Robert Torricelli

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, first, I would like to thank Senators Kerrey, Daschle, and Roberts who have worked to craft a national crop insurance reform bill. I rise in support of the Conference Report because it represents a fundamental shift in farm policy in its recognition of the importance of agriculture in the Northeast. Historically, New Jersey farmers have been at a disadvantage when it comes to crop insurance for two principle reasons. First, many of the specialty crops they grow are not eligible for insurance. And second, because our region has a history of non-participation, many farmers fail to investigate what options they may be eligible for. They simply assume that they are not eligible or that the programs are not economically worthwhile. Without crop insurance, farmers in my region will not be able to continue farming, they will be forced out of a way of life, they will be forced to sell their land. New Jersey may be the best example of what can happen when we do not protect our farmers. In 1959, New Jersey had 15,800 farms. Today we have 9,400. In 1959, New Jersey had 1,460,000 acres of farmland. Today we have but 800,000. The current Federal Crop Insurance program has failed to curb the losses which farmers have experienced and has forced them to sell their land and their livelihood. It has facilitated the end of a way of life in New Jersey. When the Senate passed its version of the crop insurance reform bill, it adopted the so-called ``Northeast Amendment'' drafted by myself, Senator Schumer, Leahy, Reed, Rockefeller and others. The amendment has been almost entirely preserved in the Conference Report. The amendment is targeted at increasing participation in states in which there is traditionally, and continues to be, a low level of crop insurance participation and availability. The conference report provides $50 million over five years for research to create new crop insurance policies. The goal is to develop new programs tailored to the crops in our region so that our farmers will find it economically worthwhile. An additional $25 million over five years for education programs designed to inform farmers of the current crop insurance options available to them. This would include hiring more agents to sell insurance and more USDA officials to help farmers craft a strategy for their farm. This money will put in place the necessary human infrastructure. The final provision of the Northeast amendment is $50 million over five years for payments to farmers who adopt certain conservation practices. The effect of this amendment will be to increase participation, by making it more attractive, more affordable, and more accessible to farmers who grow specialty crops and have low rates of participation in crop insurance. But the Conference Report also vastly improves the situation for farmers who grow non-insurable crops by improving the Non-insured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP). Because farmers who grow the majority of crops in my state do not qualify for crop insurance, the NAP program is the only assistance my farmers can rely on when their crops are decimated, as during last summer's drought. Under current law, losses in the region where a farmer grows must be extensive before a single farmer is eligible for NAP relief. The Conference Report removes this ``area trigger'' and ensures that farmers not eligible for crop insurance receive protection in times of hardship, regardless of whether they are the only farmer who suffered. The Conference Report also addresses the needs of states like New Jersey by including additional provisions to develop broad specialty crop policies. These policies are designed to protect farmers who grow ``specialty crops'', fruits and vegetables which constitute many of the crops grown in the Northeast. By focusing on specialty crop product development, the bill truly addresses the needs of farmers in all regions throughout the country. Because of these provisions, I will support the bill and will urge my other Northeast colleagues to do the same. However, I am extremely concerned that the $7.1 billion in emergency farm aid included in this bill essentially provides no relief to our region. The majority of this funding will be distributed in AMTA payments to farmers in the Midwest and South who grow commodity crops such as corn, soybeans, and wheat. It will not help the specialty crop farmers in New Jersey or anywhere else in the Northeast. This is unfortunate, considering that the farmers in my state are still suffering from last summer's drought. The Senate will soon have another opportunity to provide this desperately needed relief when it considers the Agriculture Appropriations bill after Memorial Day. As written, this bill includes additional aid for dairy farmers, livestock and peanut farmers. But it still fails to address the situation faced by small family farmers throughout the Northeast. During consideration of that bill, I plan on offering an amendment with my colleagues from the Northeast that will provide some relief for the specialty crop farmers in our region. I hope at the time we will enjoy the support of the other regions of the country who so generously are benefitting from the emergency aid included in this crop insurance bill. Again, I want to thank Senators Kerrey, Roberts, Daschle, Harkin and Leahy for their willingness to work with us during this process.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Virginia for yielding the time. I commend the Senator from Virginia and my colleague, Senator Byrd from West Virginia, in bringing this issue before the Senate. Before discussing Kosovo, or the provisions of the NATO treaty, there is something more paramount that should come before the Senate. It is not a treaty with a foreign nation or obligations in another land but our own Constitution and our own responsibilities in this country. For too long, the foreign policy and military powers of the Congress have been yielded to the executive. This Congress has not been a jealous guardian of its own constitutional prerogatives. Under our system of government and its Constitution, the military and foreign policy powers are shared between the executive and the legislative branches. By necessity, the Commander in Chief must have the ability to deploy troops and make command decisions in emergencies. Often there is not time to consult, certainly not time to receive permission. But the power remains shared because we have the responsibility for the resources of the Government. The unfolding events in Kosovo that threaten to go not a matter of months but many years--even more than a decade--does not require emergency powers. There is no shortage of time. There is an opportunity for our Constitution to function and for the President to return to this Chamber. We are now having the debate in this Chamber. The Bundestag had theirs in Berlin a year ago. The British Parliament gave its assent. The National Assembly in Paris and the Italian Parliament have had their debate. This Congress, unlike the great democracies in Europe, has remained silent. Is our Constitution less? Do our people exercise less powers through their elected representatives than those in Germany or Italy or France? Many Members have risen to talk about Kosovo. I rise to talk about the United States. There has been great concern for the NATO treaty. As did my colleagues from Virginia and West Virginia, I rise because I am concerned about our Constitution. I believe there is a legitimate role for the United States in Kosovo. I strongly believe in the NATO treaty. The United States has met its responsibilities under the NATO treaty. Strictly defined, that treaty was for the defense of Western Europe from external threats. By necessity, it was properly expanded at the end of the cold war to include legitimate internal threats to European order. The United States was not a participant in dealing with that threat. We were a leader. Not a single European soldier would have been in Kosovo or Bosnia but for the U.S. Air Force. None of it could have been supported but for the U.S. Army. None of it would have been viable but for the U.S. Government. Our responsibilities were met. But expanding the NATO treaty to include internal threats to Europe was one thing--legitimate, in my judgment--but expanding the NATO treaty to deal with permanent control of order and peacekeeping is another. I believe we have met our responsibilities. I believe it is incumbent upon a new administration, next year, to return to this Congress and make the case, if it is possible, that it is necessary on an ongoing basis to have a near-permanent presence in Kosovo--no longer a crisis-- now maintaining order. It is not too much to ask the administration to make that case or this Congress to meet its responsibilities and act affirmatively upon the judgment. It will, in truth, not be an easy case to make. Kosovo is a nation of a mere 2 million people. This long after the war in Kosovo, it must be made in a case to this Congress that 300 million Europeans, with a gross national product larger than the United States, with combined government resources in excess of the United States, are unable to maintain these modest numbers of troops to maintain order within their own borders, on their own continent, for their own purposes. It is not a question of our unwillingness to respond to crises or threats, but to learn to separate the crisis response from the near permanent presence to maintain order. The final point made against this amendment is the most extraordinary of all, that our credibility is at issue. Who could rise to challenge the credibility of the U.S. Government to international security or the defense of freedom--which of our NATO allies? Fifty-five years after the close of World War II, tens of millions of American young men and women have served in western Europe. Our presence remains, at an expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars. Who among our NATO allies could rise and say that our credibility is in question? But for the United States, there would have been no operation in Bosnia or in Kosovo. It was made possible by the U.S. Government. This Government's credibility is not at issue. Fifty years after the war in Korea, we and we alone remain on the line to defend freedom. A decade after the war in the Persian Gulf, often we and we alone remain resolute in defiance of Saddam Hussein. Twelve years after the destruction at Lockerbie, we alone have to convince our allies to remain strong against Libya. We alone often maintain vigilance against those few remaining Communist states where freedom is eclipsed. The credibility of the U.S. Government is not at issue. What is at issue is the constitutional prerogatives of this institution. It remains a question of Europe meeting responsibilities not for crisis response, which we share under NATO, but for maintaining order on a near permanent basis. It is not an issue of credibility. There is a fourth issue. Kosovo is not the last crisis this Government is going to deal with in international order or maintaining peace and stability.

