Robert Torricelli

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Right To Know About Airport Pollution Act, and ask that my remarks be placed in the Record at the appropriate place. This important legislation will allow the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in conjunction with the FAA, to conduct a nationwide study of air, water, solid waste and noise pollution generated by airports across the U.S. every day. In addition, the bill will direct the EPA to determine whether current air emission standards are sufficient to protect the environment, and will require airports to be listed under Community Right To Know laws governing the use of hazardous materials. Many of my colleagues and I hear everyday from constituents who are concerned by the pollution, including noise pollution, created by airports in our states. In 1996, a Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) report confirmed that US airports rival smokestack industries in the amount of pollution they release into the environment. This growing problem affects every state in our nation and millions of our constituents. You do not have to be from a state with a large airport to understand that pollution associated with these facilities severely affects the health and impacts the quality of life of our constituents. While we must recognize that airport expansion is an inevitable by- product of a vibrant economy, and that the government has a responsibility to foster economic growth and jobs, we also have an equal responsibility to mitigate the hazardous affects of pollution and noise on our constituents. The studies produced as a result of this legislation will give us a better idea as to the magnitude of the pollution problem caused by airports, and will allow us to prepare a commensurate response. Again, I would like to thank my colleagues who have demonstrated interest in this issue and look forward to the passage of this important legislation.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the Raimondo Family as they are honored by the Fort Lee Chamber of Commerce as Family of the Year. The Raimondo name and family are synonymous with the rich history of the Borough of Fort Lee. Carmelo Raimondo, who emigrated from the Province of Coscenza in Southern Italy, founded Raimondo Construction with his wife Madeline Battaglia in 1923. In 1942, they moved to Fort Lee with their two sons Frank and Charles. Since that time, numerous members of the Raimondo family have helped build Raimondo Construction into the pinnacle of success that it is today. Raimondo Construction has been an integral part of the Fort Lee community, and the Raimondos have helped to make Fort Lee the Borough that it is. The Raimondo Family is now spread throughout Bergen County and across the country, and every member of the family continues to be active in their community. Whether it is serving the United States in the Navy, caring for the sick as a nurse, or shaping the youth of our nation in the Boy Scouts, the Raimondo Family has contributed a great deal to society. They have worked on behalf of a diverse pool of civic organizations such as Christie Muhaw Scholarship Fund, the New Jersey Symphony, the Church of the Good Shepard, the York Street Project in Jersey City, the Bergen 200 Club, the Police Honor League of New Jersey, the Fort Lee Council of Youth and Community Services, and the Bergen County Catholic Youth Organization. The Raimondo Family has set a standard of community activism that we should all strive to meet. The story of the Raimondo Family is the story of the American dream. It is the story of Carmelo Raimondo coming to America in search of the opportunity that this great country offers. The success that the Raimondos have experienced is a testament to the fact that America is truly the land of opportunity. My grandparents also came to America in search of opportunity, and it is this common experience that has built a bond between myself and the Raimondo Family. I am proud to recognize the Raimondos on this occasion.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Michael A. Ferrara, Jr. as he is honored as an Outstanding Italian American by the Sons of Italy organization. Michael has enjoyed a fruitful legal career, multiple philanthropic endeavors, and a beautiful family. Michael was born in South Philadelphia to the children of Italian immigrants. His father worked hard for the Pennsylvania Railroad and his mother worked for Wanamakers once Michael and his sister, JoAnn, were grown. He was raised in this city and stayed close after graduating high school, attending Villanova University on a NROTC scholarship. Michael graduated from Villanova with a degree in Mathematics and soon after, began his naval service. In the Navy, Michael served aboard both a submarine and a destroyer, visiting Ireland, Spain, Italy, Greece, and Tunisia. His service was extended to five years due to the Vietnam War, which is where he spent his last year. While in DaNang, Michael taught English to Vietnamese children for the U.S. Information Agency and helped deliver Marines, tanks, and ammunition to river bases along the demilitarized zone. At the age of 23, Michael was in command of a mini-fleet of 25 boats and 250 men. His service in Vietnam was rewarded with several commendations including the Combat Action Ribbon, Navy Unit Commendations, Vietnam Campaign Medal and Vietnam Service Medal with three bronze stars. After completing his military service, Michael attended law school at the University of San Diego. After graduation, he began his successful legal career. Michael has been elected President of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, as well as President of the 2500 member New Jersey Trial Lawyer's Association. He has also served as President of the National Civil Justice Foundation. Recently he was selected, along with four other attorneys, to represent the Attorney General of New Jersey in the lawsuit against the tobacco industry. In addition to his extensive legal career, Michael has served his community through various philanthropic endeavors, including the March of Dimes and the New Jersey State Aquarium's education program. As a fellow Italian American it gives me great pleasure to recognize Michael Ferrara and his achievements, both in his career and his community. He is a man most deserving of this award and his actions should be highly commended.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Carl D. Sommers, a true leader and a dedicated spokesman for New Jersey's labor movement. He has served the many members of organized labor in my home state for over 25 years and at his retirement, he is to be honored for his contributions to the Sheet Metal Workers Union. Born and raised in Lawrence Township, New Jersey, Carol graduated from the Trenton High Vocational Sheet Metal Program. He began his career by serving a four-year apprenticeship with Sheet Metal Workers Local #27, where he has remained a member until this day. He has served his union as a local Union Shop Steward, Trustee, Executive Board Member, and as a member of the Joint Apprenticeship Training Fund. Carl also served as a Trustee of the Education Fund, monitoring and managing the Financial Training Facility and Teacher programs. As a member of the Supplemental Unemployment Fund Board, Carl has helped his union colleagues during periods of unemployment. Carl was elected as Business Representative of Local 27 in 1990. In this new position, he adeptly represented the concerns and the welfare of his Union in labor disputes and corrected violations of collective bargaining agreements. He was also responsible for the daily work assignments of all Local members and attended labor seminars in an effort to protect the union rights. He has proudly served his members by serving on the Contract Negotiating Committee, and attending rallies to garner support for pro- labor legislation. He recently became a Trustee of the New Jersey State Labor Council of Sheet Metal Workers, a member of both the Camden County Building Trades Council and the Warren County Building Trades Council. For over two years, Carl has served as Financial Secretary- Treasurer of the Mercer-Burlington Counties and Vicinities Building Trades Council. On the eve of his retirement, it brings me great pleasure to recognize the accomplishments of Carl Sommers and his actions and efforts should be commended. The New Jersey labor community should be proud to have had Carl as a member and should be assured that he will continue to monitor and participate in the labor movement.