Robert Torricelli

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Lautenberg in introducing legislation that will make the dream of bringing the battleship U.S.S. New Jersey home to New Jersey a reality. I want to thank Senator Lautenberg for his hard work and commitment to this issue, and look forward to working with him to ensure that this symbol of freedom returns to her namesake-state in the near future. The U.S.S. New Jersey is one of the most notable battleships in the Navy's history. She has been protecting and defending democracy since World War II in almost every region of the world. Launched on December 7, 1942, one year after the infamous attack on Pearl Harbor, the ship proceeded to the Pacific where she was involved in many historic campaigns, including the battles for the Marshalls, Marianas, Philippines, Iwo Jimo and Okinawa. A particular highlight of the New Jersey's career was service as flagship for Commander Third Fleet, Admiral ``Bull'' Halsey, during the Battle of Leyte Gulf in October 1944. Once the Japanese surrendered in 1945, the New Jersey settled into a peacetime routine, and was decommissioned in 1948. The ship was recommissioned in 1950 for the Korean war, in 1968 for Vietnam, and again in 1982 when former President Reagan ordered the re-activation of all four Iowa-class battleships as part of a massive naval buildup. In February 1991, because of end to the Cold War, another victory which she helped to secure, the New Jersey was decommissioned for a final time and is now in Bremerton, Washington. Following the removal of the U.S.S. New Jersey from the Naval Vessel Register, the New Jersey legislature created the Battleship New Jersey Commission, which applied for donation of the ship to the State of New Jersey. The Commission, and tens of thousands of volunteers, have undertaken a massive fundraising effort to pay for the costs of transporting the U.S.S. New Jersey home, and have already secured approximately $3 million for this effort. Together with the people of our state, the Commission has been actively preparing for the return of the U.S.S. New Jersey as the only Iowa-class battleship which may be berthed as an educational museum and memorial in her namesake state. None of this hard work and sacrifice will make a difference though, without the repeal of Section 1011 of the fiscal year 1996 Defense Authorization Act, which requires the Navy to maintain at least two of the Iowa-class battleships that have been stricken from the Naval Vessel Register. This provision was included to ensure that the Navy would have the necessary firepower to support Marine Corps' amphibious assaults and operations ashore. In accordance with this requirement, the Navy is currently maintaining the U.S.S. New Jersey and the U.S.S. Wisconsin and neither ship is available for distribution to the states. However, the Navy does not want nor do they need these ships. It is my understanding that the Navy can effectively support the Marines through the use of other platforms, and does not require the U.S.S. New Jersey for this important task. Secretary Dalton has said that the Navy has no plans to reactivate these proud ships, and is forced to spend $200,000 per ship, per year to mothball ships that will never again be reactivated for the purposes of national defense. Senator Lautenberg and I have also sent letters to Secretary Dalton and the Senate Armed Services Committee regarding this matter, but have decided that the most effective way to proceed is with a legislative remedy. Our bill would eliminate Section 1011, and remove one of the last obstacles preventing the U.S.S. New Jersey from making the long journey home to our state. During New Jersey's final decommissioning ceremony, her last commanding officer, Captain Robert C. Peniston remarked, ``Rest well, yet sleep lightly; and hear the call if again sounded, to provide firepower for freedom.'' It is only just that the U.S.S. New Jersey rest well in the welcome waters off the coast of her namesake state, and enjoy the company of the people that she fought so hard to protect throughout her time in the active duty fleet. America is profoundly thankful for the service of the U.S.S. New Jersey and the patriotism of the courageous men and women who served aboard her. For the reasons I stand today to recognize the Battleship New Jersey Commission, and the generations of Americans who went to war with the U.S.S. New Jersey. I am proud to offer this legislation with Senator Lautenberg.

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.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Lautenberg in introducing legislation that will make the dream of bringing the battleship U.S.S. New Jersey home to New Jersey a reality. I want to thank Senator Lautenberg for his hard work and commitment to this issue, and look forward to working with him to ensure that this symbol of freedom returns to her namesake-state in the near future. The U.S.S. New Jersey is one of the most notable battleships in the Navy's history. She has been protecting and defending democracy since World War II in almost every region of the world. Launched on December 7, 1942, one year after the infamous attack on Pearl Harbor, the ship proceeded to the Pacific where she was involved in many historic campaigns, including the battles for the Marshalls, Marianas, Philippines, Iwo Jimo and Okinawa. A particular highlight of the New Jersey's career was service as flagship for Commander Third Fleet, Admiral ``Bull'' Halsey, during the Battle of Leyte Gulf in October 1944. Once the Japanese surrendered in 1945, the New Jersey settled into a peacetime routine, and was decommissioned in 1948. The ship was recommissioned in 1950 for the Korean war, in 1968 for Vietnam, and again in 1982 when former President Reagan ordered the re-activation of all four Iowa-class battleships as part of a massive naval buildup. In February 1991, because of end to the Cold War, another victory which she helped to secure, the New Jersey was decommissioned for a final time and is now in Bremerton, Washington. Following the removal of the U.S.S. New Jersey from the Naval Vessel Register, the New Jersey legislature created the Battleship New Jersey Commission, which applied for donation of the ship to the State of New Jersey. The Commission, and tens of thousands of volunteers, have undertaken a massive fundraising effort to pay for the costs of transporting the U.S.S. New Jersey home, and have already secured approximately $3 million for this effort. Together with the people of our state, the Commission has been actively preparing for the return of the U.S.S. New Jersey as the only Iowa-class battleship which may be berthed as an educational museum and memorial in her namesake state. None of this hard work and sacrifice will make a difference though, without the repeal of Section 1011 of the fiscal year 1996 Defense Authorization Act, which requires the Navy to maintain at least two of the Iowa-class battleships that have been stricken from the Naval Vessel Register. This provision was included to ensure that the Navy would have the necessary firepower to support Marine Corps' amphibious assaults and operations ashore. In accordance with this requirement, the Navy is currently maintaining the U.S.S. New Jersey and the U.S.S. Wisconsin and neither ship is available for distribution to the states. However, the Navy does not want nor do they need these ships. It is my understanding that the Navy can effectively support the Marines through the use of other platforms, and does not require the U.S.S. New Jersey for this important task. Secretary Dalton has said that the Navy has no plans to reactivate these proud ships, and is forced to spend $200,000 per ship, per year to mothball ships that will never again be reactivated for the purposes of national defense. Senator Lautenberg and I have also sent letters to Secretary Dalton and the Senate Armed Services Committee regarding this matter, but have decided that the most effective way to proceed is with a legislative remedy. Our bill would eliminate Section 1011, and remove one of the last obstacles preventing the U.S.S. New Jersey from making the long journey home to our state. During New Jersey's final decommissioning ceremony, her last commanding officer, Captain Robert C. Peniston remarked, ``Rest well, yet sleep lightly; and hear the call if again sounded, to provide firepower for freedom.'' It is only just that the U.S.S. New Jersey rest well in the welcome waters off the coast of her namesake state, and enjoy the company of the people that she fought so hard to protect throughout her time in the active duty fleet. America is profoundly thankful for the service of the U.S.S. New Jersey and the patriotism of the courageous men and women who served aboard her. For the reasons I stand today to recognize the Battleship New Jersey Commission, and the generations of Americans who went to war with the U.S.S. New Jersey. I am proud to offer this legislation with Senator Lautenberg.