Robert Torricelli

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, for the last 4 years, my colleague, Senator Grassley, has shown extraordinary patience and considerable leadership in bringing this institution towards fundamental and fair reform of the bankruptcy laws. It has not always been a popular fight, but it is unquestionably the right thing to do for consumers, for business, and perhaps most importantly, for small businesses, family- owned businesses, that are often victimized by abusers. Everyone, I think, generally agrees, within reason, that there is a need for bankruptcy reform. The question, of course, has been how to do that. In the last Congress, we came extremely close to bipartisan reform. Having come so close in the 105th Congress, I inherited the role as the ranking member of the subcommittee with jurisdiction, and I felt some optimism that we could succeed. Since that time, working with Senator Grassley, I think we have dealt with most of the critical issues. He has been extremely cooperative. Indeed, Members on both sides of the aisle have had suggestions, changes, most of which have been incorporated. Overwhelmingly, Senators who had problems with the bill and individual changes have been accommodated in both parties. So today we bring to the floor the culmination of 2 years of work, of refining something that had been worked on for the 2 years before that--4 years--with many Members of the institution, and overwhelmingly Members who have voted for it. Is it perfect? No. Were I writing bankruptcy reform by myself, there would be differences. But none of us writes any bill by ourselves. The critical question is: Is it fair and is it a balanced bill? Unequivocally, the answer to that question is yes. Will it improve the functioning of the bankruptcy system without doing injury to vulnerable Americans who have need, legitimate need, of bankruptcy protections? Absolutely, yes. For those reasons, this bill deserves and, indeed, clearly has overwhelming bipartisan support in the Senate. What has fueled this broad and deep support among Democrats and Republicans in the House and the Senate have been the facts, an overwhelming misuse and expansion of bankruptcy. In 1998 alone, 1.4 million Americans sought bankruptcy protection, a 20-percent increase since 1996, during the greatest economic expansion in American history, with record employment, job growth, income growth, a 20-percent increase in bankruptcies, more staggering, since 1980, a 350-percent increase in the use of bankruptcy laws. It is estimated that 70 percent of those filings were done in chapter 7, which provides relief from most unsecured debt. Conversely, just 30 percent of those petitions were filed under chapter 13, which requires a repayment plan. The result of these abuses of the system has meant that just 30 percent of petitions under chapter 13 require a repayment plan. Overwhelmingly, people have discovered, contrary to the history of the act and good business practices, they can escape paying back these debts, although they have the means to do so, and escape so by simply filing under a different chapter. This is the essence of the bill. Simply making this adjustment, moving many or some of these 182,000 people back into repayment plans, could save $4 billion to creditors. This isn't somebody else's problem. That $4 billion gets paid. If the bankruptcy affects a carpenter, a family owned masonry business, a home building company, it can put them out of business, or the cost gets passed on to someone else who buys the next house. If it is the mom and pop store on main street, it can put them out of business or they absorb the cost. But even if it is a major financial institution, with many credit card companies losing 4 or 5 percent of revenues to bankruptcy, it gets passed on to the next consumer. This $4 billion is not the problem for some massive company faraway that can afford to absorb it. It is us. We are all paying the bill. The American consumer is absorbing this money from the abuse of the bankruptcy system--often those least able to absorb it, small businesses, family owned businesses, and consumers. This is why, with these compelling facts and the logic of this reasoning, that the Senate passed a very similar bill by a vote of 83- 14 from both parties, across philosophical lines, in an overwhelming vote. That is the bill we bring back today. It is charged by critics of the bill that this will deny poor people the protection of the Bankruptcy Act. One, this is not true. Two, if in any way it denied poor people the protection of bankruptcy, not only would I not speak for it, not only would I not vote for it, I would be here fighting against it. The simple truth is, no American is denied access to bankruptcy under this bill. What the legislation does do is assure that those with the ability to repay a portion of their debts do so by establishing a clear and reasonable criteria to determine repayment obligations. However, it also provides judicial discretion to ensure that no one genuinely in need of debt cancellation will be prevented from receiving a fresh start. That bears repeating. No one is denied bankruptcy protection because, ultimately, of judicial discretion. Prove you need the protection, and you can and will get it. To do this, the bill contains a means test, virtually identical to the one passed by the Senate with 84 votes on a previous occasion. Under current law, virtually anyone who files for complete debt relief under chapter 7 receives it. Regardless of your resources, whether you can repay it or not, your obligation simply gets passed along to the small store owner, the mom and pop store, the family business. You pass on your obligation, regardless of your ability. We changed that by creating a needs-based system which establishes a presumption that chapter 7 filings should either be dismissed or converted to chapter 13 when the debtor has sufficient income to repay at least $10,000 or 25 percent of their debt--a presumption that if you have money in the bank or you have income to repay a portion of this, you should do so. You can answer the presumption. You can overcome it. You can defeat it. But surely it is not unreasonable for someone with those means to have that burden, to prove they cannot pay the debt. In addition to this flexible means test, the bill before us also includes two key protections for low-income debtors that were a vital part of the Senate bill previously passed. 