the CWC is reasonable, and certainly less than the cost of ``going it alone'' or entering a battlefield where chemical weapons are being used. Critics of the CWC claim that American private businesses will bear the brunt of the treaty provisions. However, the U.S. chemical industry, the private business which will be most affected by this treaty, heartily endorses its ratification. Contrary to what some have claimed, the burden on industry has not been discounted or ignored. The major trade associations which represent the chemical industry, like the US Chemical Manufacturers Association, have actively worked with those writing the treaty for the past 15 years. The chemical industry helped develop the confidentiality provisions, the data declarations and the inspection regime. Certain companies even participated in the National Trial Inspections to test the verification procedures outlined in the Chemical Weapons Convention. In addition, the conditions agreed to in the Senate Executive Resolution further protect businesses from unreasonable searches and seizures and the dissemination of confidential information. Less than 2,000 facilities will be affected by the treaty, and the vast majority of these must do no more than complete an annual two page form. Opponents of the Convention claim they are protecting American business interests. But American businesses seem to disagree. They fear, in fact, that the Senate will not ratify the treaty. Ironically, if we do not make the right decision tomorrow, our chemical companies will become subject to the same trade restrictions that will be imposed on non-signatories such as Libya, Egypt, Iraq, North Korea, and Syria. More than $600 million a year in sales could be lost. Treaty critics are protesting so loudly, they seem unable to hear the voices of the constituencies they claim to protect. We have overcome many hurdles to reach this point: Years of negotiations among the nations of the world, months of negotiations among the leaders of this Nation. We are finally debating this treaty on the floor of the Senate today because we have agreed to an unprecedented 28 conditions--28 duties, declarations and understandings added to a treaty which was proposed, negotiated and agreed to by Republican administrations. But, unfortunately, five hurdles remain. Five conditions demanded by opponents of this treaty may prevent the United States from assuming its proper role of leadership in an ambitious arms control treaty. These conditions unacceptably compromise the treaty and the ability of the United States to participate in its implementation. These conditions are simply not fair play. Every member of this body has a right to oppose this treaty. They can voice their opposition by voting against it and their opinion will be respected. But hobbling the ability of the United States to ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention strikes an unwarranted blow to international arms control and our political process. I urge my colleagues to vote against these five killer conditions. Mr. President, 34 years ago, President John F. Kennedy undertook the challenge to convince the Senate and the people of the United States of America should ratify the Limited Test Ban Treaty. The same questions were raised about verification, about the reliability of those who might sign the treaty or who might not sign the treaty. In a nationwide television address, President Kennedy reminded us: We have a great obligation . . . to use whatever time remains to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, to persuade other countries not to test, transfer, acquire, possess or produce such weapons. According to the ancient Chinese proverb, ``A journey of a thousand miles must begin with a single step.'' My fellow Americans, let us take that first step. Let us, if we can, step back from the shadows of war and seek out the way of peace. And if that journey is a thousand miles, or even more, let history record that we, in this land, at this time, took the first step. Complementing the President's words, though, were the words of a very wise, distinguished statesman of the Chamber, Senator Everett Dirksen of Illinois. In September of that year, 1963, he came to this Chamber and began a speech, but threw the pages away and spoke spontaneously from his heart and said: A young President calls this treaty the first step. I want to take a first step, Mr. President. One my age thinks about his destiny a little. I should not like to have written on my tombstone, ``He knew what happened at Hiroshima, but he did not take a first step . . .'' We know what happened in World War I with poison gas. We know what happened in the Tokyo subway with sarin gas. Let us not have it said on our tombstone that we knew but were unwilling to take a first step. Let us, like the statesmen before us, take a first step to control weapons, to reduce weapons, to provide a more peaceful, a more dignified world. Mr. President, I hope we will take that first step and discharge our obligation to the world and to the citizens of this great country. On the eve of the vote to ratify another historic agreement, one that seeks not just to limit weapons of mass destruction, but eliminate them, the words of President Kennedy and Senator Dirksen still ring true. We have an obligation to take the first step. Let us do so. I yield back my time.