Robert Torricelli

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to thank our nation's Corrections Officers for their selfless dedication to rehabilitating those members of our society who have strayed from the path of the just. I would especially like to recognize the 5,500 members of the New Jersey State Corrections Officers Association whose daily work allows our children to grow in an environment unfettered by criminal elements. These courageous men and women risk their lives on a daily basis and deserve to be recognized for their efforts on our behalf. Although Corrections Officers play a critical role in safeguarding our communities from convicted felons, they receive very little public recognition for their work. When a felon is apprehended the police receive the credit for the arrest and the prosecuting attorney is praised for proving the felon's guilt. Juries are hailed as courageous and the judges imposing sentences are lauded for their commitment to justice. Once the trial process is completed and a felon is convicted, that person goes to prison and is forgotten by mainstream society. However, Corrections Officers are not allowed to forget because they deal with convicted felons on a daily basis. From rehabilitating to guarding those people who have forfeited their rights to live in our communities, Corrections Officers find themselves in high risk situations every day. In a society that believes in the fundamental importance of law and order, it is important to remember the people who help those principles flourish. By ensuring that inmates are rehabilitated before re-entering our communities, Corrections Officers are disciplinarians and teachers. They impose the will of the people while teaching criminals about the need to adhere to the law. Clearly, there are formidable obstacles to these endeavors, and I am continually impressed by the way these officers persevere in spite of the difficulties they encounter. In a criminal justice system that places an ever increasing amount of pressure on Corrections Officers to be infallible, they maintain a consistently positive and professional attitude towards their jobs. The men and women who work as Corrections Officers in our nation's prisons should be celebrated for their commitment to their communities. I am privileged to recognize their efforts and I encourage my colleagues to do so as well.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and my colleague from Georgia, Senator Coverdell, to submit a concurrent resolution expressing the sense of Congress with respect to documentation requirements for physicians who submit claims to Medicare for office visits and other evaluation and management services. In May of last year, the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) released revised Medicare documentation guidelines for evaluation and management (E/M) services. The guidelines were intended to provide physicians and claims reviewers advice about preparing and reviewing documentation for E/M services. They were also expected to improve the quality of medical records and continuity of patient care. It is clear now, nearly eight months after the guidelines were implemented, that the guidelines' intent has not been fulfilled. Rather than improving the quality of patient care, the new E/M guidelines have caused patient care to suffer. I have received hundreds of letters from physicians in my state of New Jersey telling me that they spend so much time trying to figure out how to bill Medicare under the new guidelines that they have little time left for their patients. There are 42 choices a physician must consider before selecting the proper E/M code for a given service. These kind of highly complicated and excessive billing guidelines force physicians to spend less time with their patients and more time on their charts. The result is a diversion of the physicians' attention away from patient care and medical decision-making. Even the American Medical Association (AMA), who helped draft the guidelines, warns that they may impose an undue burden on physicians that may detract from patient care. These concerns have prompted the AMA to commit to make changes in the guidelines that address concerns about their complexity. The resolution I rise to submit today expresses the sense of Congress that HCFA should postpone its plan to implement the documentation guidelines and continue consultation with physicians organizations on how to reduce the complexity of E/M guidelines. The resolution also expresses the sense of Congress that HCFA should conduct a pilot study of any documentation requirements prior to their implementation to assure that they contribute to, rather than detract from, quality patient care. It is well settled that adequate documentation is necessary to assure quality and appropriateness of Medicare services. It is also needed to prevent waste, fraud and abuse. However, we in Congress have a responsibility to ensure that strategies to address these issues not result in burdensome requirements that interfere with patient care.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. I appreciate that, but the Senator asked a question that deserves to be answered.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, like the Senator from Virginia, my remarks are not based on a belief that the cause and reasons for NATO have expired. Quite the contrary. My concern is that whatever we do in the expansion of NATO has real credibility. I raise the military question of whether or not the Polish frontier is defendable with this pledge, simply because of this: It never has been. There is not a historical basis by which the ambitions of an imperial Russia has ever been checked, nor will we. I, too, believe that Poland should be defended. I will vote for NATO expansion, but under the amendment offered by the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from New York, they are suggesting a strategy whereby the political and economic bounds be given meaning, or there be time. It is not an honest assessment of the situation of the people of Poland to tell them that three American divisions with no indigenous forces are going to be positioned to defend them against a revitalized, or ambitious future Russia. It is not an accurate situation. If this is worth doing, it is worth doing with real resources based on a real assessment of costs, based on bonds that have meaning, not over a period of time. It is based on that realistic military situation that I join with the Senator from Virginia. I, too, like the Senator from Delaware and the Senator from Virginia, believe the United States will stand by its credibility and its pledges in each of these instances. But it is one thing to do it; it is another thing to do it contrary to historic experience, or military reality. I thank the Senator from Delaware for yielding me the time so I could clarify my views.