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Right To Know About Airport Pollution Act, and ask that my remarks be placed in the Record at the appropriate place. This important legislation will allow the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in conjunction with the FAA, to conduct a nationwide study of air, water, solid waste and noise pollution generated by airports across the U.S. every day. In addition, the bill will direct the EPA to determine whether current air emission standards are sufficient to protect the environment, and will require airports to be listed under Community Right To Know laws governing the use of hazardous materials. Many of my colleagues and I hear everyday from constituents who are concerned by the pollution, including noise pollution, created by airports in our states. In 1996, a Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) report confirmed that US airports rival smokestack industries in the amount of pollution they release into the environment. This growing problem affects every state in our nation and millions of our constituents. You do not have to be from a state with a large airport to understand that pollution associated with these facilities severely affects the health and impacts the quality of life of our constituents. While we must recognize that airport expansion is an inevitable by- product of a vibrant economy, and that the government has a responsibility to foster economic growth and jobs, we also have an equal responsibility to mitigate the hazardous affects of pollution and noise on our constituents. The studies produced as a result of this legislation will give us a better idea as to the magnitude of the pollution problem caused by airports, and will allow us to prepare a commensurate response. Again, I would like to thank my colleagues who have demonstrated interest in this issue and look forward to the passage of this important legislation.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will help ensure that American soldiers are using American made products. ``Buy American'' laws guarantee that our nation's military has access to a reliable domestic supply of uniforms, coats, and other apparel. This critical national security requirement has allowed U.S. garment manufacturers to consistently provide our armed forces with high-quality, durable clothing products made to exact military specifications. Last year, I was deeply troubled to learn that an Inspector General audit found that 59 percent of government contracts at 12 military organizations failed to include the appropriate clause to implement Buy America laws. The results of this audit indicates a high likelihood that there have been widespread violations of these laws throughout the military. In response to these findings, I have introduced legislation directing the Inspector General of the Department of Defense (DoD) to conduct an audit of fiscal year 1998 procurements of military clothing by four installations of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. These audits will help determine whether contracting officers are complying with the law when they procure military clothing and related items. Mr. President, the Buy American laws are an invaluable tool for ensuring our military readiness while supporting American jobs. Most of these jobs are created by small U.S. contractors. This legislation will provide an important follow-up audit to determine whether DoD is effectively enforcing the Buy American laws. Mr. President, I ask at this time that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. The bill follows:

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, thank Senator Murkowski, my distinguished colleague from Alaska, with whom I have worked many months in this effort. I also thank Senator Burns, Chairman of the Communications subcommittee, who has greatly assisted us with this legislation and Senator Reid for joining with us on this important legislation. Last year, I recognized the growing threat to Internet commerce and communication posed by the proliferation of unsolicited junk e-mail, or so-called ``Spam.'' Junk e-mail is an unfortunate side effect of the burgeoning world of Internet communication and commerce. While Internet traffic doubles every 100 days, as much as 30 percent of that traffic is junk e-mail. Like many other Americans, I have an America Online account and am inundated with unsolicited messages, peddling every item imaginable. Similarly, I receive junk e-mail daily at my official senate e-mail address, along with the complaints of dozens of constituents who forward me the Spam that they receive. The incentive to abuse the Internet is obvious. Sending an e-mail to as many as 10 million people can cost as little as a couple of hundred dollars. Today, unsolicited commercial e-mailers are hiding their identities, falsifying their return addresses and refusing to respond to complaints or removal requests. Because the senders of these e-mails are generally unknown, they avoid any possible retribution from consumers. Their actions approach fraud, but our current law are not strong enough to stop them. I have long been concerned about executive--indeed any--government regulation of the Internet. Many of the best qualities of American life are represented and enhanced by the Internet, and I fear government regulation has the possibility to stifle the creativity and development of cyberspace. However, a failure to address the problem of junk e-mail now poses a greater threat to the Internet than do minimal regulations. The massive amount of junk e-mail in an already strained system is increasingly responsible for slowdowns, and even breakdowns, of Internet services. For example, just last March spammers crashed Pacific Bell's Network, leaving customers without service for 24 hours. Let me be clear, this legislation is not a de facto regulation of the Internet. In fact, it does not go as a complete ban on junk e-mail as some have suggested. While I understand the concerns of those who seek a complete ban, I believe that the government should not hastily pass broad legislation to regulate the Internet. The Inbox Privacy Act will address the spam problem by giving citizens and Internet service providers the power to stop unwanted e-mail. But Congress must move quickly to address this situation before junk e-mail becomes a serious impediment to the flow of ideas and commerce on the Internet.