Robert Torricelli

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, did the Democratic leader distinguish how that time would be divided?

Mr. TORRICELLI. How much time is remaining?

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. The Senate will soon be considering the product liability legislation. If enacted, the Senate would be continuing an unfortunate practice in this country where manufacturers of firearms have some special protection outside of consumer products. Mr. President, as indicated by this chart, for many years this country has regulated the manufacture and the sale of consumer products, items as seemingly as innocent as teddy bears, for recall, safety standards. And yet firearms were outside the design requirements, the safety requirements, and the recall requirements. This issue comes before the Senate again under product liability, because it is my intention, with the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, to offer an amendment to exempt gun manufacturers from the $250,000 punitive damages protection. Through all these years, the Congress has failed--by design requirements for safety, for distribution requirements--to ensure that firearms get to legitimate owners, to provide the American people with real protection. What the Congress has failed to do, the courts have begun to recognize. Suits are being filed across America by parents when they lose their children to weapons that get in illegitimate hands, by neighborhoods, by police officers, by cities, seeking damages caused by weapons that could have been designed more safely, with child restraint provisions. If, indeed, this product liability legislation is enacted without our amendment, those suits will not proceed. Yesterday at a press conference in the Senate, we heard from a Steven Young, a father of a murdered teenage boy in the streets of Chicago. He has joined with three families to sue gun manufacturers because, in his judgment, they knowingly allow these weapons to be sold to criminals. The families of the young people killed in Jonesboro, AR, in a school shooting are planning to file suit because those weapons had no safety mechanisms on them. Mayor Rendell of Philadelphia and Mayor Daley of Chicago are both preparing suits on behalf of the citizens of their cities to recover the costs from gun violence because manufacturers have not been responsible in design and manufacture. If this Senate does not enact this amendment and, indeed, tries to prohibit it by voting cloture shortly, the suits may never happen. Families and cities, the people of our country, are in a similar position with gun manufacturers to where we were 40 years ago with the tobacco companies. Congress has not acted, so people pursue the law in the courts. Indeed, it took 40 years and hundreds of cases before tobacco companies began to understand they needed to act responsibly. If these cases can proceed against gun manufacturers, there will be discovery, documents will be produced. As liability mounts, gun manufacturers will be careful who sells these weapons, who is able to buy these weapons, that the law is complied with, and that there is every possible safety feature built into these weapons. The liability of the gun manufacturers can work to protect our families. Thirty-six thousand people died from gun violence last year. This is the leading cause of death among young people in our cities. We ask the Congress to do nothing but to allow the courts to proceed in offering people protection. The shield that would be offered to gun manufacturers involves many of the weapons sold in this country. Twenty-three percent of all 38- caliber pistols, 2 of the 10 guns most often found at crime scenes, are made by small manufacturers who would be protected under product liability. One company alone, Davis Industries, produces 50,000 Saturday-night specials a year. In all, 20 percent of the weapons produced in America will be shielded from any liability above the $250,000 in punitive damages if we enact this product liability reform without our amendment. It has often been said by the National Rifle Association that it is their responsibility to protect gun owners. If the National Rifle Association opposes this measure, they will be taking a clear stand against gun owners. It is gun owners who will have the right to go to court if a product is improperly sold, improperly manufactured. The only people who will be jeopardized are people who are either victims of these guns or own these guns. This is a chance for the gun lobby to do something responsible. They claim they want to be on the side of the gun owner and law enforcement and innocent victims--take a stand. I urge my colleagues to defeat the cloture motion, allow us to proceed on the amendment, and offer this protection to the American people. I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of DeRossi and Son Company, which has been recently honored by the Small Business Administration. DeRossi and Son Company was nominated as the Regional Small Business Prime Contractor of the Year and recognized as one of the top small business prime contractors in the State of New Jersey. As a result of this nomination, DeRossi and Son has earned the U.S. Small Business Administration ``Administrator's Award for Excellence'' certificate. It is a pleasure for me to be able to note these accomplishments and congratulate DeRossi and Son on a job well done. Since 1926, when Angelo and Dominick DeRossi founded the company, DeRossi and Son has manufactured military dress coats for the United States Government. The company provided clothing for the United States Armed Forces during World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. DeRossi and Son has a long history of excellence, beginning in 1943 when it received the Army Navy E Award during World War II. This was an award issued for excellence in production and quality during the war. Mr. DeRossi believes that the success of the company is due to the training he received from his grandfather and father and to the great dedication and effort his staff and employees have in serving the customer. Small businesses face enormous odds for success in the corporate world. There are tremendous obstacles every day, yet DeRossi and Son has been able to rise above adversity. This award is a wonderful testament to its strength and perseverance among small businesses in the State of New Jersey and across the country. Few companies are able to make this claim, and I am honored to be able to say that one has been from my home state. Both the DeRossi Family, and the company they built over the last seventy-two years, are excellent examples of an immigrant success story. The DeRossi Family's contributions have done much for the future of the town of Vineland, the State of New Jersey, and the United States as a whole. I congratulate DeRossi and Son on a job well done, and I wish both them and their employees the best of luck in the future.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, today I 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 ALS as the disease that struck down the famed Yankees 1st baseman, Lou Gehrig. Today, few of us are aware of the tragic effects ALS still has on its victims. First diagnosed over 130 years ago, ALS is a fatal neurological disorder that usually strikes individuals over 50 years old. Each year, over 5,000 new cases are diagnosed, and tragically, life expectancy is only 3 to 5 years. The financial costs to families of persons with ALS can be up to $200,000 a year. Mr. President, the legislation I introduce today addresses the need for the federal government to provide increased medical services and research for ALS. First, the bill waives the 24-month waiting period that ALS patients must endure in order to receive Medicare services. Since the life-expectancy for ALS patients is only a few short years, it is crucial that these individuals have access to Medicare services as soon as possible. It makes absolutely no sense to require individuals to wait two years to receive Medicare services when their life expectancy is only three to five years. Next, the legislation will ensure Medicare provides coverage for all Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drugs used to treat ALS. Medicare typically does not provide coverage for drug therapies, but in the case of ALS, the need for an exception is clear. In addition, expanding Medicare coverage for ALS therapies will hopefully stimulate further research. Finally, the bill recognizes the need to increase critical research into ALS by authorizing $25 million to the National Institutes of Health. Mr. President, this legislation is simple, it's modest, and the logic is overwhelming. ALS is a disease that strikes at every community, with the potential for 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 unanimous consent that the text of the bill, in its entirety, be printed in the Record.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. I want to thank the majority leader for yielding the time. I am very pleased to join with the majority leader and my colleagues in offering this resolution regarding the commitment of the United States to Taiwan. Like the majority leader, I, too, want to congratulate President Clinton for an extraordinarily successful visit to the People's Republic of China. He covered the issues of human rights, security, our economic relationships--I believe there was real progress made. Mr. President, it is sometimes said that international conflicts begin more often from miscalculation than design. I believe it is of service to the Senate and to our country to make clear upon President Clinton's return both what was said and accomplished and, indeed, what remains in place with regard to the U.S. relations with the people and the government on Taiwan. American policy toward Taiwan is governed by the Taiwan Relations Act. There are 4 principle components of this Act, accepted by this Congress, the bedrock policy of this country, and they remain unchanged. First, the future of Taiwan will be determined by peaceful means. The Taiwan Relations Act does not say that the people of Taiwan and the mainland will be reunited by peaceful means. It says the future will be determined by peaceful means. That has not been altered. Second, the United States affirms that one of its principle objectives is the preservation and enhancement of the human rights of the people of Taiwan. Third, that the United States does not maintain as its policy the isolation of Taiwan, its government, or its people but there are many members of this institution, and, indeed, in this government, that believe it would enhance the security of the region and both peoples if Taiwan were admitted to international organizations. Fourth, the United States remains committed to sell those defensive means necessary for the security of the people of Taiwan. Mr. President, at a time of economic turbulence in Asia, it is notable that there is one government and one people that are a bedrock of economic stability. Taiwan is a model of development of democratic capitalism. It is a leader in technology and international trade, with a standard of living obtained for its people that is the envy of Asia. It is also notable that at a time when it is necessary for the President of the United States to discuss human rights with other countries, to discuss their means of government, that Taiwan remains a stable democracy, respecting the freedom of religion and of speech and of expression, where people choose their own leadership. For all these reasons, Mr. President, it is important that there not be any miscalculation. The policy of this country toward Taiwan is governed by the Taiwan Relations Act. We remain committed to that democracy and to its security. This is not of some small moment. This is, after all, the 19th largest economy in the world. Taiwan is the seventh largest trading partner of the United States--a vibrant democracy in the family of democratic nations. There are many of us who believe that in future years the security of the region would be enhanced by Taiwan's enhanced relationship with the United Nations, by its entry into the World Trade Organization and the Asian Development Bank, where its economic power could be heard and, indeed, enhance its economic stability. Mr. President, for all those who have watched this recent trip to Asia, it bears reminding that this Congress wrote the Taiwan Relations Act. The Taiwan Relations Act governs the relationship between the United States and all issues affecting the future of Taiwan and its people. Only this Congress can change the Taiwan Relations Act. Mr. President, we are all proud of President Clinton's trip to China. I believe that he came home with real substantive accomplishments. I believe it is also useful, as the majority leader has pointed out, to make clear both what has changed and what has not. The American commitment to Taiwan has not changed. It will not change. It is a bedrock of the American commitment to maintain special relationships with nations that choose their own leaders and live in the democratic family of countries. I thank the majority leader for his leadership on this issue. I am proud to join with him on this concurrent resolution.