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I join the Senator from Virginia and, indeed, the Senator from New York, Mr. Moynihan, in each of their amendments and speak to them today. It is, I think, worth noting that the decision before this Senate is neither new nor without the apprehension that should come with historic experience. On March 31, 1939, Neville Chamberlain rose in the British Parliament and announced unambiguously, unequivocally, the British will defend the Polish frontier with the threat of war. To be certain, it was a war that inevitably was going to be fought and should have been fought. But what is instructive about the experience, as Winston Churchill later noted, ``Here was a decision at last taken at the worst possible moment and on the least satisfactory ground.'' More than a generation later, the Senate has a chance to ask all the questions that were not asked in the British Parliament on that day, because before this Senate is the most solemn question that the representatives of any free people can ever ask. We are pledging the good name of this country to go to war, to consume the lives of our sons and our daughters for the defense of another people. That does not mean it is a pledge that sometimes should not be made. Maybe it should be made in this instance. But there are questions that should be raised that are the foundation of the amendments offered by the Senator from Virginia, Senator Warner, and the Senator from New York, Mr. Moynihan. Those questions are, in my judgment, whether or not, having made this pledge, the United States and our NATO allies genuinely have the military capability, in our resources, to fulfill the obligation, whether or not the United States and our NATO allies have the political will to lend credibility to this pledge, and whether or not this promise of defense enhances or detracts from the general security of the United States and the NATO alliance. Let me begin, Mr. President, by addressing the question of the military feasibility of this most expansive American pledge to defend other nations since the NATO alliance itself and the Japanese-American security agreement. Indeed, this expansion of our security guarantee is based on an unspoken but a very real sense of a change in historic realities in this Chamber. It is based on the belief that Russia is weakened, an historic opportunity has arisen, and that the views of Russia are either no longer relevant or that she is without choice in this question. Mr. President, the current state of affairs with regard to the military and economic power of Russia is an aberration. Russia has been a great power for more than 1,000 years; and it will be a great power again. Its affairs are part of the calculus of American security and cannot be discounted. It is a nation of nearly 150 million people with over 6.5 million square miles of territory. It possesses 40 percent of the world's natural gas reserves and rivals any power on Earth as a source of natural resources, including petroleum. Russia is a technological leader. It is a major industrial power. And it continues, in spite of its current economic difficulties, as the only source of military technology, production and power that potentially rivals the United States. So, Mr. President, there may be many things uncertain about the future, but this much is certain: Russia will continue in the future to be a great power. And yet while it may not be spoken on this floor, this calculation of immediately extending the American security umbrella to Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary is based on the calculation that at some point Russia might be a threat to their frontiers, and we will provide for its defense. Mr. President, I know us as Americans to be an ambitious people and a confident people. But this is an extraordinary guarantee the people of the United States are extending to these three new democracies in Eastern Europe. No nation in history has been able to defend against the territorial ambitions of Russia when she was an imperial or in an imperialistic mode. It is worth noting, from Napoleon to the Third Reich, people have miscalculated on their abilities to deal with Russian ambitions in Eastern Europe. Russia was challenged in the borders of Poland by the Third Reich and 162 divisions of the Wehrmacht. We are an ambitious people, Mr. President. The U.S. Army today, 4,000 miles from our borders, has three divisions. What military means is it by which we are going to give credibility to this pledge? Not next year, not 10 years, not at some point in the future, but the day this treaty is signed. Three divisions, half a world away on the borders of Russia herself? There is, Mr. President, another irony to this military pledge related to the comments of the Senator from Texas, Mr. Gramm, in noting that in some ways the current borders of NATO are a relic of the Iron Curtain of Josef Stalin. Well, now, Mr. President, we are to draw a new line. And it may have its benefactors and its beneficiaries. But what of those nations not inside this new line? The great lesson of Yalta was that those nations that fell on the other side of the line were lost to a Stalinist equation and calculation that they were now in a new sphere of influence. This Senate is faced with a question of tomorrow, next month, this year, drawing a new line in Europe that may bring Poland and the Czech Republic and Hungary in, but leaves the Baltics and Romania and the Ukraine out. How would a future adversary, not in a democratic Russia but in a possible successor Government, interpret this new sphere of influence? Not as a check on ambitions but as an invitation to ambitions? Equally important, I believe, Mr. President, from my first, and in this instance, military review of this instance, is that we are entering ourselves again into a military calculation that for 50 years we have wanted to escape. Because if we are to make this pledge of defending these three new democracies, and we do so with three divisions of the U.S. Army and no indigenous military capability whatsoever, we are entering into, again, something which we feared and have so fought to escape. The only means of defending these governments is through atomic weapons. We are pledging unmistakably a nuclear exchange to defend the Polish frontier from possible future invasion. It is where we were during the cold war with New York for Berlin, Chicago for Paris, San Francisco for Rome. It is easy to make the pledge, Mr. President. The question is whether to do so without military resources is responsible. It is not simply that our own resources are insufficient. My friend, the Senator from Delaware, has drawn a parallel between this expansion and the initial NATO treaty or expansions in other instances. In this instance, we are not joining in mutual defense with the British army or the Germans or the French; we are pledging to defend Poland, whose armed forces consist of 1,700 Soviet