Robert Torricelli

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and that Rebecca Morley, a fellow with Senator Reed, be granted privileges of the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, if I could amend my unanimous consent request that Senator Lieberman be allowed to proceed, followed by myself for 10 minutes and Senator Reed of Rhode Island for 10 minutes, and, furthermore, that Rebecca Morley, a fellow of Senator Reed, be given access to the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI. If that is the Senator's wish.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, of the 40 minutes reserved for the minority leader, 10 minutes be yielded to me and 10 minutes to Senator Reed of Rhode Island. I assume that would still accommodate the Senator from Connecticut. That would leave 20 minutes.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the FY 2000 Military Construction Appropriations Bill. This legislation demonstrates a considerable investment in our military's infrastructure, and a strong commitment to improving the quality of life of our soldiers that will go a long way toward achieving retention and recruiting goals. I especially thank and acknowledge the efforts of the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee Senator Byrd, the chairman of the Military Construction Subcommittee, Senator Burns, and ranking member, Senator Murray. I am particularly pleased that the committee included $1.9 million for the Armament Software Engineering Center, ASEC, at Picatinny Arsenal in my home State of New Jersey. Throughout our Nation's history, Picatinny Arsenal has provided our men and women with the high-technology weapons that have helped achieve our military victories. The new ASEC will consolidate many of the Arsenal's operations, thus enhancing Picatinny's capability to test and upgrade ``smart'' weapons. In 1998, the Senate supported ASEC by providing funds for the initial design, but unfortunately, the Army has not yet moved forward with the project. I am pleased by the Senate's renewed support of the Center, and look foward to working with the Subcommittee and the Army to ensure that this state-of-the-art facility becomes a reality. I also express my support for the committee's inclusion of $11.8 million to modernize several facilities at the United States Military Academy Preparatory School, USMAPS, at Fort Monmouth. Currently, the cadets attending USMAPs are housed in substandard facilities which have not been modernized since 1979. This funding will provide for much needed improvements that will allow USMAPS to continue training cadets for the Army and admittance into the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. I am extremely pleased by the Senate's support of the ACFT/Platform Interface Lab, API Lab, at the Lakehurst Naval Air Warfare Center. The inclusion of $15.71 million for this project will allow for the consolidation of 14 labs and 5 different 40-70 year old facilities to build the new modern API lab. The consolidation of these facilities in one location will result in greater productivity and efficiency, and an increased ability for Lakehurst to fulfill its mission of ensuring our military's aircraft can take off and land safely from all Navy ships. I thank the committee for supporting several projects at two other critical bases in my State. First, the $5.6 million provided for the Centralized Tactical Vehicle Wash Facility at Fort Dix will increase our ability to prepare military vehicles for missions overseas. Second, the funding for a Consolidated Aircraft Maintenance Hangar, Visiting Quarters and additional units of housing at McGuire Air Force Base will improve the standard of living and increase productivity throughout the base. Finally, while I am supportive of the projects included in this legislation, I look forward to working with the community to identify additional funding for another important project that was not included in the bill. This project, the National Guard Bureau Training and Training Technology Battle Lab, T3BL, at Fort Dix, will allow the Army National Guard to conduct cutting edge training through the application and use of critical training, aides, devices, simulators, and simulation. Currently, $9.5 million is needed to begin the second phase construction of the lab. Mr. President, I again thank the distinguished chairman, Ranking Member Byrd, Chairman Burns, and Ranking Member Murray for their commitment and attention to these important issues.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, in our constitutional government, it is the Congress that is entrusted to reflect both the desires of our people and it was envisioned that it is this Congress that would be the most responsive to immediate public need. But there has arisen in recent years both a frustration with the Congress and a tendency to rely upon other institutions. Patterns emerged in the fight against tobacco and the health care crisis that have come from citizens, aggrieved parties who have relied upon the Federal courts to redress their grievances. Indeed, the same pattern is now occurring with regard to the problems of gun violence and the inability of Congress to respond to the legitimate needs of controlling these dangerous weapons in their design and in their distribution, leading citizens to, once again, rely upon the Federal courts. I rise today because there is now a third rising frustration with the American people that is leading them to the Federal courts rather than to the Federal Congress. I am addressing the problem of lead poison. Victims of lead poisoning are suing corporations that have manufactured this paint before its residential use was banned in 1978, recognizing that lead today is the leading health hazard to children in many communities around America. Despite all of our efforts in the last 20 years to ban lead paint to protect American children, there are still estimated to be 890,000 children in America who suffer from elevated levels of lead poisoning in their blood. This lead poisoning in America's children leads to physical impairment, mental impairment, and severe behavioral problems in children. In extreme cases, this leads to comas, mental retardation, brain damage, and even death. In 1992, the Congress made a commitment to our children. It was our collective judgment we would mandate that States test every child under 2 years of age in America, using Medicaid, to determine the level of lead poison. This mandatory screening would limit the dangers of lead to children with the highest risk of exposure. We felt confident, because 75 percent of the highest risk children were already in Federal health care programs. There was a recognition that these children were five times more likely than other children in America to be exposed to lead and to have these potential impairments because they lived in older housing and were less likely to have access to health care. The fact of the matter is that, despite 20 years of congressional good intentions and this mandatory program through Medicaid, children in America are not being protected. A recent GAO report indicates that two-thirds of children on Medicaid have never been tested for lead. Over 400,000 children with high lead in their blood are unidentified, and these children need our help. Just like in the tobacco cases, and now with the gun cases, citizens are frustrated. The Congress expressed good intentions. It legislated. But there is no response. Indeed, citizens now are left with the thought of having nothing happen, or to pursue their grievances in the Federal courts. The Congress has not provided an answer. That is why Senator Reed and I have introduced the Children's Lead Safe Act, S. 1120. This legislation would ensure that every Federal program which serves children at risk in our country is testing them for lead. We are not asking. We are not hoping for the best. We are requiring an answer, and that every child in a Federal program today--Head Start and WIC--be involved; ensuring