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, today I 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 ALS as the disease that struck down the famed Yankees 1st baseman, Lou Gehrig. Today, few of us are aware of the tragic effects ALS still has on its victims. First diagnosed over 130 years ago, ALS is a fatal neurological disorder that usually strikes individuals over 50 years old. Each year, over 5,000 new cases are diagnosed, and tragically, life expectancy is only 3 to 5 years. The financial costs to families of persons with ALS can be up to $200,000 a year. Mr. President, the legislation I introduce today addresses the need for the federal government to provide increased medical services and research for ALS. First, the bill waives the 24-month waiting period that ALS patients must endure in order to receive Medicare services. Since the life-expectancy for ALS patients is only a few short years, it is crucial that these individuals have access to Medicare services as soon as possible. It makes absolutely no sense to require individuals to wait two years to receive Medicare services when their life expectancy is only three to five years. Next, the legislation will ensure Medicare provides coverage for all Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drugs used to treat ALS. Medicare typically does not provide coverage for drug therapies, but in the case of ALS, the need for an exception is clear. In addition, expanding Medicare coverage for ALS therapies will hopefully stimulate further research. Finally, the bill recognizes the need to increase critical research into ALS by authorizing $25 million to the National Institutes of Health. Mr. President, this legislation is simple, it's modest, and the logic is overwhelming. ALS is a disease that strikes at every community, with the potential for 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 unanimous consent that the text of the bill, in its entirety, be printed in the Record.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, first let me say at the end of this long road how pleased I have been to work with the Senator from Georgia. He has reached across the aisle to Senator Feinstein, Senator Breaux, Senator Graham, Senator Lieberman, and others in making this a genuine bipartisan effort. I admire his leadership and appreciate very much his extended hand that has brought us to this day. Mr. President, I want at the outset to begin, even at a moment of some personal satisfaction, by stating some considerable disappointment. The 105th Congress was to be the ``Congress of education,'' the time in which America was going to finally face the reality that the great variable in American life is the quality of the education we are affording our children. Recognizing that with a quality education accorded to our children everything--at a time of global competition and rising technological standards--is possible and without it everything is in peril, the President challenged Congress to take leadership in the rebuilding of our schools, the raising of standards through voluntary testing, and the hiring of new teachers to reduce class size. Perhaps this was done because the President, like all of us, recognized that it is late. Forty percent of American fourth graders are failing to attain a basic level in reading; 40 percent of eighth graders are failing basic tests in mathematics. In math and science, America ranks 19th of 21 industrial nations. Thomas Edison once noted that ``discontent is the necessity of progress.'' Every Member of this Senate should feel discontent because in the year of education, the Congress that was to take up all of these challenges has failed in all but this one last chance. The Senator from Georgia, Mr. Coverdell, has worked in the last year to bring before this Congress a simple, a modest but nevertheless an important addition in the fabric of American education, the A+ savings account. This provision returns to the Senate floor from a conference committee without any of the objectionable amendments that I and my Democratic colleagues rightfully found both disconcerting and, indeed, contrary to the efforts to improve educational quality in America. All that remains is the simple and bipartisan effort to provide for working American families the chance to save their own money to educate their own children in the school of their choice. It is simple, it is direct, but nevertheless it is important. Taken in its most basic form, this is an invitation for $12 billion of new money to enter American education. My colleagues, that cannot be bad. At a time when American schools struggle to pay teachers, to repair themselves, to improve curriculum, new money--without a dollar of taxpayers' contribution--all given voluntarily by American families, cannot be bad, and yet there are objections. It is claimed that this will be, as you will hear on this floor in the debate to follow, a diversion of public resources, a threat to the public schools. My colleagues, not a dollar, not a dime of public money is being taken from the public schools--nothing. It is all private money. Whatever the public schools got yesterday, after this bill becomes law, they will get tomorrow. Then it is argued, well, it may not be a diversion from the public schools, but it will help a privileged few. Mr. President, on the contrary, this Senate last year argued, in establishing almost identical accounts to educate college students, that we should put a cap on this tax benefit--$90,000 for a single parent, $150,000 for a married couple. Under this proposal by the Senator from Georgia, we have adopted the identical income caps--not for the privileged few but for working-class families who want to contribute to the education of their own children. Like the Senator from Louisiana, Mr. Breaux, I make no apologies. How many Members of this Senate line up on the Senate floor to either have programs designed for the poor or the privileged few, tax benefits for the rich, or Government programs for the poor? Finally, there is a chance to stand on the floor of this Senate Chamber to help the education of working middle-income, middle-class Americans. And that cannot be bad. Then it will be said, ``Perhaps it doesn't help the privileged few, and perhaps it doesn't divert money from public education, but it doesn't help everybody.'' If Senators come to the floor to object to every piece of legislation because it doesn't help everybody, they will have a frustrating experience in this Senate. I learned a long time ago never to make the perfect the enemy of the good. We help as many people as we can in each instance when we can, and that is exactly what the Coverdell legislation does. Mr. President, 70 percent of the families who will benefit from these tax-free savings accounts will be families who earn under $75,000 a year--70 percent. That is the vast majority of the American people. Does it include everybody? No. But the vast majority of Americans will have an opportunity to save under these A+ savings accounts. Who are these families? And how will it help? In one of the great ironies of this legislation, 75 percent of those families who will benefit now have their students, their own children, in public schools. The greatest beneficiaries are public school students, simply because the overwhelming majority of American students go to the public schools. Under our legislation, the money in these savings accounts can go to buy a home computer, school uniform, and afterschool activity, a school band instrument, books, or--most important, in my judgment--the hiring of a public school teacher after school to be a tutor to a public school student struggling in math or science. There was an article in the Washington Post a few weeks ago, quoting a young woman, Tiffany Johnson, a high-school senior in Maryland, who said, ``It's totally impossible to function [in school] without a computer. . . . It's a big handicap not to have one at home.'' Mr. President, 61 percent of all public school students in America today are doing their homework and their school work with no computer-- unless they are a minority student. If they are black or Hispanic, 85 percent have no access to a home computer, creating a new stratum in American education that is potentially dangerous economically, educationally, and socially. It is not simply that the A+ savings accounts are the best idea to get computers in the hands of these students, it is not they are the best idea, it is the only such idea before this Congress, because these accounts will allow public school students to purchase that new tool of education. Then there are those 10 percent of Americans who choose to send their children to private schools. There is a benefit here for them, too, in helping to ease the burden of tuition. In the great cities of America, from New York to Los Angeles to Chicago to Newark and Miami, the parochial private schools in America today almost uniformly are designed to help the working poor. Mr. President, 65 percent of the students in Newark and Camden in parochial schools are black and Hispanic. Their tuition is $1,500, $1,600, $1,800 a year. It cannot be bad that these middle-income, working-class families, struggling to pay these tuitions in these cities, who want an alternative to the public schools, get a chance to save their own money tax-free to pay that tuition. It is no coincidence, in my judgment, in the last few years in the House of Representatives, the principal Democratic sponsor of this legislation was former Congressman Floyd Flake who, in the heart of Queens, took an African American church, built a school based on people's own savings in a struggling working-class neighborhood, and now says that this, and this singularly, could help those families pay this tuition bill. This is a community that asked for nothing from the Federal Government but to rebuild itself with its own resources. Mr. President, I come here today with the same belief--$12 billion in resources from working families to educate their own children, public and private. But there is one more thing that is, to me, as exciting as any of these statistics, impacting any of these neighborhoods or communities, and it is this. I remember a time in America where the education of a child was a family responsibility. Communities rushed to choose school board members; parents came after school; grandparents were involved in the grades and the homework. Somehow, in the last generation of America, we decided that education was now the province of bureaucrats and unions and everybody but parents and families themselves. Senator Coverdell and I, I hope, if we create nothing else with this legislation, we have provided an invitation to get them back involved in American education, because from the birth of a child these savings accounts are available to grandparents at birthdays, aunts, uncles, churches, unions, employers, to put money in these accounts where everyone is involved, again, in preparing for a child's future. If that money is not used in high school or grade school, every dollar of it can be rolled into a savings account for college that we established last year in the Senate under the leadership of President Clinton. I believe it is a compelling case. It is not a perfect answer. It does not solve every educational problem in America. But it is an important, if modest, beginning in a great debate. I have a great hope for this Senate, a great hope, that in the next decade, Democrats, Republicans, liberals, and conservatives will be involved in a fierce competition for who has the best ideas to rebuild American education; who can challenge the American people to do the most for rising standards, greater access to opportunity; who can reach into the heart of our cities and challenge parents that I, and I alone, have the best idea for your child. This is the beginning of that debate. From here, we can go to school construction, lowering class size, national testing, a host of ideas. And, in spite of my alliance with the Senator from Georgia on this issue so that we have made this bipartisan, I want my party to win that fight. And I believe we can. I think we have the most ideas. I think we have the best ideas. But this idea, nevertheless, is a good idea and it is a beginning. I hope when we vote in a short period of time, we can act together. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. once said ``. . . the greatest thing in this world is not so much where we stand, as in what direction we are moving.'' This legislation, A+ savings accounts, has America moving, if modestly, in the right direction. I am enormously proud to have been part of this effort. I am grateful to the Senator from Georgia for his leadership and to my Democratic colleagues for participating in what has become this bipartisan effort. I urge my colleagues, by an overwhelming vote, to give their approval to the conference report. I yield the floor. Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today regarding an issue that is of great concern to myself and the military families in my state. I am referring to the Military Traffic Management Command's (MTMC) proposed re- engineering of the personal property program. The MTMC is responsible for moving service member's household goods when they receive Permanent Change of Station orders, and the current system for doing so has often been criticized for not providing the same quality service that is available in the private sector. The current system is a $1.1 billion a year industry that is awarded without competition and contains no provisions for the government to enforce quality standards. The status quo has produced a dismal 23% customer satisfaction rate, which is understandable when we consider that one in four military moves results in a claim for missing or broken household goods. To make the situation worse, it takes about 8 months to settle 80% of these claims with the service member, at a cost of $100 million to the government. For over three years, the Department of Defense has been trying to bring elements of competition and corporate practice into the military program. MTMC's plans will permit full and open competition from all types of companies which provide corporate moving services, and will hold its contractors to standards of performance. It will streamline the personal property program, and introduce accountability to the program through the use of the Federal Acquisition Regulation. The re- engineered program will also make full replacement insurance value available to service families for the first time, and will guarantee that a minimum of 41% of the total contract will be performed by small businesses. The GAO has reviewed this proposal and found it to be superior to the current program. However, I am concerned that an alternative to the MTMC's re- engineering program, referred to as the Commercial-Like Activities of Superior Service (CLASS), has been included in the House FY99 Defense Authorization bill. This alternative, which is opposed by the Department of Defense, the Military Coalition, the Business Executives for National Security and the Military Mobility Coalition, does not improve the quality of service for our personnel, does not take advantage of current commercial practices, does not provide our military families with a streamlined claims process, and offers no protection for the interests of small business. It is estimated that the CLASS program will cost the DoD about three years and an additional $6 million to implement. I am hopeful that my colleagues in the Senate will reject the CLASS program during the conference committee negotiations, and allow the DoD to move forward with its pilot program. I urge my colleagues to support MTMC's re-engineering effort and to remember that this is simply a pilot program. It will take place in three states and will encompass only 18,000 shipments out of a total of 650,000 annually, or only three percent of DoD's total annual shipments. Congress has also charged GAO to review the pilot as it is conducted and report back to Congress. If, at the end of this test, there are changes to be made, we can make them at that time. Mr. President, our military families have waited long enough for us to improve the personal property program, and legislatively changing all of DoD's efforts for some other idea at the last minute would be extremely counterproductive. I look forward to removing this burden from our service personnel, and to working with my colleagues to ensure MTMC's re-engineering program becomes a reality.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Georgia for yielding me time, but more than that, for his leadership in the course of this Congress to bring to the floor of the Senate, in its final form, the A+ savings accounts. I also congratulate the conferees for settling what were some real differences in bringing now, in this final form, the A+ savings accounts in such a manner, I believe, that on a bipartisan basis Senators can be both pleased and proud to lend their support in final passage. Mr. President, upon passage in the Senate of the A+ savings accounts, seven Democratic Senators joined with me in writing the majority leader, expressing our concern that amendments offered by Senator Ashcroft and Senator Gorton presented some real difficulties to Democratic Members of the Senate in being able to vote for the conference report. These two amendments would have either prohibited national school testing, which has been a priority of the Clinton administration, or transformed educational funding by the Federal Government into block grants to the States. Many of us have believed that block granting many of these worthwhile programs would have placed in jeopardy important Federal initiatives in secondary education. And eliminating testing would have prevented milestones in education which the Clinton administration thought were so important. It is important for Democratic Senators to know both amendments, in an effort to obtain genuine, broad-based bipartisan support, both amendments are not contained in the conference report. The conference report for A+ savings accounts now is the Coverdell-Torricelli bill as originally proposed. That is why I believe, as we are coming to a vote tomorrow, this legislation deserves bipartisan support. There is nothing here that every Democratic Member of this Senate cannot enthusiastically support and embrace. Indeed, with all respect to my friend, the senior Senator from Georgia, in its purist form this is an idea consistent with Democratic Party philosophies. It is, in fact, everything that President Clinton offered last year with regard to the financing of higher education. Senator Coverdell is simply now applying that to grade school and secondary school education. What a simple idea. How basic. American families can save their own money, in their own savings accounts, without taxation, to educate their own children in the school of their choice. What possible argument could anyone have with that proposal? And yet people have found reason to object: first, that it undermines the public schools. On the contrary, not only does it not undermine the public schools, the Joint Committee on Tax is arguing that 70 percent of all of the families who will save money in these accounts for their own children will use it on behalf of public school students. As designed by Senator Coverdell, this money will be available for afterschool tutoring of public school students, ironically, hiring public schoolteachers, afterschool activities, computers, school supplies, uniforms of public school students. This does not only not undermine the public school system, it strengthens it by bringing new resources. The second argument is that, if this is done, it may not hurt the public schools but it is done to help a privileged few. On the contrary; the income limitations used in this legislation of $110,000 to $140,000 are the same the Senate used last year in establishing savings accounts for colleges. It is believed that 75 percent of all the money in these savings accounts will be saved by families with incomes of less than $70,000 a year. This is a middle-income program to help working families educate their children--public or private. Then the argument is made, maybe it doesn't undermine the public schools, maybe it isn't just for a privileged few, but it doesn't help everybody. It doesn't help everybody. It doesn't help high-income people who are not below the income limitations, and if truth be told, families with no income, the very poor, will not be able to save money. One warning I received upon entering a career in the U.S. Congress is, never make the perfect the enemy of the good. I know of no legislation in any form, in any endeavor, by any Senator, which helps everybody all the time. Any Senator who comes to this floor looking for that legislation will live a frustrated life in the U.S. Senate. Suffice it to say, millions of American families, millions of modest background who simply have a child in a public school but would like them to have a home computer, their child is in public school but they would like them to be able to stay in after school and participate in activities that cost money; they are in an urban school but they would like, under mandatory programs, to get their child a school uniform, buy extra books--this program does work for them. And for those 10 percent of American families that send their child to a private school, a parochial school, the yeshiva, because they believe that is best for their circumstances, it helps to ease the burden of their tuition, it is straightforward, it is direct, and, mostly, it is right for the country. I will concede that, while I enthusiastically support this proposal, this Congress has not been everything it should have been for education. The President challenged the Senate that, from school testing to the reconstruction of our schools to class size, this Congress should have dedicated itself to improving the quality of American education. And it did not. But it has produced this one idea. It may not be the best idea, it is certainly not the only idea, it will not transform American education, but that does not mean it is not a good idea that can help. I have often believed, in the current state of American education, that everybody has something to offer and there are many good ideas. Everything is defendable in American education except one thing--the status quo. This challenges the status quo. For the first time in a long time, we are opening the possibility that American families can all see themselves as involved again. If you could change one thing, in my judgment, in education