tanks designed for the 1950s and 1960s, a Hungarian air force which will contribute to its own security 50 aging Soviet MIG fighters, and the Czech air force whose pilots fly an average of 40 hours a year in training for their own self-defense. The Senate can make this judgment. You can decide to extend the American security umbrella all over Eastern Europe, even though there are insufficient American forces to contribute to their defense, and rely on indigenous forces. But at least make the decision based on the reality that there are no indigenous forces. It is a military pledge without military capability. Second is the issue of whether or not there is the political will in the United States and in Western Europe to give this promise meaning. The NATO treaty is the most successful military alliance in history. At a time when the Soviet Union had overwhelming military means, it was the foundation of the defense of Western Europe, but it was not based on the fact that the United States signed a treaty. It was based on historic and economic realities. Through two world wars the American people had demonstrated they were prepared to defend one Europe because they believed that the security of Western Europe and the United States were inseparable. Our quality of life, our security, our economic future could not be distinguished from Great Britain, France, in the first instance, Italy and Germany and other member states at other times. In a free society, the President of the United States may sign a treaty pledging to defend Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland, but if the economic realities are not such that the American people believe that our futures are indistinguishable, it is a dangerous promise because it is a hollow pledge. The reality is today that there may be a time when each of these republics have sufficient economic intercourse with the United States and Western Europe that we believe they are part of the Western alliance by economic and cultural and historic definition and this pledge has meaning. But no one can argue--indeed, this is the foundation of the rationale of the amendment by Senators Moynihan and Warner--no one can argue that that reality is true today. Total economic intercourse with the Czech Republic today is .09 percent of American exports.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Will the Senator yield 10 additional minutes?

Mr. TORRICELLI. Is that all the time the Senator has?

Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank the Senator from Virginia. Mr. President, no one can argue that we have reached that state of economic dependency at the moment. That is the rationale of the delay, to allow these bonds to form and to give this pledge meaning. Finally, the foundation of American security in this generation and as far as the eye can see is the Russian-American relationship. Any judgment we make which enhances Russian democracy enhances American security. Most fundamental to this debate is the fact that Eastern Europe and the NATO alliance's first line of defense is the Russian ballot box. If Russia is democratic and capitalistic and free, Eastern Europe is secure. If it is not, no force on Earth is going to defend the Ukraine, the Baltics, or even these republics. I believe strongly this pledge and this NATO expansion will be enhanced by both of these amendments. I accept the reality that NATO is going to be expanded, but I believe it is a more responsible judgment if we address these questions, allow for this delay. I believe it would lead to a better expansion of NATO, and we would be pleased and proud that we made these exceptions. I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI. If the Senator will yield, I would be glad to address each of those.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank the Senator again for taking the time to clarify some of these points on her amendment. I look forward to continuing to working with you to provide families with greater educational opportunities.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I thank Senator Coverdell for yielding the time and for his very gracious comments and, very importantly for the country and for the States, his extraordinary leadership on this issue. Mr. President, I will concede that when this debate began I believed we were entering upon something very important, that after years of fooling ourselves about the quality of education in America, the Senate was about to undertake a broad and comprehensive debate--indeed, a discussion that could last not simply for this year or this Congress but through the decade--about how we fundamentally reform education in America, a debate in which everything was relevant and all subjects and proposals would come forward but one, and that is the defense of the status quo, because if there is one aspect of American life today that cannot in its entirety be defended, it is the quality of education that we are giving our children. The process of education in America today stands like a dagger at the heart of this country. It is time to speak the truth to parents and children alike, because it is not simply that the education of our country is not of a quality to compete, the problem is more fundamental--because many parents, working hard, paying their taxes, helping their children, believe they are being educated to world-class standards when they are not. The simple answer to the question, what can be said about the future of a country where one-third of its students may enter the work force functionally illiterate, 40 percent of fourth graders cannot meet minimum standards of math, 40 percent of eight graders cannot read at basic levels, the simple truth is a country that is teaching its children to those standards has a very limited economic future and cannot maintain its current quality of life or perhaps even social stability. That is the sad truth about our country today. And so I believed that when Senator Coverdell brought this legislation forward, we would be laying the foundation for an extensive debate about what we do about private and parochial schools, what we do about the public schools, that we would incorporate the best of President Clinton's ideas and that of the Democratic and Republican leadership and set out an agenda to carry us through the years in this great debate. It was sadly, it appears, Mr. President, not to be. There are aspects about the Coverdell legislation that have been said so many times and yet it is as if those who do not agree simply do not want to hear. Among those, sadly, I must say, my friend and a man that I admire as much as any in this country, the President of the United States, Bill Clinton. I heard the President yesterday say this is another form of a voucher, it is support for the wealthy, it is an abandonment of the public schools. It is worth stating one more time before this debate concludes so, no matter what the