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 poor debtors into making promises of payments they cannot afford to make. Senator Schumer asked for it to be in the bill. It is in the bill. It offers protection from unscrupulous, unfair, and burdensome collections. The second is an amendment offered by Senator Durbin. Senator Durbin, who previously held my position and drafted the bill 2 years ago in its initial form, provided a miniscreen to reduce the burden of the means test on debtors between 100 and 150 percent median income. This is a preliminarily less intrusive look at the debts and expenses of middle- income debtors to weed out those with no ability to repay those debts and to move them more quickly to a fresh start. It was a good addition, but the combination of Mr. Schumer's amendment for a safe harbor in addition to the Durbin miniscreen and other provisions, not a part of the original Senate bill, will provide real protections to low-income debtors. These include, first, a safe harbor to ensure that all debtors earning less than the State median income will have access to chapter 7 without qualifications; two, a floor to the means test to guarantee that debtors unable to repay less than $6,000 of their debts will not be moved into chapter 13; three, additional flexibility in the means test to take into account the debtor's administrative expenses and allow additional moneys for food and clothing expenses--three protections--absolute, providing real protection for low-income families on vital necessities, on modest savings, and on means of collection. All of this should assuage any fear that this bill will make it more difficult for those in dire straits to obtain a fresh start and reorganize their lives. Absolutely no one, because of these protections, will be denied access to complete protection in bankruptcy. But it is balanced because there is also protection for businesses and family companies. Critics have also argued that the bill places an unfair burden on women and single-parent families. This is the most important part of this bill to understand. There is not a woman in this country, there is not a single parent, there is not someone receiving alimony, child support, or any child in America whose position is weakened because of this bill. Indeed, their position is strengthened because of this bill. Single-parent families, by elevating child support to the first position rather than its current seventh position, are in a better place because of this bill than they are if we fail to act. Under current law, when it comes to prioritizing which debts must be paid off first, child support is seventh--after rent or storage charges, accountant fees, and tax claims. Remember this, because if you oppose this bill and if we fail to act in the bankruptcy line, accountants will be there, tax claims will be there, storage claims will be there, and women and children will be behind. Under this bill and this reform, children, women, single-parent families are where they belong--in front of everyone, including the Government. Finally, the bill requires that a chapter 13 plan provide for full payment of all child support payments that become due after the petition is filed. This is simply a better bill--for business and for families. Finally, in drafting a balanced bill, Senator Grassley and I were confronted with the very real need to provide some additional consumer protection. The fact is, many people don't just fall into bankruptcy. In my judgment, they are driven into bankruptcy by unscrupulous, unnecessary, and burdensome solicitations of debt by the credit industry. This had to be in the bill, and it is in the bill. The credit card industry sends out 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. It is not just the sheer volume of the solicitations; it is a question of who is targeted. Solicitations of high school and college students are at a record level. Americans with incomes below the poverty line have doubled their use of credit. The result is not surprising, as 27 percent of families earning less than $10,000 have consumer debt of more than 40 percent of their income. This bill deals with that reality. With the help of Senators Schumer, Reed, and Durbin, we have ensured that there is good consumer protection in this bill. It is not everything I would have written, certainly not everything they would have liked, but it is good and it is better than current law. The bill now requires lenders to prominently disclose the effects of making only a minimum payment on your account; that interest on loans secured by dwellings is tax deductible only up to the value of property, warnings when late fees will be imposed, and the date on which an introductory or teaser rate will expire and what the permanent rate will be after that time. All of these things will be required on consumer statements in the future. Few are required now. What this means is that Senator Grassley and I have done our best. We have worked with all Members of the Senate in both parties. This is a good bill and a balanced bill. The Senate has approved it before. It should do so again. It provides new consumer protection, protection for women and children, securing their place in bankruptcy lines, ensuring that debts get repaid when they can be, ensuring bankruptcy protection, and ensuring that abuses end so that small businesses are not victimized and consumers who can pay their bills do not pay the additional costs of those who choose not to. I congratulate Senator Grassley once again on an extraordinary effort. I am very proud to coauthor this bill with him. I look forward to the Senate's passage. I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to salute the charitable efforts of Project Acorn, a non-profit organization that works to place and fund children in two-year preschool scholarship programs. What started out as Stuart and Jill Lasser's individual act of kindness has become an expanded effort throughout Morris County and now across New Jersey to help