today, it would be the belief that families are relevant again to educating their own children. This is no longer simply something in the hands of government, a school board, a union, Washington, or a State capital; we are responsible for the education of our own children. Senator Coverdell has established that on every child's birthday, every grandparent, every aunt and uncle, can be relevant again. They can look at a child they care about and, rather than a meaningless toy, rather than some worthless gift, there is an account. Perhaps you would like that child to have a computer, reading materials, participate in afterschool activity; they are struggling in math or science and they would like to have a tutor. Put money in their account, at Christmas or at any time of the year. Let the extended family be involved on the front lines of educating that child. Beyond that family, when a labor union sits across the table from a great American industrial employer and they have settled on pension benefits and they have settled on health benefits, let that labor union leader have one more question: How about a contribution to the savings account to help educate the children of my membership? No, it is not going to solve every problem, but we estimate that this proposal will bring $12 billion of private resources to the education of American children. That can't be wrong. It cannot be wrong--$12 billion of new money is now available to help our children in their secondary school education. If, at the end of the day, its critics are right and all this money is not used for public education or private education but remains in these accounts, then we believe, our critics taken at face value, the worst that could happen is, this money is rolled over into savings accounts for college--meaning that not only will we be provided this option for secondary school education, but the money will then become available for college education--ironically, in accounts established under the leadership of President Clinton and supported on a bipartisan basis in this Senate. I believe this will pass the Senate. But more significantly, Senator Coverdell has introduced this Senate into an important and dramatic new debate. We Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservative, will be in a competition in the redesign of American education. No better opportunity, no more timely debate, could be visited upon this Congress than this new competition. It is important. It is worthwhile. If we succeed, we will redesign American education. Senator Coverdell has made a valuable addition in beginning this debate. I congratulate him for it. I look forward tomorrow, when we both will return to this floor, to introduce this final debate in enacting A+ savings accounts. I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that addresses a potential crisis in our organ donation system. Proposed regulations by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) would have devastating effects on community-based transplant programs by prohibiting states from offering organs to their own sickest residents before making them available nationwide. There is no more noble a deed than donating one's organs so that another may live. In the past 15 years, the national transplant system has saved over 200,000 lives. In my state of New Jersey, over 10,000 people in the past 10 years have received life-saving transplants. Notwithstanding this success, there is a critical shortage of organs for donation. Less than one percent of Americans offer their organs for donation upon their death. Eleven people die every day in this country waiting for an organ. The changes proposed by HHS, however well intentioned, fail to adequately address the national shortage of donated organs and create a system which may actually increase waiting times in many areas of the country. By directing the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) to develop a system which removes geography as a factor in organ donation, the regulations will significantly increase waiting times in states with efficient systems. For instance, at University Hospital in New Jersey, the State's largest liver transplant center, the waiting period for a liver in 1997 was only 26 days, compared to a 250 day national waiting period. Forcing facilities, like University Hospital, to first offer donated organs nationwide will undoubtedly lead to longer waiting periods. These unintended consequences will be felt most greatly among patients with disadvantaged backgrounds. In my State of New Jersey, we are extremely fortunate to have a system that is fair and efficient. New Jersey's unique system of certificate of need and charity care ensures that the most critical patients get organs first regardless of insurance. A national organ donation system will force the smaller transplant centers that serve the uninsured and underinsured to close as the vast majority of organs go to the handful of the nation's largest transplant centers with the longest waiting lists. Without access to smaller programs, many patients will be faced with the hardship of registering with out-of-state programs that may turn them away due to lack of insurance. Those who are accepted will be forced to travel out of state at great medical risk and financial hardship. Mr. President, the legislation I introduce today is a bipartisan effort. I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues, Senators Gorton, Feingold, Mack, Sessions, Thurmond, Landrieu, Breaux, Hollings, Lautenberg, Kohl, Inhofe, G. Smith, and Shelby. Our bill will delay for one year the Secretary's ability to issue regulations regarding the nation's organ donation system. The delay will allow HHS to further consult with the medical community, particularly those serving low- income patients, to develop workable guidelines for organ donation. In addition, the legislation calls on HHS to conduct a pilot study to determine the impact of any regulations before implementation. Finally, the legislation finds that provisions of the proposed changes with respect to standardized ranking and listing criteria, enforcement measures, and disclosure requirements are a potential good first step in improving the nation's organ donation system. For the past 15 years, the national organ procurement and allocation system has existed without federal regulation. During this time, each State has developed a unique system to meet their individual needs. Many states, such as New Jersey, have focused on serving uninsured and underprivileged populations. Clearly, improvements can be made to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of organ donation nationwide. The legislation I am introducing today will allow us to meet these objectives by providing greater time for a more thoughtful debate. Mr. President, I ask at this time that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Lautenburg, to introduce the ``Marine Mammal Rescue Fund of 1998.'' 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 that addresses a potential crisis in our organ donation system. Proposed regulations by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) would have devastating effects on community-based transplant programs by prohibiting states from offering organs to their own sickest residents before making them available nationwide. There is no more noble a deed than donating one's organs so that another may live. In the past 15 years, the national transplant system has saved over 200,000 lives. In my state of New Jersey, over 10,000 people in the past 10 years have received life-saving transplants. Notwithstanding this success, there is a critical shortage of organs for donation. Less than one percent of Americans offer their organs for donation upon their death. Eleven people die every day in this country waiting for an organ. The changes proposed by HHS, however well intentioned, fail to adequately address the national shortage of donated organs and create a system which may actually increase waiting times in many areas of the country. By directing the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) to develop a system which removes geography as a factor in organ donation, the regulations will significantly increase waiting times in states with efficient systems. For instance, at University Hospital in New Jersey, the State's largest liver transplant center, the waiting period for a liver in 1997 was only 26 days, compared to a 250 day national waiting period. Forcing facilities, like University Hospital, to first offer donated organs nationwide will undoubtedly lead to longer waiting periods. These unintended consequences will be felt most greatly among patients with disadvantaged backgrounds. In my State of New Jersey, we are extremely fortunate to have a system that is fair and efficient. New Jersey's unique system of certificate of need and charity care ensures that the most critical patients get organs first regardless of insurance. A national organ donation system will force the smaller transplant centers that serve the uninsured and underinsured to close as the vast majority of organs go to the handful of the nation's largest transplant centers with the longest waiting lists. Without access to smaller programs, many patients will be faced with the hardship of registering with out-of-state programs that may turn them away due to lack of insurance. Those who are accepted will be forced to travel out of state at great medical risk and financial hardship. Mr. President, the legislation I introduce today is a bipartisan effort. I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues, Senators Gorton, Feingold, Mack, Sessions, Thurmond, Landrieu, Breaux, Hollings, Lautenberg, Kohl, Inhofe, G. Smith, and Shelby. Our bill will delay for one year the Secretary's ability to issue regulations regarding the nation's organ donation system. The delay will allow HHS to further consult with the medical community, particularly those serving low- income patients, to develop workable guidelines for organ donation. In addition, the legislation calls on HHS to conduct a pilot study to determine the impact of any regulations before implementation. Finally, the legislation finds that provisions of the proposed changes with respect to standardized ranking and listing criteria, enforcement measures, and disclosure requirements are a potential good first step in improving the nation's organ donation system. For the past 15 years, the national organ procurement and allocation system has existed without federal regulation. During this time, each State has developed a unique system to meet their individual needs. Many states, such as New Jersey, have focused on serving uninsured and underprivileged populations. Clearly, improvements can be made to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of organ donation nationwide. The legislation I am introducing today will allow us to meet these objectives by providing greater time for a more thoughtful debate. Mr. President, I ask at this time that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Lautenburg, to introduce the ``Marine Mammal Rescue Fund of 1998.'' 