Robert Torricelli

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I ask that I be able to address the Senate for 5 minutes as in morning business.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, recognizing the views of my friend, the Senator from Alaska, the distinguished chairman of the committee, and the Senator from New Hampshire, I will not insist upon the amendment. Let me conclude the debate by simply suggesting this: I think it would be regrettable if this Senate ever allows itself to be silenced in simply expressing its intentions or desires because the executive branch may have conflicting views or believe an issue is its prerogative. Ultimately, the expenditures of this Government are our responsibility. So I want the Attorney General to be clear on this. I will shortly ask that this amendment not proceed. But this should be clear as negotiations proceed with the W.R. Grace Corporation. If it is the intention of the Justice Department to reach a settlement, whereby the taxpayers of the United States are left with this $100 million expenditure and a private corporation, which has profited by these operations, and the resulting environmental abuse, is left without making a significant contribution, I most assuredly will return to the floor of the Senate with an amendment on an appropriations bill that would cover the payment of those expenditures, and I will insist on a vote, and I will fight. I do not believe the taxpayers of this country should be subsidizing polluters. I will not stand for it. Nevertheless, in deference to my friends and colleagues from Alaska and New Hampshire, in recognition of their views, at this time I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. TORRICELLI. I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Leonard Stern for receiving the 25th Anniversary Recognition Award from the Meadowlands Regional Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Stern has been a pioneer in New Jersey's real estate industry and has been crucial to the State's resurgent real estate market. From investing in the New Jersey Meadowlands to Jersey City's waterfront, Mr. Stern's ventures have greatly improved both the health of the economy and the environment in northern New Jersey. By providing jobs and improving infrastructure, Mr. Stern's commercial property has improved the general welfare of the region and has helped prepare it for the challenges of the approaching century. For over forty years, Mr. Stern has worked to enhance our premier educational institutions. In 1961, he founded the Albert Einstein School of Medicine at Yeshivah University. He established the Presidential Scholars Program at New York University to provide scholarships for qualifying students of all races and creeds. In addition, he has provided invaluable assistance to New York University's School of Business, the Max Stern Regional College, the Max Stern Athletic Center at Yeshiva University and the Manhattan Day School. Mr. Stern's many awards and citations are a testament to his activism within these academic communities. Leonard Stern's exemplary record of service sets a certain standard for which all Americans should strive. I applaud his efforts and encourage all Americans to follow his example.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to address a crisis facing our youngest citizens. Physical inactivity among our children is threatening the very foundation of the health of our nation. Physical inactivity and poor diet together account for at least 300,000 deaths in the United States each year. Only tobacco use contributes to more preventable deaths. More than 58 million American adults, one third of the population, are overweight or obese. Even more alarming, childhood obesity rates are rising with 22 percent of children now overweight, a percentage that has doubled in the past 30 years. This growing trend of inactivity is especially dangerous for our younger generations. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, nearly half of our young people aged 12-21 do not engage in vigorous physical activity on a regular basis. In fact, only 22 percent of American children are physically active for the recommended 30 minutes each day and nearly 15 percent are completely inactive. As the Centers for Disease Control point out, these destructive behaviors established during youth are likely to extend into adulthood. We must be proactive in setting a positive example for our children and stop the negative behavior before it starts. To plant the seed for a healthy future, we must continue to cultivate and educate our children. Fostering enjoyment of exercise in our adolescents will spur them to maintain a healthy lifestyle into adulthood. The result will be fewer physical and mental disorders and increased productivity. As Dr. C. Everett Koop recently pointed out ``this is not an issue requiring additional fact-finding before action is taken.'' The time for action is now. A national commitment to lifetime fitness must be fostered. Congress has the opportunity and the responsibility to step forward and take a crucial leadership role. Several programs are currently addressing this important issue but they need our active support: the CDC's National Physical Activity Initiative, the President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports, C. Everett Koop's ``Shape Up America'' campaign, the YMCA's Healthy Kids Day, and most recently, the National Sporting Good Association's ``Wannabe Cool, Gottabe Active'' campaign. These programs, and others like them, need our encouragement, our gratitude and our support. That is why I am here today. To submit a resolution declaring the last week in April National Youth Fitness Week. Together we can reverse the trend in physical inactivity and restore our nation to a course of wellness, fitness and productivity. It is our responsibility as the nation's leaders to ensure a healthy America.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today both to remember the 15,000 innocent people who died at the Katyn Forest Massacre in 1940 and to make sure that their memory never fades from our minds. In 1939, Joseph Stalin's army captured 15,000 Polish military officers and proceeded to perpetrate what some have called one of the most heinous war crimes in history. These 15,000 people were Poland's elite and presented a serious threat to Stalin's future control of Poland. Fearing their resistance, Stalin ordered his army to execute the Polish officers in the Katyn Forest. There was no trial. There was no justice for the victims of Stalin's excesses. Stalin did this under the cover of a forest and the shield of his authority while hiding it from the international community. The investigation conducted by this Congress found that the victims were unarmed and innocent. It concluded that the crime was concealed by the Soviet government and that its perpetrators were never brought to justice. As the years passed, the Soviet government was content to let the Nazi regime be blamed for Katyn. It avoided issuing a formal apology or attempting to even make reparations. On February 19, 1989, the Soviets finally released documents confirming the Soviet role in the Katyn Massacre. After fifty years of lies and manipulation, an admission of complicity does not ease the pain of a nation whose entire population was affected by this horrible event. I am hopeful that as time goes by and more people learn about this massacre, we will all be able to come to terms with the memory of Katyn and the pain that it has caused. It is a memory that must be sustained to ensure that our bonds of humanity will continue on into the next millennium and that our past will not be destined to repeat itself. Mr. President, I rise today to remember these 15,000 victims with the hope that their memory will prevent future atrocities from occurring and will crudely remind the world of its responsibility to protect the innocent at all times. In 1998, we have an obligation to one another to make sure that a tragedy like this does not occur again. The only way to do this is to make sure that the memory of Katyn lives on.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from New Jersey for yielding me the time and, more than that, for his leadership, tirelessly, month after month, in bringing this issue of savings accounts to the Senate and now, I believe, to acceptance. I have noted in the debate to date, Senators have offered a perspective that they have other ideas that would enhance educational quality in our country. People believe they may have better ideas. People have other suggestions and approaches. In large measure, they all have merit. Neither Senator Coverdell nor I argue that this is exclusively the only approach in improving educational quality in our country. But it is an idea and it is a worthwhile idea. Critics are right that the country also must, as the President has suggested, rebuild America's schools. We need additional teachers, we need to reduce class size, and I believe we need to do voluntary testing. The President's proposals and those of our Democratic and Republican colleagues all have merit. A+ savings accounts are not designed to replace those ideas, and they are not instead of other suggestions. But this is a beginning, and it is an important beginning. A+ savings accounts, under Coverdell-Torricelli, will bring $12 billion of new educational resources for the classrooms of America, in public and private schools. It is not a diversion of current public resources, as might be the case with vouchers. These are new resources. It isn't Government money at all. These are the funds of private American families who are given a new avenue to use their own money to enhance the quality of public or private education. It is resources where we