Mr. TORRICELLI. May I have another 30 seconds?

Mr. TORRICELLI. A future American President is going to have to factor in, in responding to a crisis in Asia or North Africa or the Middle East, that American ships and planes are on station supporting operations in Kosovo, not dealing with a crisis but on a police patrol. The number of forces may not be great, but, indeed, our resources are very strained. Is it fair to this country, the security of the United States, that we will have to at some point forgo defending interests elsewhere because our forces are substituting what Europe should be doing in Kosovo? No, Mr. President, our credibility is not at issue, nor our resolve. Whether or not this generation of Senators and Members of the House defend its prerogatives under the Constitution is at issue. I commend the gentleman from Virginia for bringing this before the Senate.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the Lao Veterans of America as they mark the 25th Annual Remembrance of the United States involvement in Laos. During the Vietnam War, many brave Laotians and their families chose to fight along side American soldiers against the North Vietnamese as part of the United States Special Forces. These brave souls took great risks, and deserve our recognition and thanks. Those represented by the Lao Veterans of America served honorably during the conflict in Vietnam. They fought bravely to prevent the North Vietnamese from invading South Vietnam from Laos, and rescued shot down American pilots and brought them to safety. Through their actions, countless American lives were saved. These heroic deeds often placed the veterans and their families' lives in great risk as a result. The selfless aid of the Lao Veterans of America is a true testament to the cause of freedom around the world. While the causes of this tragic conflict may continue to be debated, I believe we can all agree that the sacrifices of the Laotian veterans and their families should not be forgotten, as we owe them a great debt of gratitude.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, this month I join people in New Jersey and throughout the nation in celebrating Pacific-American Heritage Month. The Pacific-American community represents an important part of America's future and I applaud their proud celebration of heritage and community. Taiwanese-American Heritage Week, from May 7 to May 14, celebrates the unique and diverse contributions of the more than 500,000 Taiwanese-Americans in the United States. These Americans have played a significant role in our nation's life and their countless accomplishments can be found in every facet of American society. For instance, Taiwanese-Americans have succeeded as notable artists, Nobel Laureate scientists, researchers, human rights activists, and business leaders. In addition to recognizing these contributions, this is an excellent opportunity to celebrate the success of democracy on the island of Taiwan. Since 1987, the Taiwanese people have possessed the rights to select their own leaders, practice the religion of their choice, and express their thoughts openly and freely. Taiwan is a vibrant and democratic participant in the family of nations. The election on March 18 of opposition leader Chen Shui-bian as president, and my friend Annette Lu as vice-president, represents the crowning achievement of the struggle of the people of Taiwan for full- fledged democracy and freedom. While Taiwan has established a model democracy, there remain political challenges. Gaining worldwide recognition of the legitimacy of Taiwan's government is paramount. With all that Taiwanese and Taiwanese-Americans have accomplished there is still more work to be done before Taiwan's status and global contributions are properly respected and appreciated. Mr. President, Taiwanese-American Heritage Week recognizes the longstanding friendship between the United States and Taiwan. I commend the great accomplishments and contributions of the Taiwanese-American community.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution that would greatly improve the lives of thousands of New Jersey residents. Healthcare in New Jersey has a long history of innovation and advancement. From the large number of pharmaceutical companies that create new medicines, to the hospitals and facilities where innovative therapies are develop, New Jersey remains one of the most progressive healthcare States in the country. This State was one of the first to introduce and pass a comprehensive patient's bill of rights, and one of the first to recognize the importance of expanding access to healthcare to children and low income families. One of New Jersey's greatest innovations, and one which truly demonstrates the community based approach which has been so successful, is the development of our Emergency Medical Services (EMS) system. The current EMS system in New Jersey, which has been in place for roughly 25 years, was designed as a modern remedy to the age old problem of guaranteeing access to emergency transport, while at the same time preserving local involvement in the delivery of services and preventing skyrocketing costs. The New Jersey EMS system accomplished all three goals by establishing a two-tiered approach to emergency transport. This two- tiered system includes volunteer and for-profit Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs) who provide basic life support (BLS), and hospital- based paramedics, who provide advanced life support (ALS). Basic and advanced life support are differentiated by the status of the victim, with the most serious injuries, such as heart attacks, treated by ALS paramedics. The two-tiered system has been an unqualified success in New Jersey, providing universal access for all residents to affordable emergency services, while simultaneously ensuring that those persons in need of the most advanced care receive it from the proper authorities. The system allows almost 500 local volunteer emergency medical technician (EMT) squads to blanket the entire State with quick and effective initial responses to emergencies. In the case of more serious emergencies, paramedics are strategically stationed at various hospitals throughout the State to provide secondary assistance. In either case, the EMTs will generally transport patients to the hospital with the paramedics, if necessary, along to provide care. There are currently an estimated 20,000 EMTs providing ambulance transportation for virtually all BLS and ALS emergencies, close to 400,000 calls each year. It is estimated that over 80 percent of these calls are handled by volunteers who are not reimbursed by Medicare. In contrast, the hospital-based paramedics, also known as mobile intensive care units (MICUs), are reimbursed by Medicare when they respond to ALS emergencies, just as all other paramedics. Unfortunately, the great success of this system would be jeopardized if the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) finalizes plans to implement new rules regarding the reimbursement of EMS services. The new HCFA EMS guidelines propose to only provide reimbursement to hospital-based paramedics. This would have the effect of requiring them to be the only responders to provide transport for all victims in order to be reimbursed by Medicare. This, in turn, would eliminate the two- tier structure by solely recognizing MICUs, and thus also eliminate the need for volunteer EMS units, which currently provide the bulk of the transport. Under the new rules, there would be no incentive for EMS units to respond to calls of they know their mission has been given to MICUs. While I applaud HCFAs intentions in releasing the new rules, which are designed to control costs by enforcing one, standardized, system throughout the country, I am dismayed by the impact this will have on New Jersey. Our system, when compared to the system HCFA is set to approve, would save an estimated $39 million annually, due to the preponderance of BLS calls and the large number of EMS volunteers who respond to these calls. But beyond the cost savings, the elimination of EMS units would jeopardize the prompt service that New Jersey residents have come to rely on. The resolution I am submitting today seeks to emphasize the benefits of two-tiered EMS in my State, and request that HCFA do its best to preserve this highly beneficial and cost effective system. HCFA has always been a strong supporter of measures that improve the delivery of healthcare services, while lowering the cost to taxpayers. I believe that once they have been made fully aware of the importance of this issue, the agency will act responsibly and include an exemption for New Jersey. It is my hope that the Senate will see the importance of supporting my resolution, not just for the impact it will have on the residents of my State, by also for the statement it will make about the Heath Care Financing Administration's mission.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of Marie Cascone Rotunda, an outstanding New Jerseyan who has dedicated her distinguished career to the service of others. A selfless individual and member of the Trenton community, she is being honored with the prestigious Community Service Award by the Grandville Academy National. The revered American poet Walt Whitman once wrote ``Behold, I do not give lectures or a little charity. When I give, I give myself.'' It is clear that Marie Cascone Rotunda's many years of community service is the embodiment of this notion. She has tirelessly given of herself through her dedication to many noble and charitable causes. She has served with the International Special Olympics, taken it upon herself to create an emergency food pantry in the Township of Lawrence and for the past several years, she has focused much of her effort in supporting the Sunshine Foundation, which helps chronically and terminally ill children realize their dreams and fulfill their wishes. Furthermore she has spearheaded fund raising efforts that have raised over $2 million for charitable causes in her community. The Trenton community is truly fortunate to have been graced by such a talented and caring person. New Jersey is proud of this distinguished individual who has touched so many lives. Marie is an exemplar of the coveted American ideals of compassion and community service, and it is my honor to recognize her tremendous achievements today.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of Shitama Manzo Sensei and Takaki Masanori Sensei of the Seikiryukan Dojo upon the occasion of their visit to the United States. As the 16th headmaster of Sosuishi-ryu Jujutsu and kancho of the Seikiryukan, Shitama Manzo Sensei with the aid of Takaki Masanori Sensei, chief instructor of the Seikiryukan, have provided exemplary leadership and dedication in their oversight of the instruction of Jujutsu and Judo for many years. The Seikiryukan Dojo has a history dating back centuries as the bombu of Sosuishi-ryu Jujutsu. It is dedicated to the ethical and physical principles that compose the martial arts of Jujutsu and Judo and was one of the first martial arts schools in Japan to teach the United States Military Jujutsu and Judo. Shitama Manzo Sensei and Takaki Masanori have given much of their time and energy working for the betterment of others. I am appreciative of the opportunity to recognize men of such charter and conviction who work at teaching other their honorable ways.