that we know whether or not these children have high lead levels; recognizing that every day that goes by and that every year of development of these children leaves them at risk for brain damage, developmental problems, or even death. Our legislation requires that WIC and Head Start centers determine if a child has been tested. It guarantees that Medicaid contracts explicitly require health care providers to adhere to Federal rules for screening and treatment. It requires that States report to the Federal Government the number of children on Medicaid who have been tested. At long last, we will require the testing, ensure there is funding for the testing, and then finally know how many children are at risk and the nature of their risk. This legislation will also ensure that States and Federal agencies have the resources. This is not a mandate without a financial alternative. Reimbursement to WIC and Head Start will be provided for screening costs; and, indeed, we go further and create a bonus program to reward States for every child screened above 65 percent of the Medicaid population. But, indeed, screening, reimbursement for screening, and mandatory screening is only part of what Senator Reed and I would provide. Finally, we will do this: expand Medicaid coverage to include treatment for lead poisoning. If we identify a child who has an elevated lead poisoning level, that child is given immediate treatment before brain damage, paralysis, or learning disabilities become permanent. Second, we improve information on lead poisoning so parents who live in older housing in our older cities where the risk is greatest know how to identify the dangers, change the living environment, and deal with the problem. We encourage the CDC to develop information-sharing guidelines to health departments, drug test labs, and official health programs. These are all part of a comprehensive program to fulfill the promise that this Congress made 20 years ago to deal honestly with the problem of lead poison: Inform parents, give health care alternatives, assure that children in programs such as WIC and Head Start actually are given the screening that they know is necessary and that they deserve. I hope the parents and advocacy groups which are now going to the Federal courts on the well-beaten path of tobacco advocates and gun control advocates before them can now have confidence that this Congress will not wait on the sidelines in frustration, recognizing that a program we implemented 20 years ago is not working; we are now demanding and providing the resources for a mandate that, indeed, can have meaning for the life of these children and for their parents. I urge our colleagues to recognize the advantages of S. 1120. I hope Members join with Senator Reed and me in offering this worthwhile and important program to deal with lead poison. I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today out of concern for a provision in the Fiscal Year 2000 Energy and Water Development bill that rescinds funding for a critical flood control project being sponsored by the Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission (HMDC) in Lyndhurst, NJ. This project first began receiving Federal funds in FY 1995, while I was still a U.S. Congressman, and is necessary to reduce damage to local areas caused by Hackensack River flooding. Nearly 10 years ago, the HMDC analyzed a number of local areas which experience frequent flooding, and developed a list of improvements designed to reduce damage to the region. At my request, in FY 1995, the HMDC received $2.5 million to make this flood control project a reality, and the agency began to develop a plan to restore several drainage ditches in the area, install tidal gates and reconstruct a major dike system along the Hackensack River. Regrettably, because of the Army Corps' difficulties in reaching an agreement with the local sponsor on the scope of the work, and with finding a source for the cost-share, only about $100,000 has been spent to date on this project. I understand that this year the subcommittee has targeted projects with unspent balances, and, as a result, the FY 2000 Energy and Water bill contains a rescission of $1.641 million for this initiative. However, I have been informed that the local sponsor is now ready to sign a Project Cooperation Agreement and that the local cost-share is now available. As a result, I want to work closely with Chairman Domenici and Ranking Member Reid to address the concerns about the unspent balance while ensuring that this project remains ready to move forward. Again, I would like to thank Chairman Domenici and Ranking Member Reid for their consideration and assistance with this initiative. I appreciate their personal involvement in trying to reach agreement on funding for this project, and am hopeful that by working together we can move forward in the effort to reduce flooding damage caused by the Hackensack River.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to establish the Marine Mammal Rescue Fund. This legislation will amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 by establishing a grant program that Marine Mammal Stranding Centers and Networks can use to support the important work they do in responding to marine mammal strandings and mortality events. Since the enactment of the Marine Mammal Protection Act in 1972, 47 facilities nationally have been authorized to handle the rehabilitation of stranded marine mammals and over 400 individuals and facilities across the country are part of an authorized National Stranding Network that responds to strandings and deaths. Mr. President, these facilities and individuals provide our country with a variety of critical services, including rescue, housing, care, rehabilitation, transport, and tracking of marine mammals and sea turtles, as well as assistance in investigating mortality events, tissue sampling, and removal of carcasses. They also work very closely with the National Marine Fisheries Service, a variety of environmental groups, and with state and local officials in rescuing, tracking and protecting marine mammals and sea turtles on the Endangered Species List. Yet they rely primarily on private donations, fundraisers, and foundation grants for their operating budgets. They receive no federal assistance, and a very few of them get some financial assistance from their states. As an example, Mr. President, the Marine Mammal Stranding Center located in Brigantine in my home state of New Jersey was formed in 1978. To date, it has responded to over 1,500 calls for stranded whales, dolphins, seals and sea turtles that have washed ashore on New Jersey's beaches. It has also been called on to assist in strandings as far away as Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. Yet, their operating budget for the past year was just under $300,000, with less than 6 percent ($17,000) coming from the state. Although the Stranding Center in Brigantine has never turned down a request for assistance with a stranding, trying to maintain that level of responsiveness and service becomes increasingly more difficult each year. Virtually all the money raised by the Center, Mr. President, goes to pay for the feeding, care, and transportation of rescued marine mammals, rehabilitation (including medical care), insurance, day-to-day operation of the Center, and staff payroll. Too many times the staff are called upon to pay out-of-pocket expenses in travel, subsistence, and quarters while responding to strandings or mortality events. Mr. President, this should not happen. These people are performing a great service to Americans across the country, and they are being asked to pay their own way as well. And when responding to mortality events, Mr. President, they are performing work that protects public health and helps assess the potential danger to human life and to other marine mammals. I feel very strongly that we should be providing some support to the people who are doing this work. To that end, Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing would create the Marine Mammal Rescue Fund under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. It would authorize funding at $5,000,000.00, annually, over the next five years, for grants to Marine Mammal Stranding Centers and Stranding Network Members authorized by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Grants would not exceed $100,000.00 per year, and would require a 25 percent non-federal funding matching requirement. I am proud to offer this legislation on behalf of the Stranding Centers across the country, and look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure its passage. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to establish the Marine Mammal Rescue Fund. This legislation will amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 by establishing a grant program that Marine Mammal Stranding Centers and Networks can use to support the important work they do in responding to marine mammal strandings and mortality events. Since the enactment of the Marine Mammal Protection Act in 1972, 47 facilities nationally have been authorized to handle the rehabilitation of stranded marine mammals and over 400 individuals and facilities across the country are part of an authorized National Stranding Network that responds to strandings and deaths. Mr. President, these facilities and individuals provide our country with a variety of critical services, including rescue, housing, care, rehabilitation, transport, and tracking of marine mammals and sea turtles, as well as assistance in investigating mortality events, tissue sampling, and removal of carcasses. They also work very closely with the National Marine Fisheries Service, a variety of environmental groups, and with state and local officials in rescuing, tracking and protecting marine mammals and sea turtles on the Endangered Species List. Yet they rely primarily on private donations, fundraisers, and foundation grants for their operating budgets. They receive no federal assistance, and a very few of them get some financial assistance from their states. As an example, Mr. President, the Marine Mammal Stranding Center located in Brigantine in my home state of New Jersey was formed in 1978. To date, it has responded to over 1,500 calls for stranded whales, dolphins, seals and sea turtles that have washed ashore on New Jersey's beaches. It has also been called on to assist in strandings as far away as Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. Yet, their operating budget for the past year was just under $300,000, with less than 6 percent ($17,000) coming from the state. Although the Stranding Center in Brigantine has never turned down a request for assistance with a stranding, trying to maintain that level of responsiveness and service becomes increasingly more difficult each year. Virtually all the money raised by the Center, Mr. President, goes to pay for the feeding, care, and transportation of rescued marine mammals, rehabilitation (including medical care), insurance, day-to-day operation of the Center, and staff payroll. Too many times the staff are called upon to pay out-of-pocket expenses in travel, subsistence, and quarters while responding to strandings or mortality events. Mr. President, this should not happen. These people are performing a great service to Americans across the country, and they are being asked to pay their own way as well. And when responding to mortality events, Mr. President, they are performing work that protects public health and helps assess the potential danger to human life and to other marine mammals. I feel very strongly that we should be providing some support to the people who are doing this work. To that end, Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing would create the Marine Mammal Rescue Fund under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. It would authorize funding at $5,000,000.00, annually, over the next five years, for grants to Marine Mammal Stranding Centers and Stranding Network Members authorized by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Grants would not exceed $100,000.00 per year, and would require a 25 percent non-federal funding matching requirement. I am proud to offer this legislation on behalf of the Stranding Centers across the country, and look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure its passage. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent Senator Reed be recognized for 10 minutes and I be recognized for 10 minutes.

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

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, last month for the first time in a generation, the Senate voted for some reasonable additions to the national gun control legislation. We principally did three things of value to our country: We voted to ban the possession of assault weapons by minors; we voted to require background checks on the purchase of firearms at the 4,000 gun shows held nationally in our country; and to require that firearms come equipped with a child safety lock. They were hard-won victories. Each in their own right was an important statement about our commitment to the safety of our citizens. Each represents America coming to terms with the level of gun violence in America. But it is important that they be held in some perspective, because none was particularly bold. While they make a contribution to dealing with the problem, they do not begin to end the problem. Now the House of Representatives has another chance to build on the work of the Senate and respond to the needs of the American people, the desperate need to have some reasonable levels of gun control to protect our citizens. The simple truth is that we have a great deal more to do. Every year, 34,000 Americans are victims of gun violence. Firearms are now the second leading cause of death, after car accidents, and gaining quickly. The lethal mix of guns and children is particularly disturbing. Fourteen children are dying every day from gunfire. Teenage boys are more likely to die from gunshots than all natural causes combined. It is not simply a problem. It is not enough to call it a crisis. There is an epidemic of gun violence that is consuming our citizens generally and our children in particular. In truth, there are many causes. No one measure in either gun control legislation or in addressing this problem generally is going to solve the problem. Those who wait for a single answer to solve a complex societal problem will never be part of a solution. Our schools will play different roles. Our parents are learning the difficulties of raising children in a changing and complex society. The media will learn new levels of individual voluntary responsibility. But, as certainly as each of those elements is a part of dealing with gun violence in America, and particularly the new problems of youth and school violence, so, too, this Congress and gun control is an element. In the last 2 months the shootings in Littleton, CO, and Conyers, GA, have represented a potential historic turning point on this issue. Almost certainly, when the history of our generation is written, the events in Conyers and Littleton will be seen in the same light as the publishing of Rachel Carlson's ``Silent Spring'' is seen as the beginning of the environmental movement or the 1960s march on Washington is for civil rights. It may be possible we have now reached a critical mass in this country where, as a majority of the American people have otherwise been relatively silent on this issue while a small minority seemed to control and monopolize both the national debate and the political judgments, now the balance may be changing. If, indeed, we have reached this point of change, then this Congress will respond by doing several things that are meaningful in ending gun violence: First, restrict the sales of handguns to one per month. It is not unreasonable that Americans limit their consumption of handguns to one every 30 days, and it is a real contribution to dealing with this