need them the most. It is estimated that 75 percent of all of these resources through educational savings accounts will go to families who earn $70,000 per year or less--families who are struggling the most to provide their children with quality education. Yet, Senators will come to the floor and argue that this money continues to go to a privileged few. What privileged few in America earn $50,000, $60,000 or $70,000 a year and pay the tuition or the ancillary cost of public education on one, two, or three children? Other Senators will argue that the money should be going exclusively to public schools. Well, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, it's estimated that 70 percent of the actual funds placed in these savings accounts will go to public school students because not only are these resources available for private tuition at parochial schools, yeshivas, and other private institutions, they are also available for the ancillary cost of public education. What parent in America today, recognizing how students are struggling with advanced science, new math, the more complexities of rising educational standards that we are trying to impose on America's schools from our school boards and local governments, does not recognize that this complexity requires additional instruction? Educational savings accounts are the only means that we are offering American families, through any program, to hire tutors, to get teachers after school, pay them additional resources to get their time to help American students compete and to learn. It is the only program designed by anyone that I know to deal with the fact that even some of our best public schools are canceling after- school activities, after-school transportation, extracurricular activities, which are such a vital part of American education. These savings accounts will make this money available to pay for those activities. I believe that A+ savings accounts can be the beginning of a revolution in American education, where Senators will succeed in coming to the floor, as the President has suggested, and offering legislation to rebuild our schools, where others will succeed in ensuring that there is voluntary testing that will renew the standards and quality of American instruction. A+ savings accounts could be the beginning of that revolution in American education. We offer this to supplant no other idea, as a replacement for no other initiative, but that it stand on its own merits. At a time when American families are struggling to prepare their students for a new generation, the difference between success or failure, a quality of life or a struggle of life, can be simply defined by the quality of the access to an education. Who here can argue that parents should not be able to use their own resources, for which they work every day, to save funds to help in a private or a public education? I believe, Mr. President, that in the final analysis, as the years pass and as we look back on this proposal, we will realize that we have awaken in America a tremendous resource--because A+ savings accounts would not only provide this opportunity to American families, but something much larger--to get the American family involved again in the process of education. Imagine a system where on a child's birthday, or on Christmas, on Easter, on any anniversary in our religious or civic calendars, aunts, uncles, grandparents, would provide money as a gift to go into a savings account to help a child with their public or private education. We are inviting the extended American family back into the business of education when for so long people believed that education was a problem of the Government or, at best, a mother and father, but still believe that they cared about these children who were their nieces, nephews, or grandchildren. This is a vehicle to get involved. If that is true of the extended family, it's true of others as well. I have noted in this debate before the potential where labor unions could go to the negotiating table and ask not just for health benefits, or retirement, or pay increases, but ask every month in every paycheck that $5, $10, or $50 be placed in a child's savings account as part of a labor agreement; where corporations compete for labor in America not just on wages but say to their employees, ``if you work for our company, we will contribute to your savings account to help a child.'' The potential here is enormous. But it begins with a single step, and that is to establish these accounts. I know many of my colleagues who are still wondering about their position on this legislation have many questions. I want you to consider this one, as well, because I recognize that this proposal is controversial. Many of my colleagues who have doubts about it stood on the Senate floor a year ago and enthusiastically supported educational savings accounts--accounts to help parents deal with the rising, and sometimes insurmountable, burden of college tuition. It is believed that under this savings account proposal we could quadruple the amount of money available for college tuitions, because every dollar placed in these savings accounts for public and private secondary education can be rolled into a college savings account if not used by the 12th grade. So if for no other reason you do not join us today in Coverdell-Torricelli, but you believed last year in educational savings accounts for college tuition, you should be joining with us today. Finally, Mr. President, I offer this: Of all the divisions in American life, of race, or poverty, or opportunity, the one this country cannot afford in the next century is to create a caste system of knowledge. Yet, that threat is arising in America: two distinct classes of American citizens, one that enjoys unlimited opportunity and the other mired in the past, in poverty, without hope or opportunity. That division is knowledge. Where parents do not feel the public school can adequately prepare their child, they should have a private school option. I agree that we cannot afford, at a time when our public schools are not adequately financed, to divert public resources. That is why I have opposed vouchers. But this is another opportunity to provide that private school option with a family's own money. But ending this division of knowledge requires something else, too. The classroom experience will never be enough in the next century to prepare American students to compete in the world. It will never be sufficient. That is what's exciting about these savings accounts, where parents, after the regular school hours, can use tutors for extra instruction, paid for with their own resources through these savings accounts, and through the use of technology. Who in this Senate believes that in the 21st century a student can genuinely compete and prepare themselves in research, or computation, or writing, or word processing, without a home computer and access to the Internet as a research tool? I doubt that anybody here will make that case. Yet, 60 percent of American students will end the 20th century without a home computer. Most frightening, 85 percent of all minority students will never have that resource, under current financing. These home savings accounts in the Coverdell-Torricelli proposal make funds available for home use and the purchase of a computer. It is our greatest opportunity to assure that this new divide in American life never occurs, that access to knowledge will occur regardless of race or family income, that opportunity is afforded across these lines of American life. Finally, Mr. President, I hope that we can proceed on a bipartisan basis. I regret that the judgment has been made that more amendments will not be made available by many of my Democratic colleagues. By the end of the day, we are still left with a proposal that stands on its own merits and deserves the support of Senators, Democratic and Republican. Let us begin the great American initiative to confront the most pressing problem in contemporary American life, which is the crisis of quality in the American secondary schools. This is not an end to that debate. It is not a definitive solution. But it is a beginning, to be followed by many proposals of many Senators of both great political parties. I hope we receive overwhelming support. Again, I congratulate the Senator from Georgia for bringing this before the Senate. I am very proud to offer it with him as his coauthor. I thank the Senator for yielding. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, there is always a desire of a Member of the Senate to be philosophically consistent, so I think the question bears some scrutiny. Members of the Senate have previously voted for Hope scholarships and student loan programs in this country, which also have caps on who is eligible to participate. The caps the Senate has previously provided are identical to what is in the Coverdell-Torricelli proposal. There is a two-income, $60,000 cap. So when the Joint Committee on Taxation tells us that 70 percent of all these benefits will go to families that earn $75,000 and less, the reason is that there is a cap in the provision that ensures the principal benefits are going to middle-income families, to working families. It was designed to accomplish that end. But there is another philosophical consistency with people. I have people raise with me all the time a legitimate concern whether the Government is funding private education. As I pointed out, every dollar of this is the family's money, it is not Government's money. But Members of the Senate who voted previously for savings accounts for higher education have faced this question. I have never heard a Member of the Senate rise on this floor and say, ``Well, I'm for savings accounts for colleges, but I don't want it for Notre Dame or Harvard.''