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I want to make myself clear at the outset. I rise today with no portfolio for President Clinton. I do not pretend to know the details of either the Whitewater case or matters pertaining to Paula Jones, with a series of other legal issues now, involving the Office of Independent Counsel, the Justice Department and President Clinton's private attorneys. Those issues are not my purpose today. Like most Americans, I have watched events of recent weeks with some curiosity and with a deep sense of regret. I rise today for a different purpose. I want to talk about justice--not the justice of the individual in these cases but the administration of justice by the Government itself. I do so from the perspective of a member of the Judiciary Committee, recognizing that under the Ethics in Government Act it is the responsibility of the Attorney General to investigate alleged misconduct, conflicts of interest and other improprieties of the Office of Independent Counsel. This institution, through the Judiciary Committee, has a responsibility of oversight, both of the Office of Independent Counsel and the Attorney General herself as she implements the act. My purpose, then, in this capacity, is to review a series of legal and ethical issues that pose a challenge to the integrity of the Office of Independent Counsel and whether or not it is being administered and the responsibility of the Attorney General to oversee its activities. Within recent days, we have learned details of a series of deliberate leaks of grand jury material--not on a few occasions, not on one or two items, but virtually volumes of material impugning the character of individuals--that may undermine aspects of the investigation. Some of these leaks have been characterized as unfortunate. Some, perhaps, inevitable, as part of the process. They may be these things. But they are also something else. They represent a Federal felony. It is against the law. In this case, a potential violation of the law by members of the Justice Department or in their employment themselves. David Kendall, President Clinton's lawyer, has detailed some of these leaks in a 15-page correspondence, virtually identifying volumes of material where some of the most reputable publications in America-- including the New York Times, the Washington Post --indicate that this material comes from ``sources in Starr's office;'' ``Starr's investigators expect;'' ``sources familiar with the probe''--hardly masking the Government prosecutor's contravention of Federal statutes, punishable both by fines and jail terms, for leaking grand jury material. I believe that the standard for such abuse was set by former Attorney General Thornburgh who, in the matter of Congressman Gray and the leaking of grand jury material, required that his associates, those familiar with grand jury material, were not simply investigated but polygraphed, with a clear or implied threat that any failure to comply or to pass the polygraph would mean their immediate dismissal. Indeed, as much of America has heard about the grand jury leaks, it has tended to mask several other perhaps more serious ethical problems that must also be addressed by the Attorney General and are outlined in my correspondence being sent to the Attorney General on this date. Just prior to his appointment as independent counsel, Mr. Starr was retained by the Independent Women's Forum to write an amicus brief in the matter of the civil complaint being brought by Paula Jones. The Independent Women's Forum is funded by a Richard Scaife of Pennsylvania. In the furtherance of these responsibilities it is not clear how much or whether, indeed, Mr. Starr was compensated, but it is clear that his firm and he were engaged in this activity, including researching a brief, contacting those attorneys, then representing Paula Jones. They were actively engaged. Reports as recent as 3 months ago indicate that individuals at Mr. Starr's firm with whom Mr. Starr is still associated have continued to assist Paula Jones in her legal defense team. This morning in the Chicago Tribune it is further alleged by that publication that Mr. Starr's firm--where this financial relationship continues between Mr. Starr and his partners--has continued to provide assistance to Paula Jones' defense team, even while the investigation of President Clinton under the authority of the Attorney General was expanded to include matters relating to the civil complaint by Paula Jones. Mr. President, the Office of Professional Responsibility, under the direction of Attorney General Reno, needs to review these serious lapses of ethical conduct and these transparent conflicts of interest. It is left with little or no choice. If there is to be any confidence in the administration of the Office of Independent Counsel, and if the American people are to believe the result of this investigation and whatever recommendations result, the Office of Professional Responsibility will need to definitively establish whether, indeed, there are conflicts of interest, as are being alleged. Indeed, I know of no authority in the canons of ethics of the profession, the operating procedures and rules of ethics of the Justice Department, that would permit an attorney in any capacity, no less an Office of Independent Counsel, investigating any American, no less the President of the United States, to operate with ethical standards that allow he or his associates within a single case dealing with the same litigants to do work for such clearly conflicting interests. Third, while serving as independent counsel for the Government, Mr. Starr's law firm has received and continues to receive retainers and legal payments from corporations, including Philip Morris and Brown & Williamson, potentially of millions of dollars, that not only have an interest but an extraordinary financial interest in the defeat of President Clinton's initiatives and whose interests are directly impacted by his political viability. Mr. Starr's continuing to draw income, a year ago in excess of $1 million in personal compensation, while in the employment of the U.S. Government to investigate matters relating to President Clinton, is not only unsound judgment but as clear a conflict of interest between those of the private attorneys, the private parties that he has sworn to defend and the interests of the U.S. Government that he has similarly sworn to pursue. Both cannot be his master. Attorney General Reno is left with the question of what other interests have continued to pay compensation to Mr. Starr, what other clients and what kind of judgment has been exercised. Making this all the more urgent, indeed feeding suspicion, is a fourth point that in some ways may be the most troubling. Richard Scaife, who earlier in this affair was funding research into the Paula Jones case, appears again as a part of Mr. Starr's performance of his responsibilities. Mr. Scaife has provided $600,000 per year, approximately $2.5 million, to fund something that is known as the Arkansas project. The Arkansas project is a tax free 501(c)3 organization under the Tax Code of the United States. It indeed has funded this money through the American Spectator magazine. The purpose, apparently as outlined in an article in the New York Observer, written by Joe Conason last week, has resulted in the establishment of a relationship with David Hale, the principal witness used by Mr. Starr against President Clinton, in the Whitewater case and a State trooper, former State Arkansas Trooper L.D. Brown. It appears that the American Spectator established a relationship of unknown financial or other reward to secure the cooperation of each individual in the writing of the articles. The changing of the testimony of these witnesses, critical to Mr. Starr's work, and when those changes occurred and their relationship with the Arkansas project, becomes an important matter for the Justice Department. It would appear on its face that is at least reason to explore whether the improper use of tax-free foundation funding through this publication with the intention of influencing potential Federal witnesses did not constitute Federal witness tampering. It is, however, an issue that must immediately be established. As a part of this aspect of the case requiring investigation, as Mr. Hale's legal representation by one Theodore Olson, who seemed to have guided Mr. Hale in his testimony in the Whitewater affair, who is also the counsel to the American Spectator funded by Mr. Scaife, who was also a former law partner of Mr. Starr. Mr. President, sometimes facts that are coincidental can paint a picture of conspiracy where it does not exist. There are coincidences, sometimes, of extraordinary scale. But the Attorney General would need to admit that there are events in this case that are peculiar indeed-- Mr. Scaife's funding of the American Spectator and its impact on Federal witnesses; Mr. Scaife's potential funding of Mr. Starr as a private attorney in the Paula Jones case; Mr. Scaife's funding of employment for Mr. Starr at Pepperdine University, where he was offered and initially accepted a teaching position in the law department. Coincidence? Perhaps. But as our former colleague, Senator Cohen once observed on this floor, ``The appearance of justice is as important as justice itself.'' There are, in the coming weeks, important judgments to be made about the administration of justice with relation to the President of the United States. Those decisions will profoundly impact policy and the guidance of the U.S. Government. I have no knowledge and, therefore, no recommendation on the matters of how the case should be pursued. I am not here to distinguish falsehood from truth. I am here in the interest of justice. It would appear on the facts that there is something terribly troubling about the administration of the Office of the Independent Counsel. So in my correspondence of this day, I have asked Attorney General Reno to have the Office of Professional Responsibility inquire as to whether indeed there are conflicts of interest in the Paula Jones case and, indeed, whether it is factual that Mr. Starr was once engaged as a private litigant in that matter. If so, the result is clear--he must recuse himself and professional prosecutors must pursue the matter. Similarly, to establish whether funds, through the American Spectator, were improperly used with a result of tampering of witnesses. Finally, to conclude whether or not the operation of a private law practice, including the solicitation of clients and their funding, has compromised the operations of Mr. Starr in his pursuit of the various cases before his office. Mr. President, Members of this institution and of the respective parties have at various times praised or criticized the Attorney General in the performance of her responsibilities. Perhaps the fact that she has been criticized from all quarters for so many decisions is the best testament of her native integrity. Janet Reno is as capable an Attorney General as the United States has ever been fortunate enough to have in that office. I leave these judgments with her, knowing of her high integrity, her understanding of the importance of these cases, the profound impact on the administration of the U.S. Government and of justice itself, knowing that she will do with them what is right and proper. