Robert Torricelli

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I thank Senator Breaux and Senator McCain for working together on the principal issue we brought to the floor today. I believe we can find real resolution. Senator Cantwell, Senator Corzine, Senator Murray, and I have raised a question about the frequency of inspection of these pipelines for safety. We have raised the issue of the community's right to know. We have raised the issue of liability and the certification of workers. It was our hope to make progress today on the principal of these, which would be the inspection of the pipelines themselves, believing and taking great faith in the conference following the passage of this legislation that Senator McCain would represent our bipartisan interests. We know of his own commitment to safety on the issue of the qualification of the workers and the community's right to know and are leaving those for another day. We believe we can find common language on the issue of the inspections of the pipelines themselves. Senators Cantwell, Murray, and I join Senator Corzine who is prepared to offer an amendment. I yield to Senator Corzine at this time. Amendment No. 10

Mr. TORRICELLI. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. TORRICELLI. First, I again thank Senator Breaux for his leadership in helping to fashion this amendment, but since this was not drafted in committee and was literally written on the floor, I want to ensure the Record properly reflects our mutual intent. There is a 5-year requirement for inspection basically with three escape clauses that I think should be properly understood and defined. First, ``there is not sufficient capability'' means strictly there is not the equipment available; there is not the personnel available. The Secretary will be certifying this was just not possible to get done simply because of a shortage.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Second, we discussed at some length ``deemed unnecessary because of more technologically appropriate monitoring.'' This escape was created because the Senator from Louisiana noted some lines have constant monitoring. They do not need to be inspected every 5 years because they are inspected every minute. That was our intent here, not that someone comes forward and says: We think that is a well- designed pipeline and well done, so leave that one for 20 years. This was, as the Senator noted, because of constant monitoring. Is that the understanding of the Senator from Louisiana?

Mr. TORRICELLI. In any case, this is not some general escape where people, in the future, who live in New Jersey will say: We think that is a good pipeline under the technology that was built so we are never going to inspect it. The Senator was very specific about the kind of technology involved; that it offered a superior guarantee.

Mr. TORRICELLI. The last element on this was ``created an interruption of supply,'' which I take it means simply shutting down the pipeline for inspection without an alternative means of delivering the liquid or the natural gas and people would be without the product; that there was no way to do the inspection without shutting this off and creating an economic or other kind of hardship.

Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank the Senator from Louisiana. For my purposes-- and I think Senator Corzine is concerned about these large pipelines delivering liquid and natural gas through the Northeast through densely populated suburban communities in New Jersey--we have met our objective; that is, the level of technology for inspection must be extraordinarily high or there will be regular inspections, so people living in proximity to these pipelines know they can be assured of its safety. The Record should also reflect that we actually discussed having some other exemption for places that are sparsely populated. It was noted that under no instances, given the density of the population in the Northeast or I assume in California or in Illinois, would that be appropriate. This affords us the protection we need, and for that I am very grateful. Again, my thanks to Senator McCain.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, on behalf of myself and my distinguished colleague, Senator Corzine, a bill that will help bring more criminals to justice and create a better federal judicial system in New Jersey. This legislation will divide the federal District of New Jersey into the Southern and Northern Districts of New Jersey thus enabling federal courts and federal law enforcement to better serve the State's approximately eight million residents. Currently, the District of New Jersey has 17 judges. This bill does not increase the number of judges, but divides them between the Southern and Northern Districts giving the South 7 judges and the North 10. The bill will also result in the creation of several new federal positions for the Southern District including a Clerk of the Court, U.S. Attorney, U.S. Marshal, and a Federal Public Defender. The creation of two districts in New Jersey is called for by the additional crime-fighting resources a split will bring to the State and by the sheer size of the State. The current District of New Jersey is the third most populous federal judicial district in the nation. Of the 25 states that have a single federal judicial district, New Jersey has the largest population. More than a dozen states with smaller populations have multiple judicial districts. In fact, with more than 2 million residents in the southern counties, the population of the proposed Southern District of New Jersey would exceed that of almost half of the current judicial districts. The proposed Northern District would rank even higher. And while the bill would not create any new judgeships, it would mean that, for the first time, the judges of the Southern District would necessarily come from and be part of the unique community they serve. This can only lead to enhanced sensitivity to the community's needs. The bill will also take a significant step towards addressing the disparity in crime-fighting resources allocated to northern and southern New Jersey. In 1998, southern New Jersey accounted for 25 percent of the state's urban murders, 32 percent of the state's murder arrests and 33 percent of the state's arrests for violent crimes. Despite these statistics, only 10 percent of the FBI agents, 15 percent of U.S. Marshals and 18 percent of DEA agents in New Jersey are assigned to the southern counties. The bill will also ensure that crime-fighting decisions are made locally instead of by officials who are based elsewhere in the state. This too would result in a government more sensitive and responsive to the people it serves. Given these facts, it is not surprising that the bill has received a ringing endorsement from many in New Jersey's legal and law enforcement community. In the last Congress, the House version of this bill was cosponsored by the entire southern New Jersey Congressional delegation. I hope to have their support again. It is also supported by the New Jersey State Bar Association, all of the southern county bar associations, the South Jersey Police Chief's Association, the Chamber of Commerce of Southern New Jersey, and various former county prosecutors and former federal law enforcement officials. While the process of reviewing and deliberating the merits of this legislation will be lengthy and time consuming, this is a change that is long overdue. The citizens of New Jersey deserve a better federal judicial system and their fair share of federal crime-fighting resources. I look forward to working with my colleagues to secure passage of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, on behalf of myself and my distinguished colleague, Senator Corzine, a bill that will help bring more criminals to justice and create a better federal judicial system in New Jersey. This legislation will divide the federal District of New Jersey into the Southern and Northern Districts of New Jersey thus enabling federal courts and federal law enforcement to better serve the State's approximately eight million residents. Currently, the District of New Jersey has 17 judges. This bill does not increase the number of judges, but divides them between the Southern and Northern Districts giving the South 7 judges and the North 10. The bill will also result in the creation of several new federal positions for the Southern District including a Clerk of the Court, U.S. Attorney, U.S. Marshal, and a Federal Public Defender. The creation of two districts in New Jersey is called for by the additional crime-fighting resources a split will bring to the State and by the sheer size of the State. The current District of New Jersey is the third most populous federal judicial district in the nation. Of the 25 states that have a single federal judicial district, New Jersey has the largest population. More than a dozen states with smaller populations have multiple judicial districts. In fact, with more than 2 million residents in the southern counties, the population of the proposed Southern District of New Jersey would exceed that of almost half of the current judicial districts. The proposed Northern District would rank even higher. And while the bill would not create any new judgeships, it would mean that, for the first time, the judges of the Southern District would necessarily come from and be part of the unique community they serve. This can only lead to enhanced sensitivity to the community's needs. The bill will also take a significant step towards addressing the disparity in crime-fighting resources allocated to northern and southern New Jersey. In 1998, southern New Jersey accounted for 25 percent of the state's urban murders, 32 percent of the state's murder arrests and 33 percent of the state's arrests for violent crimes. Despite these statistics, only 10 percent of the FBI agents, 15 percent of U.S. Marshals and 18 percent of DEA agents in New Jersey are assigned to the southern counties. The bill will also ensure that crime-fighting decisions are made locally instead of by officials who are based elsewhere in the state. This too would result in a government more sensitive and responsive to the people it serves. Given these facts, it is not surprising that the bill has received a ringing endorsement from many in New Jersey's legal and law enforcement community. In the last Congress, the House version of this bill was cosponsored by the entire southern New Jersey Congressional delegation. I hope to have their support again. It is also supported by the New Jersey State Bar Association, all of the southern county bar associations, the South Jersey Police Chief's Association, the Chamber of Commerce of Southern New Jersey, and various former county prosecutors and former federal law enforcement officials. While the process of reviewing and deliberating the merits of this legislation will be lengthy and time consuming, this is a change that is long overdue. The citizens of New Jersey deserve a better federal judicial system and their fair share of federal crime-fighting resources. I look forward to working with my colleagues to secure passage of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I have always believed that Presidents are entitled to a degree of deference in their cabinet nominees. And so, while this made it difficult I have nonetheless informed the administration that I cannot support Senator John Ashcroft's nomination to be attorney general. Senator Ashcroft has been a dedicated public servant and I say that even though we have not found common ground on the issues. The range of issues we have disagreed on has been broad and they have centered on some of the most important laws of our land. No person should be forced to choose between their fundamental beliefs and values and enforcing our Nation's laws. For those who cherish civil rights laws, the freedom of choice and handgun control the stakes are simply too high to expect a cabinet secretary to choose between passionately held beliefs and enforcing not only the letter but the spirit of the law. I also have specific concerns about New Jersey. It is not enough just to be opposed to racial profiling. The scars this issue has left on my state are too deep and require the strongest possible commitment if we are ever to heal. Further, it will take a concerted effort to enforce a range of civil rights laws from hate crimes to tolerance. It requires the will of the Attorney General, the full force of that office. I said some very positive things about John Ashcroft at the time he was nominated. I continue to hope that it is possible to disagree and to disagree strongly without demonizing. I also hope he will always reflect on the concerns raised during the confirmation process.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise to support Christine Todd Whitman as President Bush's nominee for Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. During her years as Governor we have waged many fights together from open space preservation to ending ocean dumping. President Bush has made a wise selection. The EPA and the country will be getting an Administrator who is qualified, battle-tested and ready to tackle the challenges that lie ahead for this Agency. With this nominee, there will be no learning curve. There are few training grounds that could better prepare someone for this position than the Governor of New Jersey. As Chief Executive of the State, Governor Whitman has the managerial and administrative experience of running an agency as large as the EPA. But more importantly, no state has a better sampling of the issues facing the incoming Administrator of the EPA than New Jersey. With 127 miles of shoreline, Governor Whitman has dealt extensively with issues of clean water and non-point source pollution. She knows first-hand the threats to the economy and the environment from ocean dumping. Governor Whitman has increased funding for beach cleanups, and under her watch, beach closings have dropped from 800 in 1989 to just 11 in 1999. With more Superfund sites than any other state in the Union (111), she knows what works and what doesn't in the Superfund program. She has seen the value of a concerted effort to turn urban brownfields into productive industrial and commercial sites. With the many dense urban centers in New Jersey, she has dealt with the complex funding and regulatory issues of upgrading dilapidated sewer systems and controlling combined sewer overflow. As Governor of our Nation's most developed State, she initiated and passed a landmark $1 billion bond measure to preserve one million acres of farmland, forest, watersheds, and urban parkland. Few elected officials in this Nation, yet alone, this Cabinet, have a better understanding of what is needed to curb sprawl and protect our open spaces, than Christie Whitman. But more than her record of environmental progress, what makes Governor Whitman uniquely qualified for this position is her understanding that economic and environmental progress are not mutually exclusive goals. For example, travel and tourism generates $28 billion in revenue and employs nearly 800,000 people in Central and Southern New Jersey. No issue is more important to those jobs than ocean quality. Yet the Port of NY/NJ is a vital component of economic growth and employment in the northern part of NJ contributing $20 billion annually to the economy and supporting nearly 200,000 jobs. I have worked with Governor Whitman to balance these constituencies and develop a policy that ended ocean dumping while still allowing for the continuation of the dredging necessary for the Port's continued growth. The job for which Governor Whitman seeks confirmation is by no means an easy one. The challenges faced by the next Administrator are both numerous and difficult. The Superfund and Clean Water and Clean Air Acts have not been re-authorized in a decade and there are new challenges on the horizon, especially in our urban areas. Our urban centers have sewer systems that were built at the turn of the 19th Century. They frequently back-up and endanger public health and water quality because they are incapable of handling overflow. Too often industries unwanted anywhere else find homes on city blocks because of the jobs they offer and the taxes they pay. The next Administrator must make a priority of closing the gap between available funds and infrastructure needs and ensuring that environmental justice is more than a think tank slogan. I am confident that Governor Whitman will do this and more. The challenges ahead are many--protecting our drinking water and purifying our air, preserving open space and reforming Superfund. But President Bush could not have selected a nominee with more experience and commitment than Governor Whitman. I have the utmost confidence that she will do the Senate and her home State very proud, and I urge her confirmation.