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, during the course of the last year as a member of the Judiciary Committee and the Governmental Affairs Committee, I have felt that part of my responsibilities are to follow the investigation of independent counsel Kenneth Starr in some particular detail. I, like many Americans during the course of this last year, have been troubled about Mr. Starr's investigation and the sensitivity to the rights of individual Americans in any sense of balance or fairness with which he is pursuing his responsibilities. During the course of this year, I have, on six different occasions, written to Attorney General Reno, noting problems with the investigation or particular areas of concern. These have included possible conflicts of interest on the part of Mr. Starr and his deputy, Mr. Ewing, and that Mr. Starr continues to draw a salary from his law firm in excess of $1 million--a law firm that represents important interests, including tobacco companies whose future interests may be at variance with policy positions of the Clinton administration while Mr. Starr is investigating President Clinton. Second, Mr. Starr's association with people and organizations that appear intent on discrediting President Clinton. These, of course, would include Mr. Scaife, Mr. Starr's association with Pepperdine University, his promise of employment while being funded by an individual who is committed to the destruction of President Clinton personally and politically. Third, the question of possible witness tampering. This, Mr. President, goes to the question of allegations of payments to David Hale by individuals associated with some of these organizations that may have undermined the credibility of testimony given in the Whitewater investigation. All these issues for the moment aside, each individually troubling, we are now confronted with a new and potentially more serious question, and that is the apparently purposeful releasing, or to use the vernacular, ``the leaking,'' of the sensitive nonpublic and possible grand jury information by Mr. Starr and his associates. During this investigation, various newspapers and television accounts have repeatedly used ``unnamed sources'' to report information that made it appear likely, if unmistakable, that the Office of Independent Counsel was providing information to reporters that was otherwise protected as a matter of law, if not just department policy. Now in an exhaustively detailed account, a new publication, Brill's Content, has reviewed the independent counsel investigation of the President and found clear and unmistakable evidence that Mr. Starr and his associates have purposefully leaked information about the investigation of President Clinton. If these reports are true, Mr. Starr's activities are not only a violation of the ethical standards of the legal profession, they are a direct possible violation of rule 6E of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and an obvious violation of Department of Justice guidelines. This leaking would obviously have been objectionable if undertaken by an individual U.S. attorney or another Department of Justice official. The precedence of the Department of Justice almost certainly would have led to an investigation by the Office of Professional Responsibility with sanctions or firing by the individual responsible. But undertaken by someone in the Office of Independent Counsel, it is, in my judgment, an offense of a far greater nature because the independent counsel has been given unparalleled, even unprecedented powers, to investigate the President of the United States without much of the oversight and accountability that is required of career prosecutors or others in the Justice Department itself. It obviously poses a direct and fundamental threat to the credibility and effectiveness of the Office of Independent Counsel. Before this goes any further and the Office of Independent Counsel and the statute upon which it rests is further undermined, there is an obvious and overwhelming need for either the Federal courts, in their direct responsibility to oversee this investigation, or Attorney General Reno in her responsibility in the administration of the Department of Justice, to undertake an immediate and thorough investigation of the Office of Independent Counsel, because if these allegations that Kenneth Starr is leaking protected grand jury information are true, then the Office of Independent Counsel is spinning seriously out of control and operating outside of the law. Mr. President, the evidence today, if not conclusive, is overwhelming. On February 6, 1998, David Kendall, the President's personal attorney, wrote a 15-page letter to the Federal district court detailing dozens of instances of obviously improper disclosure of grand jury information. In response, Mr. Starr told numerous media outlets that these leaks were not coming from anyone in his office. In a letter to Mr. Kendall, Mr. Starr wrote, ``From the beginning, I have made the prohibition of leaks a principal priority of the office.'' Starr continued, ``It is a firing offense, as well as one that will lead to criminal prosecution.'' Mr. Starr continues, ``I have undertaken an investigation to determine whether, despite my persistent admonition, someone in this office may be culpable.'' Despite calls from the Department of Justice and the Office of Professional Responsibility to investigate, the Attorney General of the United States, Ms. Reno took Kenneth Starr at his word and allowed him to proceed with an internal investigation of his own office. Although Mr. Starr pledged to end these leaks and investigate any wrongdoing, it is obvious that he neither investigated nor changed the conduct of his office, or as now we know, even himself. This week, Steven Brill in his magazine Content provided even further evidence of these transgressions. Mr. Brill reports that he has personally seen internal memoranda from 3 different national news organizations that cite Mr. Starr's office as the source of many of these stories of grand jury leaks. He discloses an internal publication of the New York Times, in which its Washington editor is quoted as saying, ``This story was very much driven in the beginning on sensitive information that was coming out of the prosecutor's office. And the sourcing had to be vague because it was * * * given with the understanding that it would not be sourced.'' But if this sourcing, this reporting and analysis was not enough, these disclosures have been confirmed directly by Mr. Starr himself. On April 15 of this year, Brill reports that Starr acknowledged that he and his office have provided non-public information to reporters. Mr. Starr said, ``I have talked with reporters on background on some occasions, but Jackie [Bennett, his deputy] has been the primary person involved in that. He has spent much of his time talking to individual reporters.'' Mr. President, in his statement, Mr. Starr confirms what many of us have suspected all along: the Office of Independent Counsel has not only violated department guidelines on providing information, but it may have violated Rule 6E of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and committed a criminal offense in its own investigation. Mr. President, I need not remind my colleagues of the seriousness of this possible criminal offense by Mr. Starr's office. It has been a founding principle of Anglo-American law that confidentiality of grand jury investigations is central to the administration of justice. Mr. Starr has defended his media leaks by saying they were not a Rule 6E violation. He says, ``* * * if you are talking about what witnesses tell FBI agents or us before they testify before the grand jury or about related matters,'' they are not violations. Mr. President, Mr. Starr's defense may be that he violated the spirit, but not the letter of the law. Tragically, Mr. President, that is not the case under the precedents of this country. On May 5, 1998, in In Re: Motions of Dow Jones and Company, the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia--the court which, ironically, has jurisdiction over Mr. Starr's current grand jury investigation-- ruled that leaking information about prospective witnesses who might testify at a grand jury, about expected testimony, about negotiations regarding possible immunity, and about the strategy of grand jury proceedings, all violate Rule 6E. The court wrote, ``Matters occurring before the grand jury'' that cannot be disclosed ``* * * include not only what has occurred and what is occurring, but what also is likely to occur.'' What is therefore so shocking about Mr. Starr's own defense of his activities, his disclosures, is not that there is a precedent to the contrary to which one can be referred, it is that Mr. Starr himself is fully aware of this restriction. They are in the law. He knows them and he violated them. In one of his impromptu sidewalk press conferences, held February 5 of this year, Mr. Starr told reporters that he could not talk ``* * * about the status of someone who might be a witness [because] that goes to the heart of the grand jury process.'' Exactly, Mr. Starr. Disclosing potential testimony, likely testimony of someone who might appear before a grand jury, is not outside the Federal statute or its precedence; in your own words, Mr. Starr, it goes to the heart of the process and the protection afforded citizens of this country. There is a reason. This being a Nation that is ruled under the precedence of law, there is a reason why this Congress, the Justice Department, and the courts have protected grand jury information. If Mr. Starr's violation goes unanswered and he is not held accountable, there are consequences for all Americans, in all investigations, by all prosecutors, in all years to follow, because without it we could not guarantee that witnesses would ever feel free to disclose information to an investigator. They would live in fear that it would always potentially be disclosed. We could not ensure that grand jurors would be able to deliberate free from the influence of interested parties who would manipulate their investigation in public debate. We could not preserve the reputation of witnesses called before the grand jury, but found not guilty of any crime. Mr. Starr's activities are not simply a violation of the rights of President Clinton or grand jury witnesses, they are a violation of the administration of justice in this country. Mr. President, all crimes in the United States are not equal or serious. But crimes committed by Government in the administration of justice against individual Americans, given the vast and enormous and disparate power of Government in the administration of justice can be the most serious crime of all. It is that to which Mr. Starr stands accused today. Mr. President, I do not know how Attorney General Janet Reno is dealing with these allegations. One can only imagine, because when the public debate began about possible grand jury leaks and the violations of Federal criminal statutes with regard to disclosing information, Mr. Starr stood silent. He permitted the Attorney General of the United States to allow him to proceed with an internal investigation of these grand jury leaks of his own office when all the time he knew that he was the source of some of the leaks, potentially undermining not only public confidence in the investigation but almost assuredly the confidence of the Attorney General herself. Mr. President, I don't know what Janet Reno is thinking. But Kenneth Starr made a fool of the Attorney General of the United States having her proceed with Mr. Starr investigating his own transgressions. This maneuvering, however, to many in this institution will not come as a surprise. The problems with the independent counsel have been coming for some time, and, indeed, almost incredibly Justice Scalia predicted in his dissent in Morrison v. Olson exactly what has now occurred. A prosecutor so focused on one suspect under the laws of the independent counsel would, and he wrote, and I quote, ``What would normally be regarded as a technical violation * * * may in his or her world assume the proportions of an indictable offense.'' Mr. President, this is exactly what has occurred. Mr. Starr has been transformed from one who is supposed to be an objective prosecutor into a partisan political actor without oversight from the Department of Justice, control of the Federal courts, and no longer even operating within Federal law. Mr. President, I call upon my colleagues to join me in urging the Attorney General to once again assume her lawful responsibilities in the administration of justice, recognizing that the Office of Independent Counsel cannot operate outside of Federal law. Mr. President, it is high time at last to restore the credibility of this investigation.