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter I have written on this day to Attorney General Janet Reno.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 1998. I am proud to be an original co- sponsor of this crucial piece of legislation. Once again, we begin our fight for the dignity and respect of working Americans. Our goal is simple; to ensure that individuals dedicated to hard work and committed to their families no longer live in poverty. The fact is that while our nation is experiencing a time of unprecedented prosperity, nearly 12 million Americans earning the minimum wage still face a daily struggle to maintain an acceptable quality of life. Sixty years ago, Labor Secretary Frances Perkins successfully convinced our predecessors of the need to pass legislation that would guarantee low wage workers a decent living. Today, the need to maintain a basic level of income for American workers is no less necessary. Indeed, that need has never been greater. The statistics showing the economic injustice faced by low-wage workers are staggering. Full-time minimum wage workers earn only $10,712 year, $2,600 below the poverty level for a family of three. Given that fact, it should come as no surprise that 38 percent of the people seeking emergency food aid in 1996 were employed. One reason behind these disturbing statistics is the diminishing purchasing value of the minimum wage. Between 1980 and 1995, inflation rose by 86 percent, but during the same time, the minimum wage was increased by a paltry 37 percent, greatly reducing the purchasing power of American workers. While the minimum wage legislation we passed in 1996 was a bold step towards closing that gap, our work is not complete. And with each passing day, as inflation marches on, workers' purchasing power once again is falling. The legislation drafted by Senator Kennedy will take the steps necessary to restore and maintain the purchasing power of the minimum wage into the next century. As modest as our proposal is, The Fair Minimum Wage Act of 1998 will help guarantee low income workers a degree of economic dignity. It will increase the earnings of over 12 million workers, 60 percent of whom are women, 46 percent of whom are full-time workers, and 40 percent of whom are the sole breadwinners in their families. An increase in the minimum wage is also closely linked to the success of the 1996 welfare reform. Individuals struggling to make the difficult transition from welfare to work deserve the opportunity to become truly self sufficient. We need to provide an incentive to exchange welfare checks for paychecks. The Economic Policies Institute has concluded that, not only did low income families reap the majority of the benefits from the last increase, but minimum wage recipients experienced no disemployment effects. Despite the predictions made by our opponents, vulnerable groups, including teenagers and young adults, were not negatively effected by the increase. In closing, I would like to thank Senator Kennedy for drafting this legislation and for his tireless efforts on behalf of working Americans throughout his long career in the Senate. As he has said, this is the right thing to do. Put in the words of President Abraham Lincoln, ``Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed.''

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I know to many Americans it may be strange or bewildering with so many issues before the Congress that we are debating naming, honoring, Americans by placing their names on different public facilities. But who we honor, and the names we attach to public buildings and locations, matters. By whom we choose to honor, we set standards about ourselves. We communicate with future generations the qualities of people that we admire and the things in American history that are important. The Senator from Georgia has rightly noted the considerable contributions of former President Ronald Reagan. The Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, has offered an amendment of importance for another reason. Standards change. Nations learn conduct and behavior. No sooner had the Soviet Union fallen than statues of Stalin and Lenin tumbled to the streets. Samoza, Marcos, Batista had probably not even left office when their names and statues were removed from public places. In America through the years we have had despots of a different order, people who lived in a free society but did not always respect the law. They were part of the U.S. Government but not always in its best traditions. The Senator from Nevada has raised an issue before the Senate that the name of J. Edgar Hoover remains on the FBI building in Washington, DC. Every year, thousands of American schoolchildren wander down Pennsylvania Avenue to visit the FBI headquarters. Because the FBI now is often a model of law enforcement in our country, because the country has been fortunate to have Louis Freeh as its director, who respects the law and is in the highest traditions of our country, neither those schoolchildren nor many of our citizens, probably, remember or understand that there was a time when the Federal Bureau of Investigation's leadership, under J. Edgar Hoover, neither lived within nor always respected the law.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Upon J. Edgar Hoover's death, perhaps his closest colleague in the Bureau, William Sullivan, described Mr. Hoover as a ``master blackmailer.'' We now know from historians Mr. Hoover had compiled files on Presidents of the United States and Members of Congress through illegal surveillance and wiretapping, holding dossiers on leaders of the U.S. Government. It was a practice of blackmail. It changed policies. It threatened America. And it was wrong. Probably no one of his time, through subterfuge, within the U.S. Government, had a more adverse impact on the civil rights movement. He vigorously dispatched agents of the U.S. Government to harass the leadership of the NAACP. He called leading civil rights organizations ``Communist fronts.'' Indeed, he instructed agents to stand by and watch as racist mobs would beat up voter registration workers and civil rights workers in organized and lawful marches. To the extent that he harassed Martin Luther King, former Vice President Walter Mondale called J. Edgar Hoover ``a disgrace to every American.'' I don't know how we explain to American schoolchildren who leave their schools to honor Martin Luther King, who learn in our classrooms about the American Constitution, our respect for laws, that when they visit this proud Capital of our country, the most prominent name on the most prominent street in America is J. Edgar Hoover. But I know this, the Senator from Nevada is right, that it is a contradiction that should be removed, an explanation that no longer need be made. It is time to remove the name of J. Edgar Hoover from the FBI building. And if it is not enough that we suspected all along his intimidation of Presidents and his violation of basic rights, his biographers now give us more than enough reason. If you don't respect the Constitution, or civil rights, or civil liberties, Mr. Hoover lived outside the laws that he pretended to uphold. It is now known that he had secret relationships with underworld boss Frank Costello, whose primary duties in organized crime including fixing games of chance and horse races. Gambling tips were given to Mr. Hoover, so he was able to support a lifestyle and live with income outside of the law. He had close contacts with members of New York's organized crime families as well, who he refused to investigate, or even acknowledge that they were a public policy problem for more than a decade. It is now claimed that outside of these illegal acts, within the bureau itself he used hundreds of thousands of dollars of public money for his own personal use. The Senator from Nevada has brought before the Senate a painful decision, because it requires an honest reflection on a period of history of our own country. Mr. Hoover was not in the best traditions of this country. And in a time when many fear that civil liberties in our country are sometime threatened, no longer from without but from within, it is a valuable message not only to our own people but, indeed, to law enforcement that we honor people not only who enforce the law but who live within it. As Richard Cohen of the Washington Post observed in 1990: You affect the future, by what you do with the past and how you interpret it. All over the world, when regimes change, so do names. Danzig becomes Gdansk. Images of Lenin come down all over Eastern Europe, and in the Soviet Union, Stalingrad becomes Volgograd. These are all political statements. They say, ``there's a new way of doing things.'' Mr. President, exactly, there is a new way of doing things. The Senator from Georgia offers the name of Ronald Reagan because Ronald Reagan makes us proud. He was the right way of doing things in our country, whether you agree with the naming of the airport or you do not. Mr. Hoover is an indication of the wrong way of doing things in America. I support the amendment offered by the Senator from Nevada. I am proud to offer it with him. I yield the floor. Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

Mr. TORRICELLI. I am happy to yield. Order for Recess