Mr. TORRICELLI

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

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, 3 years ago, during a visit by a constituent, I met a young man from southern New Jersey named Kevin O'Donnell. I have shared his story with the Senate before. But on this day, having met with some success, I share it with you again. Five years ago, Kevin was 31 years old. He was a young father, a husband of a lovely woman, and in perfect health. He took his daughter skiing one day and upon returning home felt a pain in his leg. It continued over a period of time, bothering him, so he went to visit the doctor. You can only imagine the shock when this perfectly healthy young man--father of this little girl--discovered he had been stricken with ALS, known to most of us as Lou Gehrig's disease. Since that day, Kevin O'Donnell's wife and daughter have watched the life flow out of his body. Going from a healthy young man, they watched him lose control of his legs and arms, the ability to speak, and even the ability to breathe. Life simply evaporated from Kevin O'Donnell's body. When he came in to see me those years ago, he had a very simple request--so logical I could not conceive of an argument against it. While he was waiting to die, not only was his life leaving him but the financial security of his family. Nursing care, medical assistance, things to ease the pain, to maintain some dignity in life, to provide relief for his wife and his family, were costing thousands of dollars. But under the rules of Medicare, he could not begin to receive any assistance for 2 years. The life expectancy for 90 percent of ALS sufferers is only 3 years, 4 years. Most of the people who have ALS do not live beyond the waiting period in Medicare to get help. This never could have been anticipated. It never could have been even imagined by people in Medicare when these regulations were written. And because there is no other disease quite like it, the regulations have never been changed. A person can have heart disease or cancer, and they may be at great risk, but they can live 2 years. With the right treatment, they can live 5, 10, 20 years; at least the chances are always good. With ALS, the outcome of the disease is nearly certain that the life expectancy is not long and most will not live to ever see their first dollar of Government help. I brought this cause to many of my colleagues in the Congress. There are 28 Members in the Senate--16 Democrats and 12 Republicans--and over 280 Democrats and Republicans in the House of Representatives who have joined in this effort to help those people around the country who are stricken with Lou Gehrig's disease. Today, I rise to thank Senator Lott and Speaker Hastert for their generous help, and Congressman Gephardt, Senator Daschle, Senator Byrd, Senator Reid--the bipartisan leadership--for offering some help to those who suffer from this disease in this country. But most importantly, I am also very indebted to President Clinton, who made this a critical priority in budget negotiations. Specifically, I thank members of the White House staff, Chris Jennings and Rich Tarplin, who, under the President's direction, fought to give some help to these Lou Gehrig's disease patients. I have spoken on this floor many times about this cause. For me, this was a victory that was going to be won before this session of Congress ended--no matter what. When I began this effort some years ago, I stood outside the Senate Chamber with people in wheelchairs, stricken with ALS, in a variety of conditions. As I stand here today to declare victory, I am mindful of the fact that most of those who stood with me when this effort began are now deceased. With their own lives, they proved the importance of the legislation. They said they could not live the 2 years to ever receive the Medicare assistance to help ease the financial burden on their families. Most of them proved it with their lives. Today, the CBO estimates that there are 17,000 ALS patients waiting to become eligible for Medicare. With the passage of this bill, their wait will end, and with it the anguish of calculating how to afford the $250,000 in annual medical bills while they are also dealing with the anguish of their disease. For me, it is the end of a long fight, where I can tell Kevin O'Donnell: You began it, you fought it, and we won. And in your victory comes relief for 17,000 people just like you. To all my colleagues who have helped, I give you my most sincere thanks and leave you with the words of former President Thomas Jefferson, in 1809, who said about service in Government: The care of human life and happiness . . . is the first and only legitimate object of good government. Mr. President, there is relief for ALS patients in this bill. That is good government. I yield the floor.

Mr TORRICELLI

Mr TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators McConnell, Feinstein, Allard, Landrieu, Smith and Bennett to introduce the Election Reform Act of 2000, bipartisan legislation that seeks to modernize and improve the nation's election procedures. Although there is much about the aftermath of the November 7th elections upon which Americans can disagree, this much should be clear: the United States is a 21st century democracy with a 19th century election system. In order to maintain the legitimacy of our country's democratic institutions, we must have an election system that is fair and accurate. The antiquated voting equipment used in most counties around the country is perhaps the most startling revelation from this year's election. Election Data Services reports that eighteen percent of Americans vote using technology that prevailed around the time Thomas Edison invented the lightbulb and nearly thirty-three percent of Americans vote by punching out unpredictable little chads, a system implemented during the Johnson administration. In a nation where people can confidently access the balance in their checking account on any street corner, it is unacceptable to have any less confidence in the exercise of the most fundamental of rights. Many states and localities continue to use outdated systems because of the cost of replacing them. Electronic voting machines with touch screens similar to bank ATMs, which are the most modern and accurate systems, cost about $5,000 each while replacing a punch-card system costs only about $225. The inequity in quality of voting machines across the country raises fundamental questions of fairness and equal protection. Statistics from Florida demonstrate that those individuals who voted in areas with punch cards had a much higher chance that their vote would not register than those who voted with more modern equipment. For example, in Florida predominantly African-American neighborhoods lost many more presidential votes than other areas largely because of the inferiority of their voting machines. Thus, thousands of legally qualified voters were disenfranchised as a direct result of the financial resources of their community. Therefore, in order to help improve and modernize the nation's election procedures, the Election Reform Act establishes a permanent, federal commission charged solely with the improvement of election administration. By combining the Federal Election Commission's Office of Election Administration (OEC) and the Department of Defenses' Office of Voting Assistance which facilitates voting by American civilians and servicemen overseas, into the Election Administration Commission, the bill will create one agency that can bring focused expertise to bear on the administration of elections. This Commission will engage in ongoing study and make periodic, recommendations on the best practices relating to voting technology and ballot design as well as polling place accessibility. The Commission will also study and recommend ways to improve voter registration, verification of registration, and the maintenance and accuracy of voter rolls. Finally, to help diminish the cost to states and localities of updating their election procedures, the Commission will provide at least $100 million a year in matching grants to states working to improve election administration. There can never be a sense again that an election in the United States is settled on an arbitrary basis or that elections are an approximation. Constitutional guarantees of one person, one vote mean nothing in theory if they do not have any meaning in practice. So long as one voter, whether it be a senior citizen, an African-American, or one in service to their country has doubt about whether their vote was counted, our democracy suffers. That is an American, not a partisan problem. The challenge before Congress is to make sure that the legacy of this election is not the confusion that has reigned for the past five weeks but an enhancement of the legitimacy and credibility of our democratic processes. Therefore, I look forward to working with the chairman of the Rules Committee as well as my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to see that this bipartisan legislation is the first priority of the 107th Congress. I am encouraged that both Vice-President Elect Cheney and Senator Joseph Lieberman have expressed their strong desire to make election reform legislation their immediate priority in the next administration and Congress. I am also pleased that Representatives Rothman, Davis, Kennedy, and Alcee Hastings are introducing the House companion of this legislation today. Their support along with the endorsements of the Voting Integrity Project, Paralyzed Veterans of America, the National Organization on Disability, and the National Foundation for the Blind gives me great confidence that this legislation will gather strong support progress quickly.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Carole Anderson Graves, as she is honored by the Beta Alpha Omega Chapter of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority in cooperation with the New Jersey Performing Arts Center during the 3rd Annual Kwanza Festival honoring the community elders of Newark, New Jersey. Our cities and towns are constantly in need of individuals willing to give of themselves for the benefit of the community at-large. The individuals who fulfill this need are the volunteers and the public servants who improve the world around us in ways that often go unseen. It therefore fitting that from time to time we take a moment to recognize their efforts. Carole Anderson Graves has an extensive record of service to the Newark community. Since 1995, she has served as the Essex County Register of Deeds and Mortgages. In that capacity, Mrs. Graves has overseen the recording, filing and preserving of all property transactions within the 22 municipalities of Essex County. Mrs. Graves also has given great deal to the furtherance of education in the Newark area. For nine years, Mrs. Graves was employed as a Special Education teacher at the Dayton Street School and spent twenty- seven years as the full-time President of the Newark Teachers Union. She is also an adjunct professor/lecturer of Labor Relations at Essex County Community College and Rutgers Institute of Labor and Management Relations. The city of Newark has been truly fortunate to have someone of the talents and dedication of Mrs. Graves within the community. It is an honor to be able to recognize her on this special occasion.