vote and however people may choose to cast their votes, we understand the simple truth. No one ever contended that the Coverdell legislation was an answer for every problem of education in America. If you are voting for it because you believe in one vote you solve all problems, you will not only be disappointed but you will be dishonest in casting your vote. It is one idea to deal with one set of problems. It does these things. But not as its critics have contended. Last year this Senate voted to establish savings accounts for college educations. In that instance, as on this day, we did not want this benefit to go to the wealthy alone. With limited resources, we wanted this benefit to go to middle-income people and working families. So we established income limits, $160,000 for a family, $110,000 for a single parent. Those are the same limits that are in this bill. If you came to this floor last year establishing savings accounts for college, believing you were targeting these resources to the middle-income people--and you did--on this day you have the same chance with the same limits of providing the same opportunity to the same families. This is a middle-income program. Yet it is argued this is just another form of a voucher. Senator Coverdell and I differ on the question of vouchers. He supports them. I do not. In either case, this is not a voucher. A voucher is a system whereby you take a drawing right upon Government money and you transfer that money from a public school to a private school. Under the Coverdell proposal, all the money being made available is your money. It is a family's savings, not the Government's. The public schools will not receive one dime less, not one dime less because we establish these accounts. All we are using, or allowing to be used, is the family's own money. At the end of the day, as Members of the Senate come to this floor to cast their votes, the issue is really more simple than it might otherwise appear. Senator Coverdell's proposal will provide a net increase over these years of $12 billion in new resources for American education, public and private. Who among us, knowing the test scores of our students, the quality of their instruction, the challenge to our country, would argue that this $12 billion should not be made available when it draws nothing from the Treasury, puts no restraint upon our resources, but simply allows families to join the fight for a quality education? Now the question arises, of that $12 billion, what else does it bring? Because, you see, not only is it not drawing upon Government resources but it draws upon another powerful idea. Through most of the life of this country, the education of a family, a child, a whole generation, was not seen as the responsibility of a school board or a government alone. It was grandparents and aunts and uncles, employers, a whole community was part of educating a child. Somehow, through the years, education became a government issue alone. The government will always be central to education, in raising the resources and hiring teachers and assuring quality, but part of the genius of this proposal is that through these savings accounts, on every holiday, on every birthday, on every occasion, aunts, uncles, grandparents, employers, labor unions, churches, can also put their money in these accounts to help educate these children. It is an invitation to the American family and community to get back into the process of educating American children. Yet, it is argued, those who may now concede maybe it doesn't just go to the wealthy, and maybe after this final argument they will concede maybe it is not government money, maybe it doesn't hurt the public schools--but what does it do for most American students who have these accounts? It bears repeating, because it goes to the heart of the issue of educational quality. I hope these accounts allow us to maintain a system of private education--be they Yeshivas or private or parochial schools, so parents have a legitimate choice of where to send their children. That choice and that competition has served America well in every other aspect of American life. I doubt it is a complication and I doubt it will fail to provide quality in education, as it does in all other areas of American life. But the fact of the matter is, too, these accounts are not just about maintaining a private school system in the country free of constitutional challenge by not using government money. The simple truth is, 90 percent of the students in America go to public school. We cannot begin to deal with issues of educational quality unless we also deal with public schools. Simply because most of these students go to public schools, by logic most of this money will go to public school students. The Joint Committee on Taxation has informed the Congress that 70 percent of this money, 70 percent of the beneficiaries of this money, will be public school students. Because under the proposal of Senator Coverdell, this money is available not simply for tuition to private schools, but after-school activities: Transportation after school, the hiring of tutors, home computers, books, software. It is an acknowledgment that education in the 21st century is not any longer just about a teacher, a desk, and a student. Learning will take place throughout the day, throughout the year, in many avenues of learning. How many middle-class and working-class families in America can afford to buy home computers, pay the cost of hiring a public school teacher to teach in the evening or after school when a child is having trouble with her studies? How many can buy the software so a student can do the research? How many can afford the after-school transportation, the uniforms, the athletic equipment, things that a generation ago as students we took for granted? They are not available anymore. Or they weren't necessary then, like tutors or home computers. But they are necessary now. For those who come to the floor and argue about the social justice of it, whether or not this is being made available to the broad majority of Americans, consider this. There is a new dividing line in America of opportunity and it is access to knowledge and education. Mr. President, 60 percent of American families do not have home computers. Their ability to research, to write, to learn when they are not in school, to be competitive, is being compromised. Public education, the great leveler in America, can have two tiers--those families who have money for these ancillary purchases and those who do not; those who can afford tutors and those who do not, to participate in advanced math and science. Under the Coverdell proposal, these accounts are available to ensure that those 60 percent of Americans who do not have access to this technology can buy it through these accounts. Indeed, it is worse than it appears on its face. In the minority communities, 85 percent of African American families do not have access