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to extend my best wishes to Stephen N. Adubato on his 65th birthday. Steve's belief in his community and dedication to improving the education standards in New Jersey are just two examples of his lifelong commitment to public service. On his birthday, I would like to convey my thoughts to a good friend and valued colleague. As the founder and Executive Director of the North Ward Center, Inc., he has created a central location for more than fifteen social service, community education and economic development programs for the Newark community. With the recent opening of the Newark Business Training Institute, Steve has continued his commitment to the community by assisting men and women in the transition from welfare to work. Steve has made innumerable contributions to the education of New Jersey students. As a teacher and counselor in Newark, his leadership in education reform and superior teaching skills insured that children received the kind of education they deserved. Steve's commitment to education is a true testament to his compassion and desire to help students in the State of New Jersey. As we search for ways to revitalize the once flourishing city of Newark, I have been impressed by Steve's ideas and goals for the area. The economic and social progress we have seen in Newark's North Ward is a direct result of Steve's efforts. He has single-handedly improved this area of the city so that it now serves as a model for urban development. This is a great deal to have accomplished in 65 short years, but Steve is clearly no stranger to hard work. Steve Adubato's dedication to the Newark community and the State of New Jersey make it an honor for me to be able to recognize him as he celebrates his birthday. I wish him the best on this special day, and I hope he will enjoy 65 more years of happiness.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank the Senator from Connecticut for the time.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, the State of the Union Address last evening reminds me of the words of President Kennedy who in 1962 came before the Nation and he said, ``It is my responsibility to report on the state of the Nation but it is all of our responsibility to improve it.'' Increasingly that is a responsibility that is being met. It is incredible now to remember that when President Clinton assumed office 5 years ago there was projected to be in 1998 a Federal budget deficit of $357 billion. Indeed, in the budget that the President is about to submit there is a $10 billion deficit. And the reality is within a year the U.S. Government for the first time in 30 years will be conducting its affairs in a fiscal surplus. For 3 decades, six Presidents of both political parties in their State of the Union Addresses have had it incumbent upon them to distribute pain--not to challenge the Nation to meet problems but to distribute sacrifice because of mounting deficits that left the U.S. Government with no choice. There have indeed been many victims of the deficit. It is common to talk about them in terms of taxpayers having to pay an ever larger share of their income in Federal tax with an ever-larger share of their taxes going to interest on the national deficit. The taxpayers were not the only victims. The Federal deficit made victims out of children who never got the education they required. Students were never able to continue with assistance into higher education because of programs we could not pass; young families that could not get day care, and people, mothers and fathers, who could not follow opportunities because of it. There were many victims of the Federal deficit, and we each now need to be reminded that the country's budget evolved into a surplus. Alan Greenspan may have said it best when he said we cannot just balance the Federal budget and think that our work is complete for if there is no investment in the Nation's future then we have still failed. That, Mr. President, is where we find ourselves tonight. Part of our national mission is accomplished. There will be a Federal budget surplus. Now the question is are we wise enough to recognize where the sacrifices have been? Are we smart enough to plan for the future to assure that the economic growth that we are now experiencing can continue? Last night in the State of the Union Address the President outlined several specific investments that go to the core of this question, each in a way addressing an aspect of the national infrastructure. The first was Social Security. There are in our Nation 80 million members of my generation born in the years after the last world war. They have worked hard. They are saving diligently. They have participated in building this high-growth economy. Soon they begin to face retirement. The Social Security trust fund through their savings and participation will continue to run a surplus through the year 2014. The current projections are that the same trust fund will expire by the year 2031. Last night the President left us with a simple challenge. In facing the Federal budget surplus let's deal with Social Security first. Let this generation of Americans now retire. My generation who will be facing it in all too few years know the trust funds will be secure, permanent. Let's begin that planning now. Second, the President recognized that in the 21st century the foundation of our Nation's economy and perhaps its principal national infrastructure will be our educational institutions. As certainly as in the 17th century it may have been the construction of canals, as certainly as in the 18th and 19th century it may have evolved into railroads to most certainly what now are institutions of higher learning in our schools. As part of the program to deal with this reality, the President challenged us to create a Federal program to hire 100,000 new teachers to enable the Nation to reduce the class size for first, second, and third graders to 18 students, an extraordinary challenge with everything that it could mean for expanding the quality of American schools. But it did more. Recognizing that smaller school classes is going to mean the need for more classrooms and facing the reality that fully two-thirds of all American schools are now substandard, two-thirds have at least one serious construction problem that must be addressed, potentially $100 billion worth of necessary construction to bring America's schools up to standards, the President recommended a program whereby the Federal Government would not build the schools; that responsibility would remain local. But we could reduce the cost of the construction by the Federal Government paying the interest on the loans of local governments and State governments to build those schools. Third, the President challenged this Congress to continue progress on access to quality health care in America. Two years ago, this Congress assured that Americans could change their jobs without losing their health care. This Congress assured that if a member of a family was taken ill, they would not lose their health care because they made use of it. Two years ago, we did right by the American people in expanding our health care opportunities. And a year ago we did so again, adding 5 million American children, previously uninsured, without access to the system. We brought them into health care insurance through the Government. Now the question is even larger. The President challenged us in the State of the Union Address to deal with the reality of 160 million Americans who now have their health care delivered through managed care systems. I know something of this issue because only a week ago in New Jersey, meeting with 100 individuals, many of whom had had difficulties with their managed care systems, I heard the stories that Americans are experiencing every day--members of managed care systems who could not get the truth of their own files, people who needed to see specialists but were denied, people whose privacy had been violated, people who traveled needing access to emergency rooms and could not get it because care would not be received through their managed care program. The President's challenge last evening was we can make managed care work, and, indeed, in reducing costs it has worked. We have gone from 12 and 13 and 14 percent annual increases in the cost of health care to 2.5 percent last year. But saving money is only half the equation. The remainder is assuring that what has been the finest quality care system in the world in the United States is maintained and that managed care complements that system and does not frustrate it. Fourth, the President recognized the reality that fully 60 percent of American women today with children, with homes to maintain, are also in the work force--not always by choice, certainly not usually by luxury. But with the cost of raising children and maintaining a home today, two family incomes are often a necessity, and yet in modern America the ambitions of these women, the needs of these families are frustrated because they cannot get affordable child care. It is hard to imagine any higher priority today for young working families in America than assuring quality, safe, affordable child care. Indeed, America remains almost alone in the world in not helping our families meet this urgent need and responsibility. Through tax credits for businesses, through a larger child care tax credit for working families, the challenge has been laid before the Congress. More directly, the President said, ``Not a single American family should ever have to choose between the job they need and the child they love.'' Exactly, Mr. President, and that is the challenge before this Congress. And yet, finally, I recognize that having fought all of these years to balance the Federal budget, to reach the point where an American President could honestly predict a surplus in our finances, we achieve nothing if we meet these responsibilities but require higher taxes on American families that cannot afford the increased burden. It is notable that this balanced budget has been achieved and some of these social objectives already met while the country has the lowest tax burden on middle-income families in 20 years. But it is important still to recognize that that burden can still be eased more through targeted, responsible tax cuts that do not add to the deficit but help meet some of these social objectives-- tax cuts to encourage and expand child care, targeted tax cuts to help with the cost of financing education, tax cuts that encourage savings and investment to maintain this rapid economic growth that is producing these extraordinary revenues. Mr. President, this is an extraordinary time in the life of our country. We can do good and great things but not by resting on what we have achieved. This economy has not grown, our people are not productive, our industries are not competitive, we are not leading the world in finance and industry, no less in diplomacy, statesmanship and military power because we have learned to rest but, rather, because we have learned to challenge --not because we live off the growth of previous years, the investments of other generations but because we invest and save ourselves. That challenge remains with us tonight, not to accept things as they are but to invest, to educate, to build, There is a quote that I have through the years always admired from an architect in Chicago, Daniel Burnham, who said in 1909 to his colleagues, ``Make no little plans, for they have no magic to stir men's blood and will probably never be realized. Make big plans.'' Last night, in his State of the Union Address, President Clinton made before the Nation an ambitious agenda. It is a big plan worthy of a big and a great nation. I hope and trust in this final year of the 105th Congress our vision will be as big, our action will be as bold as the State of the Union Address this Congress heard last night from President Clinton. Madam President, with that, if I could, I should like to yield to the Senator from Oregon.