problem, because States such as my own, New Jersey, which have had reasonable gun control for 30 years, are being frustrated. Mr. President, 80 percent of the guns used to commit felonies in New Jersey are coming from five States that do not have similar gun control. Guns are being purchased wholesale in other States and taken to my State for use in the commission of a crime. Limiting purchases to one a month will prohibit it from becoming profitable for people to engage in this unseemly business. Second, reinstitute the Brady waiting period. Even if we perfect the technology of an instant background check to assure that people with mental illness or felony convictions do not buy guns, a cooling off period is still valuable. In this nation, the most likely person to shoot another citizen is a member of his or her own family in a crime of passion or rage. A cooling off period to separate the rage from the purchase of the gun and the act could save thousands of lives. Third, require that handguns be made with smart gun technology. We have the technology to assure that the person who fires a gun owns the gun--a thumbprint or another means of electronic identification. That technology is in hand. It can be perfected. If it is not available today, it can be available soon. It can separate criminals from guns that are being stolen out of our own houses, our own stores, and killing our own people. Fourth and finally, to regulate firearms, as every other consumer product, to ensure that firearms are safely designed, built, and distributed, not only for the general public but specifically and, more importantly, for the people who are actually buying the guns. Together, these four measures represent a comprehensive national policy of responding to the growing spiral of gun violence in our society. Individually, none of them will meaningfully solve the problem, but together they represent an important statement and a critical beginning, using our technology, our common sense, and our laws to protect our citizens. Ironically, they principally benefit the people who own and buy guns, who are most likely to be hurt by a gun improperly made or distributed or stolen from their own home. In recent months, we are recognizing that what the Federal Government is failing to do in dealing with gun violence other levels of government are doing, particularly the mayors of our cities--New Orleans, Chicago, Atlanta, Camden County in my home State, Philadelphia through Mayor Rendell--who are beginning lawsuits to hold gun manufacturers responsible for how they manufacture these guns and how they distribute them. I am proud they are doing so but not proud that the Federal Government is not part of this effort. The simple truth is, in a society in which the Federal Government regulates the content of our air, the quality of our water, virtually every measure of consumer product for its safety, its design and its content, the single exception is guns manufactured in the United States. By statute, the ATF is prohibited from engaging in the regulation of the design and distribution of firearms. A toy gun is regulated for its design: The size of its parts, to protect an infant child, the contents of the materials. A toy gun is completely regulated by the Federal Government. But the actual gun, including the TEC-9 used in Columbine High School, is not. No one could rationally explain that contradiction, but it is the truth. Indeed, as I have demonstrated on this chart, a child's teddy bear is regulated for its edges, its points, small parts, hazardous materials, its flammability, but a gun--which 14 times a day takes a life--that may be in the same home, in proximity to that child is not. I want to point out that in the Firearms Safety Consumer Protection Act we deal with each of these issues. I urge my colleagues to consider it and lend their support.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the FY 2000 appropriations bill. This legislation demonstrates a strong commitment to America's defense and to our ability to meet future military challenges. I especially thank and acknowledge the efforts of the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the Defense Subcommittee, Senator Stevens, the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Byrd, and the ranking member of the Defense Subcommittee, Senator Inouye, for their work and support of this legislation. I am particularly pleased that the committee included $1 million for exciting new technology designed to make landmine detection safer and more effective. This technology, known as nonlinear technique for landmine detection, has been developed by engineers at the Davidson Laboratory of the Stevens Institute in my home State of New Jersey. This new method for detection of mines and other buried man-made objects has been devised in such a way as to differentiate between rocks, other solids and actual landmines through acoustics. This technology will increase our ability to meet our international obligations and dramatically improve the safety and security of our armed forces. I also express my support for the committee's inclusion of an additional $121 million for the production of 11 new Black Hawk helicopters. A coalition of eight companies in my state manufacture critical components for the Black Hawk, which is the Army's premier tactical transport helicopter. First produced in 1977, it is used for combat assault, combat re-supply, battlefield command and control, electronic warfare and medical evacuation. Currently, the Black Hawk is providing critical support functions for our armed services in Kosovo. This funding will ensure that our military has the ability to continue its current operations and sustain readiness for future dangers. I am also extremely pleased that this legislation represents a significant increase in our commitment to the Defense Health Program. The inclusion of $175 million for the breast cancer program, and the $75 million for the prostate cancer research programs, has special significance for the constituents I represent. New Jersey's breast cancer incidence rate is among the highest in the Nation; and, more than 1,400 of the 6,900 New Jersey men diagnosed with prostate cancer die each year. I am confident that these funding initiatives will bring us much closer to finding answers for the men and women of New Jersey and nationwide, who suffer from these devastating diseases. Additionally, the pay raise of almost 5 percent for all members of the military included in this bill deals with serious concerns I have had regarding quality of life and morale of our soldiers. By addressing the inequities between military pay and civilian wages, this pay raise will go a long way toward reaching our goals of retaining highly trained personnel and assist in our ability to achieve recruiting goals. Finally, while I am supportive of these important components of this legislation, I am extremely concerned with the committee's recommendation that the Army and the Marine Corps develop a plan to include the Rock Island Arsenal in all aspects of howitzer development, design, and production for the Lightweight 155mm. Currently, critical research and development functions for the howitzer take place under the U.S. Army Tank-automotive and Armaments Command, Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center at Picatinny Arsenal, NJ. The howitzer, as well as other important military systems, require sophisticated software which may only be fielded by Picatinny Arsenal. If the committee's proposal is implemented, I fear that Rock Island Arsenal will ultimately assume important research and development responsibilities for the howitzer for which they have never before played a role and may be unqualified to preform. I encourage the committee to strongly consider these concerns which have similarly been expressed by the Army and Marine Corps. Mr. President, I again thank Chairman Stevens, Ranking Member Byrd, and Ranking Member Inouye for their commitment and attention to these important issues.