Mr. TORRICELLI

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

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago it was a Michigan nursing home and Monday night it was a shootout at the National Zoo here in Washington, D.C. The epidemic of gun violence has become something that affects all Americans, not only those living in our inner cities. Whenever we open our morning newspapers and read about these tragedies, we are left to wonder whether our loved ones might be the next victims and whether our own community, our own neighborhood, and our own home could be tomorrow's headlines. The devastation that guns have brought to our families and to our communities has been well documented, but the statistics bear repeating. Only with an understanding of the dimensions of the problem will we ever bring real change. In 1997 alone, more than 32,000 Americans were shot and killed, including 4,000 children. The American Academy of Pediatrics estimates by the year 2006 firearms will become the largest single killer of our own children in the United States. The economic cost of every shooting death in society--if it is necessary to measure it in these cold terms--is $1 million per victim in medical care, police services, and lost productivity. The American public has grown tired of hearing of these appalling statistics. And so have I. More importantly, they have grown tired of a Congress that does nothing about it, with no real efforts to stop this bloodshed. Last April, it seemed that the senseless death of 12 students at Columbine High School had finally brought the Nation to a point of judgment. It even appeared to me that this Congress had finally had enough. The shocking and heartbreaking nature of the tragedy, which was really unlike anything in its dimensions that the Nation had faced before, appeared to convince the Congress that it could no longer ignore the problem. Indeed, this Senate, in one of its finer moments since I became a Member of this institution, courageously passed a juvenile justice bill that included three basic gun safety measures: It banned the possession of assault weapons by minors; it closed the gun show loophole; and it mandated safety locks on all firearms. Originally, we had sought a more comprehensive solution that would restrict gun sales to one per month, a reasonable proposal; reinstate the Brady waiting period, proven to be an effective proposal; and regulate guns as consumer products, certainly a worthwhile proposal. But we limited ourselves to those other basic provisions in the interests of a consensus, with a belief that they were so sensible and so necessary that there could be no reasonable opposition. So before the debate even began, the proposals had been limited to what should have represented a consensus view, leaving the more ambitious but still reasonable proposals for another day. But now, with the 1-year anniversary of the Columbine shootings having passed, it is clear that our confidence, perhaps even our strategy, was misguided. Today, the bill languishes in conference--an unfortunate reminder that no gun law is too important or too responsible that it cannot be opposed by the National Rifle Association. In place of changes, the Republican leadership and the NRA have offered the American public flimsy rhetoric that blames gun violence on poor enforcement of existing gun laws. The NRA erroneously claims that prosecutions have plummeted under the Clinton administration when, in fact, these prosecutions rose by 25 percent last year. This campaign provides nothing but further evidence that this agenda is not aimed at protecting our communities, but it is aimed at protecting the status quo--a status quo that most Americans a long time ago decided was unacceptable. No one disputes the fact that enforcement is a critical element of any response to this problem. That is why, indeed, on this side of the aisle we have supported 1,000 new ATF agents and 1,000 new prosecutors to deal with gun violence. But as much as we have done, we can always do more; while laws are being enforced, they can be enforced better. But no one can reasonably believe that enforcement alone constitutes a comprehensive or sufficient answer to this national epidemic. Better enforcement of every gun law ever written will not prevent the 1,500 accidental shootings that are occurring every year. Enforcement of every gun law on the books would not prevent a 6-year-old boy from bringing his father's gun to school and killing a 6-year-old classmate. Nor does it address the fact that 43 percent of parents leave their guns unsecured, and 13 percent have unsecured guns loaded or with ammunition nearby. Enforcing gun laws, vigorous prosecutions, would answer none of those problems. These realities point to the need for a broad approach to gun control. The provisions contained in the juvenile justice bill are the first steps, but they are important first steps. The real answer--perhaps the challenge that should have come to this Congress last year--is to bring the entire issue to the Senate, and build upon what is already in the juvenile justice bill by also challenging the Senate to restrict the sale of firearms to one per month, a simple provision which would help eliminate the problem under which my State is suffering, where people go to other States and buy large numbers of firearms and transport them to the cities of New Jersey, selling them, often to children, out of the trunks of cars. Second, reinstitute the Brady waiting period on handgun purchases to prevent individuals in fits of rage and passion from acting upon their emotions with a gun. Separate the rage of the individual from the purchase of the firearm, giving a cooling off period that can and would save lives. Most important, we must do on the Federal level what Massachusetts recently did on the State level: regulate firearms as consumer products. Firearms remain the only consumer product in America not regulated for safety, a strange, inexplicable, peculiar exception to the law because they are inherently the most dangerous consumer products of them all. It is, indeed, an absurd, inexplicable contradiction that a toy gun remains regulated but a real gun is not. Consumer regulation would ensure that, as every other product in America, guns are safely designed, built, and distributed, not only for the benefit of the public but also for the people who purchase them. Indeed, who has a greater interest in gun safety by design and construction than the people who buy guns? If the materials are imperfect, if they do not work properly, it is the gun owner who is going to be hurt. Together these three measures would make a real difference in ending gun violence. Would they end all gun violence? Would they end all crime? Indeed, not. No single provision, no amendment, no law, no single action could eliminate all gun violence or most gun violence. But if we await a perfect solution, we will act upon no solution. Ending the problems of violence and guns in America is not something that will be done by one Congress or one legislative proposal in any one year or probably in any one decade. It is successive ideas in succeeding Congresses where people of goodwill put the public interest first and look for real and serious answers to this epidemic of violence. As long as the NRA is allowed to dominate the gun debate in place of common sense and compassion, the Columbines of the future are sadly, even tragically, inevitable. It is time for Congress to finally muster the courage to act responsibly on this issue out of concern for our children. Out of respect for the memories of those who have died, we can and should do nothing less. I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank the Senator. Hurricane Floyd may be out of the headlines, but it is not out of people's lives. From Florida to Maine, thousands of people lost their homes. Communities are facing devastating tax increases to repair bridges and roads and schools. This addition to the budget will allow us to begin the planning to help these families. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of it, and I thank Senator Domenici for his help.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I thank Senator Reid of Nevada for giving me the time earlier in the debate. My colleague from North Carolina, Mr. Edwards, rose to remind our colleagues that while the flooding earlier in the year may be over and not in the headlines of our newspapers, Hurricane Floyd is still a reality for many communities around our country. Towns such as Bound Brook, NJ--and, as indeed Mr. Edwards pointed out, Princeville, NC--Florida to Maine, Hurricane Floyd left a path of destruction so large that FEMA declared it to be the eighth worst disaster of the decade. In New Jersey by comparison, it was worse: Two-hundred and fifty-three municipalities in New Jersey, the populations of 4.2 million people, were stricken. More than 43,000 structures, including homes, schools, and businesses, suffered severe damage. Over 20,000 residents of New Jersey alone applied for Federal assistance, and municipalities submitted over 2,000 requests for public assistance to remove debris or to repair damages. While FEMA has led an effort of providing assistance to homeowners, the greatest problem is how to rebuild their own economic infrastructure. Bound Brook, NJ, alone, a community that was entirely inundated by this flooding, lost 7 percent of its annual revenue and 37 percent of its property value. A month after Floyd, the New Jersey government appropriated $80 million for disaster relief. The reality is that the magnitude of the loss is so overwhelming that, without Federal aid, these communities will not simply suffer-- some will actually cease to exist. Main Streets were inundated, businesses lost, local governments lost revenues. They will close their doors and no longer be the communities where people live and work. The amendment I have offered with Mr. Edwards provides needed resources by increasing funding for communities in a regional development by $250 million. It includes $150 million for community development block grants; $50 million for the EDA; $50 million for community facilities block grants. This, my colleagues, is not an unusual approach. In 1997 the supplemental disaster bill provided flood aid for the upper Midwest of $500 million for communities in desperate need in North and South Dakota and Minnesota. In 1998, the disaster supplemental bill provided $250 million for community development block grants in Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands as they recovered from Hurricane George. Now we return to those States damaged from Florida to Maine, particularly in North Carolina, Delaware, Maryland, New York, and New Jersey. Hurricane Floyd destroyed many of our communities. We need this Congress to respond again. Tomorrow this amendment will be offered. I hope in this budget resolution we can make room for this $250 million to respond to the need of these communities. I thank the Senator from Nevada for yielding and I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will