Mr. TORRICELLI

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

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, in the days and hours that remain in this session, many of us on each side of our respective aisles will say a great deal about the colleagues we have worked with and admire from our own political parties. Indeed, I am no exception. For years, the contributions of the Moynihans, or the Bob Kerreys, or the Dick Bryans, or the Frank Lautenbergs have been extraordinary in the life of our country and in the workings of this Senate. I will join those voices in praising each of them. But at this moment I wish to say a word as well about our colleagues from the Republican Party who are leaving this institution. Having chaired the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee for these years, I have known some of these Senators as friends and colleagues but also as adversaries. It is a peculiar and even awkward thing in the American political process that with people you like and admire, you can nevertheless have philosophical differences; you can have a political contest but nevertheless deal with them civilly. I admire many of these men and rise today to praise their contributions to the Senate and the country; and, as many other Americans, to thank them for their service even though it was my responsibility to help wage campaigns against them. That is our system. It is not personal. It is borne only in the struggle of ideas, the competition of proposals, and the free market of American politics that have served our country so well. I would like to say a word about several Members of the Senate who are not of the Democratic Party. Senator Abraham of Michigan, with whom I worked on the Judiciary Committee, is a respected Member of the institution, a very fine Senator who has left his mark on the great issues of law enforcement, who I have come to know and admire. Senator Roth of Delaware, who I did not know well personally but who cleverly served this institution with distinction for a long time, changed many of our laws and much for the better. Senator Ashcroft, who as well served with me on the Judiciary Committee, is a gentleman, is a fierce advocate for his point of view, and is a skilled man who dealt in a campaign in extraordinary circumstances, I believe with considerable distinction. Senator Grams of Minnesota, I believe, too, worked hard gaining the respect of his colleagues. Senator Gorton of Washington State, who served his State for so very long and so ably, I believe, was a tremendous Member of this institution. Although he did lose an election and is also leaving this institution, he is one of my favorite members of the other party. Connie Mack, who I served with in the House of Representatives, is an extraordinary Senator and a great gentleman who has made enormous contributions to the Congress and to the United States. People who I have also come to meet as adversaries through the electorate process I want to join in welcoming to the Senate. They are both fierce advocates and great campaigners, who defeated my party in the fields of political contest. Former Congressman Ensign, who joins us as a Senator from Nevada, will be a fine Senator. He is a great advocate for his State, and is an impressive individual who I believe will serve with distinction in the Senate. Governor Allen, who was engaged in one of the most competitive Senate contests in the country, has served with distinction as a Governor, and I believe he will be an extraordinary Senator. I welcome them to the institution. Despite an evenly divided Senate, there are real differences on fundamental issues as to how the Nation should approach education and health care, gun safety, and the use of the budget surplus. These issues are real. Our differences have meaning. Sometimes differences are deep. But our objectives are common; that is, to serve the country, to have the Senate act with distinction, and ultimately--simply the most obvious goal of all--to help ordinary people in our country who live sometimes quiet lives, usually content to have the Government not be a part of all that they do but every so often look for help, guidance, or certainly the simple need to be able to look upon their Government with pride. I welcome these individuals to the Senate, and I say farewell for the moment to those who are leaving. I congratulate those who won and those who lost on having done what our Nation is dependent upon; that is, people of good meaning and integrity going out every day saying the things they believe in, fighting for the causes they hold dear, and asking the public to render judgment. Senators Abraham, Roth, Ashcroft, Grams, and Gorton did just that. Senator Mack did for a long time. Now Senators Ensign and Allen have joined them. We will have a chance in the coming days to welcome each of our Democratic colleagues, as well as thank those who are leaving. There are few who are finer or served with more distinction than Senator Bob Kerrey. Indeed, in so many avenues of American life, he has served our country with distinction. There are probably few who have served here for which it can genuinely be said this is a better Senate. We are all the better having been in the Senate in his presence. That is certainly true with Senator Kerrey. Senator Moynihan as well contributed to our country in so many different endeavors--a giant of the institution, who in his wake clearly made it a better place. There is not a finer or more revered Senator. But equal in their contributions in their own way are Senator Bryan, Senator Lautenberg, and Senator Robb--all of whom tirelessly worked for our country and devoted themselves to the Senate. We can all feel the better because they were here. Thank you for allowing me to share these words. I hope when the years pass we can all remember the distinction with which they served, but also the grace with which some of our colleagues accepted the voters' judgment and their defeat. They did so humbly, and they did so civilly; and, how some of the victors have also come here humbly as well understanding they have a lot to contribute and a great deal to learn with the grace of the public having given them the opportunity. I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Dr. Dwight Crist Northington on the occasion of his 9th Pastoral Anniversary at Calvary Baptist Church in Red Bank, New Jersey. Dr. Northington is an extremely gifted individual, and it is an honor to recognize this special moment in his life. Dr. Northington has served the citizens of New Jersey since 1986, when he was named Pastor of First Baptist Church of South Orange. Since that time, he has also served as president of Westside Ministerial Alliance and currently serves as the Moderator of the Seacoast Missionary Baptist Association. While having done a great deal for the community of Red Bank, Dr. Northington has also served as an instructor at Brookdale Community College and as a member of the Borough of Red Bank Board of Education. The needs of our Nation can only be met through the industrious efforts of each individual. The work of Dr. Northington and others like him is vital to the continued prosperity of our communities and meeting the needs of people who live within them. The citizens of Red Bank are fortunate to have a talented and dedicated individual such as Dr. Northington in their community.