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation authorizing funding for extended school day and extended school year programs across the country. The continuing gap between American students and those in other countries, combined with the growing needs of working and the growing popularity of extending both the school day and the school year, have made this educational option a valuable one for many school districts. Students in the United States currently attend school an average of only 180 days per year, compared to 220 days in Japan, and 222 days in both Korea and Taiwan. American students also receive fewer hours of formal instruction per year compared to their counterparts in Taiwan, France, and Germany. We cannot expect our students to remain competitive with those in other industrialized countries if they must learn the same amount of information in less time. Our school calendar is based on a no longer relevant agricultural cycle that existed when most American families lived in rural areas and depended on their farms for survival. The long summer vacation allowed children to help their parents work in the fields. Today, summer is a time for vacations, summer camps, and part-time jobs. Young people can certainly learn a great deal at summer camp, and a job gives them maturity and confidence. However, more time in school would provide the same opportunities while helping students remain competitive with those in other countries. As we debate the need to bring in skilled workers from other countries, the need to improve our system of education has become increasingly important. In 1994, the Commission on Time and Learning recommended keeping schools open longer in order to meet the needs of both children and communities, and the growing popularity of extended-day programs is significant. Between 1987 and 1993, the availability of extended-day programs in public elementary schools has almost doubled. While school systems have begun to respond to the demand for lengthening the school day, the need for more widespread implementation still exists. Extended-day programs are much more common in private schools than public schools, and only 18 percent of rural schools have reported an extended-day program. This bill would authorize $25 million per year over the next five years for the Department of Education to administer a demonstration grant program. Local education agencies would then be able to conduct a variety of longer school day and school year programs, such as extending the school year, studying the feasibility of extending the school day, and implementing strategies to maximize the quality of extended core learning time. The constant changes in technology, and greater international competition, have increased the pressure on American students to meet these challenges. Providing the funding for programs to lengthen the school day and school year would leave American students better prepared to meet the challenges facing them in the next century.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Teacher Quality Enhancement and Incentive Act. I rise to focus the nation's attention on the potentially critical shortage of school teachers we will be facing in upcoming years. While K-12 enrollments are steadily increasing the teacher population is aging. There is a need, now more than ever, to attract competent, capable, and bright college graduates or mid-career professionals to the teaching profession. The Department of Education projects that 2 million new teachers will have to be hired in the next decade. Shortage, if they occur, will most likely be felt in urban or rural regions of the country where working conditions may be difficult or compensation low. We cannot create a high quality learning environment for our students if they are forced into over-crowded classrooms with under-qualified instructors. If our students are to receive a high quality education and remain competitive in the global market we must attract talented and motivated people to the teaching profession in large numbers. Law firms, technology firms, and many other industries typically offer signing bonuses in order to attract the best possible candidates to their organizations. Part of making the teaching profession competitive with the private sector is to match these institutional perks. This bill would authorize $15 million per year over the next five years for the Department of Education to award grants to local educational agencies (LEAs) for the purpose of attracting highly qualified individuals to teaching. These grants will enable LEAs in high poverty and rural areas to award new teachers a $15,000 tax free salary bonus, spread over their first two years of employment, over and above their regular starting salary. These bonuses will attract teachers to districts where they are most needed. On an annual basis, LEAs will use competitive criteria to select the best and brightest teaching candidates based on objective measures, including test scores, grade point average or class rank and such other criteria as each LEA may determine. The number of bonuses awarded depends upon the number of students enrolled in the LEA. Teachers who receive the bonus will be required to teach in low income or rural areas for a minimum of four years. If they fail to work the four year minimum they will be required to repay the bonus they received. By making this funding available. America's schools will better be able to compete with businesses for the best and brightest college graduates. These new teachers will, in turn, produce better students and lower the risk of a possible teacher shortage. With arguably the most successful economy of any nation in history, we should be doing more to make teaching an attractive career alternative for qualified and motivated individuals. The Teacher Quality Enhancement and Incentive Act will be an excellent first step.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation authorizing funding for extended school day and extended school year programs across the country. The continuing gap between American students and those in other countries, combined with the growing needs of working and the growing popularity of extending both the school day and the school year, have made this educational option a valuable one for many school districts. Students in the United States currently attend school an average of only 180 days per year, compared to 220 days in Japan, and 222 days in both Korea and Taiwan. American students also receive fewer hours of formal instruction per year compared to their counterparts in Taiwan, France, and Germany. We cannot expect our students to remain competitive with those in other industrialized countries if they must learn the same amount of information in less time. Our school calendar is based on a no longer relevant agricultural cycle that existed when most American families lived in rural areas and depended on their farms for survival. The long summer vacation allowed children to help their parents work in the fields. Today, summer is a time for vacations, summer camps, and part-time jobs. Young people can certainly learn a great deal at summer camp, and a job gives them maturity and confidence. However, more time in school would provide the same opportunities while helping students remain competitive with those in other countries. As we debate the need to bring in skilled workers from other countries, the need to improve our system of education has become increasingly important. In 1994, the Commission on Time and Learning recommended keeping schools open longer in order to meet the needs of both children and communities, and the growing popularity of extended-day programs is significant. Between 1987 and 1993, the availability of extended-day programs in public elementary schools has almost doubled. While school systems have begun to respond to the demand for lengthening the school day, the need for more widespread implementation still exists. Extended-day programs are much more common in private schools than public schools, and only 18 percent of rural schools have reported an extended-day program. This bill would authorize $25 million per year over the next five years for the Department of Education to administer a demonstration grant program. Local education agencies would then be able to conduct a variety of longer school day and school year programs, such as extending the school year, studying the feasibility of extending the school day, and implementing strategies to maximize the quality of extended core learning time. The constant changes in technology, and greater international competition, have increased the pressure on American students to meet these challenges. Providing the funding for programs to lengthen the school day and school year would leave American students better prepared to meet the challenges facing them in the next century.