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, today, Senator Leahy, Senator Daschle, and I introduced the Seniors Safety Act of 1999. Senator Leahy has referred to this legislation as ``a new safety net for seniors.'' It is that, but it is also much more. Indeed, this bill is a potent weapon designed to track down and punish those criminals who would prey on the trust and good will of America's seniors. This bill puts the crooks on notice that crimes against seniors, from violent assaults in the streets, to abuses in nursing homes, to frauds perpetrated over the telephone lines, will not be tolerated. Seniors represent the most rapidly growing sector of our population-- in the next 50 years, the number of Americans over the age of 65 will more than double. Unless we take action now, the frequency and sophistication of crimes against seniors will likewise skyrocket. The Seniors Safety Act of 1999 was developed to address, head-on the crimes which most directly affect the senior community, including telemarketing fraud, and abuse and fraud in the health care and nursing home industries. It increases penalties and provides enhancements to the sentencing guidelines for criminals who target seniors. It protects seniors against the illegal depletion of precious pension and employee benefit plan funds through fraud, graft, bribery, and helps victimized seniors obtain restitution. Any finally, this bill authorizes the Attorney General to study the problem of crime against senors, and design new techniques to fight it. Criminal enterprises that engage in telemarketing fraud are some of the most insidious predators out there. Americans are fleeced out of over $40 billion dollars every year, and the effect on seniors is grossly disproportionate According to the American Association of Retired Persons, ``The repeated victimization of the elderly is the cornerstone of illegal telemarketing.'' A study has found that 56 percent of the names on the target lists of fraudulent telemarketers are the names of Americans aged 50 or older. Of added concern is the fact that many of the perpetrators have migrated out of the United States for fear of prosecution, and continue to conduct their illegal activities from abroad. In one heartbreaking story, a recently-widowed New Jersey woman was bilked out of $200,000 by a deceitful telemarketing firm from Canada, who claimed that the woman had won a $150,000 sweepsteaks--the price could be hers, for a fee. A series of these calls followed, convincing this poor woman, already in a fragile mind-state after her husband's death, to send more and more money for what they claimed was an increasingly large prize, which, of course, never materialized. Our bill authorizes the Attorney General to effectively put these vultures, even the international criminals, out of business by blocking or terminating their U.S. telephone service. In addition, it authorizes the FTC to create a consumer clearinghouse which would provide seniors, and others who might have questions about the legitimacy of a telephone sales pitch, with information regarding prior complaints about a particular telemarketing company or prior fraud convictions. Furthermore, this clearing house would give seniors who may have been cheated an open channel to the appropriate law enforcement authorities. In 1997, older Americans were victimized by violent crime over 680,000 times. The crimes against them range from simple assault, to armed robbery, to rape. While national crime rates in general are falling, seniors have not shared in the benefits of that drop. This Act singles out criminals who prey on the senior population and penalizes them for the physical and economic harm they cause. In addition, we intend to place this growing problem in the spotlight, an urge Congress and federal and state law enforcement agencies to continue to develop solutions. To this end, we have authorized a comprehensive examination of crimes against seniors, and the inclusion of data on seniors in the National Crime Victims Survey. Seniors across the country have worked their entire lives, secure in the belief that their pensions and health benefits would be there to provide for them in their retirement years. Far too often, seniors wake up one morning to find that their hard-earned benefits have been stolen. In 1997 alone, $90 million in losses to pension funds were uncovered. Older Americans who depend on that money to live are left out in the cold, while criminals enjoy the fruit of a lifetime of our seniors' labor. The Seniors Safety Act gives federal prosecutors another powerful weapon to punish pension fund thieves. The Act creates new civil and criminal penalties for defrauding pension of benefit plans, or obtaining money from them under false or fraudulent pretenses. The defrauding of Medicare, Medicaid, and private health insurers has become big business for criminals who prey on the elderly. According to a National Institutes of Health study, losses from fraud and abuse may exceed $100 billion per year. Overbilling and false claims filing have become rampant as automated claims processing is more prevalent. Similarly, the Department of Justice has noted numerous cases where unscrupulous nursing home operators have simply pocketed Medicare funds, rather than providing adequate care for their residents. In one horrendous case, five diabetic patients died from malnutrition and lack of medical care. In another, a patient was burned to death when a mute patient was placed by untrained staff in a tub of scalding water. These terrible abuses would never have occurred had the facilities spent the federal funds they received to implement proper health and safety procedures. This bill goes after fraud and abuse by providing resources and tools for authorities to investigate and prosecute offenses in civil and criminal courts, and enhances the ability of the Justice Department to use evidence brought in by qui tam (whistleblower) plaintiffs. This Act delivers needed protections to our seniors. It sends a message to the cowardly perpetrators of fraud and other crimes against older Americans, that their actions will be fiercely prosecuted, whether they be here or abroad. And it clearly states that we refuse to allow seniors to be victimized by this most heinous form of predation.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today, with Senator Lautenberg, to introduce a bill to create a comprehensive flood management plan for the Passaic River Basin. In 1990, Congress, with my support, authorized a plan to create a 21- mile long tunnel, which would have stretched from Wayne to Newark Bay to divert flood water from the Pompton and Passaic Rivers in New Jersey. At the time it was believed that the tunnel was the best method to end recurring floods that caused deaths and property losses for the region's 2.5 million residents. Flooding has plagued the Passaic River Basin since colonial times. The State of New Jersey attempted to present solutions to the public as early as 1870 with no success. After major floods in 1902 and 1903, a series of engineering studies were completed but never implemented. In 1936, the Corps of Engineers were directed by Congress to solve the flooding problems. Since that time (63 years), several proposals have been presented only to be rejected. Flooding in the Passaic River Basin, in 1993, caused $15 million in damage. The last major flooding, in 1984, killed three people, caused 9,400 evacuations and $425 million in damage. Ten years ago, I supported the tunnel plan. I believed that it was the best possible answer for the region. I understood the plan for the tunnel to be environmentally and economically sound, and the most protective option for the public's health. It promised to create jobs for the region and solve the persistent flooding within