Mr. TORRICELLI. Indeed, if I had to identify financially my own expectation about the largest single recipient of this funding, I suspect there is a chance it would be public schoolteachers who do the tutoring after school, who will be hired by families with money from these accounts to help students with math and science. They, dollar for dollar, may be the largest recipients. One point I did not make, and the Senator from Georgia may have made earlier, is even if Members of the Senate do not agree with us about this need for funding secondary schools, they should recognize that every dollar in these accounts at the end of the 12th grade can be transferred into a college account. This allows families to get a head start in saving money for college. So, if you voted last year for these accounts for college, this is a chance to expand them considerably to make that money available. On that basis alone, Members should feel comfortable in voting for the proposal.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I would like to first compliment the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Coverdell, for his tireless work through these months to bring the Senate to the position of voting on the A+ savings account. I have been his partner in this effort, and something that has genuinely become bipartisan. I am very proud of our efforts. Mr. President, I begin with a personal view on the debate about education in our country. People have different thoughts and very varied proposals. Many are the reasons, and I could accept much about the alternatives except one thing. I cannot accept, and I do not understand, those who would come to the Senate and argue the state of American education and defend the status quo. American education needs to be addressed, not in the margins but in every fundamental aspect of the delivery of education to our children. Indeed, at a time in American life when so much is working, the economy is performing, Americans feel good about our country and its future, faith on any analysis, the single most compelling problem, the most fundamental dilemma that threatens the American future, quality of life, our economic performance, even our political stability, is the quality of American education. Recent reports are startling. Forty percent of our students are failing basic science. Forty percent of fourth graders are failing to test at the basic levels of reading comprehension. Of the 21 developed democracies in the world that have achieved an industrial status, America ranks 19th in the testing of our students. The legislation before the Senate can accomplish many things, but if it only establishes some new funding, if it does no more than establish savings accounts, then it falls far short of my ambitions. My hope about the Coverdell-Torricelli legislation is that it will genuinely confront the entire status quo of how Americans regard education. It does this in several ways. But, first, what is important to understand about it is that this is not a voucher. Senator Coverdell and I come together on this legislation, but we come at it from different perspectives, perhaps. Senator Coverdell supports a voucher on other days and other debates in the Senate. I do not. That may be the best indication for those Senators who are thinking about their positions and how they relate to the voucher issue. I have opposed it because, while I believe in private education and its critical role for America, I do not believe we can afford to divert a single dollar of public education funding to private schools, not because they don't need it, but because the public schools can't afford it. The Coverdell- Torricelli program for A+ savings accounts does not divert a penny of public money into private schools. This is all new money. But, mostly, it is not government money. The money that would go into these savings accounts and allow people to either provide extra funding for public activities or for their private tuitions is entirely money that belongs to American families, their own money. That is a critical part of this debate. Whether you are an advocate of public education or private education or, as in my case, both, we are talking about new resources for education in America. How can anyone look at the status of American education today, with the failing grades of our students, and oppose a measure that at the end of the day means more funding for education, and not from government, but an avenue for families to contribute themselves? That is the question that every Senator should be asking themselves. Ironically, some will come to this floor arguing against our proposal because of their concern about public education, not recognizing that not only do we not divert public funds from the public schools, but according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, 75 percent of all the parents who use these A+ savings accounts will be the parents of public school students. It may be the most exciting aspect of the entire program. With 90 percent of all American students attending public schools, the reality is those schools are not providing many of the services that they provided 20 and 30 years ago. As a student of a public suburban school in northern New Jersey 25 and 30 years ago, our school provided extracurricular activities for athletics, transportation for after-school activities, club activities and access to the technology of the time. In many American suburban school districts those activities no longer exist. Under the A+ savings accounts, parents, from the birth of a child, will be able to put a little money aside every year so their students, in public school, can pay for those activities where local governments no longer provide them. But one thing more. Public school students today who are struggling with new science and new math, learning a new language, testing the limits of their ability to learn, increasingly need tutors. Indeed, with advanced science today, how many public school high school students can learn some of the advanced sciences without the assistance after school of a tutor? Under our proposal, the money in these A+ savings accounts is available to hire a public schoolteacher or other instructor after school, so students can make up that work and excel in their chosen subject. So, much of this debate may be about private education, but, in a great irony, much of the benefit may be for public school students. Then the question inevitably turns to private schools. For all of us who through the years have had doubts about vouchers, we are questioning whether this is the better idea. As I said earlier, first, there is no diversion of public funds so there is no argument about taking resources away from public schools that remain inadequately financed. But the question remains about the role of private education generally in American society. It is not some marginalized concern. We are not discussing a few private boarding schools for an elite American financial class. Mr. President, 15 percent of all American students attend a private or parochial school--a Yeshiva, a Catholic school, a private school on any other basis. If those schools did not exist, if we allowed these private schools simply, over time, to deteriorate and close--recognizing that every year 50 to 70 private schools in America close their doors never to open again--if that trend were to continue, it would cost the United States $16 billion a year to build and operate enough public schools to make up the difference. Where is it these students would go? How would we provide the opportunity, at a time when the public schools already face massive construction problems and are inadequately financed? But, more compelling, maybe--who are these students going to most of these private schools? Are we, indeed, creating a means of families saving money to fund the education of an elite? Not in my State nor New York nor Illinois nor California nor any State where our great urban centers are located. Mr. President, 91 percent of all the students in parochial schools in Camden, NJ, are members of minority groups; 60 to 70 percent of all those who attend parochial schools in New York are Protestants. These schools are filling a role in our urban centers where parents feel they have no other choice. Working-class families in an urban environment who want a decent opportunity for their children look honestly at the public schools and may not feel that they can meet their responsibility to their own children without availing themselves of private schools. More than anything else, this legislation is about giving those middle-income families that chance--save $2,000 a year to have the option of sending their child to a private school. Yet, the argument continues to be made every day, middle-income families will never be able to afford this opportunity; this will simply be another gift to the wealthy in America. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Joint Committee on Tax estimates that 70 percent of the families who will use a Coverdell-Torricelli A+ savings account, 70 percent, earn less than $75,000 a year. This is a direct benefit to families that are struggling to provide an educational option for their child. One of the things that excites me the most about this plan is not just that middle-income families can save for their children's education, or the extra quality for the public school child. It is the ability to get families involved again in a child's education. It was not so long ago in America when people lined up to vote in school board elections and aunts and uncles would participate in helping to tutor a child; where grandparents would sit with a child; where a family participated in the educational experience. For a lot of reasons-- people working and the demands on their day and their finances--we have lost that part of America. But think about this aspect of the Coverdell-Torricelli A+ savings account: That on a birthday, a holiday, an aunt, an uncle, a grandparent, can take a few dollars and put that money into this savings account to allow a child to continue with his or her education, whether to buy a computer for a public school student or tuition for a private school student. These accounts are a chance for a family to become involved in educating a child. And that is a part of the crisis in education in America--the family has removed itself. Not so long ago I asked a major labor leader in America, if we pass the Coverdell-Torricelli A+ savings account, how would it impact your union, the members of your unions? He said, ``Simple. The next time we go to contract negotiations I am putting on the table, along with pay increases and health benefits, I want $5 a week, $10 a week in the contract where an employer contributes to a savings account to help my members educate their children.'' Think of it, major corporations who can attract talent and workers by agreeing to put money in these savings accounts--and unions, and professional associations. Every dollar is new money to education in America. And not a dollar is coming from the Federal Treasury or from local governments or taxpayers. It is on a voluntary basis, getting people involved, at every level, back in education. Yet, I come back to challenging Members of the Senate to think about this not simply in terms of the tuition of the private school student but to think in broader terms. Not so long ago I read in the Washington Post, a high school senior in Maryland was asked about the changing nature of school. Tiffany Johnson replied, ``It is totally impossible to function without a computer now in school. It's a big handicap not to have one at home.'' Most people who think about Coverdell-Torricelli are thinking about private school and tuition. They need to look at this issue again. They need to think about Tiffany Johnson, because 60 percent of all students in America do not have access to a home computer for calculations, research, or word processing. As Tiffany Johnson has attested, in the world in which we live, researching term papers, writing essays without a home computer is going to create two classes of students in America: The students of the families of the upper middle-class and wealthy and professional Americans, who can afford the software and the home computers, and the rest of America that cannot. Mr. President, 60 percent of Americans do not have those computers--except for minority parents. Minority parents, 85 percent of African Americans and Hispanic Americans, do not have access to home computers. We are creating another dividing line in American education. Under the Coverdell-Torricelli A+ savings accounts, that money is not only available for extracurricular activities of public school students, not only for tutoring public school students, transportation of public school students, tuition of private school students, uniforms for public or private school students, it is available for home computers for public and private school students. What will we be doing, taxing the money of American families who are trying to buy a home computer for their child to be competitive in school? These savings accounts allow that money without the Federal Government taking its share of taxation. Mr. President, I say to Members of the Senate, I have not been in this institution long, but in the time I have been here, I have heard compelling arguments based on realistic assessments of American life for different proposals. Rarely have I been more persuaded of a compelling need with an overwhelming argument to address a national problem. This is not the end of the education debate in America; it is the compelling issue of our time. Education remains the great question about whether or not we preserve our standard of living and the America that we have known and come to value and cherish. This debate will have to be followed with the question of, How are we going to rebuild the two-thirds of American schools that are crumbling around us, raise the compensation of American teachers who can no longer afford to remain in the profession that they love and where they are needed? How will we continue to finance access to higher education for middle-income families who are being separated from their ambitions? This is a debate that will consume not simply this Senate but the next Congress and Congresses to come, but this is a beginning and it is a valuable contribution. I want to see the Coverdell-Torricelli A+ savings accounts enacted, but I want something more; I want it to be bipartisan; I want the vote to be overwhelming. My party has been privileged through most of the last 30 years, from the financing of higher education to support for public education, to have been in the leadership of every fight for quality education in America. I say with all deference to my colleagues across the aisle, through much of that time, we were not often challenged for that leadership. Education has been the province of the Democratic Party for a long time. It is good for America that Democrats and Republicans will now compete for the leadership in education. But on this proposal, to finance savings accounts to bring American families back into the financing of their own education, to allow American families to participate in the tutoring, the technology, the uniforms, the extra school activities, and in the paying of private school tuitions, in this matter there should be no competition, because for this plan we can be arm in arm. I am honored to have joined with Senator Coverdell in offering this proposal, that it bears both of our names. I look forward to its enactment. With this proposal, we can do something right about the problem of education in America. We have been discouraged; we have complained; we have agonized too long. Let us deal with this fundamental crisis in the quality of secondary education by enacting the Coverdell-Torricelli proposal. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Or Georgetown--whether a religious affiliated school or private education; that these should be for private education only. I have never heard a Member of the Senate say that. To my judgment, it has never happened. The reason is, it would be illogical, it would be foolish. And so it would here. This is being done on the same basis. This is available for public school students and private school students with people's own money. So I think there is a philosophical consistency with the college program.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago, all of our hopes for campaign finance reform in this session of the Congress were once again frustrated. A year of investigations, legislative proposals, and public debate were met with a filibuster led by the Republican leadership. Perhaps it really should not have come as much of a surprise to any of us. In the last decade, this Senate has considered 321 different pieces of legislation for campaign finance reform, which filled 6,742 pages of the Congressional Record--and all of this with no change. So now, for the 117th time in 10 years, the Senate has voted on an element of campaign finance reform to absolutely no avail. It is a problem of near-crisis proportions, not simply because of the burden it places on candidates for public office, not simply because of the compromises it seems to make in public policy. There is a problem far more fundamental. As evidenced in the confidence of our own people in their system of Government, the United States remains perhaps the only developed democracy in the world where its leadership is chosen by a minority of its citizens. Americans are expressing themselves in our system of Government not with their voices but with their feet, because they choose not to walk into a voting booth. If it was bad enough that this Congress would not act, now this frustration with reform is in an entirely different form. President Clinton has challenged the FCC to institute at least one element of reform--in my judgment, perhaps the most important element of reform-- by mandating a reduction in the cost of television advertising, on the simple theory that if the cost of advertising is less, candidates will be raising less. If the cost of advertising is less, candidates without great financial resources will still seek public office and not find a barrier to expression. It is not a perfect answer, but it is at least a contribution. This was the President's challenge. The FCC has before it that question. But it was not enough to have a filibuster to defeat the McCain- Feingold reform legislation. Now an effort is being made to include in the President's supplemental funding request in the appropriations process a prohibition on the FCC actually ordering a reduction in rates. The scale of the problem the FCC would deal with is enormous. Since 1977, the cost of congressional campaigns has risen over 700 percent. The central element of this rising spiral of costs is television advertising. In 1996, candidates spent over $400 million to purchase television advertising on federally licensed, public airwaves. Hundreds of candidates were traveling to virtually every State, thousands of communities, to raise hundreds of millions of dollars to buy time on federally licensed airwaves that belong to the American people. It is almost incredible to believe. There has been, since 1988, a 76 percent increase in this financial burden on public candidates for television advertising. Political advertising on the public airwaves dominates all other forms of campaign spending. President Clinton and Senator Dole spent nearly two- thirds of all their financial resources to buy television time. One half of all the money raised by U.S. Senate candidates was similarly spent on television advertising. In the larger industrial States for the principal media markets, the numbers are far greater--in Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, Miami, or Boston. In my own State of New Jersey, in the Senate race in 1996, fully 80 percent of all financial resources went to buy television advertising. Some 30 seconds of access to the voting population on television could cost in excess of $50,000. Can it be any wonder that candidates are spending all of their time raising money rather than discussing issues? Can there be any question why candidates