Mr. TORRICELLI

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

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, last month the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, came to the floor to urge the Republican leadership to allow the body to consider reform of managed health care in our country. Today, I also want to join his plea that this institution be allowed to consider the consequences for American families of the managed health care system in our country. The simple truth is health care in America is in a state of crisis-- not a crisis of competence or technology. Most assuredly, it is a crisis of confidence. Confidence in health care in many respects is as important as the quality of the providers or the level of our technology. I have rarely in my life seen an issue where so many Americans are of a similar mind with such a depth of concern regarding the availability and quality of health care under the HMO system. I realized myself the depth of these feelings when, only a few months, ago I joined with my colleague, Congressman Pallone from New Jersey, in a field hearing in our State. During the hearing, families told me about their own experiences in attempting to care for their children, gaining access to the best health care providers, and the enormous frustration and feeling that the costs of operations were being placed before the health of their children. Perhaps the best example came from a single family in New Jersey, the Bolingers. Their daughter, Kristin, is 15 years old, and lives in Spotswood, NJ. She has experienced the frustration of managed care that has been visited upon many American families. As an infant, Kristin developed unexplained intractable seizures which left her in need of very specialized care and expensive diagnostic tests. Five years before, Kristin's parents had enrolled themselves in an HMO. But because of the rules of the HMO, Kristin could no longer see the pediatricians and the specialists who had been treating her for her entire life. Those who had the experience with Kristin, had seen her symptoms and knew her case, were now separated from her treatment, and in their place the HMO on its list of available doctors made a pediatrician available who was not qualified, who had no experience with her condition, and did not know her or how to treat her. Her family then was left in an extraordinary position. In caring for their 15-year-old daughter, do they absorb all of the financial costs which they are unable to bear when treating their child or do they go to doctors who, on their face, were not qualified to deal with the case? The family was left in a desperate financial position. The HMO refused to pay many of her medical bills deeming them ``not medically necessary.'' The case only gets worse. In 1994, scoliosis, caused by Kristin's condition, required the use of a back brace. The HMO gave her a back brace which was inferior and not usable. Last year, Kristin had to undergo corrective spinal surgery. Her physician prescribed home nursing care and physical therapy. For a long time the HMO refused to pay for the physical therapy or the home care. They would pay for nothing. After they started to pay, the physical therapy was only half complete when payments stopped. This, of course, leaves Kristin Bolinger's family with a question that they will ask themselves all their lives. The bills were not being paid, the family had to make these sacrifices in spite of the fact they were paying an HMO all of this time on time in full. The finances aside, the Bolinger family for the rest of their lives is left with the question: How much did their child suffer, and how much of her condition might have been reversed if she had gotten the right care at the right time? Obviously, Mr. President, Kristin Bolinger and her family are not alone. She is one of 4 million people in my State of New Jersey and 50 million in our country who have absolutely no protection from the judgments of their health maintenance organizations. They live at the whim of whatever decisions may come from the officials who manage these health care organizations. That is true, even though I am very proud that in New Jersey we probably have the best patient protection system for those in managed care of any State in the Nation. But it doesn't work. State protections don't work because only 25 percent of those in health maintenance organizations in New Jersey can be covered by State protections. The other 75 percent, who like Kristin Bolinger are in ERISA-based plans, are left to their own devices to fight their insurance companies for their rights because State protections cannot shield them. It is no wonder that more than half of all Americans who are enrolled in health maintenance organizations are significantly dissatisfied with the quality of their care. Fifty-one percent of Americans believe that health maintenance organizations are eroding the quality of health care for their families. Fifty-five percent fear that if they become ill while in a managed health care plan, those who administer their plan would have their highest priority in saving money rather than caring for their patients. And if that is not bad enough, the worst indication may be that this lack of confidence of those who are enrolled in the plan is mirrored by health care professionals themselves. Forty percent of all physicians who work in these very plans every day watching these judgments believe that the quality of health care and of the judgments made by health care professionals is eroding and prevent them from making the best medical judgments for patients. I cannot tell you that the movement in America to managed health care plans has not had benefits. The truth is the spiraling upward costs of health care in America are being contained. I do not believe we ever could have developed the current Federal budget surplus without managed care. It has been of enormous benefit to the American economy as corporations have contained costs, but there is a loss of balance. If we are achieving the controlling of these costs, but the price is that families and physicians do not have confidence they can get the care they are purchasing, we are paying a very high price for this efficiency. What is required is to restore the balance between the efficiencies of delivering care and ending the upward spiral of rising health care costs, but assuring quality and access and balance of judgments. The truth is this loss of balance is not necessary. Patients should have access to health care professionals who are qualified to treat their conditions and not forced to accept people without the proper professional credentials simply because they are preferred by health care managers in these organizations. Insurance companies should not withhold the care that family physicians and specialists alike deem necessary. If a health care professional, a doctor believes a certain treatment is necessary, as a matter of right that doctor's judgment should prevail. Obviously, if a doctor believes that an HMO is making the wrong judgment for the health of an individual, there should be a fair and speedy appeals process to someone who can make the best judgment for the patient. Mr. President, this case is so obvious, it is so compelling, it comes as close to a consensus judgment as can ever be reached in a country of this size and complexity. It is at issue in every State, in millions of American families, borne out by the practical experience of people that Senators meet every day. It is true today. It was true yesterday. It was true last month. It was true last year. I join with the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, in urging that this Congress this year deal with health maintenance organization reform. There is legislation before this Senate that is prepared. It is ready. It is comprehensive. It deals with the issue. Senator Daschle's legislation, S. 1890, would deal with the very issues that Kristin Bolinger had to face in her own life. Senator Daschle's Patients' Bill of Rights, consistent with the call of President Clinton in his State of the Union Address, would ensure that patients like Kristin would have (1) access to providers who are qualified to treat their conditions, including referrals to specialists when necessary; (2) that any Member of a health maintenance organization, wherever they are in America, wherever they travel, whatever community they are in, have access to emergency care in a hospital that is proximate to them when they are in trouble or in need; (3) have access to a fair and immediate appeals process. More than anything else, this would convince the American people that their interests and the needs of their families are being put before the profits of these organizations. It is obviously too late to deal with Kristin Bolinger's pain or the terrible financial plight of her family. Kristin's experience and those of millions of other Americans can be instructive to this Senate and remind us of our obligations to deal with the problems of health care in America. We can still acknowledge the enormous efficiencies of managed care and its benefits of ending the rising costs, helping with corporate efficiency and the predictability of health care costs. But simply because these organizations are working to add efficiency, does not attest to the fact that all families are being treated fairly as demonstrated by Kristin Bolinger's experience. Senator Daschle's legislation, his Patients' Bill of Rights, deals with that balance. I urge the majority leader, Senator Lott, to bring the Patients' Bill of Rights for managed health care reform before the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, anyone who has been listening to this debate on the Senate floor in the last few weeks is now familiar with the painful but very real statistics. Each day, 3,000 young Americans begin smoking and eventually 1,000 will die. I can think of no issue on the floor of this Congress which could more directly affect the lives of Americans for a generation to come to finally deal with the reality of tobacco and its assorted dangers. Legislation offered by Senator McCain, which I enthusiastically support, makes a contribution in several important ways to dealing with this problem: First, it requires a warning label and restricts advertising designed to attract children to smoking cigarettes; second, it grants broad authority to the Federal Drug and Food Administration to regulate tobacco products, their advertising, and their distribution; third, it establishes a national tobacco trust fund for smoke cessation programs, health research, and compensation for States and farmers as a result of tobacco smoking and the program; and, finally, it also penalizes companies up to $3.5 billion per year if they fail to meet their targets to reduce youth smoking. There is, however, a less addressed but equally significant impact of this legislation that also needs to be addressed. It has been raised by the Senator from