the Passaic River Basin, which encompasses 132 towns in 10 counties. It has now become clear that this project is no longer viable and does not enjoy the support of the state or most of the surrounding communities. So last year, along with so many other of my fellow New Jerseyans, I came to the realization that the flood tunnel was not the answer for the Passaic. At a cost of $1.8 billion, the plan was too expensive. As a matter of engineering, it was too complex. As a matter of environmental protection, it was too uncertain. More importantly, after countless hearings, counties and municipalities within the Passaic River Basin rejected the current plan. It will be far less costly and more environmentally sound to control the flooding by shoring up the banks of the Passaic and Ramapo Rivers and purchasing properties in the flood zone so the river's natural wetlands may rebound. We should also fund plans to reduce flooding from combined sewer overflow systems in the state's older, larger cities, which dump raw sewage into waterways during heavy rainfall. Our plan would be more cost effective and more environmentally acceptable than the flood tunnel. The proposed Passaic River Basin Flood Management Program selects a qualified acquisition and hazard mitigation plan as the preferred alternative for flood control in the Passaic River Basin, superseding the Passaic River flood tunnel. The plan calls for acquiring freshwater wetlands in the State of New Jersey and lands in the Highlands Province of the States of New Jersey and New York to prevent increased flooding. In key sections of the floodplain of the Central Passaic River Basin structures would be acquired, demolished, removed or floodproofed. The plan also calls for the acquisition of river front land from Little Falls to Newark Bay along the Passaic River Basin. The plan would also authorize assistance in the implementation of remedial actions for the combined sewer overflows in the lower Passaic River Basin from the Great Falls to Newark Bay. Finally, it established an Oversight Committee for the implementation of the Program, and reaffirms authorization for completion of Joseph G. Minish Passaic River Waterfront Park and Historic Area, New Jersey. The original legislation that created the tunnel, the Water Resources Development Act of 1990, also authorized many other very important projects for the Passaic River Basin region. The Streambank project called for the construction of environmental and other restoration measures, including bulkheads, recreation, greenbelt, and scenic overlook facilities. The Wetlands Bank program developed initiatives to restore, acquire, preserve, study, and enhance wetlands. I want to make clear that our interest in this legislation is only to replace construction of the tunnel with a more environmentally and economically appropriate plan. I still support, and will continue to support, those sections of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 that address issues other than the flood tunnel. Programs, such as the Streambank project and the Wetlands Bank, remain important building blocks for creating an effective flood management plan for the Passaic River Basin.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of Martin Santini, an architect and planner who has literally helped New Jersey build and grow. His entrepreneurial spirit is to be commended as the firm he founded, Ecoplan, celebrates its 25th year in existence. Ecoplan is an award-winning architectural, planning, and design firm, whose clients include the State of New Jersey. His peers have recognized his talent, accomplishments, and contributions to the State as he has been elected as president of the New Jersey chapter of the American Institute of Architects. He is a registered architect in six States and licensed as a professional planner in the State of New Jersey. After graduating with both Bachelor of Architecture and Master of Architecture, as well as an Urban Planning degree, Martin established his own firm in 1974. Ecoplan has been dedicated to providing quality design services and producing creative solutions that add lasting value to its client's projects. After 25 years of committed service, his firm has grown exponentially. Recently, Ecoplan was ranked as the 14th largest architectural firm in New Jersey by New Jersey Business Magazine. To date, Ecoplan has designed and built over 1,000 structures in the Tri-State region. As Ecoplan's president, Martin has been largely responsible for this success. Martin and Ecoplan have served the State of New Jersey well. Ecoplan's clients include numerous municipalities, counties, boards of education, housing authorities, and police departments. They have served the public sector well by closely maintaining construction budgets and schedules, which are so important in Ecoplan has also served the private sector and various communities well, building schools, medical offices, YMCAs, condominiums, townhouses, apartments, single family homes, corporate headquarters, restaurants, commercial office buildings, warehouses, and a wide variety of additions, renovations, and interior design projects. Martin and his firm have served the State of New Jersey by improving our schools, housing our citizens, and providing a workplace for our government employees. His dedication to the success of his firm and his steadfast commitment to his clients embody the entrepreneurial spirit. I am proud to recognize Martin's accomplishments and contributions today and I know he will continue to serve New Jersey well in the years to come.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding. I want to make certain that the record is complete and accurate. The Senator has suggested that it would be interfering with an ongoing criminal investigation. The Senator understands that in these 6 months, the independent counsel would have time to take their cases, as they are now prepared, and their relatively small offices and give them to professional prosecutors in the Justice Department who have been pursuing similar or more important cases for years. There is no diminution in resources, quality of personnel, or ability to pursue the case. Ironically, this is probably bad news for the potential defendants, because they are going to be facing much more experienced prosecutors. I just wanted to make certain that was clear on the record and the Senator understood that.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, will the Senator continue to yield for one more inquiry?

Mr. TORRICELLI. The point was made, as well, as to whether or not this is an unconstitutional interference. The right of the Congress to reassign responsibilities, to reassign appropriations, of course, is an innate part of the function of Congress. The Senator from Connecticut, as did the Senator from New Jersey, I am sure, voted, for example, for the State Department reauthorization, the Department of Energy reauthorization, where we simply reassigned executive responsibilities as part of our constitutional power. Finally, I, too, was there for the Attorney General yesterday. The Senator from Connecticut may remember, I asked her, in my concluding questions, whether or not the Justice Department had the resources to deal with these cases. She was confident they would and could deal with these cases so that justice was done and there was no diminution of effort in the pursuit of justice in these cases. I simply want the Record to reflect that her answer was affirmative. I thank the Senator from Connecticut for yielding and apologize to the Senator from Iowa for taking the time.