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise this evening to join my colleague, Senator Chafee, in support of his resolution to return a statue of Roger Williams to the Capitol rotunda, and also to commend Senator Chafee for his excellent statement. He has described in detail the central role that Roger Williams has played not only in the life of Rhode Island, but in the life of this Nation. His displacement from the rotunda will not be the first time he was banished. In 1635 he was banished from his first home because he advocated at that time the revolutionary idea that there should be a separation between church and state, that individuals should have freedom of conscience, that individuals should be able to worship the god of their choice, and that the system of government should respect that choice. In a sense he began the intellectual revolution that would culminate years later in the revolution against Great Britain that would lead to our Declaration of Independence and to the Constitution of the United States, because he emphasized in his quest for the rights of conscience that element of individuality which is so much a part of America. Roger Williams was a central figure not only in the history of Rhode Island but in the history of this country, and we recognize that by giving him a place of honor and distinction in the rotunda of the Capitol. Like Senator Chafee, I do not object at all to the display of the suffragettes statute. That is once again a recognition of individual Americans who showed us the way, who advocated for the right of people. In fact, their behavior was in some way directly or indirectly inspired by the tradition established by Roger Williams in the 1600's. I also respect the deliberations of Senator Warner to find a location which would be appropriate for Roger Williams. But my feeling, as well as my colleague's feeling, is that he is of such a historical character, not just to Rhode Island but to the Nation, that he well deserves a place in the rotunda of the Capitol of the United States. When Roger Williams came to Rhode Island he created not just a State, but an attitude, an idea, that men and women could worship as they saw fit. He inspired the development of the first Baptist church in America which stands today in Providence. That spirit of tolerance, a respect for individuality, of respect for the dignity of the individual to choose, became a beacon for people around the world to come to Rhode Island. As Senator Chafee indicated, the first Jewish synagogue in North America was established in Newport and stands today as a symbol of Roger Williams' legacy, of our commitment to tolerance, and the right and dignity of the individual. Such accomplishments, which go to the very fiber and the spirit of America, must be recognized, and, in fact, I feel should be appropriately recognized by the display of the Roger Williams statue in the rotunda of the Capitol. When Roger Williams established Rhode Island, he said he was going to begin a lively experiment, and he has. That lively experiment has spun through the ages the creation of our Government; the very debate that we have here today. His legacy is monumental. His monument should be in the rotunda. I am proud to join my colleague from Rhode Island to cosponsor this resolution and to urge, along with him, that at the first appropriate moment the statue of Roger Williams should be returned to the rotunda, that its temporary banishment from the rotunda be ended, and that scores of Americans in this generation and generations to come can recognize his accomplishments, can recognize his particular contributions to America and, in recognizing those contributions, can continue to reaffirm the spirit of religious freedom, of tolerance, and of individual dignity which he represents so magnificently. I am proud to be associated with my senior colleague and hope that this Senate will move quickly to support the return of Roger Williams to the rotunda. I yield the floor. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to commend a fellow Rhode Islander and friend, Dr. Vartan Gregorian. On January 6, Dr. Gregorian announced that he will leave his post as president of Brown University in Providence, RI, to become President of the Carnegie Corp. After 9 years on College Hill, he leaves behind a flourishing campus and community. Brown has more than doubled its endowment during his tenure. An ambitious capital campaign has raised over $500 million under Dr. Gregorian's leadership, and he has brought 275 new faculty members to Brown, including 72 new professors. But, Mr. President, the true measure of Vartan Gregorian is not his skill as an administrator, booster, and fund raiser, it is his passion for teaching and learning. Even in the midst of the demands of his presidency, he has managed to find time to continue to teach, and I understand that he also continues to serve as an advisor for several fortunate students. In this regard, he is unique among his peers, and they recognize his prodigious efforts. James Freedman, president of Dartmouth, said of Dr. Gregorian, ``He communicates the joy of learning.'' Vartan Gregorian's interest in education is not limited to Brown or to other institutions of higher learning. He is deeply concerned about the condition of the Nation's public schools. As his colleague, Theodore Sizer, said recently, ``No Ivy League president has put his shoulder to the wheel of public education more than Vartan Gregorian.'' Last month, Dr. Gregorian wrote an article in Parade magazine entitled ``10 Things You Can Do to Make Our Schools Better.'' Mr. President, I commend this article to my colleagues, and I hope all Senators read and benefit from Dr. Gregorian's observations, particularly that it is everyone's job to help improve our public schools. Mr. President, I ask that Dr. Gregorian's article be printed in the Record following my remarks. Mr. President, no matter where he has gone, Vartan Gregorian has taken his appreciation for education and left behind him successful institutions and inspired students. Brown, Providence, and Rhode Island will miss him, but we know he will stay in close touch and that he will continue to lead at his new post at the Carnegie Corp. We wish him well. The article follows: 10 Things You Can Do To Make Our Schools Better (By Vartan Gregorian) When I was