Texas, Senator Gramm, and now by the Senator from South Dakota, Senator Daschle, that there are unintended tax consequences of this legislation. I am relieved that my colleagues joined in the judgment not to raise the tobacco tax to $1.50 per pack but cast their votes, as I did, to keep this tax $1.10. It is, nevertheless, the reality that this taxation upon cigarettes could be the most regressive tax ever passed in American history. This tax burden is falling disproportionately on the working poor and, indeed, on poor families themselves. It has been noted that the total tax burden of families who earn under $10,000 a year would increase by 40 percent as a result of this tobacco tax. Indeed, three-quarters of the tax would be paid by families who earn under $50,000 per year. This would add a tax burden to an American population that is already excessively taxed. I understand that it is President Clinton's priority that a new Federal surplus be used primarily to deal with the future obligations of Social Security. I support him in that initiative, as I believe there are important initiatives of education and health care that are unaddressed in our country. But the tobacco legislation brings into focus another reality: The average American family is still paying too much taxation. Indeed, the CBO reports that taxes on the American public have recently reached 20 percent of the gross domestic product. Not since the Second World War has the total tax burden on the American people, as a percentage of our economy, been so high. According to the Joint Committee on Tax, Americans earning $30,000 and less will pay 59 percent of this new tobacco tax, which is being added on this already heavy burden. The answer of the Senator from Texas is to primarily deal with this new burden by dealing with what is known as the marriage penalty. Indeed, in 1996, 21 million couples encountered an average penalty because of their joint filings as a result of their marriage of $1,400. That represents 42 percent of the American people--married couples--are paying more as a consequence of their marriage. A proposal by Senator Gramm combines a phase-in of tax relief for the marriage penalty, with tax credits for the self-employed to purchase health insurance, for costs of upwards of $16 billion during the first 5 years, and $30 billion in years 6 through 10. Responding to criticism that earlier versions of his amendment would have completely drained the public health funds in this bill, Senator Gramm now proposes to limit the use of the tobacco trust fund from one- half to one-third of the revenues in the outyears for dealing with this elimination of the marriage penalty. He does so, however, by using the general revenues of the Federal Government. The consequences of using these general revenues for the admittedly important objective of eliminating the marriage penalty is that it contradicts President Clinton's goal of first using Federal surpluses to deal with Social Security. Indeed, on a bipartisan basis, I could not understand and it would be difficult to accept that this Congress would not want to first deal with ensuring the financial safety of Social Security before dealing with other admittedly important tax objectives. Specifically, the Gramm amendment potentially would remove $90 to $125 billion worth of Federal revenues that the President has designed to deal with the future security of Social Security, specifically for the baby boom generation. I think Senator Daschle has a better idea. He offers an alternative which allows this Congress to remain focused on securing Social Security for the next generation while dealing with this admittedly high tax burden and the unintended consequence of regressivity of the tobacco tax. First, Senator Daschle would ease the tax burden on American families by providing full deductibility for health insurance premiums for the self-employed. No issue could be more important for people starting their own businesses, for middle-income families, than dealing with this full deductibility of health insurance. Second, it maintains the integrity of the tobacco bill and still protects Social Security. So the programs now envisioned in the tobacco bill would remain--dealing with public health, tobacco farmers, reimbursement to the States--while at the same time allowing us to provide this tax relief. The difference, of course, between Senator Daschle's proposal and Senator Gramm's proposal is that Senator Gramm did not simply deal with the marriage penalty--because only 40 percent of all married couples are paying a marriage penalty, he was providing tax relief beyond this and thereby causing this financial strain. The alternative offered by the Senator from South Dakota, Senator Daschle, deals simply with those families who are actually paying the marriage penalty and thereby allows us to do so in a more responsible fashion. This, I believe, is the better alternative, but I hope the Senate does not simply deal this year with the question of the tax burden on the American people by only addressing the question of the marriage tax penalty. That will suffice for the tobacco legislation. I hope and I trust by the time the Senate is finished dealing with tobacco legislation that we have dealt with deductibility for the self-employed of their health insurance and the elimination of the marriage penalty. Before yielding the floor, I hope that the Senate would follow the debate that has now begun as a consequence of the important analysis offered by the Senator from Texas, Senator Gramm, on both the overall national tax burden and its regressivity by dealing with other tax issues in the remainder of this session. First, if not in this legislation, then before this session adjourns, the Senate should deal with the fact that there are too many Americans of modest means who are finding themselves in the highest tax bracket. Today, a single individual is paying a 28 percent Federal income tax with a salary of $25,300, and a married couple with only $42,350 in income is paying a Federal tax of 28 percent in income taxes. Therefore, we are applying the highest rate to people of genuinely modest means. I believe we would make a real contribution to tax fairness in the Senate in this year if the 15 percent bracket could be expanded to $35,000 for individuals and $70,000 for married couples. This would move more than 10 million Americans from the 28 percent tax bracket to the 15 percent tax bracket and genuinely ensure that middle-income people are able to take advantage of a lower 15 percent bracket. No single proposal would grant tax relief on a broader, more comprehensive basis to middle-income Americans. Second, before this Congress adjourns this year, I hope the Congress will return to the issue of capital gains simplification. I have joined with Senator Mack and Senator Breaux to encourage that savings and investment income be restored to a 12-month holding period in order to avail ourselves of the lower capital gains tax rate that was instituted by this Congress on an earlier date. Third, return again to the issue of estate taxes by building on the $1 million exemption from the estate tax in last year's tax bill by slashing the estate tax rate by 25 percent. We made real progress last year by raising the exemption to a $1 million, but the Federal tax rate and the State tax remain confiscatory at an unbelievable 55 percent. Fourth, and finally, I hope this Congress, before concluding its work this year on the Federal Tax Code, will return to the incredibly poor savings rates in this Nation. The United States now suffers from the lowest savings rate in nearly 60 years. I believe this Senate should exempt the first $500 in interest from taxation, ensuring that any family in America that saves $10,000, whether in equity or bonds or savings accounts, would not pay taxes on that first $10,000. Nothing would do more for Americans to prepare for their own retirement, to provide security for American families, than transforming every $10,000 in savings in America by every family instantly into a tax-free account. This could be done simply by exempting the first $500 in interest. For those 60 percent of American families that have no equity, no savings other than their house, and live in the dangerous position of paycheck-to-paycheck, this, for the first time, would provide a real incentive for those families to save money. Mr. President, my purpose today primarily was to draw attention to the worthwhile objective of providing some tax relief in the tobacco legislation for those families, primarily of low and moderate means, who will disproportionately be shouldering this burden of increased tobacco taxes. But I wanted to take advantage of the opportunity both to demonstrate the relative advantage of Senator Daschle's proposal, to provide this tax relief within the tobacco bill, thereby not jeopardizing the revenues available to deal with providing some safety for Social Security, but also to point out to the Senate that, beyond dealing with the tax burden of families because of the tobacco legislation and thereby providing relief in the marriage penalty and the self-employment full deductibility on health insurance, the Senate should be setting its sights on other areas as well in the remainder of this year--an encouragement in savings, general income tax relief for middle-income families, and on the inheritance tax. The Senate has a larger obligation of easing the tax burden, and I believe the debate that has begun in the Senate has begun to outline the possible components, beyond the tobacco legislation, of broader tax relief for the American families. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Clyde J. Hart's nomination as Administrator of the Maritime Administration. Mr. Hart is originally from my home state of New Jersey and I am proud to stand with him as he prepares for his confirmation process before the Senate. Mr. Hart is currently the senior Democratic Counsel for the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Subcommittee in the Senate. I have had the great privilege of working with him in the past on the issue of hazardous waste transportation, and have found him to be very intelligent and extremely effective. Before coming to work for the Senate, Mr. Hart had extensive experience in a variety of fields. He has practiced law here in Washington, D.C., taught courses at the University of Virginia and served his nation in uniform from 1965-1969. He is a scholar and a patriot. I commend President Clinton for such an excellent choice for Maritime Administrator and look forward to working closely with Mr. Hart as he assumes control of this critical agency. I join my colleagues in support of this nomination and am confident of Mr. Hart's prompt approval by the full Senate.