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

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, before the Senate is the question of when the independent counsel statute expires. There is still the issue of the appropriations, and whether the poor continuing independent counsel will be able to spend, not just this year, but on into the future, $10 million, $20 million, $100 million. We begin the orderly process, on 6-month notice, of moving those cases into the Public Integrity Section of the Justice Department where the Attorney General has assured us she is prepared to receive the cases. They will be pursued professionally and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. All we have provided for is the orderly transfer of those cases. Justice will be done. Every case will be pursued. It will be done within the Justice Department, and at long last there will be accountability of how much we spend. If you have been asked by constituents: Isn't $50 million too much? Will it be $100 million? Will it be $200 million? This is the answer to your constituents' inquiry. It is control, but it also assures justice within the Department.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Iowa, Senator Harkin, and on behalf of Senator Durbin, Senator Feinstein, and Senator Reid of Nevada, to offer an amendment to bring some rational conclusion and fair determination to the issue of independent counsels in the U.S. Government. I begin with a simple admission. In 1994, as a Member of the House of Representatives, I voted for and argued for the enactment of an independent counsel statute. I was not mindful then, as I am now, of the complete record and statements as to the likely outcome of the independent counsel statute. Howard Baker, then a Member of this institution, argued that the independent counsel statute would ``establish a virtual fourth branch of Government, and would substantially diminish the accountability of law enforcement to the President, the Congress, and the American people.'' Acting Attorney General Robert Bork, warned: ``What you are doing [with the independent counsel statute] is building an office whose sole function is to attack the executive branch throughout its tenure. It is an institutionalized wolf hanging on the flank of the elk.'' Mr. President, I take no delight in admitting it, but it is inescapable. Mr. Baker, Mr. Bork, and other Members of this institution were right. And many of us in my party, and, indeed, President Clinton, who ultimately signed the law, were wrong. It is now clear--I think unmistakably clear--that the independent counsel law, when it expires on June 30, 1999, will not be reauthorized. There is not only not the votes in this Senate or in the other body, but there is not a rationale based on the historic experience to allow this law to continue. It brings me no pleasure to bring to the floor of the Senate the weight of the evidence that supports the conclusion that the law should expire. But it is overwhelming, and it isn't only Kenneth Starr. Independent counsels, from Walsh to Smaltz, have given us no choice but to close this unfortunate chapter. The list of abuses by independent counsels are daunting, and they are dangerous. Mr. Starr has no monopoly in his violations of law, ethics, or common sense. But the investigation that is now underway in the Justice Department of Judge Starr is still instructive. It teaches us a lot about the basic failings of this law, how it can be abused, and why the amendment that I offer today, along with Senator Harkin, is of such value. First, Mr. Starr apparently may have failed to inform the Attorney General about his contacts with Paula Jones' attorneys. Indeed, he may have misled the Attorney General on this issue. Second, it is overwhelmingly clear that Mr. Starr, or his subordinates, leaked confidential grand jury information in direct violation of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedures. Third, it is possible that Mr. Starr may have used questionable prosecutorial tactics by making an offer of immunity to Ms. Lewinsky contingent on her not contacting her attorney. These may not be the only violations of procedure or law, but they tell us something about the fact that there is something institutionally wrong with how the independent counsel statute has functioned. I do not raise these things out of any vendetta against Mr. Starr, or his tactics, or his office, because this is an institutional problem. Indeed, in the last few years, Donald Smaltz has spent $7 million investigating former Secretary of Agriculture Michael Espy. Last year, after a 2-month trial, in which the defense never found it necessary to call a single witness, that $7 million investigation resulted in a jury acquitting Mr. Espy on each and every one of the 30 counts in the indictment. C. David Barrett spent $7 million investigating former HUD Secretary Cisneros on allegations that he lied about payments to a former mistress. Mr. Barrett went so far as to indict the former mistress over misstatements on a mortgage application form. Nor is it limited to this administration. In the previous administration, after a 6-year investigation, Lawrence Walsh indicted Casper Weinberger only 5 months before the 1992 Presidential election in either a moment of political convenience, or worse. Mr. Walsh had spent $40 million over 7 years in his investigation. I believe it is now clear that, despite the best of intentions and our frustration with the Watergate experience, we now know the independent counsel statute is deeply flawed. It has created a prosecutor that is accountable to no one. It is a contradiction with the most basic lessons of our Founding Fathers in the Constitutional Convention. Indeed, in Federalist 51, Madison sums up the need for checks and balances of every office, every center of power in the Federal Government, with a simple phrase ``Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.'' Mr. Walsh, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Starr, and Mr. Smaltz are ambitious men, but their ambition is met with no countervailing power. There is, in theory, in the Office of the Attorney General the opportunity to dismiss for cause, to hold accountable, but in the political realities of our time no Attorney General could exercise that authority against an independent counsel investigating an administration in which he or she is a component part. The Congress does not even control the ability of oversight of expenditures. As a Member of the Senate, and as a member of the Judiciary Committee with oversight responsibilities for the Judiciary, for the operation of the Attorney General, I wrote to Mr. Starr and to the Justice Department asking about how this $50 million had been spent and received nothing but a vague reply with broad categories. Mr. Starr's office remains the only functioning office in the entire U.S. Government where the people's representatives cannot inform on behalf of the people how millions upon millions of dollars are spent. But mostly, I suppose, if the money were wasted and power were exercised responsibly but the net result was still a rising level of public confidence in public integrity, it might be worth the abuse or the expenditure. But this isn't the case either. The independent counsel statute has not succeeded in removing politics from prosecution. It has brought a new element to politics, the hijacking of these offices, the use of them for their own political purposes, only now without oversight. Public confidence in the administration of justice has not only not improved but it has completely failed. Now it is being argued that the law will expire and there will never be independent counsels again. I believe that is an accurate portrayal of the situation, but the current five independent counsels should simply be allowed to continue in their work. The question remains, how long