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, today, Senators, Akaka, Feinstein, Kerry, and I rise to introduce legislation to end the use of the steel jaw leghold trap. I rise to draw this country's attention to the many liabilities of this outdated device and ask for my colleagues support in ending its use. This important and timely issue now takes on added importance as the European Union proposes to ban the importation of U.S. fur caught with this class of trap. By ending the use of the leghold trap within our borders, we will effectively set a humane standard for trapping, as well as protect the U.S. fur industry by keeping Europe's doors open to U.S. fur. While this bill does not prohibit trapping, it does outlaw a particularly savage method of trapping by prohibiting the import or export of, and the interstate shipment of steel jaw leghold traps and articles of fur from animals caught in such traps. The steel jaw leghold trap is a cruel and antiquated device for which many alternatives exist. The American Veterinary Medical Association and the American Animal Hospital Association have condemned leghold traps as inhumane and the majority of Americans oppose the use of this class of trap. Currently, 89 nations have banned these cruel devices, and have done so with broad-based public support. In addition, Colorado and Massachusetts have joined Rhode Island, Florida and my home State of New Jersey in banning the trap. One quarter of all U.S. fur exports, $44 million, go to the European market. Of this $44 million, $21 million would be eliminated by the ban. This would clearly cause considerable economic damage to the U.S. fur industry, an important source of employment for many Americans. Since many Americans rely on trapping for their livelihood, it is imperative to find a solution which prevents the considerable damage that this ban would cause to our fur industry. It is important to note that since the steel-jaw leghold trap has been banned in Europe, alternatives have been provided to protect and maintain the European fur industry. Our Nation would be far better served by ending the use of the archaic and inhumane steel jaw leghold trap. By doing so, we are not only setting a long-overdue humane standard for trapping, we are ensuring that the European market remains open to all American fur exports. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, today, Senators, Akaka, Feinstein, Kerry, and I rise to introduce legislation to end the use of the steel jaw leghold trap. I rise to draw this country's attention to the many liabilities of this outdated device and ask for my colleagues support in ending its use. This important and timely issue now takes on added importance as the European Union proposes to ban the importation of U.S. fur caught with this class of trap. By ending the use of the leghold trap within our borders, we will effectively set a humane standard for trapping, as well as protect the U.S. fur industry by keeping Europe's doors open to U.S. fur. While this bill does not prohibit trapping, it does outlaw a particularly savage method of trapping by prohibiting the import or export of, and the interstate shipment of steel jaw leghold traps and articles of fur from animals caught in such traps. The steel jaw leghold trap is a cruel and antiquated device for which many alternatives exist. The American Veterinary Medical Association and the American Animal Hospital Association have condemned leghold traps as inhumane and the majority of Americans oppose the use of this class of trap. Currently, 89 nations have banned these cruel devices, and have done so with broad-based public support. In addition, Colorado and Massachusetts have joined Rhode Island, Florida and my home State of New Jersey in banning the trap. One quarter of all U.S. fur exports, $44 million, go to the European market. Of this $44 million, $21 million would be eliminated by the ban. This would clearly cause considerable economic damage to the U.S. fur industry, an important source of employment for many Americans. Since many Americans rely on trapping for their livelihood, it is imperative to find a solution which prevents the considerable damage that this ban would cause to our fur industry. It is important to note that since the steel-jaw leghold trap has been banned in Europe, alternatives have been provided to protect and maintain the European fur industry. Our Nation would be far better served by ending the use of the archaic and inhumane steel jaw leghold trap. By doing so, we are not only setting a long-overdue humane standard for trapping, we are ensuring that the European market remains open to all American fur exports. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Early Detection and Prevention of Osteoporosis and Related Bone Diseases Act of 1997 along with my colleague from Maine, Ms. Snowe. Osteoporosis and other related bone diseases pose a major public health threat. More than 28 million Americans, 80 percent of whom are women, suffer from, or are at risk for, osteoporosis. Between three and four million Americans suffer from related bone diseases like Paget's disease or osteogenesis imperfecta. Today, in the United States, 10 million individuals already have osteoporosis and 18 million more have low bone mass, placing them at increased risk. Osteoporosis is often called the ``silent disease'' because bone loss occurs without symptoms. People often do not know they have osteoporosis until their bones become so weak that a sudden bump or fall causes a fracture or a vertebra to collapse. Every year, there are 1.5 million bone fractures caused by osteoporosis. Half of all women, and one-eighth of all men, age 50 or older, will suffer a bone fracture due to osteoporosis. Osteoporosis is a progressive condition that has no known cure; thus, prevention and treatment are key. The Early Detection and Prevention of Osteoporosis and Related Bone Diseases Act of 1997 seeks to combat osteoporosis, and related bone diseases like Paget's disease and osteogenesis imperfecta, in two ways. First, the bill requires private health plans to cover bone mass measurement tests for qualified individuals who are at risk for developing osteoporosis. Bone mass measurement is the only reliable method of detecting osteoporosis in its early stages. The test is non- invasive and painless and is as predictive of future fractures as high cholesterol or high blood pressure is of heart disease or stroke. This provision is similar to a provision in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 that requires Medicare coverage of bone mass measurements. Second, the Early Detection and Prevention of Osteoporosis and Related Bone Diseases Act authorizes $1,000,000 to fund an information clearinghouse and $50,000,000 in each fiscal year 1999 through 2001 for the National Institutes of Health to expand and intensify its effort to combat osteoporosis and other bone-related diseases. Funding for research on osteoporosis and related bone diseases is severely constrained at key research institutes like the National Institute on Aging. Further research is needed to improve prevention and treatment of these devastating diseases. Money spent now on prevention and treatment will help defray the enormous costs of these diseases in the future. Currently, osteoporosis costs the United States $13,000,000,000 every year. The average cost of repairing a hip fracture, a common effect of osteoporosis, is $32,000. Because osteoporosis is a progressive condition and affects primarily aging individuals, reductions in the incidence or severity of osteoporosis will likely significantly reduce osteoporosis-related costs under the Medicare program. Medical experts agree that osteoporosis and related bone diseases are highly preventable. However, if the toll of these diseases is to be reduced, the commitment to prevention and treatment must be significantly increased. With increased research and access to preventive testing, the future for definitive treatment and prevention is bright. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, almost 10 years ago I had an opportunity in visiting Baghdad to meet with Saddam Hussein and members of his cabinet. I went to Iraq because of a brutal and seemingly endless conflict between the armies of Iran and Iraq that were consuming hundreds of thousands of lives. Like many people in our Government, I was concerned about how this would impact the region, and whether, indeed, it threatened world peace. I left Baghdad with unmistakable impressions of Saddam Hussein who continued to influence my own judgment, and which I revisit now--that we are on the verge of yet another conflict with the army of Iraq. President Hussein knew little of the Western World, and profoundly misunderstood the United States. Because we are a good and a decent people willing to engage in dialog, it was interpreted as a lack of resolve; a failure of will. It was for these reasons when President Bush sent American forces to the Persian Gulf that I was proud as a Member of the House of Representatives to be the Democratic sponsor of the war resolution. In the years since American men and women triumphed in the Persian Gulf war to uphold the will of the United Nations and serve the best traditions of our country, the Saddam Hussein that I met on that day has not only not changed; he remarkably seems to have learned very little. His rape and pillage of Kuwait is now known to have included not simply combatants but thousands of innocent Kuwaiti citizens. Six years after his retreat from Kuwait he continues to hold 620 unaccounted for Kuwaiti civilians. Upon his retreat he torched the land with oil fires and sullied the water, creating the largest oilspill and oil fires in history. In 1988, he employed mustard gas against his own people killing more than 5,000 Kurds. The Saddam Hussein that America met in the Persian Gulf war was not an isolated departure from good judgment. It was part of a long record of brutality against his own people and his neighbors. Today we are on the verge of yet another conflict with Saddam Hussein, because not only is there a long tradition of such irresponsible international behavior but because nothing seemingly has changed. In 1992, he violated the terms of the gulf war cease-fire by moving antiaircraft missiles into northern and southern Iraq. The world responded. The coalition held. And more than 100 United States, British, and French planes fired on missile stations. A year later--in 1993--still not having learned the price of his misjudgements, Saddam Hussein ordered an attempt on the life of former President George Bush. President Bush was visiting Kuwait. Not only was Saddam Hussein not humbled in the face of the victor; he planned an assassination leading to an American military response against his intelligence headquarters. In 1994, he sent battalions of Iraqis 20 miles north of the Kuwaiti border. Again, the United States needed to respond and 40,000 troops were again sent to the Persian Gulf. And, last year, despite a willingness by the United Nations to begin easing sanctions in order to ease the pain on the Iraqi people in a food for oil program that was instituted, Saddam Hussein responded by military attack against the Kurds in the town of Erbil needing a response with the oil for food program. There are few comparisons in contemporary history of any leader in any government that has so routinely miscalculated at the disadvantage of his government and himself. The Saddam Hussein that I met a decade ago may not have understood much about the world, or his place in it, the relative power of his country as opposed to potential adversaries, the use of technology, his measure of international will--his misunderstanding of the United States may have been legendary--but it is almost unbelievable that with these annual confrontations, this extraordinary record of miscalculations, that virtually nothing seems to have been learned. What more is necessary to be understood about the resolve of the United States? This Government is clearly prepared to pay the price to maintain the peace in the Middle East. This country has a deep determination to deny Saddam Hussein every and all classes of weapons of mass destruction. The United States will provide leadership for international response when necessary, but clearly is both capable and willing to act unilaterally if required. What is it, Saddam Hussein, that you do not understand about the world resolve? And what is it about us that could still be unclear? Last month, this long and extraordinary record of miscalculation added yet another chapter. Saddam Hussein barred access to U.N. weapons inspectors under the pretext that they included American citizens. He challenged the right of the United States to be a part of the inspection teams of the United Nations, and asked rhetorically by what right we would be present. Saddam Hussein, it comes to mind that the United States has about 500,000 reasons why we have a right to participate and will demand full compliance--a reason for every man and woman that left family, friends and home to put their lives on the line in the Persian Gulf war to end your occupation of Kuwait. And those 500,000 reasons have not yet run their course. They will stand for a long time. The record since the United Nations began the inspections to ensure compliance with its resolutions has not been without success. Since 1991, U.N. inspectors have found and destroyed more illegal weapons in Iraq than were destroyed during the entire Persian Gulf war. Surveillance cameras to monitor weapons activities were installed. This is a regime imposed by the United Nations of weapons inspection that has and can yield real results. But, as we now stand on the verge of yet another military confrontation, it is necessary to face the unmistakable and painful truth that there is no reason to believe that anything has changed in Baghdad. This week, the Washington Times revealed that Saddam Hussein has been intending to buy five electronic warfare systems that would allow him to detect and destroy radar-evading aircraft. The weapons markets of the world have routinely been contacted by Iraqi agents and representatives still seeking military technology. This is important lest we fail to understand that the strategy of frustrating U.N. inspectors and noncompliance is not happening in a vacuum. It is part of an ongoing strategy to restore military capability. The lessons of the Persian Gulf war and our experience through our sacrifices have yielded more than simply the destruction of these weapons. There is another great lesson that the Persian Gulf war has left the United States, the United Nations and the international community. It is, first, that the international community is capable of acting in concert for common purpose, but it is also that there is by definition a class of nations with leaders who are easily identifiable who are so irresponsible by their actions, who act in such contempt of international normal standards of conduct and international law that the international community will take it upon itself to deny them aspects of their own sovereignty. Of all the things that Saddam Hussein failed to learn about us and our resolve and our capability or the international community's ability to act in concert it is the single lesson that is the foundation of the current crisis. Saddam Hussein will not be allowed to have weapons of mass destruction or wage war on his own people or regain great military capability because as a consequence of the Persian Gulf war and the invasion of Kuwait, the international community has decided to deny him that sovereign right of other nations to possess certain weapons and conduct their own affairs today, tomorrow and potentially forever. It is not only a lesson of the Persian Gulf war; it is a gift of this generation to succeeding generations that something has been learned by the history of the 20th century. And the primary pupil of this lesson will be Saddam Hussein, in life or in death, today or tomorrow, one way or another. I know every Member of this Senate, indeed, the entire U.S. Government, is in prayerful hope that military confrontation is avoided. In an age when military weapons hold such power and the destructive capability is so great, conflict must always be avoided when possible. That is our nature. It speaks well of our people that this is our resolve. Saddam Hussein, with so many miscalculations, so many mistakes that caused so much harm for your people, do not miscalculate again. There is in this Senate, I know, nothing but affection for the people of Iraq, an abiding hope that there will be a day when not only we can meet them again in friendship but the Members of this Senate may vote to send an ambassador of good intention and good will to Baghdad to normalize relations. Between this day and that is either the learning of a fundamental lesson by Saddam Hussein against all odds and all experience or that the people of Iraq take their future in their hands against extraordinary odds and regain responsible leadership. I do not know, Mr. President, how this crisis will be resolved. Indeed, no one could predict. Only that somehow we be understood and that somehow the United Nations obtain the strength and resolve to see its judgments fulfilled. All the frustration of these years and all the sacrifice from the international community can still have real meaning if this lesson will be learned not simply by Saddam Hussein but by all the dictators, all the despots to come who would abuse their people and wage war. If we can stand together here, finally have the lesson learned, all this will have had real meaning. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, every year, over 14 million students and their parents agonize over where to attend college. They spend months researching schools and visiting campuses in an effort to find the perfect fit. At the top of the list of characteristics students and their parents look for in a school is a safe learning environment. Information is the key to choosing such an environment. Under current law, students and their parents do not have access to all the information necessary to make an informed choice. Current law requires colleges and universities to report statistics on crimes that occur on their campuses. However, colleges are only required to report those hate crimes that result in murder, rape, or aggravated assault. These three categories of crimes only represent 16 percent of the total number of hate crimes that occur on college campuses every year. Vandalism, harassment, and simple assault comprise the vast majority of hate crimes. Under current law, however, colleges are not required to report these crimes. Current law also does not require colleges and universities to report hate crimes against women and the disabled. Thus, parents of daughters or disabled students have no idea whether the college to which they will send their children is safe. Students and parents have the right to information about all hate crimes committed on their prospective college campuses. My bill, the Campus Hate Crimes Right to Know Act of 1997, will ensure that they have access to that information. The Campus Hate Crimes Right to Know Act does two very important things: it expands college reporting requirements to include all hate crimes, not just those that result in murder, rape and aggravated assault; and, it includes gender and disability in the class protected by the reporting requirement. Under current law, colleges need only report hate crimes motivated by race, religion, sexual orientation, and ethnicity. My bill will cover these four categories plus gender and disability. Our Nation's college campuses should be a refuge from crime, particularly heinous attacks motivated by hatred and bigotry. The disturbing truth, however, is that college campuses are often fertile ground for bigotry. A recent study done by the Maryland Prejudice Institute reported that 25 percent of minority college students attending predominantly white colleges have been victimized by hate. In 1996, 90 incidents of anti-Semitic activity on college campuses were reported to the Anti-Defamation League. In September 1996, 60 Asian-American college students at a California university received threats from another student via e-mail messages threatening that all Asian-Americans would be hunted and killed. Under current law, this offense would not appear on a campus crime report. The Campus Hate Crimes Right to Know Act will provide students and their parents with vital information so that they may better protect themselves against such crimes. It will also encourage college officials to raise awareness about these crimes and develop programs and strategies to combat them. The damage done by hate crimes goes beyond physical injury. Hate crimes, whether they take the form of painting a swastika on someone's dorm room door or gang beating a student believed to be gay, leave the victim feeling fearful, vulnerable, and isolated. Our children are our future. Their college years are among the most exciting and formative of their lives. By introducing the Campus Hate Crimes Right to Know Act of 1997, I hope to empower students and parents with all of the information necessary to ensure that those years are as safe as possible. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent at this time that the text of the Campus Hate Crimes Right to Know Act of 1997, in its entirety, be printed in the Record.

Mr. TORRICELLI

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

Mr. TORRICELLI. Then I will amend my unanimous-consent request that after those Senators are recognized under the unanimous-consent request that I be a able to address the Senate for 20 minutes.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous-consent that at the conclusion of the remarks of the Senator from Iowa, I be able to address the Senate for 20 minutes.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to return to morning business and address the Senate for 15 minutes.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, every year, over 14 million students and their parents agonize over where to attend college. They spend months researching schools and visiting campuses in an effort to find the perfect fit. At the top of the list of characteristics students and their parents look for in a school is a safe learning environment. Information is the key to choosing such an environment. Under current law, students and their parents do not have access to all the information necessary to make an informed choice. Current law requires colleges and universities to report statistics on crimes that occur on their campuses. However, colleges are only required to report those hate crimes that result in murder, rape, or aggravated assault. These three categories of crimes only represent 16 percent of the total number of hate crimes that occur on college campuses every year. Vandalism, harassment, and simple assault comprise the vast majority of hate crimes. Under current law, however, colleges are not required to report these crimes. Current law also does not require colleges and universities to report hate crimes against women and the disabled. Thus, parents of daughters or disabled students have no idea whether the college to which they will send their children is safe. Students and parents have the right to information about all hate crimes committed on their prospective college campuses. My bill, the Campus Hate Crimes Right to Know Act of 1997, will ensure that they have access to that information. The Campus Hate Crimes Right to Know Act does two very important things: it expands college reporting requirements to include all hate crimes, not just those that result in murder, rape and aggravated assault; and, it includes gender and disability in the class protected by the reporting requirement. Under current law, colleges need only report hate crimes motivated by race, religion, sexual orientation, and ethnicity. My bill will cover these four categories plus gender and disability. Our Nation's college campuses should be a refuge from crime, particularly heinous attacks motivated by hatred and bigotry. The disturbing truth, however, is that college campuses are often fertile ground for bigotry. A recent study done by the Maryland Prejudice Institute reported that 25 percent of minority college students attending predominantly white colleges have been victimized by hate. In 1996, 90 incidents of anti-Semitic activity on college campuses were reported to the Anti-Defamation League. In September 1996, 60 Asian-American college students at a California university received threats from another student via e-mail messages threatening that all Asian-Americans would be hunted and killed. Under current law, this offense would not appear on a campus crime report. The Campus Hate Crimes Right to Know Act will provide students and their parents with vital information so that they may better protect themselves against such crimes. It will also encourage college officials to raise awareness about these crimes and develop programs and strategies to combat them. The damage done by hate crimes goes beyond physical injury. Hate crimes, whether they take the form of painting a swastika on someone's dorm room door or gang beating a student believed to be gay, leave the victim feeling fearful, vulnerable, and isolated. Our children are our future. Their college years are among the most exciting and formative of their lives. By introducing the Campus Hate Crimes Right to Know Act of 1997, I hope to empower students and parents with all of the information necessary to ensure that those years are as safe as possible. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent at this time that the text of the Campus Hate Crimes Right to Know Act of 1997, in its entirety, be printed in the Record.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, this Congress is engaged in a great debate about giving the President of the United States virtually unrestricted authority to engage and negotiate with other nations in what has been termed fast-track authority. Capital markets and international political leaders are waiting to see whether or not this Congress will grant that authority to the President of the United States. To some, the debate has already been defined as either one of believing in free trade or returning to protectionism. I believe that that is a disservice to this Congress and indeed to the debate itself because the issue is extraordinarily more complex. The United States needs no lectures about the advantages or the pursuit of free trade nor, indeed, does this Congress. In Bretton Woods, the Kennedy Round, the Uruguay Round, the United States has both led and constructed the current system both in monetary and trade relations. This country understands that free, unfettered trade, the opening of international markets, is the very foundation of both our own and international prosperity. This generation's standard of living has been based on the lessons of each of these agreements. As a result, the United States has become the largest importing nation in the world. Indeed, although the United States has an economy that is smaller than the combined economies of the European community, we import more than twice the industrialized product from the developing world. This trade has been not without benefit to even those industries which seemingly have suffered the most. Although there have been serious dislocations in key industrial industries, like autos and steel and new products like semiconductors and computers, the current competitiveness and efficiency of even these industries have benefited by international trade and competition. Indeed, it is because of this enhanced efficiency in competition that I supported fast-track authority in 1988, supported the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and most recently the GATT agreement. I take the Senate floor today because I have reached my own conclusion that when asked to vote in this body, I will not support fast-track authority as currently requested by the President of the United States this year. I do so despite a long history of supporting similar authority and as one who believes strongly in free trade as enhancing American competitiveness and it being essential to America's quality of life, because I believe the United States has reached an important crossroads in our trade strategy. Like many Americans, I am simply not convinced that the U.S. Government has a strategy to maximize benefits in current trade agreements. I do not fear the competition of foreign trade. I simply fear that our negotiators are not prepared to protect and defend our national interests with a coherent strategy. I base my conclusion on four principal problems. First, over 4 decades, by necessity, through the cold war and in times of threats to our national security, it became necessary for the United States on occasion to compromise in our trade strategy in order to engage in the protection of other important national interests. By necessity, whether it was to secure Philippine military bases or the cooperation of Korean or Turkish or a host of other