invited by Parade to write an article about improving our public educational system, I thought for a moment of titling it ``In Praise of Public School Teachers.'' This is because, while our schools badly need reform and upgrading, the responsibility for their problems cannot simply be dumped on our teachers, who by and large are a dedicated, hardworking and undervalued corps of professionals. In fact, even as we acknowledge that our public schools need help, we ought to recognize their achievements and successes along with their shortcomings. They face problems that reflect those of our entire society, and they have to contend with burdens and restrictions that don't affect most of the private and parochial schools with which they are sometimes unfairly compared. Nevertheless, our public schools should be better--much better--than they are, and improving them is a job for everyone from parents to college presidents. What are some of the things that you, as a concerned individual, can do right now to better the schools and the educational process in your own area? Here are 10 practical steps you can take in this direction. 1. Visit your schools. It's not enough for parents to go once or twice a year for PTA meetings. I'd like to see schools make it easier for parents to visit regularly, even holding weekend and evening open houses for parents who can't get there during their working hours. 2. Involve the grandparents. This is especially important in cases of single parents. 3. Make the public school a magnet for the community. Hold social and community functions in school buildings. 4. Volunteer to help in your school. When rules permit, parents or others should offer to take over nonteaching jobs, such as hall monitors or cafeteria supervisors. Teachers should be treated as professionals whose job is teaching. 5. Read to your children. Nothing is more important than this. Start your children with nursery rhymes and go on from there. 6. Give every schoolchild a library card. When I was president of the New York Public Library, we arranged with Mayor Ed Koch to give one million library cards to the city's schoolchildren. We found that the majority of them were put to good use. Every town library should issue a card to each child in the community. 7. Organize and attend shows that the children put on. They encourage children to work together and also serve as a bond with the community. 8. Recognize that too much television has a terrible effect. Consider making television a chore rather than an amusement. Let children watch four hours a day if they want to, but require them to write papers on what they see. My objection to television is not only the time it wastes but also the passivity it brings. It produces isolation, not communication. If children had to critique what they watched, it might even serve to reduce the violence on the screen. 9. Let our children go. Schools should take children on expeditions, and not just to a museum or zoo. Business and civic leaders could invite whole classes to visit workplaces for a day--banks, hospitals, universities, factories, police stations, places of worship, government offices. 10. Restore the arts as a major element in education. We've made a tremendous mistake in diminishing or eliminating art, music and dance as fluff or frills. The arts like sports, play a vital role in bringing students together and promoting teamwork. Athletics provide stability and a way to release energy. The arts allow children to develop creativity and imagination. The Duke Ellington School in Washington, D.C., has one of the lowest dropout rates anywhere. Ninety percent of the participants in The Boys Choir of Harlem go to college following high school. It's almost impossible to overemphasize the significance of the creative arts in education. Make sure that your own school district recognizes this. An important challenge faced by today's schools that didn't exist in the past is the changed expectations of the public. Today, it is assumed that almost everybody has to go to college. A university education is regarded more as a necessity than as something extraordinary. And we glamorize the past. The 1930s and '40s had high dropout rates too, but fewer people then were deeply concerned about that. American society has changed and raised its expectations of what an educational system should provide. How can we meet those expectations? The core of the teaching process is, and always will be, the teacher. I believe that to become a teacher is to join a noble profession. Teachers have an awesome responsibility: We entrust our sons and daughters to teachers to help prepare them for life. Yet too often teachers are held in low esteem. We pay them less than we pay plumbers and mechanics, and we complain about them more readily. As I have suggested, teachers today are not just teachers--they're called upon to be supervisors, custodians, counselors, hall and cafeteria monitors, law and order officers. Despite all this, thousands and thousands of men and women are public school teachers because they are dedicated people. Are teachers' unions part of the solution? Yes. They are interested in the economic aspects of teaching, and they should be. But they have a moral; professional and historical obligation to help rescue and reform our public schools. The burnout rate among teachers in our nation's public schools is very high. Unions should join in an effort to allow teachers to be retrained, re-educated and immersed in the very disciplines in which they need renewal so they can further the horizons of education and knowledge. There is a great need for strengthening the schools of education in our colleges and universities, so we can raise our standards of teaching. This is something in which college presidents can play a part, for too often the school of education is not regarded as highly as the