and for how much? Mr. Starr has suggested his investigation may go to the year 2001. He has the power for it to continue until the year 2010, 2020. When will Mr. Barrett complete his case, in this decade or the next? And, if $50 million was an outrage by the public for the expenditures of Mr. Starr, there is nothing between here and his expenditure of $100 million, $200 million. Is he the only person in the Federal Government who will retain the power to unilaterally spend unlimited sums of funds with no oversight for any purpose? That is what brings me to the floor today with Senator Harkin, to offer an amendment that allows Mr. Starr, Mr. Barrett, and the other three remaining independent counsels to continue with their investigation for 6 months after the expiration of the independent counsel statute on June 30. For the remainder of this year, they retain their authority, their budget appropriations, and they should complete their files and prepare their cases. During that 6 months, they should work with professional prosecutors in the Justice Department, the Public Integrity Section, as applicable, and prepare the transfer of their cases. The cases will continue. They will be in able hands with professional prosecutors, with ample resources. This law is not intended to end any investigation. It will not end any investigation, but it will allow for the orderly transfer of these investigations and prosecutions within the Justice Department. Those two investigations which have not had independent counsels appointed for 3 years, involving Secretary Herman and Secretary Babbitt, are not affected by this amendment. It is our belief those independent counsels have not had at least 3 years to prepare their cases. We will give them every benefit: Take the time as independent counsels after the law has expired, prepare your cases, continue the prosecution if you have a case, or dismiss it if you do not. This amendment is reserved only for those cases where more than 3 years has expired and where, after the expiration of the independent counsel statute, there is a need to then proceed. I believe this amendment is fair. It will help restore public confidence and allow the Congress to know the taxpayers' money is being spent properly. It will transition the Federal Government into the post-independent counsel statute method of dealing with these important questions. I thank Senator Feinstein and Senator Durbin for joining with Senator Harkin and with me in offering this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. Res. 57, expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the human rights situation in Cuba. I am pleased to join Senator Graham, Mack and my other colleagues in support of this resolution. This is a timely resolution. As the U.N. Human Rights Commission is preparing to meet in Geneva later this month, we are witnessing a new crackdown on human rights in Cuba. This week, four prominent dissidents were sentenced to jail terms ranging from three and a half to five years by the Cuban government. Their crime--exercising their right to speak and support a peaceful transition to democracy. These courageous people, Vladimiro Roca, Rene Manzano, Felix Bonne, and Marta Beatriz Roque, were arrested for their peaceful criticism of the Communist Party platform. They were held over one year without being charged. They were tried in a closed door proceeding that violated all standards of due process. Scores of human rights activists and journalists were arrested before and during their trial to prevent demonstrations of support for the accused. Fidel Castro ignored calls from the Vatican and the Canadian government for their release. Yesterday, the European Union issued a strong statement calling for their release. The trial prompted international outrage, but came as little surprise for those who have followed Castro's policy of eliminating peaceful dissent. The government regularly pursues a policy of using detention and intimidation to force human rights activists to leave Cuba or abandon their efforts. The four dissidents bravely rejected the Cuban government's offers to go into exile rather than face trial. One year after the Papal visit, an event which many hoped would bring greater openness to Cuba, Fidel Castro has slammed the door closed on the world and on the Cuban people. 1999 has brought about no change in Castro's unyielding policy of stifling human rights. To the contrary, Castro is tightening his iron grip on the Cuban people. First, he began the year by rejecting the Administration's expanded humanitarian measures. Among other initiatives, the measures establish direct mail service between the U.S. and Cuba, and expand remittances to individual Cuban families and charitable organizations. These measures, designed to ease the suffering of the Cuban people caused by 40 years of communism, were called acts of ``aggression'' by the Cuban government. Second, a new security law for the ``Protection of National Independence and Economy'' was passed by the Cuban government in February. The law criminalizes any form of cooperation or participation in pro-democracy efforts. It imposes penalties ranging from 20 to 30 years, for those found to be cooperating with the U.S. government. Government officials have already warned human rights activists that violations are punishable under the new law. And third, the State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices details the same human rights abuses as last year and the year before. One is hard-pressed to find any improvements. The Report repeats last year's finding that the Cuban government's human rights record remains poor. It reiterates the finding that the government continues to ``systematically violate fundamental civil and political rights of its citizens.'' Security forces ``committed serious human rights abuses.'' The examples of human rights violations in the Report are numerous, and startling. Human rights activists are beaten in their homes and outside churches. People are arbitrarily detained and arrested. Political prisoners are denied food and medicine brought by their families. Even children are made to stand in the rain chanting slogans against pro-democracy activists. I would, therefore, say to those countries seeking increased ties with Cuba--take a look at this record. Do not lend any credibility or legitimacy to a government that denies its people basic human rights, and punishes those seeking a peaceful transition to democracy. While the Western Hemisphere gradually moves towards greater respect for human rights, Cuba remains mired in its communist past. Once again, it is the Cuban people who suffer. This resolution demonstrates that the United States' Senate stands united, not divided, in condemning human rights abuses in Cuba. It also sends a strong message to not only the U.N. Human Rights Commission, but also to the Cuban people. We will stand with you and support you until the day that you are free. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this resolution.