to home computers. This is an opportunity, it is an avenue where many of these families-- admittedly not all--many families can save their own money to prepare their students. Yet it will be argued by people of good faith who genuinely care about education, who will come to this floor and argue that, well, it may do those things, some students in the public schools may get home computers, some may get tutors, and in the private schools some working families may be able to keep their children in schools who couldn't do it otherwise, but it won't help everybody, it won't help a third of the students, 20 percent of the students, 10 percent of the students. They could not be more right. I have not heard Senator Coverdell argue, and certainly this Senator has not argued, that this is a prescription that will help every student in every way in every educational problem in America. I challenge one Senator to come to this floor with one idea that will do that. This is a single idea, not the last idea. It may not even be the best idea, but it is an idea that does help the problem of education in America. Let me address that for a moment, if I can, frankly in a partisan sense. For many years, members of my party proudly have been able to contend that the issue of education in America, in access and in quality, belonged to the Democratic Party. Indeed, from student loans to student lunches, title I through the vast array of 40 years of education programs, much of those programs were authored by Democrats in this Congress. It is one of the things that led me proudly to be a member of the Democratic Party. But if at this late date in our Nation dealing with our education problems we are about to engage in a partisan competition, if there is to be an upward spiral of competition in ideas for who can serve the cause of quality education, then it is a debate not only worthy of the country, but important for our future. Education savings accounts need be neither a Republican nor a Democratic idea. Last year in establishing such accounts for college, they were authored by President Clinton himself. This year, Senator Lieberman, Senator Breaux, Senator Biden, myself, and others have joined in this effort with Senator Coverdell to establish these accounts. This does not mean that we subscribe to the notion that this is a replacement for either the President's program or other proposals. Indeed, I began my remarks today by stating some profound disappointment. This legislation is worthy of being passed. It would be better if Senator Carol Moseley-Braun's legislation for school construction were included. With two-thirds of American schools in fundamental disrepair, needing serious construction, the Federal Government should be involved, and the President's proposal, as advanced by the Senator from Illinois, should be included. Senator Kennedy's proposal, in advancing the proposal of President Clinton for 100,000 new teachers to reduce class size to 18, should be included. Senator Levin's proposal for technology training for teachers would better prepare our schools and should be included. Senator Murray's proposal for class size; Senator Boxer's proposal for after- school activities. I am going to support Senator Coverdell's proposal, because I believe it is a worthwhile contribution, but I also concede this: This Senate could have done better. We may be addressing one important proposal and making one valuable contribution, but we could have made many valuable contributions. We could have made this genuinely bipartisan and further advance the cause of quality education. Finally, let me say that on this day when the vote is complete, I will join with Senator Lieberman, Senator Cleland, Senator Breaux, and others in a letter to the majority leader, because it is still not too late to have this educational debate be genuinely bipartisan to avoid a confrontation with President Clinton and to achieve something real in the process of education reform. The majority has the power in the conference committee to maintain its provisions to eliminate voluntary Federal testing standards across the country. The majority will have the votes and the power in the conference committee to impose block grants on the Department of Education under the title. That power exists, but it will not lead to the cause of bipartisanship or more comprehensive education reform. It will ensure a Presidential veto, frustrate those of us who have fought for education savings accounts, and deadlock this Senate in further consideration of improving educational quality in the United States. I urge the majority leader in the conference committee to use his influence to have those provisions removed, to allow Senator Coverdell's proposal to stand on its merits in which we can privately engage in a conversation with the President and convince him in one of the great ironies of this debate. Senator Coverdell's proposals are not only consistent with President Clinton's goals for education in America, they, indeed, spring from the same roots as his own programs last year for college education. Finally, I want to state my great admiration for Senator Coverdell, his tenacity and his creativity in having brought the Senate to this point. I know he must share my disappointment in that all of our optimism for bipartisanship, our hope for a thorough educational debate in which we could have engaged in a competition of how together we could improve the quality of our schools rather than having sought partisan advantage--it has been a disappointment, but we make progress where we can, remembering Edison's words that discontent is a necessary element in progress. We have had our share of discontent. Senator Coverdell, in the passage of his legislation, will at least have a share of progress as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank Senator Hutchison, thank for setting aside this time today, and for her leadership on this issue in the Senate. I certainly share your support for making same-gender education available to more parents and their children. The benefits of same-gender education have been demonstrated in the context of private and parochial schools, and the evidence is strong that these same benefits await public education, if the legal uncertainty surrounding this issue were lifted. That is why I was pleased to support your amendment--to allow schools to move forward with same-gender programs, if they deem appropriate, and not with the fear that by doing so they risk losing federal financial support. Nevertheless, during the debate on your amendment, concern was raised as to the legal status and impact of your amendment, and some claimed your amendment allowing same-gender education funding could lead to discrimination against one sex or the other. Could you please elaborate as to why you believe that your amendment complies with both Title IX of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment?