families who cannot afford quality preschool education. The couple's lofty objectives and hard work enabled the organization to flourish over the past five years through partnerships with benefactors, volunteers, and area preschools. Education has been, and continues to be, the cornerstone of opportunity and advancement in American society. Preschool education provides the foundation and many of the basic tools that children need to succeed. Study after study has shown a direct correlation between high-quality early childhood education and success in life. All of these studies on the effects of preschool education have shown higher short-term and long-term gains such as higher I.Q. scores and a greater likelihood of graduating from high school and college. Project Acorn has provided hundreds of families with the critical resources necessary to place their children in a variety of preschool programs. These scholarships defray the costs of preschool education and thereby ``plant the seeds for a better community, one child at a time.'' Project Acorn has helped many young individuals in Morris County. It serves as an excellent example of what can be accomplished by concerned citizens who have identified an urgent need within their community, and it is an honor to recognize their vision and compassion.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. TORRICELLI. I think the Senator is making an important point, but I would like him to supplement it because I, too, have been startled in hearing Governor Bush explain they had their chance to enact a Patients' Bill of Rights. Indeed, it is my memory that on more occasions than I can remember the Clinton-Gore administration, with support of Democrats in this House, attempted to have a Patients' Bill of Rights. I heard Governor Bush say on prescription drugs that we promised it and had not delivered it; we had our chance. Indeed, the Clinton-Gore administration supported prescription drugs and Democrats supported it in the Congress but failed. Is my recollection of this correct, that we had our chance, we have attempted to do it but, ironically, the people who have stopped it are now the same people who constitute the Bush campaign?

Mr. TORRICELLI. If the Senator will yield, can we focus on that one as well because I heard in debates Governor Bush said on education Clinton-Gore had their chance. Indeed, the President proposed 100,000 new teachers repeatedly and has been fighting for it every year--got it enacted at one point--including right up to tonight on school reconstruction, which has not been supported, to my knowledge, by Governor Bush, certainly not supported by his party in Congress. So indeed they had their chance on education, and the Clinton-Gore administration led on education as they led on health care.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I hope my friend from West Virginia knows that had I had the time, I would have been happy to yield to him. I did not have it. I rise in opposition to the conference report and, unlike some of my colleagues, I am not citing broad policy reasons or enormous constituencies, but for a fight I have waged for almost 3 years, and that is for 17,000 Americans who are going to die, are certain to die, will be dead within a matter of 2 years. They are ALS patients. They have Lou Gehrig's disease, and they are the victims of an unintended consequence. Under Medicare rules, there is a 24-month waiting period from the time of diagnosis. Uniquely, with Lou Gehrig's disease, diagnosis is difficult. Sometimes there is only a simple muscle pain for up to a year, and then at the time of diagnosis, life expectancy is only 2 to 3 years. So people facing the certainty of death and medical bills of $200,000 a year are unable to get a dollar, a dime, a penny of Medicare assistance while they are losing their lives. This was no one's intention. It is a mistake. It is an error, and it should be changed. Earlier in the year, this Senate unanimously adopted my legislation to exempt ALS patients from Medicare's regulations. Twenty-eight Senators have cosponsored the bill. Yet in this conference report, despite strong support from the White House and this Senate on a bipartisan basis, the conference report eliminates the provision and asks for a study--a study. The Congressional Research Office has already done a study. I will tell you the study. When I introduced this bill, I stood with ALS patients outside the Capitol. Almost every one of them is now dead. They lost their lives waiting for Medicare, and they never got it. I will tell you the results of the study. There are now 17,000 people in the country who need this same 24-month exemption. If we return here next year to argue this again, half of them will be dead, and they never will have received any Medicare assistance. My request is very simple. And I ask the support of the Republican leadership, as I have received the support of my leadership and of the White House: Give us a 24-month exemption so that these desperate people can get this assistance and their families, in addition to losing someone they love--a parent, a husband, a spouse--also do not have to deal with this enormous financial responsibility. It is a small and unique class of citizens. There is virtually no other disease in the Nation with quite the same circumstances--for which there is no cure, little treatment, and a certainty of death within the 24-month period. There are desperate people across this country who thought when the Senate acted earlier in the year, they would at least have this relief. I believe they had reason to believe, given the bipartisan support, and White House support, when the conference report was written, this would happen. Tragically, the conference report does not contain this relief. I cannot imagine anything more cruel to these families. This has to happen. This simply must be done. I ask, again, that if this conference report does not become law, and it is changed again, that these victims of ALS have this numerically and financially insignificant but personally overwhelmingly important relief from the Medicare rules. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished minority whip for the time and I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Ms. Deborah V.H. Cook and Ms. Patricia Buekema for their 25 years of service to the Glen Ridge School System. For the past 25 years, these outstanding educators have taught many grade levels and a countless number of students have benefitted from their instruction. As members of the Glen Ridge community, Ms. Cook and Ms. Buekema have demonstrated an extraordinarily high level of commitment and selflessness to which we should all strive to achieve. However, the impact of their service reaches far beyond the classroom. Both Ms. Cook and Ms. Buekema have dedicated themselves to creating a supportive and productive environment for the youth of Glen Ridge. They have helped to shape the minds and encourage the spirit of these young individuals during a crucial stage of development in their lives. Ms. Cook's and Ms. Buekema's accomplishments, throughout their years of service, reflect only a small portion of the many contributions they have made to the people of Glen Ridge. Their efforts have touched the lives of their students as well as those throughout their community. They are an example of the professionalism that we look for in our educators, and the type of citizens that we hope to find in our neighborhoods, which is why their dedication is to be recognized and commended.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I stand today to congratulate Berkeley College for being named the Woodbridge Metro Chamber of Commerce Corporate Citizen of the Year. Berkeley College has become a vital link in the Township of Woodbridge and throughout Middlesex County among students, business leaders, and government officials. Cooperation among all three elements has allowed them to form stronger relationships, institutions, and alliances throughout the community. Berkeley College has fostered this collaborative spirit by hosting a number of informational forums such as the Education Foundation's Educator Institute, Tech Academy 2000, and other useful job training programs. Berkeley College has also sponsored a number of annual public service events like the Mayor's Fun Run, the Mayor's Holiday Stroll in the Park, and Making Strides in Breast Cancer. Most importantly, Berkeley offers a high quality business education to more than 600 students who receive valuable hands on knowledge of the current business culture through the College's association with various business and government leaders. It is an honor to be able to recognize the achievements of Berkeley College.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Bernadette M. Sohler as the 2000 recipient of the Woodbridge Metro Chamber of Commerce Member of the Year for her exemplary service to the Chamber and the community at large. Bernadette has served as a strong advocate and avid supporter of the Woodbridge Chamber since 1994. She served as its President from 1998- 1999 and has volunteered for numerous committees including the Annual Chamber Golf Classic, Tour of Woodbrigde, Holiday Luncheon and Parade, Chairman's Award, and Staff Appreciation Day. As the External Affairs Manager at the Middlesex Water Company, Bernadette is responsible for all community and media relations; employee, customer, financial communications; corporate contributions; and public education. Her numerous board positions include Chair of the Public Information Committee of the American Water Works Association, the Central Jersey National Council of Community and Justice, the Charity Committee of the Diocese of Metuchen, Raritan Bay Healthcare Foundation, and the Perth Amboy Neighborhood Empowerment Council Economic Development Task Force. Bernadette's strong record in the business community at the Middlesex Water Company and her commitment to public service demonstrate her outstanding achievements in the public and private sectors. It is an honor to recognize Bernadette M. Sohler's efforts and congratulate her on receiving the 2000 Chamber of Commerce Member of the Year Award from the Woodbrigde Metro Chamber of Commerce.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to honor Father Robert Counselman, who received the 2000 William E. Short Award from the Woodbridge Metro Chamber of Commerce. Through his exemplary service to the community, Father Counselman has shown his dedication and commitment to numerous civic institutions within and outside of the church. Father Counselman serves as Chaplain to the Woodbridge Township Police Department and the Woodbridge Chamber of Commerce. He is an active participant in several civic and private institutions such as Habitat for Humanity, the Woodbridge Historical League, the Community Advisory Panel, and the Woodbridge Historic Preservation Commission. He was also instrumental in setting up a ``Soup Kitchen'' at Trinity Church, which provides free meals on Fridays. In addition, he helped establish a community playground, and is always available to assist people in their times of need. It is an honor to recognize Father Robert Counselman's work and congratulate him on receiving the William E. Short Award from the Woodbridge Metro Chamber of Commerce.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to rise today to recognize John A. Hoffman Esq., a lifelong resident of central New Jersey, as the Woodbridge Metro Chamber of Commerce Citizen of the Year. John has participated in numerous business, legal, and community affairs for more than 35 years and has established a remarkable record of success. Mr. Hoffman joined the firm of Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer in 1963, and is currently a managing partner. He represents major corporate and government clients such as PSE&G, Verizon New Jersey, Inc., Elizabeth Town Water Company, the Middlesex County Utilities Authority, and the New Jersey Performing Arts Center. John also serves as a member on several boards such as the Middlesex County College Foundation, Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital Foundation, Sister Cities Program of New Brunswick, and the New Jersey Client Security Fund. John has devoted his life to the practice of law and has used his experience and vision to lead and advise several other institutions in New Jersey. It is his extensive service to these institutions and their continued success that our State of New Jersey owes a great debt of gratitude. It is an honor to recognize Mr. Hoffman's work and extend my congratulations to him on receiving the 2000 Citizen of the Year Award from the Woodbridge Metro Chamber of Commerce.