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. I am very proud to join with Senator Brownback, Senator Wyden, and my other colleagues in offering this resolution. I strongly support S. Con. Res. 5 and urge all of my colleagues in the Senate to adopt it. S. Con. Res. 5 states not only our opposition to a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state; it also urges the President of the United States to make very clear the opposition of this Government to such a unilateral action. It is fair to state that the peace process in the Middle East has reached a critical point. Since the signing of the Wye River agreement, there has in truth been little progress. Some predicted that with the passage of the January 29 implementation date, the agreement might fail. All parties have a common interest that the Wye Plantation agreement not fail because the consequences would be enormous. The arguments for success remain overwhelming. First, only implementation of the agreement will allow the parties to move to talks on final status, and only talks on final status hold the promise of ending this decades-old dispute. Second, only implementation of the agreement will allow the parties to build of the basic elements of trust and confidence that are required for any complete and final agreement. And finally, only a successful agreement will contribute to stability in the region, and bring an end to the use of the Palestinian dispute to fuel other conflicts. Fifty years of negotiating for greater peace in the Middle East has taught us one lesson, peace requires' both words and deeds. Any deed that runs contrary to written agreements has enormous consequences. We have also learned through these 50 years that progress may be unsteady, but it is certain. It has been a very long road from Golan disengagement of the Syrians, to a Sinai agreement, to Egyptian peace, to the Wye Plantation, following Oslo. There were moments when it appeared it might come to an end, but it has been continuous. The process does work, and it yields results. Abandoning the peace process now by a unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood runs contrary to everything we have learned. It is contrary not only to the interests of the peace process of Israel and the United States, but ironically, in the long term contrary to the interests of the Palestinians themselves. I believe the consequences would be enormous: The destabilization of the peace process would perhaps be irrevocable; second, the declaration is almost certain to lead to renewed bloodshed and frustration--people would believe the peace process would never be resumed. And, third, tragically, it may damage the interests of the U.S. Government in the supplemental aid package that is part of the Wye River agreement, and the hope of economic progress on the West Bank and Gaza so the Palestinian people themselves believe there is a dividend in the peace process and their quality of life. It would be extremely difficult to return to the Congress and argue for that supplemental aid package, including funds for the Palestinians, if the peace process has been abandoned and a Palestinian state unilaterally declared. Mr. President, both parties committed themselves to a continuous bilateral process of negotiation. In September 1993, Yasser Arafat said to then-Prime Minister Rabin, ``All outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations.'' That was not a simple statement of fact. It was a promise. It is on that promise that Israel entered into the Wye agreement. It is on that promise that the United States has lent its good offices. It is on that basis that Israel recognized the Palestinian Liberation Organization and began these negotiations. A unilateral act by the Palestinians on statehood would undermine this process perhaps irrevocably. I urge my colleagues' support of this resolution. Just as importantly, I urge Chairman Arafat to consider these consequences. Whatever frustration he may feel, whatever disappointment they all feel that the deadline of January 29 has passed, I urge Chairman Arafat to remember that while progress has been unsteady, it has continued. This process will go forward. Do not abandon it. The Israeli elections may have caused a delay, but a new Israeli Government will remain committed to the peace process no matter who is elected. Reject the advice of abandoning peace. Reject the temptation of a unilateral declaration of statehood. Await the outcome of the Israeli elections and then let us return to the only peace process that guarantees the Israeli and the Palestinian people final determination through permanent status talks. That is the process that is now before us. I thank my colleagues for offering this resolution. I thank Senator Wyden for yielding me time. I reserve the remainder of my time. Mr. DeWINE addressed the Chair.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I thank you for yielding me the time. I support the underlying legislation but also the amendments being offered. Mr. VOINOVICH addressed the Chair.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, there is understandably much discussion in our country about the ways and means to continue the rather extraordinary economic prosperity that has been visited upon our generation. Theories abound about how to maintain this economic growth that is providing employment, a growing Federal surplus, and a rising quality of life in America. It is one thing upon which I suspect we can all agree, as we think about continuing the current economic expansion, that this prosperity is built upon a foundation of quality education. Indeed, I would argue that it is the investment of our parents' generation in quality schools, rising standards of excellence, attraction of good teachers, 30 and 40 years ago, that we are now reaping in dividends of prosperity. There is no question that in those years our parents understood that the security of our Nation and our prosperity would be no stronger than the investment we made in education. I believe that as our parents recognized the opportunity and made the investment and that investment yielded these dividends, the problems of American education now stand like a dagger at the heart of our economy. Too many of our children are now attending schools that would be a source of embarrassment for any Member of this institution. I have visited schools across New Jersey where children meet in hallways, in gymnasiums, because there are no longer classes available. The very schools that our parents provided for us that helped build this prosperity are crumbling around our feet. The GAO has reported that one-third of all schools in America, serving 14 million students, are in serious need of repair. Teachers, no matter how hard they try, no matter their level of effort, can only do so much with old textbooks and with the dearth of modern technology. All the inventions and services on the Internet in the world won't make any difference in American education when only 27 percent of public schools are even connected to the Internet. Far too few communities can any longer afford the extra curricular activities, the extra hours of instruction that we enjoyed as students ourselves. Across America, school districts are canceling sports activities. The club activities, the tutoring activities, the activities where students excelled a generation ago are being lost, leaving between 5 and 15 million students left alone at home after school. The reality of the two-wage-earner family means that millions of these students not only do not have supervision in school or activities but are left alone. Even if they did not need the instruction, even if they did not need the socialization or activities, these students are going home, where we are laying the groundwork for drug abuse, teenage pregnancy, truancy, with a direct correlation between students who do not have activities after school and failing grades and dropouts. Local schools are so overwhelmed with these social problems, the overcrowding, the crumbling schools, sometimes they have no choice but social promotion, take a student who is failing and send them through the system and on to the streets. The reality of this education debate is, there are a lot of good answers, and they are represented by many Senators on this floor--efforts to help local communities deal with the cost of reconstructing our schools, dealing with the problems of social promotion, the problems of rising standards, the problems of getting better teachers, retaining good teachers. What is unique about this education debate is--everybody is right-- there is no one good idea. There are no two good ideas. This is a problem of such complexity that is so central to quality of life and economic