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Teacher Quality Enhancement and Incentive Act. I rise to focus the nation's attention on the potentially critical shortage of school teachers we will be facing in upcoming years. While K-12 enrollments are steadily increasing the teacher population is aging. There is a need, now more than ever, to attract competent, capable, and bright college graduates or mid-career professionals to the teaching profession. The Department of Education projects that 2 million new teachers will have to be hired in the next decade. Shortage, if they occur, will most likely be felt in urban or rural regions of the country where working conditions may be difficult or compensation low. We cannot create a high quality learning environment for our students if they are forced into over-crowded classrooms with under-qualified instructors. If our students are to receive a high quality education and remain competitive in the global market we must attract talented and motivated people to the teaching profession in large numbers. Law firms, technology firms, and many other industries typically offer signing bonuses in order to attract the best possible candidates to their organizations. Part of making the teaching profession competitive with the private sector is to match these institutional perks. This bill would authorize $15 million per year over the next five years for the Department of Education to award grants to local educational agencies (LEAs) for the purpose of attracting highly qualified individuals to teaching. These grants will enable LEAs in high poverty and rural areas to award new teachers a $15,000 tax free salary bonus, spread over their first two years of employment, over and above their regular starting salary. These bonuses will attract teachers to districts where they are most needed. On an annual basis, LEAs will use competitive criteria to select the best and brightest teaching candidates based on objective measures, including test scores, grade point average or class rank and such other criteria as each LEA may determine. The number of bonuses awarded depends upon the number of students enrolled in the LEA. Teachers who receive the bonus will be required to teach in low income or rural areas for a minimum of four years. If they fail to work the four year minimum they will be required to repay the bonus they received. By making this funding available. America's schools will better be able to compete with businesses for the best and brightest college graduates. These new teachers will, in turn, produce better students and lower the risk of a possible teacher shortage. With arguably the most successful economy of any nation in history, we should be doing more to make teaching an attractive career alternative for qualified and motivated individuals. The Teacher Quality Enhancement and Incentive Act will be an excellent first step.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Dr. Joseph A. Klingler as he retires after 36 years of service to the students and families of my hometown, Franklin Lakes, New Jersey. He served as a teacher, a principal, a mentor, and a leader in the educational field. Throughout his thirty-one years, Dr. Klingler has shown unparalleled support and caring for his pupils. He provided each school he taught at with a unique personality that demonstrates caring, respect, interest in others, and academic challenge. He always encouraged his students to take an active role in school, whether academically, athletically, or through community activities. Because of his encouragement, staff members applied for mini-grants which contributed to the success of several middle school activities such as the Show Choir, FAYM, and the Drama Club. Dr. Klingler understands the importance of parents becoming involved in their children's school and has formed a close alliance with the PTA. Dr. Klingler shaped our definition of a middle school, with mission statements, team concepts, and quality programs. He was active in local and national education associations. He chaired the FLOW area Regional Education Council several times, and participated in the national program for evaluating elementary schools. He is a member of Phi Delta Kappa, the National Professional Educational Fraternity, the American Association of School Administrators, the National Association of Elementary School Principals, the New Jersey Principals and Supervisors Association, and the National Mathematics Teachers Association. Dr. Klingler has served as a role model for community activities, coaching baseball in the local recreation program, volunteering at the Bergen Community Regional Blood Center, participating in the Environmental Commission Clean-Up Day, and chairing the Franklin Lakes Juvenile Committee. He encouraged his students to take an active role in their community. As one of his former students I was directly influenced by his teaching and leadership. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Dr. Klingler for his years of service to all his students in Franklin Lakes. He will be dearly missed, but I am certain that the values he instilled in his students will live on.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, today I rise with Senator Reed to introduce legislation that will ensure that children enrolled in federal health care programs receive screening and appropriate care for lead poisoning. Our bill, the ``Children's Lead SAFE Act of 1999'' would go a long way to eliminate childhood lead poisoning. We know lead exposure is one of the most dangerous health hazards for young children because their nervous systems are still developing. Lead poisoning in children causes damage to the brain and nervous systems, which leads to IQ loss, impaired physical development and behavioral problems. High levels of exposure can cause comas, convulsions, and even death. Despite our success over the past twenty years to reduce lead poisoning in the U.S., it continues to be the number one environmental health threat to children, with nearly one million preschoolers affected. Poor and minority children are most at-risk because of diet and exposure to environmental hazards such as old housing. These children frequently live in older housing which contains cracked or chipped lead paint, where children primarily contract lead poisoning by ingesting paint chips or lead dust. Mr. President, 75 percent of At-Risk children are enrolled in federal health care programs. Kids in these programs are five times more likely to have high blood levels. In 1992, Congress instructed Health Care Financing Adm. (HCFA) to require States to lead screen Medicaid children under the age of two. Despite this, the GAO report shows that mandatory screening isn't happening. Two-thirds of Medicaid children have never been screened (as required). And only 20 percent of all children in federal programs have been screened. In fact, only half the States have screening policies consistent with federal law. In my own state of New Jersey, the GAO report showed that only 39 percent of Medicaid children have been screened. Despite federal requirements, for whatever reason--insufficient