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to recognize Lee Vetland, the Woodbridge Chamber of Commerce Small Business Person of the Year. As owner of Lee's Auto Body, Inc. in Avenel, New Jersey, Mr. Vetland has turned his business into a highly respected and successful enterprise. Lee's Auto Body opened for business in 1975 with three employees. Since that time, through his own industry, hard work, and a strong work ethic, Lee has seen his business grow to 21 employees. His efforts and commitment extend to other areas besides his entrepreneurship. Lee is the Chairman of the Board for Auto Body Distributing Company, Vice President of the Auto Body Shop Association in New Jersey (A.A.S.P.N.J.), a member of the Advisory Board for the Amoco Dealer Panel, and the Governor's Task Force on insurance fraud. While Lee has excelled in the auto body business, his expertise and knowledge have benefitted numerous organizations and associations throughout New Jersey as well. It is an honor to recognize Mr. Vetland's achievements and extend my congratulations to him for receiving the 2000 Small Business Person of the Year Award from the Woodbridge Metro Chamber of Commerce.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I stand today to congratulate the Middlesex County Division of the American Cancer Society for being honored with the Community Service Award by the Woodbridge Metro Chamber of Commerce. The Middlesex Unit offers a wide array of programs and resources to help people learn about new treatments for cancer, arrange for home care, locate medical supplies and uplift patients with cancer and their families. The Middlesex Unit is dedicated to eliminating cancer as a major health problem by taking pro-active measures to save lives and diminish the suffering of cancer patients through research, education, advocacy, and service. The Middlesex County Division's commitment to reducing the effects of cancer through medical means as well as its commitment to helping patients through financial assistance illustrates the Division's unique and humane approach to aiding patients with cancer. Their services have been of great benefit to countless individuals in Middlesex County. It is an honor to recognize the work of the Middlesex County Division of the American Cancer Society and congratulate them on receiving the Woodbridge Metro Chamber of Commerce's 2000 Community Service Award.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Elizabeth Jonasky of Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey on the momentous occasion of her 105th birthday. Mrs Jonasky will reach this wonderful milestone on November 5th of this year, and I feel it fitting that we acknowledge this special moment. As I ponder all of the marvels and tragedies of our world that Elizabeth Jonasky has witnessed, I am reminded of the profound words of the Greek philosopher Plato, who once said, ``It gives me great pleasure to converse with the aged. They have been over the road that all of us must travel, and know where it is rough and difficult and where it is level and easy.'' It is a honor to wish Mrs. Jonasky the best of happiness on her birthday. It is my sincere hope that we will be able to continue to learn about life's rough and easy spots from her for sometime to come.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, for nearly 200 years from the founding of our Republic, capital punishment has loomed as the ultimate punishment for the violation of our laws. This reflected a belief that such a severe penalty would serve as a deterrent to those who might think they can take an innocent life or bring injury to our people. While this Nation has always believed that capital punishment is an appropriate penalty for those who commit the most heinous of crimes, our criminal justice system has also been based on the premise that it is better--and it has been part of American lore to suggest that it is better that ten guilty men go free than an innocent man ever be put behind bars or lose his life. This is all the more true when what is at stake is not just putting a person in prison--an act that could be rectified or proven wrong--but the irretrievable taking of a human life. As long as there has been the American Republic, this has been a founding belief: Taking of a life, if it can deter a crime, but protecting a mistake of justice. Throughout our history, concerns have been raised about the fair application of the death penalty for exactly this concern. Almost 30 years ago, the Supreme Court, in Furham v. Georgia, effectively abolished the death penalty when it decided that death penalty statutes at the time did too little to ensure the equal application of the law. In doing so, the Court held that the death penalty, while itself not necessarily unconstitutional, was often being applied in a manner that was both arbitrary and too severe for the crime committed. As such, it constituted, as the death penalty was then applied, that it was a ``cruel and unusual'' punishment under the Constitution. Just 4 years later, in 1976, the Court, in its Gregg decision, reinstated the death penalty when it ruled that the newly enacted statutes in Florida, Texas, and Georgia were constitutional. By providing guidelines to assist the judge and the jury in deciding whether to impose death, those statutes addressed the arbitrariness that had previously colored capital sentencing. It was at this point in my life that I reached my own decision. I agreed with the Court in what had become the tenets of American history that the death penalty was fair and appropriate as a deterrent to crime; it was just when the application of the American Constitution, as the Court had held, where it was arbitrary, where there were not guidelines, where there was not a safety to protect the innocent or arbitrariness of penalty, it was unconstitutional. As the Court had found by 1976, I believed that with the right guidelines, a second jury, oversight, appeal, fair representation, the death penalty was right