opportunity in America that succeeding requires everybody's best efforts. What is most important is that it is a debate that requires a competition of the best ideas between Democrats and Republicans and liberals and conservatives. There is no monopoly on creative thinking in dealing with the problems of education in America. Indeed, the underlying legislation, the Education Flexibility Partnership Act, is a good idea, it is a sound idea, but it is one idea that in and of itself does nothing about overcrowding or rising standards or new technology. It is one idea. I will vote for it, and this Senate should enact it. But at the end of the day it leaves us with this question: What do we do about these varieties of other problems? Indeed, can this Senate say at the conclusion of the 106th Congress that we have dealt with educational flexibility, but that is all we have done, and seriously argue that we have dealt with the issue of education in America? Last year, in this Senate, I joined with Senator Coverdell in the belief that we should establish savings accounts to help fund private and public education. I believed it was a good idea. But even then, I argued, in answer to my own legislation, that if that is all that we have done, we haven't begun to address the problems of education in America. I return to that argument today. Consider the dimensions of the problem, if you are to disagree and argue that educational flexibility alone will deal with this national dilemma. Forty percent of fourth grade students are failing to obtain basic levels of reading; 40 percent of eighth graders fail to obtain a basic level of mathematics. High school seniors across the Nation are ranked 19th out of 21 industrialized nations in math and science. Of course, I support legislation for educational flexibility, but I am also here to support the Murray amendment to hire more teachers and reduce class size, because we know, according to the Department of Education in their 1998 May report, that one element most directly relating to improved student performance is a reduction of class size in the early grades. The Murray amendment is the one answer we know will improve student performance in early grades. The Murray amendment would finish the process we began last year of adding 100,000 new teachers in America to reduce class size. Indeed, I would have liked to have today added to the efforts of Senator Murray with an amendment of my own, and that would have been to give signing bonuses to people who will become teachers. Where our best college graduates will go to schools most in need, I would have offered them a signing bonus to get them into the classroom immediately. It confronts the reality of the fact that a starting teacher in America today could hope to earn, in a public school, $25,000. For a software engineer, our leading high-tech companies are offering $50,000 to the same person, with a signing bonus. Teachers are prepared to make sacrifices because they are dedicated, but how much of a sacrifice? We know they are our most important asset in dealing with the issue of educational quality. So, my colleagues, I urge that we all come together to support educational flexibility. But I would have liked to have offered my amendment, which will not be allowed today. I urge my colleagues to consider Senator Murray's amendment, and also Senator Feinstein's to end social promotion in our schools--the passing of the problem along to the streets because we will not deal with it in the classroom--and Senator Bingaman's amendment to help stem the tide of dropouts. Unfortunately, one of the most important problems of all--deteriorating schools--we won't be able to vote on.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, under the previous order, I yield myself 10 minutes on the bill.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of Donald DeRossi who is this year's recipient of the Distinguished Service Award at the Hendricks House's 5th Annual Awards Dinner. As a small business owner, he has set an outstanding example of quality, production, and leadership. These business qualities have been reflected in his extensive community and charitable activities. Mr. DeRossi began working at DeRossi & Son Company in Vineland, New Jersey in 1960 under his father, Dominick and his grandfather, Angelo. From them, Mr. DeRossi learned all aspects of the clothing business. Today, DeRossi is seen as a premier clothing supplier of military dress coats for the US Defense Department. Under Mr. DeRossi, who currently serves as president, the company has received numerous awards. Most recently, DeRossi received the United States Small Business Administration ``Administrator's Award for Excellence,'' as well as the Defense Supply Center's Small Business contractor of the year award. Mr. DeRossi has put the same enthusiasm and energy into his community and charitable work as he has put into his business. He has dedicated countless hours of service to such commendable causes as the United Way, the YMCA, the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Association, the March of Dimes, the 4H Club, and Muscular Dystrophy. He has sat on the Boards of such community organizations as the Urban Enterprise Zone, Ellison School, the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, and the Vineland Chamber of Commerce. On the eve of his receipt of this award, Mr. DeRossi deserves to be recognized for his outstanding services to both the business community and his community of Vineland, New Jersey. He is an exemplary businessman, and I am grateful to have the opportunity to show my appreciation for all he has accomplished.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the remarkable accomplishments of Charles Mandel as he prepares to receive the Chaver Award from the Highland Park Conservative Temple and Center. Charlie was born in Jersey City, where he graduated from William L. Dickson High School in 1935. He then went on to graduate from Rutgers University with a degree in ceramic engineering in 1939. For the next 42 years, Charlie worked as a plant manager and ceramic engineer with the Willett Company. Following his retirement, Charlie has continued to serve as a consulting engineer for New Jersey Porcelain Company and Lenape Products Company in Trenton, New Jersey. Charlie has been affiliated with the temple since 1953. After officially joining the temple in January 1955, he was appointed Gabbai and continues as Senior Gabbai to this day. Charlie has also served on the Bimah with every temple President from Harry Kroll to the current President, Ed Guttenplan. In addition to these duties, Charlie has played an integral role in the temple's daily management. He was elected to the Temple Board of Trustees in 1955 and has remained there continuously, as a Trustee, Recording Secretary and Financial Secretary. In recognition of his loyalty and commitment, he was granted Honorary Life Membership to the Board of Trustees, a position held by only four other people. Charlie has been active on the Religious Committee, House Committee, Bazaar Committee, and has had the unique experiences of serving on the Rabbinical Search Committees for both Rabbi Yakov Hilsenrath and Rabbi Eliot Malomet. In addition, he was chairman of the Special Fund Raising Committee for forty years. The Special Fund Raising Committee has long been a euphemism for Bingo, which balanced the budget for forty years. Charlie's dedication to managing Bingo resulted in his giving up a myriad of social and family functions on Tuesday evenings. There probably is not an inch of the temple building that has not benefitted from Charlie's commitment and dedication. He has always been willing to give himself to the temple in any capacity whenever and wherever called upon. The entire temple community has been enriched by Charlie's presence, and they are grateful for his support through the years.