Mr. TORRICELLI

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

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, for 4 years, my colleague, Senator Grassley, has shown extraordinary leadership in addressing the failings of the current bankruptcy system. He has enormous patience and has exhibited extraordinary leadership. I have been very proud to be his partner in this effort which now comes to a critical phase. This has not always been a popular fight. But it is certain to be a very important one. I think everyone agrees that our bankruptcy system is in need of repair. It is only over the question of how to fix the bankruptcy system that there is any issue at all. In the last Congress, efforts to pass bankruptcy reform legislation came extremely close. It failed simply in the waning days of the session. Having come so close in the 105th Congress, I inherited the role of the ranking member on the subcommittee with jurisdiction over the legislation. I felt some considerable optimism that this time we would be successful. The bill passed the floor by very wide margins. The issues had narrowed. There was an overwhelming sense that there was a need to reform bankruptcy. I think that my optimism was well placed. Since that time, I have spent countless hours working with Senator Grassley and many other Members of the Senate on both sides of the aisle dealing with very difficult issues in crafting this bill. I am very grateful to Senator Grassley. I am very grateful to the Members on both sides of the aisle for having brought us to this point with this bipartisan bill that commands the support of over two-thirds of the Members of the Senate on both sides of the aisle. I do not contend that it is a perfect bill. No bill that commands such broad support and that is this controversial could be perfect. Indeed, if I were drafting the bill on my own, or if any Member of the Senate were drafting this bill on their own, it would be different in some ways and in some fundamental respects. But is it a fair and balanced bill? Yes. Does it deserve the support of the Senate? Absolutely. Will it improve the functioning of the bankruptcy system without injuring vulnerable Americans who need bankruptcy protection? Yes, it will. If it didn't, it wouldn't have my name on it. For these reasons, I believe the bill deserves--as indeed clearly it will have--broad bipartisan support. There is obviously speculation that although the bill will pass the Senate by a wide margin--it passed the House of Representatives by very wide margins--it might be vetoed when it reaches the White House. I want to take a moment to outline for you, Mr. President, the reasons I believe a veto on this legislation would be a very serious mistake. First, as I mentioned before, the bill is a product of extensive bipartisan negotiations--negotiations in which the White House has been a vocal and integral part. Many of the improvements that we have seen in the bill have been concessions to the White House demand that it be more consumer friendly. The President appropriately asked that consumer protection from credit card abuse--particularly for the young, the uninformed, and for the elderly--be in this bill. It is in this bill, and the President can take great pride in it. We should not forget that there is also a very real possibility that the next administration may not have as strong a commitment to consumer issues as this administration, thus rendering the bankruptcy bill to emerge in the next Congress potentially significantly worse. This is critical for the Clinton administration to understand. No one knows how this Presidential election is going to be resolved, and we may not know before this Congress leaves. There is a real chance that the next President of the United States is not going to share Bill Clinton's commitment to consumer protection or other objectives in the bill, meaning that from the administration's perspective this bill may be the best that we can get. And to veto it is to lose a real chance for meaningful consumer protection in bankruptcy law. On substance, this bill provides a very important fix in our flawed bankruptcy system. Indeed, it may be tougher than current law. As I think the administration will concede, it also includes fair changes. At a time when people in the United States are enjoying the most prosperous economic period in our history, there has been a rapid rise in consumer bankruptcy. In 1998 alone, 1.4 million Americans sought bankruptcy protection. That is a 20-percent increase from 1996 and a staggering 350 percent increase since 1980. While filings dipped by 100,000 in 1999 to just 1.3 million, they are still far too high. It is estimated that 70 percent of those filings were done under chapter 7, which provides relief from most unsecured debt. Conversely, just 30 percent of petitions filed under chapter 13 require a repayment plan. A study released last year by the Department of Justice indicated as many as 13 percent of debtor filings under chapter 7. A staggering 182,000 people each year could afford to repay a significant amount of their debts. They could, but they won't because they are indeed using those chapters of the bankruptcy code to allow them to escape debt that they are capable of paying. If, indeed, this were not the case, and if the bankruptcy reform that we are offering the Senate were in place, an extraordinary $44 billion would be returned to creditors--banks, to be sure; credit card companies, obviously; but also small businesses, small contractors, family companies, mom-and-pop stores, companies that cannot afford to have the bankruptcy system of our country misused. The larger banks and the credit card companies will always cover this abuse. They have the financial resources. They can absorb the loss. It is not for them that I stand here today supporting this bill. It is for the thousands of small businesses that cannot afford to absorb $4 billion of inappropriate bankruptcy. This bill before the Senate ensures that those debtors with the ability to repay these debts will do exactly that. Despite what we hear from opponents of the bill, the core of the bill now before the Senate is a bipartisan agreement reached in May after months of informal negotiations. It is very similar to a bill that passed this body by a vote of 83-14, but in my judgment is a better bill than that legislation that commanded 83 votes in this Senate. Critics of bankruptcy reform have charged that the bill denies poor people the protection of the bankruptcy system. This is simply untrue. No American is denied access to bankruptcy under this bill--nobody. What this legislation does is assure that those with the ability to repay a portion of their debts do so by establishing clear and reasonable criteria to determine repayment obligations. But it also provides judicial discretion to ensure that no one genuinely in need of debt cancellation will be prevented from receiving a fresh start. Bankruptcy protection allowing all Americans a clean slate, a second chance at their economic lives, should not lose that chance and, under this bill, will not lose that chance. Judicial discretion remains where a good case can be made. To ensure that this will remain the case, the bill before the Senate contains a means test virtually identical to that passed in the Senate bill. Under current law, virtually anyone who files for complete debt relief under chapter 7 receives it. This bill simply changes that criterion to a needs-based system which establishes a presumption that chapter 7 filings should be either dismissed or converted to chapter 13 when the debtor has sufficient income to repay at least $10,000 or 25 percent of their outstanding debt. Isn't that fair? If some small business has provided a product or a service, you are the recipient of it, and you have demonstrated ability to pay $10,000 of your obligation or demonstrated the ability to pay that percentage of your obligation, shouldn't you have to pay it? That is the test that is being applied. I think it is fair. Even so, the presumption may be rebutted if the debtor demonstrates special circumstances requiring expenses above and beyond those the court has considered in applying the means test. We give an escape clause: Yes, you have the ability to pay this, but you have special circumstances. We will still exempt you. This is a flexible, yet efficient screen to move debtors with the ability to repay a portion of their debt into a repayment plan, while at the same time ensuring judicial discretion for a review of the debtor's circumstances. In addition to this flexible means test, the bill before the Senate also includes two key protections for low-income debtors that were part of the