eliminate burdensome and unnecessary regulations which are devastating the nation's limousine companies, 80 percent of which are small business owners. Federal Highway Administration regulations grant limo operators the right to cross states lines ``without interference''. Yet local entities across the U.S. have taken it upon themselves to establish unnecessary bureaucracies for the purpose of placing excessive and arbitrary requirements upon limo operators that enter their jurisdictions. Current law already requires limo operators to be certified and registered at three different stages: the U.S. Department of Transportation; the state in which they principally operate; and the locality in which the business is located. Therefore, company owners, drivers, and vehicles must already comply with a myriad of safety and financial requirements that includes carrying at least $1.5 million in liability insurance. Public safety is clearly being upheld. Yet, after satisfying these three stages of compliance, limo operators often find that there is a fourth, fifth, sixth and sometimes even more bureaucratic hoops to jump through to simply conduct their business. This happens when a locality sets up a Local Taxi and Limousine Commission to place certification requirements not only on companies located in their jurisdiction, but on any other limo that enters their locality to pick up or drop off a customer. These additional licenses can cost up to several hundred dollars annually-- and that's just to enter one jurisdiction. The purpose of the CARR ACT is simple. It says that if a limo operator has satisfied federal, state, and local requirements, no other state or entity has the authority to establish additional requirements. The bill will not lower the quality of service which the public expects from the limousine industry nor does it compromise public safety. In fact, my legislation does not affect any safety regulations or financial requirements on interstate operations required by the U.S. DOT nor does it affect the power of states to regulate safety or financial responsibility as they may do under current law. The same protections were granted to the trucking industry in 1995, to the armor car industry in 1997, and to the chartered bus industry under TEA-21. The time for these protections to be extended to the limousine industry is long overdue. No small business should be faced with the unfair and excessive bureaucracy faced by the nation's 9,000 limousine operators. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent at this time that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will eliminate burdensome and unnecessary regulations which are devastating the nation's limousine companies, 80 percent of which are small business owners. Federal Highway Administration regulations grant limo operators the right to cross states lines ``without interference''. Yet local entities across the U.S. have taken it upon themselves to establish unnecessary bureaucracies for the purpose of placing excessive and arbitrary requirements upon limo operators that enter their jurisdictions. Current law already requires limo operators to be certified and registered at three different stages: the U.S. Department of Transportation; the state in which they principally operate; and the locality in which the business is located. Therefore, company owners, drivers, and vehicles must already comply with a myriad of safety and financial requirements that includes carrying at least $1.5 million in liability insurance. Public safety is clearly being upheld. Yet, after satisfying these three stages of compliance, limo operators often find that there is a fourth, fifth, sixth and sometimes even more bureaucratic hoops to jump through to simply conduct their business. This happens when a locality sets up a Local Taxi and Limousine Commission to place certification requirements not only on companies located in their jurisdiction, but on any other limo that enters their locality to pick up or drop off a customer. These additional licenses can cost up to several hundred dollars annually-- and that's just to enter one jurisdiction. The purpose of the CARR ACT is simple. It says that if a limo operator has satisfied federal, state, and local requirements, no other state or entity has the authority to establish additional requirements. The bill will not lower the quality of service which the public expects from the limousine industry nor does it compromise public safety. In fact, my legislation does not affect any safety regulations or financial requirements on interstate operations required by the U.S. DOT nor does it affect the power of states to regulate safety or financial responsibility as they may do under current law. The same protections were granted to the trucking industry in 1995, to the armor car industry in 1997, and to the chartered bus industry under TEA-21. The time for these protections to be extended to the limousine industry is long overdue. No small business should be faced with the unfair and excessive bureaucracy faced by the nation's 9,000 limousine operators. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent at this time that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I thank the chairman. I am certain he understands many of us believe that the long, slow erosion of the agricultural community in the Northeast must come to an end. Those who are engaged in specialty crops and other products in New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and other States have suffered very badly in recent years. I think the agreement we have come to is of some real note. That is, this isn't simply an agricultural crop insurance program; it is now a national program. For the first time in my experience, we have reached across the Nation's borders, coast to coast, and designed a program that can work for every State. This is a very important moment for the State of New Jersey and preserving those farms that remain. I am grateful and very much appreciate his commitment to fight vigorously in conference so that the Senate provisions prevail. I thank the Senator.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will help bring more criminals to justice and create a better federal judicial system in New Jersey. This legislation will divide the federal District of New Jersey into the Southern and Northern Districts of New Jersey which will enable the federal courts and federal agencies to better serve the approximately 8 million residents of the state. It will also bring much needed federal law enforcement resources to the state, particularly southern New Jersey. Under the bill, the proposed Southern District of New Jersey would include 8 of the 21 counties in New Jersey and the Northern District of New Jersey would include the remaining 13. The federal courthouses would be located in Camden and Trenton for the Southern District and in Newark for the Northern District. All federal cases arising in the eight-county Southern District would be heard in the federal court in Camden or Trenton and cases from the 13-county Northern District would be heard in Newark. The bill would also result in the creation of several new federal positions for the Southern District including a Clerk of the Court, U.S. Attorney, U.S. Marshal, and a Federal Public Defender, among others. By creating a new Southern District of New Jersey, more federal crime-fighting resources will be brought to a region which crime statistics reveal is besieged by violent crime. In 1998, southern New Jersey accounted for 25 percent of the state's urban murders, 32 percent of the state's murder arrests and 33 percent of the state's arrests for violent crimes. This initiative will also ensure that crime-fighting decisions are made locally instead of by officials who are based elsewhere in the state and that law enforcement officials in the region will get the resources needed to prosecute crimes effectively and expeditiously. The creation of two districts will also provide relief from the crush of cases that have crowded the dockets of the federal courts in southern New Jersey and caused a severe backlog in the system. In 1998 alone, 281 federal criminal cases were filed in federal courts in southern New Jersey and 161 criminal cases were still pending at the end of the year. In that same year, 2,116 civil cases were filed and 1,318 civil cases were pending at the end of the year. Moreover, of the 95 federal judicial districts across the nation, more than half generated fewer criminal and civil cases than southern New Jersey and in some cases with far more federal judicial and law enforcement resources. Currently, only 10 percent of the FBI agents, 15 percent of the United States Marshals and 18 percent of the Drug Enforcement Administration agents in New Jersey are assigned to the region. Of the 119 Assistant United States Attorneys in the state, only 12 are assigned to South Jersey. Finally, the creation of a new Northern and Southern Districts of New Jersey is warranted based on the sheer size of the state. The current District of New Jersey is the third most populous federal judicial district in the nation. Of the 25 states that have a single federal judicial district, New Jersey has the largest population and more than a dozen states with smaller populations have multiple judicial districts. In fact, with more than 2 million residents in the southern counties, the population of the proposed Southern District of New Jersey would exceed that of almost half of the current judicial districts and the proposed Northern District would rank even higher. This initiative enjoys broad bipartisan political support in New Jersey, and a similar bill has been introduced and cosponsored in the U.S. House of Representatives by the entire southern New Jersey Congressional delegation. The measure also has strong support in the southern counties and is backed by all eight southern county bar associations, the South Jersey Police Chief's Association, the Chamber of Commerce of Southern New Jersey and various former county prosecutors and former federal law enforcement officials. While the process of reviewing and deliberating the merits of this legislation will be lengthy and time consuming, this is an idea which is long overdue. The citizens of New Jersey deserve a better federal judicial system and their fair share of federal crime-fighting resources. I look forward to working with my colleagues to secure passage of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation appear in the Record.