without great financial resources, simply possessing a desire to serve and a creativity for dealing with public policy, do not feel they can enter the electoral process? The principal barrier is the public airwaves themselves--something the people of the United States already own. Yet, it's being denied to our own people to discuss issues about our country's own future. Congress has had a chance to deal with this problem, and it has not. The original version of the McCain-Feingold reform legislation contained reductions in television advertising. It was removed. A challengers' amendment was offered to the McCain-Feingold reform bill that would have provided for a reduction. It was not adopted. I introduced an amendment that would have allowed for a 75 percent reduction. My amendment could not be offered. These are the reasons why I believe President Clinton challenged the FCC to act. To this Congress, our responsibility should be clear. Since the Congress failed to enact campaign finance reform, at least get out of the way so that the FCC can act responsibly and institute at least one element of reform. The Congress has had a decade, hundreds of opportunities, and did nothing. At least now remain silent so that others who will act responsibly can do something to deal with this mounting national problem. It is not as if we do not have in the FCC the legal ability to require the television networks to reduce the cost of advertising. And it is not as though this request is without precedence. In 1952, the FCC set aside 12 percent of all television channeling time for education purposes, for noncommercial use. In 1967, President Johnson set aside part of the spectrum for public broadcasting. For the FCC now to require a reduction in rates has not only precedence but overwhelming precedence. Candidates for public office now pay a reduced rate, albeit insufficiently reduced. Perhaps even greater, however, is that the FCC is providing up to $20 billion worth of free licenses to broadcasters for digital television, a part of the spectrum on a digital basis, requiring the broadcasters to pay nothing, and probably the greatest grant to private industry since the opening of Federal lands to the railroads. The broadcasters were provided this license on a single basis, on a single request that they fulfill a public obligation to the people of this country. I can think of no greater opportunity to fulfill that public obligation in meeting a more serious national problem than the FCC now--after the granting of these digital television licenses to broadcasters, asking them to provide reduced rates or free television time. The scale of the burden is so minimal. Last year, television networks billed, for commercial and other advertising, $42 billion. Of this total advertising expenditure, 1.2 percent was for political advertising. The cost of reducing the rates for political advertising, that 1.2 percent, would still allow for a growth in the overall advertising revenue of the networks next year. So if the FCC acted on any reasonable basis, it would not result in less broadcaster revenues next year and, in year-to-year terms, it would be simply a small reduction in the rate of growth. This we would hesitate to ask after providing $20 billion worth of free new licenses to the networks that are already operating on publicly owned airwaves of the people of the United States? Perhaps it isn't that the burden isn't too great; perhaps it isn't a legal problem at all; perhaps it is that there are Members of this institution of the Congress that like the idea that there is a threshold price for entry to public office in the United States. The price of entering public office in the United States is not an academic degree; it is not a command of the issues; it is not a given level of commitment to public service; it is the ability to buy television time to communicate views. Increasingly, that means people of great personal wealth use their own resources. If it is not their own resources, it is the ability to use those resources of great financial interests in the United States that command all of the candidate's time and attention. Perhaps it is that people like this threshold price of entry and what it means for certain interests in the Senate, partisan or otherwise. Well, it leaves us with this simple situation: The Congress had its chance for campaign finance reform and, after a decade of effort, it has failed. President Clinton has made a request for the FCC to consider reductions in television advertising rates. That issue is now before Chairman Kennard. The Commissioners of the FCC and its new chairman, Mr. Kennard, have a historic opportunity--an opportunity that goes to the very issue of confidence in this Government, the ability for people to feel they identify with these institutions, with their futures and the welfare of their families. They have an extraordinary opportunity to institute reform. I hope the FCC will act, and I hope this Congress, having failed to be responsible in dealing with this problem, at least has the good grace to remain silent, to not amend the supplemental appropriations legislation so that others can meet a responsibility that was not met on the floor of this Senate. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I thank Senators McCain, Chafee, Baucus, and Hollings for their support for my efforts to have the Department of Transportation investigate how to improve the safety of transporting high-risk hazardous waste material on our Nation's highways. This issue is of great concern to me and to the people of New Jersey. On October 20, 1997, a truck carrying hazardous materials caught fire while traveling on Interstate-80 in Paterson, New Jersey causing nearby residents and businesses to be evacuated. Two Paterson police officers had to be hospitalized and treated for chemical inhalation as a result of the accident. According to the police, the fire started when two chemicals inside the truck spilled over and mixed together. Though the accident was not severe, it certainly would have been much worse had a passing motorists not noticed the fire and forced the driver to pull over. We were also fortunate that the public safety officials were well-trained and acted as quickly as they did. What truly concerns me about this accident is the revelation that the company that was transporting the waste had been involved in 46 spill incidents at a cost of more than $100,000 since their inception. Despite this record, their last safety inspection by the Department of Transportation was conducted in 1994, almost four years ago. When I, along with Representative Bill Pascrell investigated how this could possibly be the case, we were stunned to learn that there is nothing in current law which requires an annual safety examination of hazardous waste haulers. Under existing law, in order for a company to be a hauler-for-hire of hazardous material they must possess a permit from the Department of Transportation's Federal Highway Safety Administration. Once a hauler obtains a permit, they basically have it in perpetuity--regardless of their safety record. All they must do is reapply every year for a new safety permit and pay an application fee. While the Federal Highway Safety Administration maintains safety records and conducts safety reviews they do not do annual reviews or require safety inspections as a part of the certification process. This is wrong. In my view, this process is too lax and although I would prefer to require this safety inspection outright, I will withdraw my amendment to S1173, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act Reauthorization to require this and instead submit this amendment to require the Department of Transportation to study how we may best implement a system of linking the renewal of a company's Federal permit to its ability to meet certain safety standards. This approach is fair and is in line with the spirit of the Hazardous Materials Transportation law. Once again, I want to thank my colleagues and the Surface Transportation Subcommittee staff for their assistance with this amendment. I look forward to its inclusion in the final highway bill.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nebraska for yielding. Mr. President, there is nothing more fundamental to a democratic government than the oversight of executive responsibility by the Congress. It is, indeed, the essence of an accountability of power that this Congress has access to information and the people who hold it. That exercise of congressional power requires the truthful testimony of personnel in the executive branch of the Government. In no area is this more important than in issues of national security, because, ultimately, it is this Congress that holds the power of war and peace and the responsibility to raise funds for the national defense. But in recent decades, the intelligence agencies of this Government have become the exception in this accountability of power--an exception by statute in the Whistle Blower Protection Act and, perhaps more fundamentally, by the culture of governance in the Government itself. Tragically, one of the best examples was a former assistant in the Latin American Bureau of the State Department, Richard Nuccio, who came to me, as a Member of the House of Representatives, to report what he believed to be illegal activity. At the time, I served as a member of the Intelligence Committee of the House of Representatives. What Mr. Nuccio imparted to me was criminal conduct. Information that, by statute, was to be reported to the Intelligence Committee had been omitted. In the months and years that followed, the President of the United States expressed outrage. The Central Intelligence Agency conducted an investigation and the rules were changed. Mr. Nuccio paid a price with his intelligence clearance, and ultimately with his career. It appeared that no real lesson had been learned at all. Last year Senator Shelby and Senator Kerrey provided real protection to executive employees if they come to this Congress with the truth. I have rarely been prouder of two Members of this institution, nor more disappointed in the President of the United States. He threatened to veto the change. Mr. President, I rise because I am extremely grateful to Senator Shelby and Senator Kerrey for their leadership. Indeed, they were joined by all 19 members of the committee. As a result, I believe that the intelligence community not only will not be weakened, but it will be strengthened. The best protection against abuse of their authority or, indeed, violations of the law, is the knowledge that Federal employees will be protected if they come to this Congress to report such activities. The occurrence of illegal acts will not be concealed by classifying them or by carefully omitting them in a notification requirement of this Congress. The best means I know is assuring the intelligence community that it retains the confidence of this Congress and our people. This legislation is a real contribution to this Congress. Mostly it is a real contribution to the accountability of power that is so important in our democratic system. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, inscribed on the corridors of this Capitol are the words of William Henry Harrison, spoken at his Presidential inauguration in 1841. He said: ``The only legitimate right to govern is an express grant of power from the governed.'' Indeed, the very principle of the consent of the governed is the foundation of this democratic society. That issue was at question in the House of Representatives this week when the Congress considered the issue of the political status of Puerto Rico. I believe it is clear that it is not in the interest of these United States to leave the 20th century, with it being claimed in any quarter of this globe, that the United States is in an involuntary political arrangement with any peoples. The unfinished business of American democracy is the political status of Puerto Rico. The history of the 20th century for the United States have been the constant expansion of enfranchisement of the governed. Within this century, we have either guaranteed or attempted to assure the right to participate in our democracy to women and, through the struggle of civil rights, for African Americans. In 1913, we changed the U.S. Constitution to ensure that all citizens of the United States could participate in choosing Members of this Senate. In 1971, we extended the right to vote for those who are 18 years old. And, indeed, also in this century, we ensured this enfranchisement was expanded geographically to include the citizens of Hawaii and Alaska. But this only begs the question of the unanswered issue since 1898, at the end of the Spanish-American War, of what is to be done with the arrangement of the people of Puerto Rico and the Government of the United States. It is an issue that has come before this Congress continuously. In 1917, Congress granted citizenship to the people of Puerto Rico. In 1952, Congress revisited the issue to provide commonwealth under American jurisdiction. And yet, the issue continues, because the full rights of citizenship granted to those of the 50 States remain withheld to the people of Puerto Rico. The people of Puerto Rico are subject to laws and regulations passed by this legislative body, yet they have no voting representation. The people of Puerto Rico are led by a President and Vice President exercising full executive authority, but they cannot vote to choose that executive leadership. The people of Puerto Rico hold citizenship in a country whose legislature can take away or compromise their rights of citizenship at any moment. The legislation passed by the House of Representatives, legislation which I was proud to cosponsor--indeed, originally authored when I was a Member of that body--redresses this injustice. This legislation does not mandate a political choice for the people of Puerto Rico. Whether or not Puerto Rico ultimately becomes a State of this Union is a question for the people of Puerto Rico, and only for the people of Puerto Rico, to decide. Whether or not the people of Puerto Rico are able to exercise that choice is a responsibility of this Congress. I do not believe that this Congress should express itself on that issue. Whether or not the choice is statehood, independence, or commonwealth is only a matter for the people of Puerto Rico. But as certainly as it is our responsibility that the people of Puerto Rico have a right to exercise that choice, it is our responsibility in the United States to ensure they exercise it honestly, with legitimate choices. The bill authorizes Puerto Rico to hold a referendum by the end of 1998 as to whether or not to remain a commonwealth, seek independence, or choose statehood. If a majority of citizens were to decide to seek independence or statehood, then the President would submit legislation to the Congress outlining a transition plan that would culminate in 10 years. Then, the people of Puerto Rico would take to the polls once again to approve or reject the plan. If it were passed by a majority of the people of Puerto Rico, then the President would submit legislation to the Congress recommending a date to end the transition period. Then, for a third time the people of Puerto Rico would vote again on the issue of self-governance. This is an extensive and a complicated plan for final political status. It is important that these three votes be held over an extensive transition period, because as history has made clear, any judgment to join this Union is irreversible and it is final. A decision on statehood is made once and never made again. Mr. President, I understand that there are some Members of the Senate who are concerned about this legislation because of its impact on our Union. I believe that a decision by the Puerto Rican people, if they make it in their own judgment, is in the interests of this Union. The United States would be enriched culturally. Indeed, it would make clear that the bridge that the United States has enjoyed for so long culturally to Europe is equally as strong with the peoples of Latin America. Indeed, I believe all Americans would be proud and enriched by this judgment. Mr. President, that, of course, is a decision for the people of Puerto Rico to make. But if they make it, I hope people in our country and Members of the Senate will welcome their judgment. But on this day, Mr. President, I call upon the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to immediately commence hearings on the important Puerto Rico self-determination bill. I join with Senator Graham and Senator Craig in offering this legislation. I hope the people of Puerto Rico can be proud that this Senate will await their judgment and will offer them this opportunity. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. I am very proud to join the Senator from North Dakota in offering this amendment. In our Federal system, there is always a preference for State and local governments setting standards of health and safety for our citizens. By right, those judgments should be made in those levels of government closest to the people themselves. But there are instances where our State and local governments do not rise to those responsibilities to protect our citizens. Through the years, as our society changes, so, too, sometimes do the standards. We live in a highly mobile society, where in the course of any day, week, or month, citizens from any State in America can find themselves driving on the highways of another locality, in a different jurisdiction. Every Senator has the right and responsibility to know that in that travel, in the pursuit of commerce or recreation, their citizens are safe to some minimal standard. That, in my judgment, Mr. President, is what motivates the Senator from North Dakota today. It defies logic that in 22 States in this Union it is still legal for a passenger in an automobile on a highway to possess an open container of alcohol. And if that is not difficult enough to understand, it is unbelievable that in five States it is permissible, acceptable, it is legal for a person to have one hand on the steering wheel of a moving automobile and the other hand on a container of alcohol. Our preference for the States governing these issues cannot blind us to a responsibility to protect thousands of lives of our own citizens. I know that in this institution there are those who will not join with the Senator from North Dakota, but it is instructive that while some may vote against him, few, if any, will rise to debate against him, because the point cannot be defended. In any year in this country, about 17,000 people are losing their lives to alcohol-related traffic accidents. Drunk driving is the leading cause of death of all citizens in America from the age of 5 to 25. There is an epidemic of death from drunk driving across this country. So if you are persuaded that there is a single reason to oppose this in deference to a State law, I offer to the Senate 17,000 reasons why we have to meet our responsibility to the citizens of all 50 States who want to travel with safety and confidence across our highways. To those who believe that this kind of legislative effort cannot be successful, the best evidence is that through the years our efforts against drunk driving have dramatically reduced the incidents of drunk driving themselves, except with a single category--hard-core drinkers. The casual drinker who drives has been persuaded to exercise caution and to live within the law. But the numbers for hard-core drinkers are staggering. Every weekday between 10 p.m. and 1:00 a.m., 1 in 13 drivers in this country is drunk. Between 1:00 a.m. and 6 a.m., one in seven is drunk. It is those drivers, driving with alcohol in the automobile, with an open container sometimes in their own hands, that we are trying to prevent. Mr. President, I can think of no legislation that this Senate will consider in the coming weeks that more dramatically could ease the pain of individual American families and save lives than this legislation offered by Mr. Dorgan. I urge my colleagues to support it. I yield my time back to the Senator from North Dakota. Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.