Mr. TORRICELLI. What is the opinion of the Senator from Texas on how Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause impact same-gender education?

Mr. TORRICELLI. I also noted during the debate that someone cited the recent Supreme Court case involving the Virginia Military Institute in claiming that your amendment did not meet the standard for equal protection of the laws of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. How would you respond to that?

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the 83d anniversary of the Armenian genocide. On this sad occasion, my thoughts and sympathies are with the Armenian people as they remember the horrors of the events 83 years ago. It is with a great sense of sorrow that we mark the 83d year since the tragic genocide and exile of the Armenian people. The senseless murder and expulsion of 1.5 million Armenians through a staged campaign of the Turkish Ottoman Empire has been one of the most sobering events in modern history. The Armenian Genocide has the uneviable distinction of being the first genocide in the 20th century. This fact alone underscores the seriousness of the events between 1915 and 1918, and it should remind us of the need to keep all those who perished during the Genocide alive in our memory. We pause now to ensure that the Armenian Genocide will never slip into the recesses of history. While humankind has the ability to sponsor acts of great kindness and sacrifice, we also have the capacity for great evil. Along with the Holocaust, the Armenian Genocide signifies our ability to promote evil, but if we close our eyes to the tragedies of the past, we risk the chance of repeating them in the future. Sadly, the Armenian American community has its roots in the Armenian Genocide. Many individuals living here in the United States either lost family members at the hands of the Ottomans, or are survivors themselves. They have risen above adversity to become prominent and successful citizens despite a tragic past. The Armenian American community has been vocal in expressing its anguish about the Genocide. It is my hope that their perseverance in marking this event each year, as well as our own efforts here in the United States Senate, will be enough to allow us to remember the lessons of the Genocide. We are constantly forced to relearn the effects of evil unchecked, but I hope, in this case, we will be guided to a better future.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the Political Science Department at Kean University. Over the past twenty years, Kean's Political Science Department has produced an outstanding record of accomplishment and I am pleased to recognize this model program. The faculty and administration of Kean's Political Science Department have consistently demonstrated their selfless commitment to furthering the intellectual growth of the University's students. Kean's balanced educational program presents students with a unique blend of experiential learning and classroom teaching. It is a model of excellence for all American universities. Kean's Political Science Department has earned just recognition by offering challenging participatory programs like the American Israel Public Affairs Conference, the Center for the Study of the Presidency's Student Symposium, the Harvard Model United Nations Program, the Howard University Simulation of the Organization of African Unity, the Schering-Plough/Kean College Political Science Education Partnership, the Washington Program, and the annual Department Washington DC Student Workshop. In an era of decreasing funding, program costs are met through contributions from outside sources, student groups and alumni. The University itself provides enormous scholarship support. As a result of the Political Science Department's dedicated efforts, little cost need be borne by its student participants. I am pleased to join the New Jersey State Legislature in honoring the Kean University Political Science Department as a model of educational virtuosity. It is my sincere hope that the Department continues its tradition of excellence with the vigor and success that has characterized it for the past twenty years.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to salute Schoor DePalma Engineers and Design Professional Firm as it completes its thirtieth year in business, and to recognize its contributions to the State of New Jersey. This engineer and design professional firm has contributed to some of the state's largest engineering and design projects. Schoor DePalma is one of the most widely recognized civil engineering firms in the State of New Jersey. The company's ingenuity brings forth a superior level of accountability, concern, and quality of work. Schoor DePalma's commitment is easily also recognized through its selfless involvement with the community through entities, such as the Board of Professional Planners and the Board of Professional Engineers of the State of New Jersey and its participation in highly regarded academic programs such as the Board of Overseers for the New Jersey Institute of Technology, a variety of college foundations throughout New Jersey, and the awarding of scholarships to students in the engineering field. One of Schoor DePalma's most recent and profitable contributions to the State of New Jersey was to enhance the economically distressed community of East Orange. Schoor DePalma was hired to conduct a comprehensive business analysis of the six main business districts of East Orange by looking at crime statistics, the labor force, the mix of businesses, infrastructure, and streetscaping needs. Schoor DePalma's innovative blue print for economic growth proved to be successful when some local establishments saw a remarkable 50 percent increase in business. I am proud to recognize Schoor DePalma as a model corporate neighbor and I look forward to another 30 years of excellence from them.