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will help bring more criminals to justice and create a better federal judicial system in New Jersey. This legislation will divide the federal District of New Jersey into the Southern and Northern Districts of New Jersey which will enable the federal courts and federal agencies to better serve the approximately 8 million residents of the state. It will also bring much needed federal law enforcement resources to the state, particularly southern New Jersey. Under the bill, the proposed Southern District of New Jersey would include 8 of the 21 counties in New Jersey and the Northern District of New Jersey would include the remaining 13. The federal courthouses would be located in Camden and Trenton for the Southern District and in Newark for the Northern District. All federal cases arising in the eight-county Southern District would be heard in the federal court in Camden or Trenton and cases from the 13-county Northern District would be heard in Newark. The bill would also result in the creation of several new federal positions for the Southern District including a Clerk of the Court, U.S. Attorney, U.S. Marshal, and a Federal Public Defender, among others. By creating a new Southern District of New Jersey, more federal crime-fighting resources will be brought to a region which crime statistics reveal is besieged by violent crime. In 1998, southern New Jersey accounted for 25 percent of the state's urban murders, 32 percent of the state's murder arrests and 33 percent of the state's arrests for violent crimes. This initiative will also ensure that crime-fighting decisions are made locally instead of by officials who are based elsewhere in the state and that law enforcement officials in the region will get the resources needed to prosecute crimes effectively and expeditiously. The creation of two districts will also provide relief from the crush of cases that have crowded the dockets of the federal courts in southern New Jersey and caused a severe backlog in the system. In 1998 alone, 281 federal criminal cases were filed in federal courts in southern New Jersey and 161 criminal cases were still pending at the end of the year. In that same year, 2,116 civil cases were filed and 1,318 civil cases were pending at the end of the year. Moreover, of the 95 federal judicial districts across the nation, more than half generated fewer criminal and civil cases than southern New Jersey and in some cases with far more federal judicial and law enforcement resources. Currently, only 10 percent of the FBI agents, 15 percent of the United States Marshals and 18 percent of the Drug Enforcement Administration agents in New Jersey are assigned to the region. Of the 119 Assistant United States Attorneys in the state, only 12 are assigned to South Jersey. Finally, the creation of a new Northern and Southern Districts of New Jersey is warranted based on the sheer size of the state. The current District of New Jersey is the third most populous federal judicial district in the nation. Of the 25 states that have a single federal judicial district, New Jersey has the largest population and more than a dozen states with smaller populations have multiple judicial districts. In fact, with more than 2 million residents in the southern counties, the population of the proposed Southern District of New Jersey would exceed that of almost half of the current judicial districts and the proposed Northern District would rank even higher. This initiative enjoys broad bipartisan political support in New Jersey, and a similar bill has been introduced and cosponsored in the U.S. House of Representatives by the entire southern New Jersey Congressional delegation. The measure also has strong support in the southern counties and is backed by all eight southern county bar associations, the South Jersey Police Chief's Association, the Chamber of Commerce of Southern New Jersey and various former county prosecutors and former federal law enforcement officials. While the process of reviewing and deliberating the merits of this legislation will be lengthy and time consuming, this is an idea which is long overdue. The citizens of New Jersey deserve a better federal judicial system and their fair share of federal crime-fighting resources. I look forward to working with my colleagues to secure passage of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation appear in the Record.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, during this generation we have witnessed the greatest expansion of democratic nations in history. From East Asia to Eastern Europe to Latin America and the islands of the Pacific, the blessings of democratic pluralism have expanded to the very bounds of each continent. It is in the proudest legacies of this Nation that the United States has played an essential role in facilitating the transition of these nations to democracy and their protection at critical moments. From military defense to economic assistance, it is questionable whether Korea, Poland, Haiti, and scores of other nations would be free if it were not for the leadership of the United States. Now this generation of American leadership has a new challenge. As certainly as our parents and grandparents fought to ensure that these nations would have an opportunity to be free, it is our responsibility to assure that these fledgling democracies have an opportunity to remain free, a challenge that democracy is not a transitional state but a permanent condition of mankind, and the nations that would represent them. There is one threat developing now before us to this proposition. It involves the people of Taiwan. During the late 1980s and 1990s, Taiwan underwent an extraordinary transformation from an authoritarian regime to a genuine democracy. Taiwan provided an example of peaceful political evolution from a military and authoritarian government to a true pluralist democracy with little violence, no military confrontation, and without a revolution. After years of justifying tight security control, step by step, year by year, Taiwan created a genuine democracy. In 1986, a formal opposition party, the Democratic Progressive Party, was formed. And in 1987, martial law was ended after more than 40 years. In 1991, President Lee ended the Government's emergency powers to deal with dissent and a new, freely elected legislature chosen by the people was created. In 1996, Taiwan's democracy had matured to the point that a Presidential election was held. Taiwan had fully developed. Democracy had come of age. Now, in only a few days, on March 18, Taiwan will hold its second democratic Presidential election. The challenge to this democracy and the rights of freedom of press, worship, and assembly so central to maintaining human freedom are no longer under attack from within. The pressure is from Beijing. On the very eve of these elections, the People's Republic of China issued a statement that constitutes a new threat to Taiwanese democracy. China recently issued its so-called white paper which warned that if Taiwan indefinitely delays negotiations on reunification, China will ``adopt all drastic measures possible, including the use of force.'' This goes beyond China's previous statements that it would take Taiwan by force only if it declares independence or were occupied by a foreign power. The more democratic Taiwan has become, the lower the bar appears to be for military intervention and a hostile settling of the Taiwan issue. These aggressive statements obviously only serve to increase tension in the region and make a peaceful settlement among the people of Taiwan and the People's Republic of China much more difficult. This belligerent approach obviously has precedent, almost an exact precedent. In 1996, also on the eve of a Presidential election in Taiwan, the People's Republic launched missiles in a crude attempt to intimidate the people of Taiwan as they approached their election. It now appears that the election of Taiwan's new President will be close. It is critical to the functioning of Taiwan's democracy that they thwart any belief in Beijing that intimidation will solve or contribute to the relationship between these peoples. It is critical that the people of Taiwan stand resolute and that their voters not allow these actions to intimidate them. There is obviously an American role. The United States must respond to this ultimatum by making it absolutely clear that our position is firm; it is unequivocal. The dispute between Taiwan and Beijing will not be settled by military means, and the United States, in a policy that is not unique to Taiwan, will not idly witness a free people in a democratic nation be invaded or occupied and have their political system altered by armed aggression. This, I believe, is the cornerstone of American foreign policy in the postwar period. It remains central to who we are as a people and our role as the world's largest and most powerful democracy. Any ambiguity will, on the other hand, only serve to embolden Beijing and can lead to dangerous misinterpretations and miscalculations. There is, within this Congress, the opportunity to end any possible ambiguity. The House of Representatives has passed, and the Senate has before it, the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act. Senator Helms and I introduced this legislation last year in the Senate. The House has spoken overwhelmingly in favor of our legislation, as modified. The question is before this Senate. The legislation Senator Helms and I have offered is designed to ensure Taiwan's ability to meet its defensive security needs and to resist Chinese intimidation. It imposes no new obligations on the United States. The legislation, as passed by the House, will simply strengthen the process for selling defense articles by requiring an annual report to Congress on Taiwan's defense requests and ensuring that Taiwan has full access to data on defense articles. It mandates the sale of nothing. It requires the transfer of no specific article. It does guarantee that this Congress understand the security situation, Taiwan's requests, and a flow of information. It improves Taiwan's military readiness by supporting Taiwan's participation in U.S. military academies, ensuring that their military personnel are trained, understand American doctrine, and could coordinate if there were a crisis. This is not only good for Taiwan, it is good for the United States, ensuring that if tragically there ever should be a confrontation, our own Armed Forces are in the best position to train people familiar with our doctrine and any mutual obligations. Finally, it requires that the United States establish secure, direct communications between the American Pacific Command and Taiwan's military. Nothing would be more tragic than to enter into a military confrontation by mistake or misinformation. This ensures reliable, fast, secure information so the situation is available to our own military commanders. The legislation does not commit the United States to take any specific military actions now, later, or ever. A full range of options are available to the President and to the Congress. It also does not alter or amend our commitments under the Taiwan Relations Act. Rather, it helps us to fulfill those commitments under the act and ensures that Taiwan's security needs are adequately met. If we pass this legislation, it makes it less likely that we will become engaged in any future conflict because there will be no ambiguity, no chance of miscalculation because of Taiwan's ability to strengthen itself, and because of our mutual ability to assess defensive