Mr. TORRICELLI

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

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed in morning business for 10 minutes.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, last week, President Clinton called upon the Senate to use but one principal criteria when considering nominations for ambassadors for the United States. In his words, that criteria simply stated is: ``Will he or will he not be a good ambassador?'' Over 30 years ago, the Senate was confronted with a similar situation to one before us today. This body was asked to assess whether Patricia Harris should be approved to be U.S. Ambassador to Luxembourg. She was a prominent lawyer. There was no question about her qualifications. Indeed, during the course of her career, she went on to be Secretary of HUD and of HEW. But, in 1965, Patricia Harris represented the first African American woman to become an American ambassador. The Senate then was left with a challenge of meeting what Thomas Jefferson considered our highest calling. That is, in his words, whether this would be a nation of ``equal opportunity for all and special privilege for none.'' I cite the judgment of the Senate in confronting the nomination of Patricia Harris for Ambassador to Luxembourg because the Senate now faces a similar choice. President Clinton has sent before the Senate the name of Mr. James Hormel to become Ambassador to Luxembourg. Mr. Hormel was a member of the U.S. delegation to the U.N. Human Rights Commission. Last May, the Senate approved the nomination for him to serve as an alternate representative to the 51st session of the U.N. General Assembly. Last October, the Foreign Relations Committee recommended Mr. Hormel as our envoy to Luxembourg. But for a few of my colleagues, that is not enough. Just as Patricia Harris met opposition to her nomination as Ambassador to Luxembourg, Mr. Hormel is now being prejudged by some because of his sexual orientation. Mr. President, I rise today not simply to advance the nomination of Mr. Hormel, but I rise against those who would prejudge his qualifications based simply on the prejudice because of his personal lifestyle and his sexual orientation. I believe that fairness and decency require that Mr. Hormel be afforded his God-given right to serve his country in a position for which he is clearly qualified. No one can argue with his professional experience, his academic achievement, or the qualifications that led this Senate previously to send his name to be a member of our representation to the United Nations or that led the Foreign Relations Committee to recommend his service as an ambassador. Mr. Hormel received a doctorate degree from the University of Chicago Law School. He served there as a dean of students. He is a member of the Board of Managers of Swarthmore College, from which he graduated. Mr. Hormel is a committed philanthropist and public servant. He serves as chairman of the Equidex Corporation and has donated millions of dollars to some of the most important charities in America. They include the Virginia Institute on Autism, the Catholic Youth Organization, the American Indian College Fund, United Negro College Fund, and the Jewish and Children's Family Services. In recognition, he has received numerous awards and was named Outstanding Philanthropist by the National Society of Fundraising Executives. He is a member of the board of directors of the San Francisco Symphony, the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, the Human Rights Campaign, and the American Foundation for AIDS Research. He is founding director of the City Club of San Francisco, a club created to bring together community leaders of diverse backgrounds. Mr. President, as the Secretary of State, Secretary Albright, said, ``. . . Mr. Hormel has demonstrated outstanding diplomatic and leadership skills. He will be an excellent United States Ambassador to Luxembourg.'' Mr. President, what else could this Senate ask of a nominee to be an American Ambassador, with leadership in corporate fields, in civic pursuits, a philanthropist, a leader of great American universities? What other American Ambassadors have better backgrounds, proven community service, or come with higher praise? This isn't about Mr. Hormel's qualifications. It isn't about his ability to serve as an Ambassador. This has become a referendum on Mr. Hormel's lifestyle, the most private intimate matters of his sexual orientation. It is said by some colleagues in this institution who stand in opposition to his nomination that his lifestyle is inappropriate and that he is representing a country that is overwhelmingly Catholic. They failed to note, indeed, that the country of Luxembourg itself has spoken favorably of Mr. Hormel's potential service as our Ambassador. My colleagues know that Mr. Hormel has spoken candidly about his potential service in Luxembourg and has made clear that he will not use his position to advocate his own views or his own private agenda. Indeed, my colleagues know that American Ambassadors are appointed and confirmed to serve solely the interests of the U.S. Government. Whether it is their political views, their religious views, or their sexual orientation, the advance of any of those opinions would be inappropriate by an American Ambassador. They serve in this position for one purpose and one purpose only: to advance the views of the U.S. Government. Yet, Mr. Hormel, like Patricia Harris before him, stands in a historic position, potentially being confirmed by the U.S. Senate, and has made pledges which should be unnecessary--indeed, are unprecedented--and made several pledges to this institution: First, to limit his charitable giving to 501(c)(3) organizations and to only donate through private foundations that do not bear his name. He doesn't have to do so, but he has. He has pledged to prohibit any organization from using his name as a fundraising tool. He doesn't have to, but he made this pledge. He has pledged to remove his name from any fundraising or charitable activities conducted by outside organizations. He has pledged to resign from all boards of directors, except Swarthmore College and the San Francisco Symphony. Yet, critics of Mr. Hormel argue that he is somehow out of step with American life or American values. Mr. President, it is Mr. Hormel's critics who are out of step with American values. A fundamental principle of this country is that everyone has an opportunity to serve, that everyone is accepted and judged based on their ability to contribute. Mr. Hormel asks to be judged only by that standard. Mr. President, through the years, from race to gender to religion to ethnicity, this Senate has had to deal with the painful questions of removing prejudice and learning to deal with people based on the content of character that all individuals face equally and fairly as they seek to serve our country. Mr. Hormel asks no more. He has a right to expect no less. President Clinton has challenged this Senate to judge Mr. Hormel's nomination to be Ambassador to Luxembourg on its own merits. I hope in the great traditions of this institution we will give Mr. Hormel that chance. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank the Senator from Wisconsin for yielding.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, the debate before the Senate is about campaign finance reform but, indeed, it is really about something much more fundamental. It is about the credibility of the U.S. Government. It may even be about the long-term stability of our system of government. The United States will enter the 21st century as the only industrial democracy in the world where only a minority of the people of our country choose our government. In the Presidential elections of last year, only 49 percent of eligible Americans participated in choosing our government. It is a record of shame. That shame does not belong only to those who do not participate. Upon leaving the Continental Congress, the Founding Fathers were asked, what form of government have you chosen? It was replied, ``A democracy--if you can keep it.'' This legislation is about campaign finance reform. But much more fundamentally it is about a democracy--if you can keep it. For more than 20 years we have tried to evade the central truth of this problem. We told ourselves that people didn't vote because it wasn't convenient, so we gave them time off from work; that it wasn't possible to go and register in person, so we passed motor-voter. We have done everything we can think of to address a new excuse of why people do not participate in the process. The truth is those 51 percent of Americans who do not vote are participating in the process. By not voting they are speaking volumes about their belief and their confidence in this system of government. Central to this eroding of confidence in our 200-year political system is money and people's perception of what it buys and how it undermines our system of government. I participated in the 1996 elections as a U.S. Senate candidate. The record of those elections can be a source of pride to no one. Congressional candidates raised $765 million, culminating a 700 percent increase in campaign spending since 1977. We are not the first Congress or the first generation that recognized there was a problem of confidence in governing America. Those before us, in 1974, after Watergate, passed comprehensive and meaningful reform. But like that generation, in this Congress it is time to recognize that the governing laws are not working. The 1974 reforms are being observed in the exception. A series of Federal court decisions, changes in technology, changes in the political culture, have left them meaningless. I think, indeed, the 1974 reforms did not envision, therefore did not even address, the issue of soft money which is now so prevalent and even governing the system. This Senate