Senate-passed bill. The first is an amendment offered by Senator Schumer to protect low-income debtors from coercive motions. This will ensure that creditors cannot strong-arm debtors into promising to make payments they simply cannot afford to make. Poor debtors will not be forced to reaffirm these debts if they cannot afford to make them. That was asked to be put in the bill to protect low-income people, and it is in the bill. The second is an amendment offered by Senator Durbin, a mini screen, to reduce the burden of the means test on debtors between 100 and 150 percent of the median income. This is a preliminary, less intrusive look at the debts and expenses of the middle-income debtors, to weed out those with no ability to repay those debts and move them more quickly to a fresh start. So it is a special category and a mini screen, if you are in that 100 to 150 percent of the poverty level, to ensure that you are given this extra degree of protection. In addition to a flexible means test, in addition to the Schumer safe harbor and the Durbin mini screen, the bill contains other provisions not a part of the original Senate bill to protect low-income debtors: One, a safe harbor to ensure that all debtors earning less than the State median income will have access to chapter 7 without qualification. Less than median income, no question, no qualifications, you are in chapter 7. We are not interested in denying protections to particularly low-income people. Two, a floor to the means test to guarantee the debtors unable to repay less than $6,000 of their outstanding debt will not be moved into chapter 13. If that is the limit of your resources, that is all you can pay back, we are not interested in you; you get full protection. Three, additional flexibility in the means test to take into account a debtor's administration expenses and allow additional moneys for food and clothing expenses. So even if you have the money, even if on the bill's face you can pay back that portion of your debt, if indeed that money is needed for basic human items--food, clothing--we are removing you from provisions of the bill. You will not be paying back those bills. You will be subject to full, complete protection. This should convince my colleagues that it will not make it more difficult for those in dire need to sweep away their debts and obtain a fresh start. It will not be more difficult; it will be easier. The bill has been drafted very carefully to protect people in exactly these circumstances. Absolutely no one--no one--will be denied, therefore, access to bankruptcy and the discharge of their obligations. But every one of these additional five provisions makes that even less likely for people with low income. All the bill does, therefore, is establish a process to move debtors who can afford to repay a substantial portion of their debt from chapter 7, where they can now sweep away all those debts, into chapter 13, where they have a repayment plan. That is the bill. Demonstrated ability to pay; a repayment plan for your debts. Critics, however, have also argued that the bill places an unfair burden on women and single-parent families. This is the most important emphasis that must be made about this bill. That is not true. I wouldn't vote for this bill, I wouldn't cosponsor this bill, I wouldn't have worked for this bill for 2 years, I wouldn't stand here today if there was anything to the argument that women, single-parent families, children, have any vulnerability because of this legislation. Nothing would be more important to me than protecting these vulnerable citizens. Indeed, the bill contains the following: An amendment that I offered with Senator Hatch to facilitate the collection of child support by requiring the bankruptcy trustee to give the person to whom support is owed information on the debtor's whereabouts. Fine for bankruptcy; there is a chance this can impact, obviously, a single mother or a child. We are now affording the ability to locate the person who has the obligation in order to help the single mother or the child. Most important, the bill protects single-parent families by elevating child support from its current seventh position in line seeking the resources of the person in bankruptcy to first. The single mother, the child, who right now is behind financial institutions, behind the Government, will now be behind no one; they are the first claim on assets. Finally, the bill requires that a chapter 13 plan provide for full payment of all child support payments that became due after the petition was filed. Meeting family obligations must be in the repayment plan, which is not required under current law. These provisions put both families and the States in a better position than under current law. But it doesn't stop there. The bill also includes a number of other provisions designed to ensure protections for other vulnerable people in American society. It protects the rights of nursing home patients when a nursing home goes bankrupt. The bill requires that an omsbudsman be appointed to act as an advocate for the patient and provide clear and specific rules for disposing of patient records, a protection not now available for people in nursing homes. The bill includes a permanent extension of chapter 12 programs to provide expedited bankruptcy relief for farmers, a provision not now in the bankruptcy law. Finally, and most importantly, I have always said it is critical the bill not only address debtor abuse of the bankruptcy system, but also overreaching by the credit card industry. From the beginning, we insisted that consumer protection from abuse in credit card solicitation and sales must be in any balanced bill. The credit card industry now has more than 3.5 billion solicitations a year. That is more than 41 mailings for every American household, 14 for every man, woman, and child in the Nation. We recognize it is out of control and in some cases irresponsible. The bill addresses the problem. Vetoing the bill accomplishes nothing. Voting against the bill means voting against consumer protections that otherwise will never be in the law. This is the chance to do something about credit card abuse. Opposing the bill and vetoing the bill means we do nothing about credit card abuse. The problem is substantial because it is not the sheer volume of solicitations, it is also who is targeted. High school and college student solicitations are at record levels. Since the decade began, Americans with incomes below the poverty line have doubled their uses of credit. The result is not surprising. Mr. President, 27 percent of families earning less than $10,000 a year have consumer debt that is more than 40 percent of their income. I in no way advocate that less credit should be made available to low-income and moderate-income consumers, but rather that consumers be given more complete information so they can better understand and manage their debts. That is what this bill does. The bill contains provisions, which I authored with the help of Senators Schumer, Reed, and Durbin, to ensure consumers have the information necessary to help them better understand and manage their debts. The bill now requires lenders to prominently disclose: First, the effects of making only the minimum payment on your account each month. That is not in the current law. It will be in the law if this bill becomes law. Next, that interest on loans secured by dwellings is tax deductible only to the value of the property. That is not in current law. It will be if this bill is signed. Also, when late fees will be imposed, and the date on which introductory or teaser rates will expire and what the permanent rate will be after that time. In addition, the bill prohibits the cancelling of an account because the consumer pays the balance in full each month and thus avoids incurring a finance charge. Indeed, there is one other issue we will also hear discussed on the floor--the question of debtors who seek to discharge the judgments they owe because of their violence against abortion clinics. This is the final issue. And for many Members of the Senate it may be the central issue in deciding whether or not to vote for this bill. It may be determinative of whether or not the President signs this bill. Let me personally, therefore, begin a discussion of it by making clear that I support Senator Schumer in his efforts to have his amendment included in the bill. I voted for it. Given the opportunity, I will vote for it again. I believe it is a provision that is both necessary and appropriate. But I also recognize the reality of the situation. The Republican leadership is not going to include Senator Schumer's amendment in this bill. It is not going to happen. That leaves