rest of the university. The arts and science faculties in many universities have no close affinity with the schools of education. Schools of education often stress the technique rather than the substance of the subject matter. We really need to rethink our teacher-education and teacher-retraining programs. I don't agree with those who feel that school vouchers are a panacea for our educational ills. Vouchers may solve individual problems, but not society's. Choice is meaningless for the millions of Americans who live in rural areas with few schools. Choice between bad schools is not useful to city dwellers. Parents who want their children to attend private schools learn quickly that parents don't choose private schools-- private schools choose children. I have a drastic solution for a school that is bad: Shut it down. We don't allow a bad hospital to function: why should we allow a bad school? A national consensus exists on the need for school reform. According to a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll taken just before the election, four in 10 voters said education should be one of the next President's two top priorities. It ranked evenly with keeping the economy healthy as the No. 1 concern. During the last decade, there has been a nationwide movement for school reform, and there is a major national effort now being made to bring this about--the Annenberg Challenge, which deserves to be widely recognized. The Annenberg Challenge is a metaphor for change in our schools. It was launched in 1993 with a five-year, $500 million grant by Walter Annenberg, our former ambassador to Great Britain. Since it was a 2-for-1 matching challenge, the total amount will reach $1.5 billion, the largest such grant ever made to American public education. The Annenberg Challenge is not for budget relief; it is for enhancement. A full 90 percent must go to teaching and to the classroom, with only 10 percent to be spent on overhead. The Annenberg Challenge operates on a variety of fronts. It includes grants to some of the nation's largest urban school systems, a rural schools initiative and an arts initiative, as well as aid to such organizations as the New American Schools Development Corporation, the Education Commission of the States and the Annenberg Institute of School Reform to carry forward their respective programs. Wherever it has been put in operation, the Annenberg Challenge has required a cooperative effort by the school boards, labor leaders and legislators, as well as corporate and foundation executives. In New York City, Chicago, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Detroit and other localities where the Challenge now functions, I actually have witnessed the encouraging phenomenon of such groups working together to produce results. As of now, some 4500 schools throughout the country are benefiting from the program. The Annenberg Challenge money itself will not reform the entire system, but it has created laboratories for change. So I am optimistic about the possibilities of improving our schools. As a college president, especially, I know how important it is that we do so, for I do not want to see our universities turn into remedial schools. The superstructure cannot stand without a healthy infrastructure. When the Titanic sinks, you cannot say, ``I was traveling first class.'' We all are our future's guardians, and our future is our children.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I thank the Chair. I rise with a great deal of pride to speak to the confirmation of Pete Peterson as our Ambassador to the Republic of Vietnam. Simply stated, Pete Peterson is a great man. He was a great man before he ever put on the uniform of the U.S. Air Force because he is a man of outstanding character and a deep devotion to his family and country. As my friend and colleague, the Senator from Nebraska, pointed out, he has that rare quality of dignity and purpose, not flamboyant, but quiet and determinative. Pete is a remarkable person. One of the great privileges I had in my life was to serve with him in the House of Representatives for 6 years. He brought all of this talent, this energy and this fierce patriotism to his work in every capacity. We all know the story. He was a young man, hailed from Nebraska, joined the U.S. Air Force, was in 1966 sent to Thailand, flew 66 missions in Vietnam and on his 67th mission he was shot down. He was captured. He spent 6\1/2\ grueling, arduous years in captivity in three different prison camps. In all that time, not only did they not break his spirit but they could in no way touch that core of deep respect, regard for all people that he still maintains. He emerged from an experience, which would have seared and destroyed so many other people, unbroken, unbowed and without bitterness, a remarkable testimony to his character. Pete could have returned in 1973 and said, I have done my duty as an Air Force officer, as a patriot. He returned, in fact, in 1973 to greet his wife, his beloved wife, who sadly passed away and will not see this triumph today but I am sure understands from where she is what a great day it is for Pete. He, in fact, saw for the first time a son he had never met. Yet, despite all that, he still heard the call of his country, and he served with distinction the second district of Florida for 6 years. There has been some controversy about this nomination, but it has not been about Pete Peterson because there is no one in this Chamber or in this country that I think ever doubted his capacity or commitment to serve as Ambassador to Vietnam. The controversy is about the issue of POW's and MIA's, which was articulated by the Senator from New Hampshire. Those are serious, important issues which cannot be neglected. Indeed, I believe Pete Peterson is the best person to address those issues. He will go to Vietnam, a place where he has already spent one-tenth of his life, with the credibility of one who has served and with the vision of one who understands what went on there during the war and what we must do to bring our country and that country closer together. And he will not neglect the search for the unanswered questions of his comrades who are still missing and unaccounted for. Pete has long been involved in this issue. He has, along with my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry, and the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, been involved with the Vietnam working group. He has been involved with the U.S.