needs, less chance of a military calculation in the mistaken belief that either Taiwan will not be defended or have the ability to defend itself. There is an important national interest in integrating the People's Republic of China into the world's economy and in promoting the growth of democracy and human rights in a nation that will play a vital role in the coming century. But our overall relationship cannot possibly develop quickly and positively if China continues to seek a military solution to the question of its relations with the people of Taiwan. By not making our policy clear, by not assessing the military situation, we do not contribute to the avoidance of military conflict. We enhance the possibility of military conflict. This legislation, I believe, is a strong statement that avoids miscalculation and lessens the chances of conflict. President Clinton made a strong statement last week in support of a peaceful resolution of this issue when he said: Issues between Beijing and Taiwan must be resolved peacefully and with the assent of the people of Taiwan. This formulation's emphasis on the ``assent of the people''--the words used by President Clinton--is new and important. Together with this Taiwan Enhancement Security Act, I believe it is an important contribution in this current debate on the problems of Taiwan security. It is, most importantly, in accord with the language of the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act as passed by the House, which states, ``Any determination of the ultimate status of Taiwan must have the express consent of the people of Taiwan.'' The Taiwan Enhancement Security Act, therefore, and President Clinton's own statement in response to recent provocations by Beijing, are not only similar, they are identical. I believe the House of Representatives, in changing the Helms-Torricelli approach, has made a valuable contribution. I believe, for the maintenance of the peace and ensuring this Nation's commitment, that those nations which have chosen to be democratic, pluralist nations, governed with the consent of their own people--the commitment of this Nation that those nations will not by force of arms or intervention have their forms of government changed or altered will be enhanced. Taiwan, today, is the cornerstone of that American commitment. Tomorrow, it could be Africa or Latin America. How we stand now on the eve of these free elections in Taiwan will most assuredly constitute a powerful message in all other places where others would challenge these new and fledgling democracies. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I rise to thank my colleagues for their support of the nomination of Judge Julio Fuentes to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. There has been much discussion of late of the slow pace at which the Senate has moved to confirm judicial nominees in the 106th Congress. It is a fact of which no one should be proud. Each judicial seat that we leave vacant slows the administration of the courts and access to justice for the American people. That being said, I want to publicly thank Senator Hatch who has repeatedly--and admirably--demonstrated his commitment to moving nominees through the Judiciary Committee in a timely fashion. I want to thank both Senator Hatch and Senator Leahy for their support in assuring Judge Fuentes' confirmation. The vote that we took this evening on Judge Fuentes is an important step towards easing the burdens on the courts. It is also evidence that a qualified candidate with broad support can get a fair vote in this Senate and move quickly from a hearing to confirmation. Judge Fuentes' nomination was reported out of the Judiciary Committee just last week by a unanimous voice vote. George Washington once said, ``The Administration of Justice is the firmest pillar of government.'' As I stand here today I am reminded of that quote because long after we all leave the Senate, those who sit on the Judiciary will continue to impact public policy and the lives of other Americans. When I recommended Judge Fuentes, I did so with the utmost confidence that he was well-suited to such great responsibility. In fact, I first considered Judge Fuentes for the position of District Court Judge. However, it soon became apparent that his stellar qualifications were so impressive that he deserved consideration for the Third Circuit. And I note with considerable pride that Judge Fuentes will be the first person of Hispanic descent to serve on the Third Circuit. His career has been distinguished by a solid record of public service, which began in 1966 when he left college for three years to serve in the United States Army, including service in the Airborne Rangers. From his days in law school to his current tenure on NJ's Superior Court, he has demonstrated that he is an accomplished attorney who has made a commitment to improving the quality of justice in our society. I have no doubt that he will bring these same qualities to the federal bench. A graduate of SUNY--Buffalo School of Law, Judge Fuentes began his legal career in private practice where he worked for 7 years on both civil and criminal matters. For his last three years in private practice, he also served as a part-time Judge on Newark's Municipal Court. Then in 1981, he assumed the bench full-time as a Municipal Judge where he remained until 1987 when he was promoted to the New Jersey Superior Court. In his now 13 years on the Superior Court, he has built a reputation as a fair and able jurist. When you speak with those who have had the opportunity to work with Judge Fuentes throughout this distinguished career, they universally praise his integrity as well as the depth and breadth of his knowledge of the law. And those who know him well describe him as bright, dedicated, and compassionate. I could not be more confident that Judge Fuentes is the right person to fill this seat--a view that is shared by those best in a position to know the Judge's qualifications. New Jersey's Governor Christie Whitman, the New Jersey State Bar Association, and the Hispanic Bar Association--both nationally and in New Jersey--have written letters enthusiastically supporting the Judge's nomination. I am extremely proud to support Judge Fuentes nomination to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. I know he will be a superb addition to the bench.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I first express my admiration and, indeed, thanks to Senator Coverdell who, through these many days and many years, has both written this measure and brought it to this moment of judgment. I have been proud to be his partner in this process, though admittedly he has shouldered far more than half of this load, bringing us to this moment of judgment. I am genuinely grateful and proud to have worked with him.

Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank my colleague. At this point I think every argument has been made and almost everybody has made them. This Senate has now looked at the question of education savings accounts from every possible perspective. I know these arguments, both for and against the legislation, have been sincerely made. But, indeed, I fear that what is the beginning of a long and detailed analysis of the problems of American education has been plagued by a perennial senatorial problem, and that is making the perfect the enemy of the good. Neither Senator Coverdell nor I have ever argued that offering these private savings accounts would solve every education problem in America. They will not. No Senator could come to this floor with any proposal solving every problem. But they are the opening shot in a revolution in American education, a revolution that, if we are wise enough, will at some point include the construction of new schools, the raising of teacher salaries, the increasing of accountability, and new standards. But on this day, if we succeed, it changes the battle lines in American education by bringing private resources and the private community into the process of education. Throughout the history of our country, we have allowed American education to be simply a question of what local governments, sometimes with Federal resources, can do through the instruments of Government to educate children. That formula will always dominate American education. We seek to change it if only in this marginal degree. By the use of these private savings accounts, we estimate that $12 billion of family resources will be used to help educate children from kindergarten through high school. That is not a substitute for public resources. It does not divert public resources. Indeed, not a dollar of public money is diverted from the public schools to any other institution. It does allow the community, a family at the birth of a child, to establish these savings accounts and then call upon grandparents, parents, cousins, churches, synagogues, labor unions, and corporations to contribute moneys into these funds. That cannot be bad. Mr. President, $12 billion will be spent on education tomorrow that is not spent today. We may divide on other issues of education, but no one can sincerely argue in this Chamber those resources are not needed or that it is not a good thing parents or churches or grandparents have a vehicle to participate in that child's education. I know my colleagues, particularly my Democratic colleagues, are sincere when they express concern, but this legislation will not help every child. I cannot argue that point. There are some families so wealthy they may not qualify, and there are some families so poor they may not be able to contribute or find sponsors who will. For them, there are other days, other legislation, and other proposals which this Senate has an obligation to consider. But on this day, on this vote, for millions of American families, working-class families, people who work hard every day, middle-income families who can save $50, $100, $1,000 for their child, this is a vehicle. Under what possible reason would the Federal Government be taxing the interest of an account where a family saves for the education of their child? Not only should we not be taxing it, we should be doing everything possible to encourage that family to save that money. It will help most families. Yet many of my colleagues still argue: But the money will be diverted from public schools. No, I say to my colleagues, not a dollar. Indeed, the CBO has estimated that 70 percent of this money will actually be spent by public school students. The other day, in this Chamber, my friend and my colleague, whom I admire greatly, Senator Dodd, said: But the public schools are free. No, I say to my colleagues, public schools are not free. Afterschool activities cost money, tutors cost money, transportation costs money, books cost money, computers cost money. Some of the greatest champions in the Senate of public schools in America have argued against this legislation in the belief they are defending public schools. Most of this $12 billion will go to the public schools so middle-class families and working families will be able to use these funds to help pay for public school activities. Yet some of this money will also go to help pay the tuition of private school students, and that is a good thing, too. I say to my colleagues, this has been a good debate. This is a sound proposal. I hope and I trust on a bipartisan basis we will send a signal that this Congress is finally serious about genuine education reform; that we will return on another day to deal with the problem of teacher salaries, construction, and standards, but that on this day, we will marshal private resources to deal with the public and private school problems of America. This is good, and it is sound legislation. It passed the House of Representatives on an overwhelming bipartisan basis. Almost every Member of this Senate voted for the identical proposal to fund higher education. Now we offer the same bill with the identical language to deal with K through 12. Senator Coverdell, I believe, has made a great contribution by this legislation. I am very proud to join with him in offering it and very proud that it has become a genuinely bipartisan proposal. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would greatly improve the lives of millions of Americans, thousands of whom live in my State of New Jersey, who are infertile. For many American families, the blessing of raising a family is one of the most basic human desires. Unfortunately almost fifteen percent of all married couples, over six million American families, are unable to have children due to infertility. The physical and emotional toll that infertility has on families is impossible to ignore. I have heard from a number of men and women from New Jersey who have experienced the pain and trauma of discovering that their bodies, which appear normal and function perfectly, are somehow deficient in the one area that matters most to them. This is only compounded when patients discover that their insurer, which they rely on for all of their critical health needs, refuse to cover treatment for this disease. The deep sense of loss expressed by those who desire a family as a result of this gap in coverage is real and significant. Their pain should no longer be ignored. Infertility is a treatable disease. New technologies and procedures that have been developed in the past two decades make starting a family a real possibility for many couples previously unable to conceive. In fact, up to two thirds of all married couples who seek infertility treatment are subsequently able to have children. Unfortunately, due to the high cost of treating this illness, only 20 percent of infertile couples seek medical treatment each year. Even worse, only four out of every ten couples that seek infertility treatment receive coverage from health insurers, and only one quarter of all health plans provide coverage for infertility services. My bill, the Fair Access to Infertility Treatment and Hope (FAITH) Act, will end this inequity by requiring all health insurance plans to ensure testing and coverage of infertility treatment. Specifically, FAITH requires health plans to cover all infertility procedures considered non-experimental that are deemed appropriate by patient and physician, up to four attempts (with two additional attempts provided for those successful couples that desire a second child). One reason often cited by health insurers for their continued refusal to provide infertility treatment is the negative impact that this coverage would have on monthly premiums. However, recent studies demonstrate that FAITH would raise the costs of health coverage by as little as $.21 cents per month per person, an insignificant amount compared to the enormous premium increases we have recently seen from HMOs. Similar legislation that recognizes the vital right of families to infertility treatments has already been passed in thirteen states, including Texas, California, New York, Illinois, Ohio, Massachusetts, Maryland, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Arkansas, Hawaii, Montana, and West Virginia. In my home state, both branches of the New Jersey Legislature recently passed legislation that mandates this coverage. Reproduction is one of the most important values for both men and women, and those individuals who desire the gift of family should have access to the necessary treatments that make life possible. Mr. President, I ask at this time that the text of the bill, in its entirety, be printed in the Record.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I believe, indeed, this debate is helpful in narrowing some of these issues. As I think I have attested, I also believe Senator Dodd has a good idea, an idea that should be adopted. It simply is not an alternative to this idea. Let me suggest to my colleagues where Senator Dodd and I have common agreement and where we have differences. Senator Dodd has made the point that most families could not afford to put the $2,000 in a savings account to pay for their public or private school education. I agree. It is critical to this concept that this $2,000 savings account does not rest solely on the shoulders of the mother or the father. I remember--I am not so young I cannot recall--a time when in an American community, the education of a child was generally an involvement of the larger community. It wasn't just a single mother or the father. These accounts are an opportunity to re-ignite that sense of involvement. We allow the extended family--grandparents, aunts, uncles, churches, labor unions, corporations--to put money into these accounts. Senator Dodd is right that few families will be able to put $2,000 in these accounts per year. But a lot of labor unions can go to their employers and say: We would like a little raise next year and we want money in the savings account. A lot of churches will be able to go to the parishioners and say: Thanks for giving to the church. We would like to help Johnny or Jane with their education savings accounts. A lot of parents can go to grandparents and say: At Christmas, instead of that toy, would you put $100 into the education savings accounts? This is under the concept that educating a child is everybody's business. Even then, can we get $2,000 a year? Maybe not. But if upon the birth of a child we can get $500 or $700 and compound it, with tax- free interest, year in and year out, by the time that child is going to the eighth or ninth grade and needs a tutor after school because he or she doesn't understand the math assignment, they can afford it. By the time they are in the sixth grade and they can't afford to buy a computer, with this they could afford one. By the time they go to college, if they have spent none of this money and for 18 years they have been saving $200, $500, or $700, at compound interest, it would be significant. Does it pay for a Harvard education? No, but it gets them into the community college or a State school or it pays for part of the education. It helps. It is valuable. More than just dollars is involved; it creates the concept of the community being involved, having the vehicle of these accounts. It is no coincidence that when Senator Coverdell and I offered these accounts, the House sponsor was not some conservative Republican from the Deep South, with all due respect to my Southern colleagues from the Republican Party; it was Floyd Flake, a minister, African American, from Queens, NY, who has had the philosophy of the government that: I will take care of my own community; just get out of my way--if I may paraphrase him. He has a charter school; he started it himself. He would like people to be able to have these accounts to pay for some of the extra costs. That goes to the second point Senator Dodd made. We agreed on the first--everybody doesn't have $2,000. We disagree on the second. Senator Dodd said public school is free. It was when Senator Dodd and I went to school. It isn't anymore. How many parents tonight face their children who come home and say: I would like to be part of the band or the Latin Club or the French Club and it costs $500. Can I do that, mom? What we built in the fifties and sixties in this extraordinary public education, funding all these tremendous activities, we have eroded. I represent communities in New Jersey where you can't get a bus home after school if you don't pay for it. You can't join the football team. Some of the books are so old, parents have to buy them themselves. These education savings accounts go to the heart of that problem. Public school is not free. Sixty percent of the African American students in our public schools don't have access to a computer. It is the new divide in American education. That includes 70 percent of Hispanic students and millions of other students from all backgrounds. Why? What is so wrong if we allow a parent to take their own hard- earned money and put it in their own account? All we ask the Federal Government to do--my God, the minimum we can ask anybody to do--is not tax them on the interest. Let them keep the interest so a parent can buy their child something, so they can maximize. I visit public schools throughout New Jersey where children are struggling with math, science, and areas that were never approached when I was in high school. They struggle. It is hard. If you ask them the one thing they can get more out of public school, they will tell you: I wish there was somebody after school to help me with my work--a tutor. Instead, our public school teachers, who are underpaid and overworked, leave school at 3:30 or 4 o'clock and take second jobs selling clothing, painting houses--anything to support their own families. How about an education savings account, where at the end of the day the public school teacher can work for some extra dollars doing what they do best--teaching, tutoring, helping public school students learn the math and science with which they struggle. No, public school is not free. And $2,000 is a lot for most families. We could be wrong. Senator Coverdell and I could be wrong. We could offer this chance to every labor union, church, and grandparent in America to help with their kids' education by putting money in every birthday, holiday, or Christmas, and maybe nobody will answer. But I don't believe that. That is not the kind of people we are. That is not the kind of communities I represent. I think people will answer. I think Floyd Flake is right. Every Member of the Senate talks about faith-based answers to problems, working hand in hand with the Government. Well, let's see. I bet the grandparents, aunts and uncles, labor unions, churches, and synagogues will come forward and use these accounts as a vehicle. But mostly, I don't want to fail because we didn't ask. This is an invitation to America to get back in your public or private school, get involved and solve the problem. I believe these are worthwhile. Senator Dodd may be right that this institution doesn't have the will or the resources to answer this problem and the special education problem and the school construction problem. If this country doesn't have the will or resources to deal with those problems, we are headed for real trouble. I believe we have the will, and I certainly believe we have the resources--not expenditures, not a dime of it, but investments, every single dollar in every investment for building a school or hiring a teacher. I will fight every day for every one of those things. Today is the Coverdell-Torricelli legislation for private savings accounts to fund public and private schools. I am proud to be part of it. I yield to Senator Coverdell.