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I would like to begin by acknowledging Senator Santorum's efforts on this amendment. I look forward to working with him in the future to preserve our nation's most vulnerable farmland. We have heard a lot during the last decade about the dissolution and destruction of the American Family Farm. Indeed, the family farm is under serious threat of extinction. Today, there are 1,925,300 farms in the United States, the lowest number of farms in our nation since before the Civil War. The U.S. is losing two acres of our best farmland to development every minute of every day. In my state, New Jersey, we have lost 6,000 farms, or 40% of our total, since 1959. This reduction has serious implications for the environment, the economy and our food supply. The threat comes partially from an anachronistic and unfair inheritance tax that threatens the generational continuity of the family farm, and partially from the fact that much of America's farmland is near major cities. As our cities sprawl into neighboring rural areas, our farms are in danger of becoming subdivisions or shopping malls. Last year I strongly supported a significant reduction in the estate tax to keep farms in the family, preserve open space and ensure fairness in our tax code. This was an important victory for farmers across the nation. However, we also need programs like the Farmland Protection Program to reinforce this effort. That is why I am supporting Senator Santorum's amendment which will express the Sense of the Senate that Congress should reauthorize funds for the Farmland Protection Program. This critical program is designed to protect soil by encouraging landowners to limit conversion of their farmland to nonagricultural uses. The Farmland Protection Program was authorized by the 1996 Farm Bill and provided $35 million over a six year period. However, the last of the funding was dispersed in FY1998 and there is no money in the budget for the program this year. This amendment will send a strong message that we remain committed to protecting our family farms and preserving our open spaces. I am proud to support Senator Santorum's amendment, and look forward to its acceptance by my colleagues.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, there is a significant chance that this Senate will one day be remembered for having finally begun to address the problems of educational quality in America. President Clinton in his State of the Union Address challenged this Congress to deal with the problems of school construction, class size, and competence. We are now taking up that challenge, and, indeed, in the last few weeks in dealing with the Coverdell-Torricelli proposal, we also address the problem of access to private schools and the rights of families to save money privately to deal with the costs of public and private education. Today we return to the subject again. Senator Carol Moseley-Braun of Illinois, as she has on many occasions, is now bringing forward consistently and repeatedly a message to deal with the plight--the construction of our schools. I recognize that in this Senate almost everyone has an idea to deal with the problems of education in America. Almost everyone is right except those who think they have the only idea. This problem is so serious in quality and in access that it will require not just this Senate but Congresses to come, not just this idea but many ideas. The quality of education in this country is the most serious threat to the maintenance of not only social order but our quality of life. We recognize it has many components but probably none more difficult than rebuilding our Nation's schools. It is estimated that it could cost $112 billion to rebuild crumbling schools in America. Having toured many of these schools in my own State of New Jersey, I have seen students sitting in hallways because there was not enough room. I have seen students with buckets next to their desks to catch the rain, students who did not have restrooms in their own school facilities but were sent to other buildings. Our parents and their parents before them worked and saved and sacrificed to build a system of public education in this country and an infrastructure that was without equal in the world. They met that challenge. The simple and regrettable truth is we have not. This system of education, which more than anything else in the Nation is the foundation for our country's prosperity, is crumbling around us. One-third of the students in the Nation face exactly the plight that I have outlined, and more will join them unless we stand up to this challenge. To all of you who are part of the efforts to assure there is access to the Internet, who joined with us in the fight to help private and public savings through Coverdell-Torricelli, who believe in testing, who join any of these fights, join this fight because there is no one front in the war dealing with educational quality in America. It must be fought on all fronts at the same time. I am very proud to be part of the efforts of the Senator from Illinois, Carol Moseley-Braun, who more than anyone else has brought this fight forward and will be principally responsible when we ultimately do succeed. I thank the Senator for yielding the time.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, if Senator Conrad, indeed, desires to speak for 5 minutes and the Senator from Illinois desires to speak for 5 minutes, I would ask unanimous consent that this Senator have 5 minutes, the Senator from Illinois have 5 minutes, and Senator Conrad have 5 minutes, which would mean that the vote would take place at approximately 2:10.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, the situation is the vote is at 2 o'clock and Senator Carol Moseley-Braun and I will speak until then?