-Russian joint commission on POW-MIA affairs. These gentlemen have committed themselves to search for the answers, and that type of commitment I know will resolve the question. We have a great responsibility to develop a relationship, a mutually supportive relationship between the United States and the Republic of Vietnam. Pete Peterson can do that. He is not only a warrior but he is also a businessman. He understands that one of our challenges is to bring economic prosperity to both our countries, and he will be a leader in that regard also. I believe the President has made the wisest choice possible with this nomination. We will vindicate and recognize that choice this evening, and we will send a strong message, a message of reconciliation and of progress, a message that wars will end and peace will be begun, and a message also that a life of service to your country, selfless service to your country, will be rewarded by further responsibilities commensurate with that service. I, too, thank the majority leader and the Democratic leader, the Senator from New Hampshire, and particularly the Senator from Arizona for all his efforts to bring this nomination to the floor and, like Pete Peterson, also a heroic veteran of the war in Vietnam. As someone who served in the military for 12 years at that time but not in Vietnam, I recognize all of the tremendous contributions of the veterans of that war in this Chamber, in the other body and throughout our society. Pete Peterson will make us all proud but particularly those brave men and women who served in Vietnam. I thank the Senator. I yield back the remainder of my time. Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I pay tribute to a proud member of the Rhode Island community, Ms. Arlene DeSemone, who, sadly, passed away on March 11, 1997. A leader in the insurance industry, Ms. DeSemone served as president of the Rhode Island Life Underwriters Association in 1992. She was president of the National Association of Insurance Women of Rhode Island from 1988 to 1990 and was named professional woman of the year by this organization in 1994. Ms. DeSemone received the R. Kelly Sheridan Award in 1996, as the outstanding life insurance professional of the year. In addition, Ms. DeSemone received the Lloyd Saunders Award for professional dedication to her clients and the industry, and served on numerous committees, including the first Rhode Island Department of Business Regulation Continuing Education Advisory Board. Perhaps the greatest of Ms. DeSemone's contributions was her work in the fight against breast cancer. Despite her own personal struggle with the disease, Ms. DeSemone led the way in encouraging research efforts to find a cure for breast cancer. Ms. DeSemone cofounded the Rhode Island Breast Cancer Coalition in 1993, an organization whose initiatives received national praise and were recognized by President Clinton and the First Lady. The coalition continues to benefit from her efforts to raise consciousness about breast cancer. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in remembering Ms. Arlene DeSemone for her many contributions to Rhode Island and selfless dedication to helping others. Certainly, Ms. DeSemone embodied the strength and determination we all seek to find in ourselves.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Thank you. Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon in support of the Hollings amendment which I think is a wonderful first step to begin to reform our campaign finance system. As many of my distinguished colleagues have mentioned in the course of this debate, at any time when you attempt to amend the Constitution of the United States, you do so with trepidation. This is the fundamental organic document of our Government. It deserves great respect and reverence, and we do not do this lightly. But today we are facing a crisis of public confidence in the democratic order in the United States with respect to campaign finance reform. If the Constitution and the Court had remained silent on this issue, we would not be here today. But the Court has spoken, first in the case of Buckley versus Valeo, several years ago, and in its progeny. Their voice has concluded, and some would argue not correctly, but concluded that the first amendment prevents Congress from imposing limits on campaign expenditures. If the Court refuses to reassess its ruling, we have no choice but to propose to the people of the United States that in their wisdom they consider an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and that is why we are here today. We are not doing this in a vacuum. We are doing this because of a crisis in confidence by the public. To be kind, the public is disenchanted with the American political system, particularly the American political campaign finance system. They see far too much money going to campaigns. They are concerned that this money is extracting special interest favors. All of this undermines a sense of democracy, a sense of participation, a sense of what it is to be a citizen in this great country. Last year's election saw record fundraising and record expenditures. An unprecedented $2.7 billion was spent in Federal elections last year, three times the amount that was spent the year