has not been blind to the problem. We have not been without our advocates, like Senator Feingold, who sought to change the system. In the last decade, this Senate has voted on 116 occasions for campaign finance reform, 321 different bills, all of which have left the system fundamentally unchanged. What is it now that brings this opposition by the Republican majority? What is it that would lead potentially a majority of this Senate to participate in a filibuster on a bill which fundamentally prohibits foreign money, enhances prompt disclosure of contributions, helps the FEC in enforcing the law, and banning the soft money which for most of the last year attracted the attention of the country and the focus of the Governmental Affairs Committee on which I serve as an abuse of the system? Which of these provisions so disturbs Members that they would stop this reform legislation? Or is it simply that they like to discuss the problems but fear that any change to the current system would rearrange control of this institution? The irony of the opposition is that the principal problem of the reform legislation is not that it does these simple and self-obvious changes but that it does not go far enough. Indeed, if given the opportunity, as the Senator from North Dakota, I would like to offer amendments to take this process further, because the principal change in the political culture since 1974, and obviously in the last election, has been the use of unregulated issue advertising by third party advertisers. We no longer have contests between candidates or Democrats and Republicans, but unregulated, third party institutions, where no one knows the source of the money or even who they are, that sometimes drown out the candidates, change the agenda of people and political parties. This legislation doesn't deal with that issue, and it should. It doesn't go far enough. So in my amendment I go further with these tax-free organizations in making them choose. If you want to be tax free, you will not participate in electioneering; if you do want to participate in electioneering and change your status, you will disclosure your contributors. We did not do that here. Finally, the Senator from North Dakota indicated the principal reform that is required is reducing the cost of television times. The public airwaves, licensed by this Government, owned by the people of the United States, are being sold for millions of dollars and are essentially driving the cost of these campaigns. Mr. President, 82 percent of the election in New Jersey was raising money for television advertising. The average across the country is 70 percent. Until we force the television networks to reduce the cost of the public airwaves, we will never stop the upward spiral of these campaigns. So I rise to endorse the efforts of the Senator from Wisconsin to urge the Congress to allow its consideration, to allow a majority of 52 Senators in this institution to work their will, to do the work that every Senator knows must be done--not simply to reforming the financing of campaigns, but much more importantly, much more fundamentally, to make this part of the effort, indeed, the foundation, of restoring confidence in this system. I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr, President, I rise today in support of Senator D'Amato's resolution supporting Italy's inclusion as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. Should this international body expand, I can think of no country more worthy of inclusion than Italy, and I hope my colleagues will join me in expressing their support for this idea. Italy is a major economic player on the world stage and in terms of United Nations contributions. She forms a critical part of the UN's global peacekeeping operations and has been active in a number of international conflicts and crises. Last spring, Italy acted under UN auspices to organize and lead a multi-national peace enforcement operation in Albania. This effort was critical to restoring order and helping Albania organize democratic elections. In more general terms, Italy's strategic location in the Mediterranean makes it an important partner for the international community as it launches security operations in many zones of potential instability. Already, Italy has hosted the air bases that the United States and other NATO members have used to conduct air operations over the former Yugoslavia. These efforts, in conjunction with Italy's status as the fifth largest economy in the world, mean that we can no longer ignore its present position in the international community. It plays a vital role in protecting and enhancing our economic and military security, and I believe the time has come to recognize these efforts. Italy's contributions to world history and culture, her continuing support for humanitarian and developmental objectives throughout the world, and status as a thriving democracy which has overcome a fascist past all argue for Italy's inclusion in any plans to revise and expand the permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, today I am joined by my distinguished colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Kohl, in introducing the ``Bounty Hunter Accountability and Quality Assurance Act of 1998.'' Our bill will begin the process of reforming the revered but antiquated system of bail enforcement in this country. Throughout our nation's proud history, bounty hunters have proved a valuable addition to our law enforcement and recovery efforts. About 40 percent of all criminal defendants are released on bail each year, and in 1996 alone more than 33,000 skipped town. Police departments, no matter how efficient or determined, cannot be expected to deal with so many bail jumpers in addition to their other duties. But while public law enforcement officers recover only about 10 percent of defendants who skip town, bounty hunters catch an incredible 88 percent of bail jumpers. Because of the special, contractual nature of the relationship between bail bondsmen and those who use them to get out of jail, bounty hunters have traditionally enjoyed special rights--a nineteenth century Supreme Court case affirmed that while bounty hunters may exercise many of the powers granted to police, they are not subject to many of the constitutional checks we place on those law enforcement officials. As a result, bounty hunters need not worry about Miranda rights, extradition proceedings, or search warrants. The ability to more efficiently track and recover criminal defendants serves a valuable purpose in our society. But the lack of constitutional checks on bounty hunters also opens the system up to the risk of abuse. Each of us has read or heard about cases in which legitimate bounty hunters or those simply posing as recovery agents have wrongfully entered a dwelling or captured the wrong person. In one recent Arizona case, several men claiming to be bounty hunters broke into a house, terrorized a family and ended up killing a young couple who tried to defend against the attack. It now appears that these men were simply ``posing'' as bounty hunters, but there are other reported incidents in which ``legitimate'' bounty hunters have broken down the wrong door, kidnaped the wrong person, or physically abused the targets of their searches. And there is little recourse for the innocent victims of wrongful acts. Our legislation would begin the process of making bounty hunters more accountable to the public they serve, and would help to restore confidence in the bail enforcement system. The bill would not unduly impose the will of the federal government on states, which have traditionally regulated bounty hunters. Our legislation contains only three simple provisions, each of which will make it easier to better regulate bounty hunters, but none of which will overburden states. The first provision of the ``Bounty Hunter Accountability and Quality Assurance Act'' would simply allow a national bail enforcement organization to run background checks through the FBI, ensuring that there will be a relatively easy way to keep convicted felons out of the bail enforcement business. A nearly identical provision related to private security guards recently passed the House by a nearly unanimous vote. The second provision of the bill directs the Attorney General of the United States to establish model guidelines for states to follow when creating their own bail enforcement regulations. In the course of her work, the Attorney General will be specifically directed to look into three areas identified by the bill--whether bounty hunters should be required to ``knock and announce'' before entering a dwelling, whether they should be required to carry liability insurance (most already do), and whether convicted felons should be allowed to obtain employment as bounty hunters. While states are not required to follow the model guidelines, those states who choose to adopt the guidelines within two years will receive priority for Byrne grant funding. Finally, this bill makes bail bond companies liable for the acts of the bounty hunters they hire. The clarification of liability in our bill will encourage these companies to carefully select and perhaps even train the bounty hunters in their employ. Perhaps we can cut down on the worst abuses if we force employers to take a closer look at who they hire. Mr. President, it is time to start the process of making rogue bounty hunters more accountable, while at the same time restoring America's confidence in the long tradition of bail enforcement that dates from the earliest days of this nation. I urge my colleagues to join us in taking this first step towards this process, and I thank my distinguished colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Kohl, for joining me in introducing this bill today. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this bill be published in the Record.