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Although I have not been in this institution long, I have already discovered one thing about the Senate. Things are not often as they appear. This discussion has been almost entirely about money, what fees are paid, and who pays them. But in truth, this amendment is not about money, it is about power. It is about whether or not the individual American who has little or no money, cannot afford expert testimony, cannot afford to pay the fees with extensive and complex litigation, can stand in a courtroom face to face with the largest and richest, most powerful corporations in the world and get justice. Through almost all of the history of this Republic, we have assured that right to every American. But today, this Congress is at a point of judgment about the tobacco industry because those individual lawyers, on contingency fees, representing individual American citizens, have brought us to this point of decision. Make no mistake about it, Americans are dealing with the reality of health care and tobacco and the financing of our future health care as a result of a potential tobacco settlement, not because of this Congress, not because of the good graces of American industry, not because the leadership of the President, but because of the threat in courts of law that individual attorneys, on contingency fees, have found justice for individual American citizens. This fight is not about money. There are ample resources in any tobacco settlement. The fees would be paid. It is about whether or not this door to American justice is to be closed. And that is the decision. The great irony of it is, on the other side of the aisle, the party which has always claimed to represent the rights of the individual, the founding wisdom of our constitutional system, and the prerogatives of individual State governments, would be bringing this amendment at all. If it were to succeed, the Senate of the United States would be setting professional fees, a judgment that not only does not belong here but demeans the institution. The Senate of the United States would be taking prerogatives away from State governments and State attorneys general which have negotiated these decisions or made these judgments. The McCain legislation deals with this, in what I believe is a proper fashion, in setting arbitration panels where arbitrators can pay what expenses the lawyers had, what they had to pay, the risk they took, the time involved, and then, on a professional, informed basis, decide on proper compensation. Alternatively, that judgment will be made here, and on what basis? Who here knows the risks involved, what expenses were incurred, what professional judgments were required? Never in my limited experience in this institution would we be making a less informed decision. Mr. President, I strongly urge the defeat of this amendment. The attorneys general of this country have availed themselves of a right that individual Americans have used for generations. They made a judgment to the taxpayers of this country who could not afford to pay private attorneys the enormous fees, the enormous costs through recent years, to avail themselves of contingency fees to protect the taxpayers just as individual Americans have done for years. Now it is time to ensure that system worked--that freedom to remain with the individual States to reach their own final judgments. Finally, Mr. President, let me suggest to you this legislation is not only inappropriate for the institution, it is not only denying Americans a power of equal justice against the strong and the powerful, which they have enjoyed for generations, it is also, finally, if nothing else, patently, clearly, unequivocally unconstitutional. On what basis will the Federal Government take this judgment away from the States under the 10th amendment? And on what basis would this Congress decide to take this compensation away from individual Americans in what is clearly an unconstitutional seizure of property without compensation? Mr. President, this amendment is bad on a variety of bases. Collectively, it is almost unthinkable. I am very pleased that Senator Hollings and Senator Kerry have led us in the debate, and am more than a little proud that the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, on which I am proud to serve, Senator Hatch, once again, as has been his tradition, has come to the floor of this institution in the protection of the prerogative of the institution and the Constitution of the United States. I thank the Senator from South Carolina for yielding the time. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, let me first thank Senator Thurmond and Senator Levin for their consideration. I will not use all the time I have yielded myself.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to extend morning business for 5 minutes.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise on an issue of great importance to me, personally, and I believe many other Members of the Senate. Winston Churchill once noted that nations whose sons fight and die together forever change their relationship. Seven years ago, the United States and Kuwait tragically shared this experience. The liberation of Kuwait forever changed the relationships between our two peoples. Though our cultures and the faiths of many are different, we share a sense of national independence and, I believe, a growing awareness of a burgeoning potential for democracy in Kuwait. It was, therefore, extremely disturbing on November 19, 1997, when several members of the Islamic faction in Parliament in Kuwait sought the ouster of the Minister of Information, Sheikh Saud Al-Nasir Al- Sabah. It did so because of an allegation that he permitted books to be displayed at a book fair which fundamentalists deemed to be offensive. Members of this Senate--indeed, many people in the administration--not only know Sheikh Saud Al-Nasir Al-Sabah well, they consider him a friend. During the darkest days of the invasion and occupation of Kuwait, he was the voice of that Nation in the United States. We trusted him. More, perhaps, than anyone we know in Kuwaiti society, he rallied support to the liberation of his country. These allegations against him we now recognize were little more than an effort by Islamic fundamentalists to extend their control over the Ministry of Information, which would have changed the nature of the political system in Kuwait. Judgments about Kuwait's future are for the Kuwaiti people, obviously, and entirely. But I believe as friends of that Nation who have fought and died with them, we all have a stake in the growing movement of that society for free expression. I know my colleagues join me with some relief and considerable pride in that in a reformed Government following this incident, Sheikh Saud Al-Nasir Al-Sabah was kept as Oil Minister. Indeed, not only did he remain in the Government, therefore, but he received a promotion. I know the people of Kuwait have been traumatized by this effort, through this emergence of Islamic factions within their political system, to extend their control and threaten rising elements of democracy in their society. I trust that Kuwaiti democracy will be the stronger for this experience, that the people of Kuwait will not only understand but appreciate the interests of the U.S. Senate in the political system of that country, since the concept of the government and free expression in Kuwait is so much a part of our mutual understanding for the defense of that society. I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator McCain and Senator Hollings for agreeing to include the Murkowski-Torricelli junk E-mail amendment to this bill. And I want to thank my distinguished colleague from Alaska for join with me in this effort. Last year, Senator Murkowski and I each recognized the growing threat to Internet commerce posed by the proliferation of unsolicited commercial e-mail, known by its Internet slang as ``Spam.'' Although we initially had somewhat different approaches to this problem, we recognized that something had to be done. The amendment we have today is the product of a good faith effort involving privacy groups, marketers, online service providers, and others to achieve a result that will rein in these destructive e-mail practices, while protecting the first amendment rights of all who wish to send and receive legitimate e-mail. Before I address what our amendments does, I want to briefly discuss the problem of unsolicited commercial junk e-mail. Junk E-mail, or so called spamming, is an unfortunate side effect of the burgeoning world of Internet communication and commerce. Like many other Americans, I have an account on America Online and am inundated with unsolicited messages, peddling every item under the sun. Similarly, I receive junk e-mail daily at my official Senate e-mail address, as well as the complaints of dozens of constituents who forward me the Spam that they are sent. The incentive to abuse the Internet is obvious, E-mailing ten million people can cost as little as a couple of hundred dollars. And because the senders of these e-mails are generally unknown, they avoid any possible retribution for consumers. Today, unsolicited commerical e-mailers are hiding their identities, falsifying their return addresses and refusing to accept complaints or removal requests. Their actions approach fraud, but our current law doesn't seem strong enough to stop them. I have long been concerned about excessive--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 this problem now poses a greater threat to the Internet than do these minimal requirements. Junk e-mail is estimated to take up 30 percent of all Internet traffic and is increasingly responsible for slowdowns, and even breakdowns, of Internet services. Let me be clear, this legislation is not a de facto regulation of the Internet. In fact, it does not go as far as some have suggested. It does not ban all unsolicited e-mail because we wanted to avoid any inference of government interference. However, it is a first and needed step in making cyberspace saner. The Murkowski-Torricelli amendment takes some important and necessary steps. First, it requires senders of unsolicited commercial e-mail to identify themselves and provide a valid return e-mail address. Second, it requires senders to inform recipients that they have the right to reply and stop any future messages by typing ``remove'' on the subject line. Third, it requires junk e-mail to honor any request to remove someone from their mailing list. Fourth, it authorizes the FTC to enforce these requirements with civil fines and injunctive relief. And finally, it requires the FTC to establish a web site to accept consumer complaints and list its enforcement actions. Put simply, our amendment strikes a balance that will help consumers prevent unwanted and unsolicited electronic mail, without creating a burdensome regulatory system or unnecessarily restricting free speech. It recognizes that the government should not hastily and haphazardly regulate pass legislation to regulate the Internet. However, it also recognizes that some practices are simply too destructive to ignore. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.