the Buckley versus Valeo case was decided. As this money is poured in, the public is becoming increasingly disenchanted and increasingly disenfranchised from the process. In a 1992 poll, 84 percent of the electorate stated that Congress was owned by special interests, a direct reflection, I think, of the perception of how the campaign finance system may work. For the first time in decades, last year's Presidential elections saw less than half of the eligible voters going to the polls to register their votes. The American public sees a great problem. Months ago, in the Washington Post, 80 percent of those surveyed indicated there was too much money in campaigns and favored the adoption of campaign spending limits. For the well-being of our democracy, for the confidence we must have of its citizens, as we go about doing our work, I feel this amendment is in order and indeed must be enacted. As I mentioned before, the great stumbling block to effective limits on campaign expenditures is the Supreme Court decision in Buckley versus Valeo. At the core of that 1976 decision, there is this language: The first amendment denies Government the power to determine that spending to promote one's political views is wasteful, excessive, or unwise. In the free society ordained by our Constitution, it is not the Government but the people, individually as citizens and candidates, and collectively as associations and political committees, who must retain control over the quantity and range of debate on public issues in a political campaign. That seems to be the core sense of why the Court decided it. But I suggest the notion that citizens and even candidates are controlling the system today has been overwhelmed by events, overwhelmed by an avalanche of money coming into political campaigns. In fact, the system that was created under Buckley versus Valeo has collapsed, in effect, inundated by independent expenditures, special interest expenditures, money by the torrent coming into campaigns. It is not surprising, then, that the Washington Post detailed that the special interests coming into a campaign in Pennsylvania's 21st Congressional District outspent either one of the candidates. In effect, the candidates control neither the dialog nor the issues; it was outside forces, some of them anonymous or at least ambiguous. All of this contributed not to what we think an election should be about, two candidates or several candidates presenting their ideas, arguing eloquently, reaching out to people. In effect, the candidates became a sideshow. It was the battle between special interests. That is not what the American people want to see in their elections, and if we are to control that and constrain that, we must have, in this particular moment, a constitutional amendment to do so. The issue about the Buckley versus Valeo decision is one that constrained our thought about campaign financing for many, many years. My colleagues in this body have offered many proposals, legislatively, to correct it. There is the Feingold-McCain bill. There is other legislation. Leader Daschle has introduced legislation. I support all of these. But my fear is if we adopt any one of them, and I hope we do adopt campaign finance reform legislatively, the ingenuity and creativity of lawyers and consultants will find ways around it, simply because ultimately we cannot control the amount of money going into campaigns. This amendment will give us that authority. The concept, also, that unlimited spending is good, I think, has to be looked at very skeptically. Unlimited spending can drown out free speech, can squelch someone who does not have the resources to compete. It may not, in fact, always advance the concept of a free exchange of ideas in an electoral campaign. Many of our leading constitutional scholars, in fact, have reached this conclusion. Paul Freund, the distinguished professor at Harvard Law School wrote: Campaign contributors are operating vicariously through the power of their purse, rather than through the power of their ideas. I would scale that relatively lower in the hierarchy of First Amendment values. We are dealing here not so much with the right of personal expression or even association, but with dollars and decibels, and just as the volume of sounds may be limited by law, so may the volume of dollars, without violating the First Amendment. Judge Skelly Wright, one of our most distinguished jurists wrote: Nothing in the First Amendment commits us to the dogma that money is speech. Far from stifling First Amendment values, campaign limits actually promote them. In place of unlimited spending, limits encourage all to emphasize less expensive, face-to-face communications, exactly the kind of activities that promote real dialogue and leave much less room for manipulation and avoidance of the issues. In the words of a distinguished New York School of Law professor, Ronald Dworkin: The Buckley decision was a mistake, unsupported by precedent and contrary to the best understanding of prior first amendment jurisprudence. It misunderstood not only what free speech really is, but what it really means for free people to govern themselves. All these experts would conclude that Buckley versus Valeo in effect is wrong. But Buckley versus Valeo as it stands today is the law and, recognizing that, we are attempting to give the people of this country a chance, through the amendment process, to change that decision, that position of the Court. If you look at Buckley versus Valeo, though, perhaps the best argument I found against it was contained within the very confines of the decision. It was the dissenting opinion of Justice White. I do not think anyone has to vouch for Justice White's fidelity to the first amendment and the values that it holds that are dear to us all. First of all, time has proven Justice White to be very perceptive, indeed