allies, the United States would set apart our trade objectives in order to secure national security concerns. Even now while American intellectual property rights are being compromised in China, we are being told that this is necessary for the political engagement of the People's Republic of China. Mr. President, my first objection to fast-track authority to the President is these agreements on trade must stand for economic purposes of their own weight. The American people and this Congress must be convinced the country is pursuing a coherent trade strategy without compromise for other purposes. Second, it is critical that this Congress be convinced that our trade negotiators are using the leverage of those seeking access to our market to its maximum advantage. In negotiating NAFTA, the United States afforded Mexico the most important advantage that any nation economically could ever seek. That is, to gain access to the American market for their products. But we did so without using all of the leverage available to the United States. So Mexico, a country that is a principal conduit for narcotics into the United States, a source of massive illegal immigration to the United States, a nation which does not allow access to American products or investment without reservation, was afforded the opportunities of NAFTA without, by necessity, conceding cooperation on all these fronts. So in my mind, Mr. President, the second reason for a reservation in proceeding with fast-track authority is that the United States is not using its principal leverage in negotiating with other nations. Third, Mr. President, in my mind, is the legitimate concern about the pace of international economic integration. Mr. President, during this debate, both in this body and in the other, no one will be quoted more often than Adam Smith. Indeed, to my mind, there is no man who has been read less and quoted more often than Adam Smith in his ``Wealth of Nations.'' For my third reason in objecting to fast-track authority, I return to his treatise of more than two centuries ago when he said, ``. . . freedom of trade should be restored only by slow gradations, and with a good deal of reserve and circumspection. Were those high duties and prohibitions taken away all at once . . . the disorder which this would occasion might no doubt be very considerable.'' Mr. President, free trade is a national objective, but like other human virtues, it may never be fully realized. It is forever pursued, but it requires so many changes in culture and values and so many complications that it must remain a goal, understanding it may never be realized. Every Member of this institution recognizes that fast-track authority and opening the American market involves a host, indeed hundreds, of different industries that compromise many communities and their economic strength. It is understood and recognized that, like manufacturing, certain high-labor-intensive industries have no long- term future in the American economy. As Adam Smith warned two centuries ago, that does not mean that with haste or even immediacy they must be subjected to their demise. There are industries in this country that employ thousands, if not millions, of people who live on the economic margins of our society who have no other economic choice. The 50- or 60-year-old textile worker who may have lived in this country for generations, or be new to our land, who may speak English or may not, who may be educated or may have the bare minimum of education, will not in a single generation or with the stroke of a pen be transformed from a textile worker to a computer technician. American trade policy with a goal of free trade must be realistic and fair to all elements of this society and must take into account the very disorder of which Adam Smith warned only that we be accommodating. Mr. President, finally, a fourth and final reason that I believe this Senate should withhold fast-track authority on this occasion. It is based on a series of judgments that this Congress reached a long time ago. It has become, I believe, standard in this country, almost without reservation, to believe that it is appropriate, from bans on child labor to a reasonable minimum wage, to the human rights organized labor unions, to just and fair environmental standards. But our country now, in the decision to engage itself in free and open global trade, needs to reach a judgment. How is it we keep these basic commitments without engaging in an extraordinary and even hypocritical contradiction? At this moment in time, the Nation wants both to maintain these high moral standards, some of which have transcended generations, but at the same time to take advantage of the inexpensive products, the economic opportunities of importations where workers have no right to organize, nonexistent or unenforced minimum wage and, in many cases, almost no protections against child labor, and a minimum of environmental standards. The difference, Mr. President, is whether or not the United States will, in some cases, engage in exploitation, not whether or not the United States will engage in free trade. I believe, therefore, Mr. President, that on this occasion, with a commitment to free trade and an understanding of the need and necessity for the United States to engage in free, fair, and open competition, this Congress should not grant unrestricted authority to the President of the United States to engage in trade negotiations, without reserving for ourselves the right to ensure that there is a trade strategy that encompasses the goal of reaching trade balance, dealing with structural imbalances that, by necessity, are arising from countries that continue to protect their own markets. And we deal with these inherent contradictions of how we maintain both a standard of living for those in our country who cannot quickly adjust to the competition, the contradictions of maintaining environmental labor standards, while allowing access to our market to those who do not. This will require a trade strategy by the Executive that, to my judgment, has not yet been defined and may not yet exist. I do hope, however, Mr. President, that this is understood for what it is--not a retreat, not protectionism, just forcing this country, at long last, to begin to define a real and lasting trade strategy. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, under the original provisions of the Senate authorization bill for intelligence, Senator Shelby and Senator Kerrey contained in the authorization a provision reasserting the right of the Congress to know the truth about activities of the intelligence agencies. The provision directed the President to tell all Federal employees that they can inform the Congress without fear of reprisal and prosecution of activities in which the intelligence agencies were involved. It was put into a provision. Indeed, the purpose of the provision was whether or not intelligence agencies were involved in improper or illegal activities. The provision pointed out that Members of Congress have a clear right to know such information, and, indeed, constitutionally, since they are charged with oversight responsibility, cannot meet their constitutional duties without Federal employees knowing that they not only have the right and the responsibility but, indeed, are free to provide this information without retribution. Tragically, under the direction of some of the President's senior advisers, it was suggested that the President might veto the entire bill unless this provision were removed. I rise today to compliment Senator Shelby, Senator Kerrey, and the Intelligence Committee, and, indeed, this entire Senate for insisting upon this provision; and, at the same time to say with regret that it has been removed from the legislation. It is hard to exaggerate the potential impact of the removal of this provision. The secret agency of the Government is overseen by only two congressional committees--both select committees, which meet understandably in secrecy. Those committees are charged with overseeing all of the intelligence agencies of this Government. But they rely upon the fact that the leadership of the intelligence community will come to the committee with truthful testimony and report on its activities. There is no one to rely upon but the leadership of the intelligence community itself. All other committees of the Congress know about the whistle-blower statutes. Federal employees will come forward if there are illegal activities in this Government, or improper activities. The intelligence committee has no such assurance with regard to intelligence agencies of this Government. The Congress recognized this fact. Senator Shelby and Senator Kerrey recognized this fact. They acted appropriately. It is with great regret that in voting for this conference report today I must report and note that the provision--that simple protection to allow this Congress to meet its responsibility--is no longer contained in the bill. I do, however, note and compliment the Intelligence Committee for they have rejected unanimously the executive branch position as unconstitutional and have inserted language in the conference report making clear that the executive branch cannot unilaterally withdraw congressional prerogatives. So, while the original language is no longer contained in the bill, it is also made clear that the Congress is insisting upon its prerogatives. I hope, Mr. President, that President Clinton will rethink his position, and next year and in future years will return to the question of authorization of the intelligence community. We once again will be in a position to place into legislation clear and effective protections that this Congress will be assured that every employee of the Federal Government will know that they have a right and a responsibility to come to this Congress whenever they believe improper or illegal activities are taking place and that they can do so without fear of retribution. Mr. President, I support the conference report. But I do regret that the administration has insisted upon the removal of this very worthwhile provision. Mr. President, I yield the floor.