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I thank Senator Coverdell for not only yielding me this time but more than that, for, through these last few years, framing this debate and tirelessly bringing this issue forward. This is not the first time, it is not the second time, it may not be the third time Senator Coverdell and I have come to the Senate floor for A+ savings accounts and, most assuredly, it will not be the last. This is going to happen. More than simply telling the Senate of the inevitability of these savings accounts, I want us all to recognize what a positive contribution we are making to American education. I rise in opposition to Senator Dodd's amendment. Indeed, on another day, another opportunity, I not only would vote for it, I would fight for it, as I would with Senator Robb's amendment dealing with the building of new schools, and Senator Murray's amendment adding new teachers and reducing class size. The problems of American education are not such that they require a single idea or one change. This is not a system with which we need to tinker. We have compound problems. The one Senator Dodd raises is among the most important. We gave an obligation to local schools without the resources to pay for special education. Senator Robb's amendment and Senator Murray's amendment are important in building schools that are crumbling around us in some communities and adding new teachers. They are good ideas, they are important ideas, but so is this. For as long as I can remember, the formula for funding American schools has been quite simple: We raise your taxes, and we spend your dollars. That will continue to dominate American education. It is the right formula. We are adding something new, though not a novel idea. Indeed, ironically the source of this idea is President Clinton. In establishing higher education savings accounts of $500, he laid the foundation for what we debate today because what was a good idea for higher education at $500 is a great idea for secondary schools at $2,000. Same idea, same formula with the same end. This is using private money. It is using a family's own resources. By our estimation, after 5 years, $12 billion in private money will be used to educate children K through 12. That cannot be a bad thing. Yet the critics argue it is a diversion of money from the public schools. Not one dime of money that is now going to a public school goes anywhere else but to that same school on that same basis. This is new money, private money, a net increase of $12 billion. People argue that maybe it is all new money, but it goes to a privileged few. The Congressional Budget Office argues that 70 percent of this money will be spent by families who earn less than $70,000. Does this solve the educational problems of a family in poverty who may have no money? Maybe not. Probably not. I challenge any Member of this Senate to come to this floor and tell me one educational idea that solves the educational problems of every family in every regard forever with one bill. This one does not either, but it does help many working families, working poor, middle-class families. The family who earns $20,000, $30,000, $50,000, even $70,000 a year but wants to give their child some extra advantage in education, they want to establish a private savings account. Why should the Federal Government be charging taxes on the interest on that account? Every Member of this Senate knows that education is the great test of whether or not we preserve our quality of life, our national security, our way of life. The Federal Government should be doing everything it can to encourage every parent in America to save every dollar they can muster to educate their child. Taxing that money is the last thing we should be doing. That is the essence of this bill: Eliminate Federal taxes on money saved for education. That cannot be a bad idea. Yet it is argued that maybe it is private money and there is no diversion. Maybe Senators are right about that. Maybe it does go to middle-class and working-class families. Maybe Senators are right about that. It is argued that it is not for a privileged few but it all does go to private schools and we have a public and private school problem. Well, wrong again. CBO estimates that 70 percent of this money actually will go to public school students. Public school students are over 90 percent of the students in America. If we are going to help everybody, by definition, most of that money will go to public school students. That is what the research has found because this money is not just available for private school tuition. This money is available to hire public school teachers after public school is out in the afternoon to help students in math and science--something desperately needed by many of our families--for afterschool transportation, for afterschool activities of band or athletics or clubs, to buy a home computer, to buy books or, if you do not use money for any of these things, to roll it into your college account after the 12th grade when the student is going into college. Is some of this money going for private school tuition? Yes, a minority of it, 30 percent of it. Some does go to private school tuition. I am not here to apologize for that. If, in one piece of legislation, we can add $12 billion to the national expenditure for schools, help public school students with 70 percent of this money--for computers and books and tutors--I do not rise on this floor to apologize that some of this will go to private schools, yeshivas, or parochial schools for tuition. In many of our cities, the Catholic school is the only alternative available to many families who want something better for their child. Tuition can be $800, $700, $1,200--out of reach for many families. Who is going to these schools? What is this ``idle rich'' we hear about who will benefit from this bill? Ninety percent of the students in Camden and Newark and Jersey City going to parochial schools are Protestants; 80 percent of them are African American. This is not a religious opportunity. It is a competitive school, a chance for a parent to give something else to their child. We do not ask the Federal Government to pay for it--not a dime, no public money. Personally, I do not believe in it. I think it is unconstitutional. I do not think public money can or should go directly to pay for tuitions in religious institutions. That is my belief. That is why I am for this bill because this bill does not do that--no public money. A family takes their own money, earned off the sweat of their own brow, puts it in a private account, and uses that money, which has not been taxed because of this legislation, and pays tuition. That cannot be a bad thing. Opposition to this legislation has many aspects. In my judgment, clearly, one of them is that we do not recognize the true depths of the problem of American education. Getting more teachers, building more schools, higher standards for public schools are all part of that, but that is not enough. This is a fight that must be fought on every front simultaneously. Second, I think many people simply do not recognize the state we would be in if we did not have private schools. We are losing a Catholic school in America every week with another school closing its doors. If we lose the parochial education system in America, it will cost $16 billion immediately to replace the system. The system must survive within constitutional bounds. That is what Senator Coverdell and I are attempting to do with this legislation. Third, I think there is a partisan issue. With all respect to my friend, Senator Coverdell and his colleagues, in my personal judgment, the leadership in America on education for the last generation has been borne by the Democratic Party. We created the programs for grants, for tuition assistance, for aid to secondary schools that built libraries, built schools, and opened opportunities. It is one of the reasons why I am a Democrat. Now we have a little competition; frankly, not a lot. The ideas are still overwhelmingly from the Democratic Party. But this idea cannot be bad simply because some Republicans are for it. That is the only argument I have heard against it. If there is going to be a competition between the Democratic and Republican Parties for leadership on education, that is good for America. If we are going to compete to convince the American people that each of us has the best formula for improving our schools, that is good for every child in America. To the Republican Party, I say: Welcome to the fight. We have been waiting for you for a long time. But I am glad you are here. This concept of A+ savings accounts has no parentage on a partisan basis. It is borne of Bill Clinton's concept for funding higher education. It has been adjusted by Senator Coverdell, imaginatively, creatively, and effectively, to deal with the problems of grade schools and high schools, to help public and private schools with millions of American families. I have been for this concept since I came to the Senate. It is a reflection of my own belief that the American standard of living is not sustainable if we do not dramatically improve the quality of instruction and the performance of our students in this generation. It is not difficult to comprehend, if the United States goes another decade being 16th of the leading 18 industrial nations in the quality of math and science instruction, if 40 percent of 4th graders effectively cannot read to national standards, if a third of our students in the 8th grade cannot meet basic science requirements, this Nation will not continue to maintain our standard of living or even our current level of national security. Education is the great divider in the world, between the insecure and the poor and the wanting and those who exercise leadership and live behind secure borders with rising standards of living. That is our test. I can think of no more important issue for this Senate to debate. I genuinely hope that not only will this A+ savings account legislation pass the Senate--and I have no doubt it will pass the Senate--I genuinely hope we will pass it on a bipartisan basis. But in a challenge to Republican leadership, as well, the argument that Senator Dodd makes today for funding special education, and the argument that Senator Murray and Senator Robb will make on class size and school construction, are arguments that not only must be heard, it is legislation that must be adopted. Pass this legislation today and then let us return and complete the debate and meet our obligation to America's schoolchildren. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.