the Senate with a very real choice. The family businesses, the financial institutions, the family contracting companies that face bankruptcy every day because they cannot collect debts owed to them will be jeopardized. The consumer protection that was put in this bill for people who have problems with the credit card industry, who cannot manage their debts, who need more information, will be lost without this bill. Bankruptcy reform will simply not occur for yet another Congress. Indeed, if George W. Bush becomes President of the United States, our best chance at balanced, bipartisan bankruptcy legislation will be lost for 4 years. That is a high price to pay for Mr. Schumer's amendment on abortion clinics. Since the bill only maintains the status quo, it may not improve the situation on abortion clinics but it does not worsen it either. We live to fight another day on that narrow issue, but we make all this progress on so many other issues. Enactment of this legislation will impact many people involved in so many parts of our economy. I urge my colleagues to think carefully about this bill. Overwhelmingly, you have voted for it before. It is now better than it was when you voted for it previously, and 84 Senators voted for it previously. I urge the President to think very carefully about vetoing this legislation for the most narrow of provisions. The FACE legislation that was offered and adopted previously by this Congress did much to protect abortion rights. If it needs to be strengthened again, we can do so again. But to lose bankruptcy reform protections that I believe are contained in this bill for women and children, for small businesses, to lose the restraints on the credit industry and credit card solicitations--that is a high price to pay; to lose 4 years of work for this balanced bipartisan approach. I urge adoption of the bill. I am proud to be its coauthor with Senator Grassley, proud of the work we have done together. I urge its adoption and I urge its signature. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to offer the ``Greening the Government Act of 2000.'' This bill would allow the Federal Government to use its purchasing power to conserve natural resources, create markets for the materials that the American people recycle in their home and office recycling programs, and reduce the toxicity of products commonly used by establishing an infrastructure for coordinating and expanding Federal recycling and ``green'' purchasing activities. The Federal Government spends $275 billion each year buying goods and services. With this immense purchasing power, and through its research, development and assistance programs, it can influence markets to create more environmentally friendly products. Indeed, I believe that the Federal Government should be a leader in demonstrating how organizations can meet their mission in a cost-effective and environmentally protective way. Tomorrow, we will celebrate America Recycles Day. Millions of Americans will re-dedicate themselves to recycling and, more importantly, closing the recycling loop by buying recycled content products. Hundreds of American companies are also recognizing the importance and cost-effectiveness of ``greening'' their operations. For instance, in my State of New Jersey, Telecordia Technologies has saved more than $3 million by recycling 72 percent of its waste. Telecordia saves $4,000 per week by simply replacing disposable cafeteria trays with recycled content plastic trays. I believe that the Federal Government can also achieve similar savings by ``greening'' its operations and encouraging environmental innovation. Indeed, the Federal Government's purchasing decisions can tremendously affect the environment we leave to future generations. Building on the progress made during the past seven years under President Clinton's Executive Order 13101, ``Greening the Government through Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Federal Acquisition,'' the Greening the Government Act of 2000 will establish a permanent infrastructure for coordinating, promoting, and expanding Federal recycling and ``green'' procurement activities. Under this legislation, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will designate both recycled content products and environmentally preferable products and services for Federal agencies to purchase. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) will also create a list of biobased products for agencies to consider purchasing. Federal agencies will then incorporate procurement of these USDA and EPA-designated products and services into their acquisition processes. Finally, Federal research and development monies, technology transfer programs, and assistance programs will be expanded to facilitate the development of greener technologies. In 1994, approximately 12 percent of the copier paper purchased by the Federal Government was recycled content paper, and that contained only ten percent postconsumer (recycled content) fiber. President Clinton increased the Federal postconsumer content standard to 30 percent. Today, 98 percent of the copier paper purchased from the Government Printing Office and General Services Administration contains 30 percent postconsumer fiber. The Greening the Government Act of 2000 raises the Federal content standard to 40 percent postconsumer fiber and, for the first time, requires agencies both to consider purchasing office papers bleached without chlorine and to purchase wood products made with sustainably grown wood. We all know that it is not easy to buy ``green'' products. It is my intention that the ``Greening of the Government Act'' will encourage manufacturers to identify their products as ``green,'' making it easier for all Americans to buy these products. It is time that the Federal Government truly live up to the resource conservation goals first established by Congress in 1976 within the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and become a true role model in our nation's conservation efforts.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I applaud the Senate's passage of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000, WRDA, S. 2796. This legislation is critical to my State of New Jersey, which is so dependent upon its rivers, estuaries, and coasts for its livelihood. New Jersey relies on these unique resources as avenues for freight and business, recreational and harvest fishing, and a vibrant tourism industry. Indeed, it is imperative that these resources be kept environmentally and economically viable. Along these lines, I am pleased that the Senate has agreed to pursue environmentally responsible alternatives for addressing flooding along the Passaic River. I originally introduced language to address this issue, which represents a new era in flood control, in 1998. S. 2796 authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to use up-to-date criteria in developing a new environmentally and economically responsible alternative. Such an alternative will take into account non-structural options, such as land buyouts and wetlands preservation. The bill also directs the Corps to study the possible acquisition of open space in the Highlands region of New Jersey as a way of reducing low-land flooding. I also applaud the Senate's authorization of more than $1.7 billion to bring the channels of the New York and New Jersey Harbor to a depth of 50 feet. This authorization is based on the findings of the New York-New Jersey Harbor Navigation Study which was designed to evaluate the navigational needs of the Port of New York and New Jersey over the next 50 years. The results of the study have made clear the need for deepening the channels of Port Jersey, Kill Van Kull, Newark Bay, Arthur Kill, and Bay Ridge Channels to a depth of 50 feet. While the region has relied on the maritime industry for over two hundred years, the port lacks the capacity to accommodate new deep draft shipping vessels. More than a decade ago, Congress authorized the deepening of these channels to 45 feet which has begun and is on track to be completed in the next few years. But this is only the beginning. In order to maintain the 165,000 jobs and $22 billion in annual economic activity port commerce generates, these channels must go to 50 feet. Once clean materials from these deepening projects, and other projects from around the nation, have been dredged we should not neglect possible beneficial uses. Within WRDA, there is a $2 million annual authorization for the Corps to develop a program that will allow all eight of its regional offices to market eligible dredged material to public agencies and private entities for beneficial reuse. I want to thank my colleagues, particularly Senators