and it was appropriate. In the nearly 25 years since I reached my own judgment, and indeed as our country reached its decision, 666 people have been executed across the Nation. I rise today to bring attention to the point that in those 25 years, more than 80 people on death row have been found to be innocent and released. Some were hours, minutes, weeks away from their own execution. These were not reversals on technical grounds. For the people whose convictions were overturned, after years of confinement, years on death row, it was discovered they simply were not guilty of a crime for which they had been convicted. The Death Penalty Information Center reports that between 1973 and October 1993 there were an average of 2.5 convicted persons released per year. Since the advent of DNA testing, the number has increased to 4.8 people per year. For any American, particularly someone such as myself who supports the death penalty, believes in the fairness of the death penalty, one can only imagine the responsibility individually and collectively we must feel. The question is begged; If this has happened since DNA testing, 4.8 people released from jail on death row, my God, what has happened in recent decades? How many people were strapped to gurneys, had their wrists attached to leather strips in electric chairs, knowing in their own minds that they were innocent but executed? My God, what must they have thought of our society, justice, and our people? There are now 3,600 people on State and Federal death rows. Despite my own support of the death penalty and our society's general belief in it, we must face the reality that those 3,600 people some may be innocent. The events of recent months give little comfort to any of us who support the death penalty. Two weeks ago, the Governor of Virginia was forced to pardon a mentally retarded man who spent 9\1/2\ years on death row for rape and murder after DNA tests proved he was innocent--9\1/2\ years awaiting death. An inmate in Texas served 12 years on death row for the killing of a police officer before a film maker stumbled across his case and discovered evidence that established his innocence. An Illinois inmate was released just 50 hours before his scheduled execution because a student's journalism class at Northwestern University accepted his case as a class project and established with certainty his innocence--50 hours before his death. The evidence, both academic and anecdotal, shows that the death penalty is not functioning as it must to ensure that innocent people not be put to death. What has happened to the conviction of the Founding Fathers and Jefferson's admonition that it is better 10 guilty men go free than an innocent man go to jail? It has not been ``an innocent man go to jail,'' but the evidence is overwhelming that some innocent men are going to death. It is not an easy issue. I am not here to ascribe the responsibility to others. I bear it, too. Through all my public life I have supported the death penalty, and I do not abandon it today. I believe it can be fair; I believe it can be just; and I believe it deters crime. I believe it is appropriate that society take the lives of those who would take the lives of others. But something is wrong. The fact is that sometimes these people committed other crimes, and most of the people who commit these crimes who are put to death are guilty. None of those things matter. It doesn't matter if it is only 1 in 100. It doesn't matter if it is 1 in 1,000. As a just and fair society, no one can feel right about the fact that obviously without question some innocent people may be put to death or, if not put to death, are spending years of their lives on death row for crimes they did not commit. Nowhere is this problem more evident than the State of Texas. I do not say that because its Governor is a Presidential candidate or because of the other party. I don't care. It has no relevance to me. I ascribe nothing to George W. Bush. I am simply discussing the facts in the State for which this problem appears to be most prevalent. Since 1982, Texas has executed 231 people--and, in fairness, under both Republican and Democrat Governors, to take away any partisan motive. This year alone, 33 people have been put to death in Texas. Another 446 are on death row. Because of the frequency of executions in Texas, that State offers us the best window through which to examine some of these concerns because in doing so, it quickly becomes clear that if the death penalty in Texas is representative of the rest of the Nation, we have a real problem. In a massive study of 131 executions in the State of Texas, it is documented that there were widespread and systematic flaws in trials and in the appeals process. In a third of the Texas death penalty cases, the defendant was represented by an attorney who had already been disbarred. How in God's name is it possible in a just and fair society to take a man's life or a woman's life in an American court of justice if that poor person, who is probably inevitably indigent, is represented by an attorney who has been proven to be incapable and is disbarred before the courts of the United States? My God, what kind of people have we become? Are we so interested in revenge, execution, and punishment of a man or woman that we would not give them a competent attorney? Several of these attorneys have themselves been convicted of felonies. Others have been jailed on contempt charges for sheer incompetence in the performance of their duties. The Supreme Court has held--and the Founding Fathers must have believed--that any man or woman who shares our citizenship has a right to counsel before the courts and a defense before the Government with their own attorney. Is this the standard they held? Is this the standard that every American would have for themselves--the right to an attorney who was disbarred, jailed, held in contempt, or found incompetent? Is this the barrier between an accusation against an American citizen and their execution? In one-third of the death penalty cases in the State of Texas, defense counsel presented no evidence or presented only one witness during the sentencing phase. When I made my decision in my life as our country made its judgment to support the