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I asked that this amendment be read in its entirety so that its simplicity is clear to the Senate. The totality of what is being asked is that the Justice Department, in negotiating with the W.R. Grace Corporation about a contaminated Superfund site in Wayne, NJ, seek fair reimbursement. We make no demands. We change no law. We cite no number. We ask that there be a fair reimbursement. I have done this because the story of W.R. Grace and its contamination in Wayne, NJ, is a story of everything that has been wrong about environmental cleanups in our country. Since 1995 the Federal Government, has been in negotiations with W.R. Grace for reimbursements. This is a site that a private company operated for 23 years. They operated it at a profit. The Government owned no share of the land or the company. When the land was no longer useful because it was contaminated, they abandoned it and left. In the ensuing years, they have given the U.S. Government $800,000, although the U.S. taxpayers have already spent $50 million cleaning the site. It is estimated by the Army Corps of Engineers it could cost another $55 million. Members of the Senate need to know the American taxpayers are being held accountable for $100 million in cleaning this contaminated site by the W.R. Grace Corporation and that corporation has paid only $800,000. The American taxpayers are paying this freight although they have absolutely no liability whatever as a matter of law. For 24 months, there have been negotiations. There had been reports that there would be $50 million in reimbursements from W.R. Grace. Then it was $40 million. Last week it was $20 million. There was going to be an agreement by December. And then it was January. And then it was March. There is no agreement. There is no reimbursement. But the people of this country are going to subsidize the environmental abuses of the W.R. Grace Corporation to the tune of $100 million. It is a disgrace. For 18 months, the Attorney General of the United States does not have time to reach an agreement. A Member of Congress from the district, Mr. Pascrell, Senator Lautenberg, and I have urged the Attorney General to proceed to litigation. She has not done so. She did not have time to litigate or to protect the taxpayers. But within 5 minutes of the filing of this amendment, she can send a letter to Senator Gregg that this is an interference with her prerogatives. Mr. President, if the Attorney General were protecting her prerogatives and protecting the liability of the U.S. Government and the taxpayers of this country, this amendment would not be necessary. I have a great admiration for Attorney General Reno. I like to believe and assume she has no knowledge of this affair, that members of her staff have done an enormous disservice to her, to the Justice Department, and to the taxpayers of this country. As it stands, if suit is not filed, if negotiators are not emboldened, the taxpayers of this country will subsidize a private corporation for $100 million of unnecessary expenditures. I understand that, ironically, members of the majority party will rise to the defense of the Attorney General and her prerogatives, which in this Congress is indeed a historic turn of events, to defend the Attorney General in this instance, that she should be allowed to pursue this without our interference or oversight. Mr. President, the Attorney General has her responsibility and we have ours. It is her judgment whether to file a suit and to conduct the negotiations. But when those negotiations are concluded, it is this Congress that must appropriate the money to meet the settlement. All that I have done is offer a sense of the Senate--not a law, a sense of the Senate--that we would like the Attorney General to vigorously pursue these negotiations and protect the interests of the taxpayers. That is all I have asked. I do not know how the request could have been more modest. I intend to reserve the balance of my time, because it is my interest to hear the distinguished chairman respond to this request, but I want simply to say before we hear his comments that I am personally offended at the Attorney General's correspondence and deeply disappointed at its tone, its lack of cooperation, and the failure to meet the responsibilities to defend the interests of this Government in this litigation. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Reserving the right to object, if I could inquire as to the knowledge of the Senator from Georgia about how many speakers he has, so we have some idea how this might be allocated.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Indeed. I have no objection.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, as Senators rise to address things that have been added to the supplemental appropriations bill, I, quite the contrary, rise in recognition of something significant that has not been added to the supplemental appropriations bill. It is one of those few instances where there is a genuine achievement by the Senate in failing to act. It had earlier been suggested that an amendment might be offered to prohibit the FCC from using its powers to order a reduction in the cost of television advertising in political campaigns. This legislation does not contain that provision. In my judgment, it affords the FCC an extraordinary opportunity to take the lead in campaign finance reform. Mr. President, on 117 occasions in this decade, the U.S. Senate has considered, voted, and failed to implement fundamental campaign finance reform. This Senate has continued that unfortunate tradition. But now the Senate has an opportunity to help the process of political reform in the United States and to renew confidence in the institutions of Government and the political process itself by doing something for which it should be fully capable. They need do nothing. Yesterday, the new and very able chairman of the FCC, Chairman Kennard, announced that he would commence a notice of inquiry, which is an information-gathering process, to lead to a ruling on free air time. This could be the most significant achievement for campaign finance reform in the United States in 25 years, because fundamental to the problem of campaign fundraising in the United States is the cost of campaign television advertising. President Clinton and Senator Dole, in the last Presidential campaign, spent two-thirds of all the money they raised to purchase television advertising time from the commercial networks. Some U.S. Senate campaigns, including my own, spent over 80 percent of their resources on television advertising. Mr. President, it makes no sense that candidates for Federal office in the United States spend so much of their time traveling around the country meeting with contributors, raising money, instead of meeting with voters, addressing real concerns in their States, because they need to raise millions of dollars to purchase federally licensed air time that belongs to the people of this country. This air. Time does not belong to the networks; it belongs to us, the people of this country. It is only licensed and it is given on condition. One of those conditions should be to be responsible in aiding the public debate. I supported the McCain-Feingold legislation, and I know some of my colleagues, like Senator McConnell, did not. But, rightfully, Senator McConnell did note something with which I strongly agreed--that the United States does not need less political debate; it needs more political debate to address our serious problems, to discuss our differences. This is the one means by which we can reduce the cost of running for political office and this threshold price of inquiry, of entering into the political process, and still enhance and expand political debate. Mr. President, it is a considerable achievement that this supplemental appropriations bill does not prohibit the FCC from acting in this instance. I hope that continues to be the stance of this Congress and that Chairman Kennard moves beyond this level of inquiry, genuinely adjusting and changing permanently the cost of television advertising. It is not too late for this Congress to move beyond the complaining, the infighting, the inquiries of the last Federal election and institute genuine reform. It is not too late, but it is getting late. And this may be the last opportunity. I am very pleased, Mr. President, that this legislation has remained silent on this issue and that this last lingering hope of reform remains alive. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.