Smith, Baucus, and Voinovich for their assistance and cooperation in developing this legislation. My colleagues have been remarkably helpful in this matter, having worked closely with me to ensure that the final bill incorporated language based on my legislation S. 2385, the Dredged Material Reuse Act, which I introduced earlier this year. They have understood the need, and I am grateful that they have agreed to include it in this legislation. Beneficial reuse is a largely underutilized concept. As a result, unwanted dredged material is often dumped on the shorelines of local communities. Through a program of beneficial reuse the dredged material would be sold to construction companies and other developers who would be eager to have this material available. Mr. President, the people of Southern New Jersey are all too familiar with this situation. Current plans by the Corps calls for more than 20 million cubic yards of unwanted material dredged from the Delaware River to be placed on prime waterfront property along the Southern New Jersey shoreline. However, with some effort and encouragement, the Corps has recently identified nearly 13 million cubic yards of that material for beneficial reuse in transportation and construction projects. We should learn from beneficial reuse that contracting companies, land development companies, and major corporations want this material. This means we need to encourage the Corps to market dredged material for beneficial reuse up-front so that communities will not be confronted with the same problems faced by the citizens of Southern New Jersey. The program created by this legislation will give the Army Corps the authority and the funding they require to begin actively marketing dredged material from projects all across the United States. It recognizes the need to keep our nation's rivers and channels efficient and available to maritime traffic while ensuring that communities are treated fairly. Of equal, if not greater importance, to the small businesses and shore communities of New Jersey is the protection of our beaches. Recreational activity at our beaches is extremely important to NJ, supporting an annual tourist economy of $17 billion. However, due to beach erosion, many of our shore communities have lost revenue on which they depend. This lost revenue affects the local tax base, property values, results in lost jobs and diminished quality of life in coastal regions. Rebuilding and protecting our beaches is vital to the health of our economy. With 127 miles of shoreline and a booming tourist industry, simply watching the beaches erode is not an alternative. From commercial and recreational fishermen, to bait and tackle shops and restaurants, our shore communities depend on healthy coastlines. With this in mind, I applaud the Senate for authorizing in WRDA several Corps projects to protect and re-nourish New Jersey beaches. One project authorizes the Corps to re-nourish beaches along the entire stretch of Long Beach Island, from Barnegat Inlet to Little Egg Inlet, in Ocean County, New Jersey. This $51.2 million project authorizes the Corps to create dunes and beaches along the coastline municipalities of Long Beach Island, including: Harvey Cedars, Surf City, Ship Bottom, Beach Haven and Long Beach Township. Another project for shore protection authorizes the Corps, at a total cost of $30 million, to re-nourish beaches on the 1.8 mile stretch in Port Monmouth along the Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay Shoreline, by constructing floodwalls, levees, dunes, dune grass, dune fencing, dune walk-overs, and suitable beachfill. Finally, I commend the Senate for including language I supported that would direct the Secretary of the Army to develop and implement procedures to give recreational benefits the same budgetary priority as storm damage reduction and environmental protection in cost-benefit analysis for Corps beach replenishment projects. Currently, the Corps is not required to list recreation benefits in its cost-benefit analysis of beach projects. This language is similar to legislation I introduced earlier this year, and I am pleased that this initiative has been passed in the Senate's WRDA Conference Report. Prior to the 1986 Water Resources Development Act, the Corps viewed recreation as an equally important component of its cost-benefit analysis. However, the 1986 bill omitted recreation as a benefit to be considered, and New Jersey coastal communities have suffered. It is imperative that federal policy base beach nourishment assistance on the entirety of the economic benefits it provides. Beach replenishment efforts ensure that our beaches are protected, property is not damaged, dunes are not washed away, and the resources that coastal towns rely on for their lifeblood are preserved. Mr. President, it is for these reasons that I support the passage of WRDA. New Jersey relies on its unique water resources and this legislation will go a long way towards maintaining our economic and environmental health.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today regarding a matter of great importance to the entire State of New Jersey. My home state is confronted with an array of complex challenges related to the environment and economic development. However, one issue in particular, the over development of land and stormwater management, has become especially concerning because of the impact it is having on our watersheds and floodplains. As you may know, this past August vast parts of northern New Jersey were devastated by flooding caused by severe rainfall. The resulting natural disaster threatened countless homes, bridges and roads, not to mention the health, safety and welfare of area residents. The total figure for damages in Sussex and Morris Counties alone has been estimated at over $50 million, and area residents are still fighting to restore some degree of normalcy to their lives. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, in just those two counties, 34 dams were damaged, 6 bridges were damaged and 4 were destroyed, and 10 municipal buildings were damaged. While the threat of future floods continues to plague the region, one New Jersey institution is taking concrete steps to prevent another flooding catastrophe. The New Jersey Institute of Technology, NJIT, has been studying the challenges posed by flooding and stormwater flows for some time, and is ready to create a multi-agency federal partnership to continue this important research. NJIT is one of New Jersey's premier research institutions and is uniquely equipped to carry out this critical stormwater research. The university has a long and distinguished tradition of responding to difficult public-policy challenges such as environmental emissions standards, aircraft noise, traffic congestion and alternative energy. More broadly, NJIT has demonstrated an institutional ability to direct its intellectual resources to the examination of problems beyond academia, and its commitment to research allows it to serve as a resource for unbiased technological information and analysis. Indeed, I originally requested that NJIT be given the funds to take on this Stormwater flood control and management project. Despite that, the 2000 Water Resources Development Act, WRDA, still presents an excellent opportunity for NJIT to partner with the federal government and solve the difficult problem of flood control. At my request, and in close coordination with my House colleagues from the state delegation, the final version of this important legislation includes a provision directing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to develop and implement a stormwater flood control project in New Jersey and report back to Congress within three years on its progress. While the Corps of Engineers is familiar with this problem at the national level, it does not have the firsthand knowledge and experience in New Jersey that NJIT has accrued in its 119 years of service to New Jersey. Including NJIT's expertise and experience in this research effort is a logical step and would greatly benefit the Army Corps, as well as significantly improve the project's chances of success. Therefore, I urge the New York District of the Corps of Engineers to work closely with my office and NJIT to ensure the universities full participation in this study. By working together, we can create a nexus between the considerable flood control expertise of the Army Corps and NJIT, and finally solve this difficult problem for the people of New Jersey. I hope my colleagues will support my efforts in this regard.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Twelve minutes.

Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank the Chair.