prophetic. Because he wrote: Without limits on total expenditures, campaign costs will inevitably and endlessly escalate, pressure to raise funds will constantly build, and with it the temptation to resort to those sources of large sums, who, history shows, are sufficiently confident of not being caught to risk flouting contribution limits. This is in 1976. Again, recall, since he wrote those words, campaign spending has tripled. He also went on to add: I have little doubt that limiting the total that can be spent will ease the candidate's understandable obsession with fundraising and so free him and his staff to communicate in more places and ways unconnected with the fundraising function. I regret that, by rejecting a limit, the Court has returned them all to the treadmill. I would argue there is no one here in this body who would suggest that that treadmill is not still there. I have heard in the debate notions about how this would infringe on treasured values of the first amendment. But Justice White, in his opinion, pointed out that this is not a unique issue, that the limiting of the quantity of speech is done routinely. As he said: Compulsory bargaining and the right to strike, both provided for or protected by Federal law, inevitably have increased the labor costs of those who publish newspapers. Federal and State taxation directly removes from company coffers large amounts of money that might be spent on larger and better newspapers. But it has not been suggested, nor could it be successfully, that these laws, and many others, are invalid because they siphon off or prevent the accumulation of large sums that would otherwise be available for communicative activities. We do on a routine basis require newspapers, the great champions of the first amendment, the most vociferous defenders of the first amendment, to comply with laws that effectively limit the quantity of speech that they can put out. So this notion that what we are doing today trods on the sacred core of the first amendment, I do not think is right. Indeed, I think we would be better off to have the Court reassess its opinion of Buckley and find that these limits are appropriate under the first amendment. But today, we are left with presenting to the American people the opportunity to make that judgment. I hope that, as I said, Buckley could be reviewed and indeed be recognized by the Court to be inappropriate based on the facts today. They have the authority to do that. We have the authority to present to the American public this constitutional amendment. I urge that we do so. I want to commend the sponsor, Senator Hollings, for his leadership, for his perception of the issue, and for his unflinching commitment to develop a campaign finance system that is fair to all. One last point. I have also heard in this debate the notion that this Congress would impose irresponsible and reckless limits. In reality, any limits we impose we would all have to recognize and work within. They would be the same as applied to Republican candidates or Democratic candidates. They would limit the amount of money that right- wing, special-interest groups could put in or left-wing, special- interest groups could put in. They would, in effect, return our elections to the democratic process that our citizens believe we should have, a process by which they can listen to the voices of the candidates, they can communicate their views, they can, in effect, not be drowned out by an avalanche of money and 30-second sound bites. In fact, an election can be a dialog about democracy and not about who raises how much money. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Again, I commend the Senator for his great leadership. Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair. Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in honor of National Sportsmanship Day, which was observed on March 4, in over 8,000 schools in all 50 States and 75 countries throughout the world. National Sportsmanship Day was conceived by the Institute for International Sport, located in my home State of Rhode Island. The Institutes slogan, ``Dare to Play Fair,'' challenges athletes, coaches, administrators, and parents to reflect on the true meaning of competition and to discuss the importance of ethics and fair play in sport, the classroom, and everyday life. The centerpiece of this years National Sportsmanship Day was a seminar and town meeting at the University of Rhode Island discussing the issue of violence in sport. This day long event included panels composed of professional athletes, coaches, and journalists who discussed the many different aspects of this issue. In addition, the Institute has enlisted the help of several Sports Ethics Fellows, including the winner of baseball's Roberto Clemente Man of the Year Award and 10 time All-Star for the Minnesota Twins, Kirby Puckett, Rhode Island's own Brad Faxon, one of the top golfers on the PGA tour and the cofounder of the Billy Andrade- Brad Faxon Charities for Children Program. These men and women are wonderful role models who can be admired for more than just their athletic prowess. They have consistently demonstrated an interest in furthering the principles of honesty and integrity in sport and society. Indeed, the Sports Ethics Fellows are helping to teach the important lessons of National Sportsmanship Day by writing articles on sportsmanship and developing programs for National Sportsmanship Day. Through competition, young athletes can learn that while winning is a worthy goal, honor, discipline, and hard work are more important. Indeed, these values will guide them in all aspects of everyday life. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join the President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports and the Rhode Island congressional delegation in recognizing this day and the principles it embodies.