outreach, lax government oversight or parental ignorance, too many kids are not getting screened. The Children's Lead SAFE Act would address this problem by establishing clear and consistent standards for screening and treatment and by involving all relevant federal health programs in this battle. Our legislation is modeled on the recommendations made by the GAO. It requires all federal programs serving at-risk kids to be involved in screening. It requires State Medicaid contracts to explicitly require providers (HMO's) to follow federal rules for screening and treatment. It expands Medicaid coverage to include treatment services and environmental investigations to determine the source of the poisoning. WIC centers (with 12 percent of the at-risk population) will be required to assess whether a child has been screened and if they have not to provide the necessary referral and follow-up to ensure that screening occurs. Head Start facilities would similarly have the responsibility for ensuring that their children are screened. In addition, our legislation would improve data so we can identify problems and use that information to educate providers about the extent of the problem. CDC would develop information-sharing guidelines for State and local health departments, the labs that perform the test and federal programs. It would also require each State to report on the percent of the Medicaid population they are screening. Finally, our legislation would make sure agencies have sufficient resources to do screening by reimbursing WIC and Head Start for costs they incur in screening. The legislation would also create a bonus program whereby a state will receive a per child bonus for every child it screens above 65 percent of its Medicaid population. Mr. President, the health and safety of our children would be greatly enhanced with the passage of this important legislation. Childhood lead poisoning is easily preventable, and there is no excuse for not properly screening and providing care to our kids. Our bill would accomplish this and ensure adequate care. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing this problem and supporting its solution.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, today I rise with Senator Reed to introduce legislation that will ensure that children enrolled in federal health care programs receive screening and appropriate care for lead poisoning. Our bill, the ``Children's Lead SAFE Act of 1999'' would go a long way to eliminate childhood lead poisoning. We know lead exposure is one of the most dangerous health hazards for young children because their nervous systems are still developing. Lead poisoning in children causes damage to the brain and nervous systems, which leads to IQ loss, impaired physical development and behavioral problems. High levels of exposure can cause comas, convulsions, and even death. Despite our success over the past twenty years to reduce lead poisoning in the U.S., it continues to be the number one environmental health threat to children, with nearly one million preschoolers affected. Poor and minority children are most at-risk because of diet and exposure to environmental hazards such as old housing. These children frequently live in older housing which contains cracked or chipped lead paint, where children primarily contract lead poisoning by ingesting paint chips or lead dust. Mr. President, 75 percent of At-Risk children are enrolled in federal health care programs. Kids in these programs are five times more likely to have high blood levels. In 1992, Congress instructed Health Care Financing Adm. (HCFA) to require States to lead screen Medicaid children under the age of two. Despite this, the GAO report shows that mandatory screening isn't happening. Two-thirds of Medicaid children have never been screened (as required). And only 20 percent of all children in federal programs have been screened. In fact, only half the States have screening policies consistent with federal law. In my own state of New Jersey, the GAO report showed that only 39 percent of Medicaid children have been screened. Despite federal requirements, for whatever reason--insufficient outreach, lax government oversight or parental ignorance, too many kids are not getting screened. The Children's Lead SAFE Act would address this problem by establishing clear and consistent standards for screening and treatment and by involving all relevant federal health programs in this battle. Our legislation is modeled on the recommendations made by the GAO. It requires all federal programs serving at-risk kids to be involved in screening. It requires State Medicaid contracts to explicitly require providers (HMO's) to follow federal rules for screening and treatment. It expands Medicaid coverage to include treatment services and environmental investigations to determine the source of the poisoning. WIC centers (with 12 percent of the at-risk population) will be required to assess whether a child has been screened and if they have not to provide the necessary referral and follow-up to ensure that screening occurs. Head Start facilities would similarly have the responsibility for ensuring that their children are screened. In addition, our legislation would improve data so we can identify problems and use that information to educate providers about the extent of the problem. CDC would develop information-sharing guidelines for State and local health departments, the labs that perform the test and federal programs. It would also require each State to report on the percent of the Medicaid population they are screening. Finally, our legislation would make sure agencies have sufficient resources to do screening by reimbursing WIC and Head Start for costs they incur in screening. The legislation would also create a bonus program whereby a state will receive a per child bonus for every child it screens above 65 percent of its Medicaid population. Mr. President, the health and safety of our children would be greatly enhanced with the passage of this important legislation. Childhood lead poisoning is easily preventable, and there is no excuse for not properly screening and providing care to our kids. Our bill would accomplish this and ensure adequate care. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing this problem and supporting its solution.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Early Detection and Prevention of Osteoporosis and Related Bone Diseases Act of 1999 along with my colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe. Osteoporosis and other related bone diseases pose a major public health threat. More than 28 million Americans, 80 percent of whom are women, suffer from, or are at risk for, osteoporosis. Between three and four million Americans suffer from related bone diseases like Paget's disease or osteogenesis imperfecta. Today, in the United States, 10 million individuals already have osteoporosis and 18 million more have low bone mass, placing them at increased risk. Osteoporosis is often called the ``silent disease'' because bone loss occurs without symptoms. People often do not know they have osteoporosis until their bones become so weak that a sudden bump or fall causes a fracture or a vertebra to collapse. Every year, there are 1.5 million bone fractures caused by osteoporosis. Half of all women, and one-eighth of all men, age 50 or older, will suffer a bone fracture due to osteoporosis. Osteoporosis is a progressive condition that has no known cure; thus, prevention and treatment are key. The Early Detection and Prevention of Osteoporosis and Related Bone Diseases Act of 1999 seeks to combat osteoporosis, and related bone diseases like Paget's disease by requiring private health plans to cover bone mass measurement tests for qualified individuals who are at risk for developing osteoporosis. Bone mass measurement is the only reliable method of detecting osteoporosis in its early stages. The test is non-invasive and painless and is as predictive of future fractures as high cholesterol or high blood pressure is of heart disease or stroke. This provision is similar to a provision in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 that requires Medicare coverage of bone mass measurements. Medical experts agree that osteoporosis is preventable. Thus, if the toll of osteoporosis and other related bone diseases is to be reduced, the commitment to prevention and treatment must be significantly increased. Last year, Congress reauthorized the Women's Health Research and Prevention Act. This legislation authorized $3 million for a national resource center to increase public knowledge and awareness of osteoporosis, and $40 million for osteoporosis research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). This was an important first step in the fight against osteoporosis. Congress must now maintain its commitment to prevention by ensuring women have access to bone mass measurement tests. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Early Detection and Prevention of Osteoporosis and Related Bone Diseases Act of 1999 along with my colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe. Osteoporosis and other related bone diseases pose a major public health threat. More than 28 million Americans, 80 percent of whom are women, suffer from, or are at risk for, osteoporosis. Between three and four million Americans suffer from related bone diseases like Paget's disease or osteogenesis imperfecta. Today, in the United States, 10 million individuals already have osteoporosis and 18 million more have low bone mass, placing them at increased risk. Osteoporosis is often called the ``silent disease'' because bone loss occurs without symptoms. People often do not know they have osteoporosis until their bones become so weak that a sudden bump or fall causes a fracture or a vertebra to collapse. Every year, there are 1.5 million bone fractures caused by osteoporosis. Half of all women, and one-eighth of all men, age 50 or older, will suffer a bone fracture due to osteoporosis. Osteoporosis is a progressive condition that has no known cure; thus, prevention and treatment are key. The Early Detection and Prevention of Osteoporosis and Related Bone Diseases Act of 1999 seeks to combat osteoporosis, and related bone diseases like Paget's disease by requiring private health plans to cover bone mass measurement tests for qualified individuals who are at risk for developing osteoporosis. Bone mass measurement is the only reliable method of detecting osteoporosis in its early stages. The test is non-invasive and painless and is as predictive of future fractures as high cholesterol or high blood pressure is of heart disease or stroke. This provision is similar to a provision in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 that requires Medicare coverage of bone mass measurements. Medical experts agree that osteoporosis is preventable. Thus, if the toll of osteoporosis and other related bone diseases is to be reduced, the commitment to prevention and treatment must be significantly increased. Last year, Congress reauthorized the Women's Health Research and Prevention Act. This legislation authorized $3 million for a national resource center to increase public knowledge and awareness of osteoporosis, and $40 million for osteoporosis research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). This was an important first step in the fight against osteoporosis. Congress must now maintain its commitment to prevention by ensuring women have access to bone mass measurement tests. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, today I rise today to introduce the ``Neighborhood Watch Partnership Act of 1999.'' This bill will broaden the eligibility of groups that may apply for essential funding for neighborhood watch activities. Communities across the country are finding sensible ways to solve local problems. Through partnerships with local police, neighborhood watch groups are having a decisive impact on crime. There are almost 20,000 such groups creating innovative programs that promote community involvement in crime prevention techniques. They empower community members and organize them against rape, burglary, and all forms of fear on the street. They forge bonds between law enforcement and the communities they serve. Unfortunately, many communities find it difficult to afford the often expensive equipment such as cellphones and CBs needed to start a neighborhood watch organization. While the COPS program within the Department of Justice provides funding for some neighborhood watch groups, an organization must incorporate to benefit from the current program. A mere 2000 of the nearly 20,000 groups incorporate, however, meaning that the vast majority of watch groups cannot apply for funding assistance. This makes very little sense. The time has come to make a clear commitment to these groups. That is why I am introducing a bill to extend COPS funding to unincorporated neighborhood watch organizations. The bill would provide grants of up to $1,950 to these groups. Under current law, either the local police chief or sheriff must approve grant requests by unincorporated watch groups. We would impose the same requirement on unincorporated groups, thus providing accountability for the disbursement of funds. Mr. President, neighborhood watch organizations provide an invaluable service. By extending the partnership between community policing and watch group organizations, we will boldly encourage small and large communities to preserve and create crime prevention tools. We should act now. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will improve the lives of 30,000 Americans, 850 of whom live in my State of New Jersey, who are stricken with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS). Many of us know Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) as the disease that struck down the famed Yankees 1st baseman, Lou Gehrig, yet, few of us are aware of the tragic effects ALS has on its victims. Fewer still are aware of the inherent flaws in the Medicare program which further compound the suffering of those with ALS. Despite the short life expectancy of three to five years, ALS patents must endure a two year waiting period in order to receive Medicare services. Forcing ALS patients to wait until the final months of their illness defies common sense and human decency. In fact, as a result of the Medicare waiting period, approximately 17,000 ALS patients remain ineligible for Medicare services right now, regardless of the severity of their condition. My bill, the ALS Treatment, and Assistance Act waives the 24-month Medicare waiting period for ALS patients. A similar waiver is granted for victims of end-stage renal disease due to the rapid onset of symptoms. The immediacy of symptoms in ALS patients and extremely short life expectancy illustrate the need to extend the waiver for ALS. In addition, many ALS victims have had productive lives and will have paid into the Social Security system well before the onset of ALS. The legislation also requires Medicare to provide coverage for all FDA-approved drugs that treat ALS. While Medicare typically does not provide coverage for prescription drug therapies, over the past few years, exceptions have been granted to provide drug coverage to treat osteoporosis and certain types of cancer. Due to the rapid onset of symptoms and the short life expectancy of ALS patients, the need for another exception is clear. In addition, expanding Medicare coverage for ALS therapies will stimulate further research. ALS is a disease that strikes at every community, with the potential for striking every American. No one is immune, and everyone is vulnerable. I am pleased to be joined by my colleague Senator Wellstone in introducing legislation that represents a first real step toward improving the quality of life for people with ALS while bringing us much closer to finding a cause and a cure. Mr. President, I ask at this time that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.