death penalty, it was based on the Supreme Court requirement that there be a sentencing phase in the death penalty and a separate jury dealing just with the penalty of death. I think that is right. I think that is fair. That is why I support the death penalty. But now we find in the State of Texas that when that separate jury heard the case, these attorneys for these indigent men and women facing death presented no witnesses--or just one. This cannot possibly be what the Supreme Court envisioned for the protection of our citizens from execution. At least 23 cases featured notoriously unreliable ``hair comparisons''--visual matching of the defendant's hair to that found at the crime scene. This is unbelievable, but I am giving you the facts about this study of Texas cases. One hair ``expert'' in a capital case with a man facing death was temporarily released from a psychiatric ward to testify. Another ``expert'' in a hair identification case pleaded no contest to multiple charges of falsifying and manufacturing evidence. There is the lone witness in a case that decides whether or not a man would be executed. Since 1995, the highest criminal appeals court of the State of Texas has affirmed 270 capital convictions, including some where the defendants' lawyers were asleep during trial. But in those 270 cases, new trials were granted on only 8 occasions. I do not think that I am suggesting to the Senate today an unreasonably high standard. But is it not appropriate at a minimum that in any case where a man or a woman is facing execution and the State is taking their lives, regardless of the evidence, that defense counsel should be awake during the trial? Where the evidence clearly establishes that the trial attorney is asleep, as a matter of simple justice, without contradiction, a new trial should be granted--at least on the penalty of death, if not of guilt or innocence. This same court of appeals upheld the conviction and sentencing of a Hispanic man who was sentenced to death after a psychiatrist testified that he was more likely to commit future acts of violence because of his ethnicity. A psychiatrist argues before a court in the United States of America that a man is more likely to commit a crime because of his ethnic origin, and a court in the United States of America hears this evidence without reversal. It is unimaginable. The U.S. Supreme Court recently ordered a new sentencing hearing in that case because of the evidence. How many cases get to the U.S. Supreme Court? How many others would have filed? How many others are silent? How many others never got attorneys? As a result of such injustices, it is not unreasonable to conclude, as Bob Herbert did in a recent New York Times op-ed piece, that the death penalty in the State of Texas is nothing more than ``legal lynching.'' This is not the death penalty that I have supported most of my life. This is not what the Supreme Court had in mind when it issued its standards. My God, this is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they talked about equal justice before the law. There is a place in the American judicial system for capital punishment. I have not changed my mind. Certain crimes are so offensive, so outrageous, they so violate the public consciousness that capital punishment is the only appropriate response. It is, however, a remedy so severe that it must be administered with the greatest care, the greatest reserve, with the highest possible standards of justice, in representation and review, against arbitrariness, against discrimination, ensuring guilt, fairness, and uniformity. These cases in Texas--and while Texas may be the most egregious, it does not stand alone--simply do not make that standard. Supporters of the death penalty, like myself and a majority of Americans, are concerned that innocent people have been, are, or will be executed. And it is not a theoretical problem, it is real. In fact, in a recent survey by CNN/USA Today, 80 percent of Americans surveyed now believe innocent people in the United States have been executed in the last 5 years. That is quite a statement for us to make about our own country, our own system of justice. It is imperative that we take the necessary steps to ensure that it never happens again. Already we are seeing several States take the lead against just such a threat. The Governor of Illinois, a Republican, to whom I give great credit, troubled by the fact that a number of people on the State's death row had been found innocent, announced earlier this year that he would block all executions until it had been determined that the death penalty was being administered fairly and justly, and I applaud him. Maryland's Governor recently ordered a 2-year study of racial bias and death penalty procedures in his State, and I applaud him. The Governor of California recently signed into law a bill that would guarantee every convicted felon the right to have DNA evidence tested if it was related to the charges that led to his conviction. Good for California. But it should be good for every State in the Nation and for the United States of America. Although the Federal Government is not the arbiter of most death row cases, as with most issues, it has a responsibility to set an example. While the Federal Government has not executed someone since 1963, it cannot be said that the Federal system is the best it can be. This Government has an obligation to reform the death penalty to ensure that innocent people are protected and to ask the States to do the same. This, in my judgment, requires, at a minimum: First, ensure that defendants in capital cases have competent legal representation at every stage of the case. At every stage, there should be a lawyer who is trained, experienced, and has the ability to ensure, not just for the protection of the defendant but of the society, that we are not taking the life of an innocent person. I do not want just that defense for the defendant; I want that defense for me as an American, to know I am not responsible for the taking of the life of an innocent person. Second, provide defendants with access to DNA testing. If science has given us the ability to know with certainty whether a person is innocent or guilty, I want that evidence known before a person is executed, no matter what stage, no matter how many trials, no matter how many appeals. I want to know before execution whether that DNA evidence has been made available. States are doing it, and this Government should do it, too. I am a cosponsor of the Innocence Protection Act that was introduced by my distinguished colleague, Senator Leahy of Vermont, to ensure that DNA evidence is provided, and I urge the Senate to consider it. I recognize that all of my colleagues may not support the death penalty as I have supported it and continue to support it, but as a matter of conscience, in fidelity with our founding principles, in a belief in all of our sense of fairness and equal protection before the law, for the reputation of our country, for confidence in our system of justice no matter how we may divide on the question of the death penalty, surely on this we can be of one voice and clearly we can demand no less. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. I share the concerns held by the Senator from Michigan about USDA's ability to address civil right cases in a timely fashion. Failure to resolve civil rights cases involving access to USDA farm programs delays justice and threatens the affected farmer's well- being. The Secretary of Agriculture needs to use his authority to provide independent and neutral alternative dispute resolution (ADR).

Mr. TORRICELLI. I agree with my good friend from Michigan that the Secretary of Agriculture has the authority to resolve these matters.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Dr. Charles E. Thomas, pastor of New Hope Baptist Church upon the occasion of his retirement. During his time in the ministry, Pastor Thomas has shown a great commitment to both church and community. Under Pastor Thomas's leadership and guidance, The New Hope Baptist Church has accomplished a great deal and continues to grow. The New Hope Day Care Center has been established and the edifice of New Hope has been renovated and expanded, creating a beautiful church with seating for over 1,200. Further, numerous programs have been implemented to enhance the lives of The New Hope members. Pastor Thomas has also contributed much to the Newark community. He established the Minority Contractors and Craftsmans Trade Association and the New Hope Skills Center to enable individuals to pursue careers in carpentry, masonry, and machinery. In 1975, the New Hope Development Corporation was organized to build New Hope Village, a 170 family housing complex in Newark that provides affordable housing for lower income families. For over 20 years, Pastor Thomas has dedicated himself to both his congregation and his community. His efforts have benefitted the lives of countless individuals, and he is richly deserving of our thanks and well wishes for his retirement.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the retirement of Dr. Orlando Edreira. Dr. Edreira's hard work and dedication as a Councilman in Elizabeth, New Jersey has had a lasting impact on communities throughout Union County and the State of New Jersey. For more than four decades, Councilman Edreira has been contributing to the future of our children and the improvement of our communities as both an educator and a civil servant. He has contributed to hundreds of community projects and has been a member of numerous professional and community-based organizations in New Jersey. Councilman Edreira has also been a well-recognized and respected advocate for the Latino community of New Jersey throughout his career. I salute Councilman Edreira's leadership in Elizabeth, which during his service has enjoyed a remarkable economic renaissance as new jobs and economic development have brought new life to one of New Jersey's historic cities. He is to be thanked for helping to sow these seeds of revitalization in the community. Councilman Edreira's retirement from the Elizabeth City Council is a true loss for both the City of Elizabeth and the entire State of New Jersey. After a career marked by many accomplishments, I am pleased today to highlight his remarkable record of service on the occasion of his retirement. While we are losing one of our State's finest and most valuable leaders, we can take pride in the countless contributions that Councilman Edreira has made to one of New Jersey's most important communities.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the celebration of National Hispanic Heritage Month. As one of America's largest ethnic groups, the Hispanic American community embodies the true spirit of our country as a land where people from all over the world can come to for the chance to pursue their dreams. For countless years, Hispanic Americans have played an integral role in American society. This has been characterized by a strong work ethic, deep sense of faith and unwavering commitment to both family and community. Throughout the history of our country, the contributions of Hispanic Americans in areas such as public service, business, entertainment, and the sciences have been lasting and have made America a stronger nation. Today, there are more than 31 million Hispanic Americans living in the United States, and they represent nearly 12 percent of our total population. The Hispanic American community in New Jersey includes more than 1 million residents, with roots from all over the world, including Europe, the Carribean, and both South and Central America. I am proud to have the opportunity to represent a State with one of the largest concentrations of Hispanic Americans in the entire country. The vibrant Hispanic American communities across the State have given New Jerseyans a window into their cultures and heritage. We have also been fortunate to have members of these communities take on important roles in our public life. In New Jersey, we have Hispanic Americans representing some of our nation's most diverse communities in both the State legislature and the United States Congress, and dozens more hold elected office at the county and local levels. As we begin a new century, it is projected that nearly 25 percent of America will be of Hispanic origin by 2050. At the same time, the widespread influence of Hispanic Americans is touching all of our communities, transcending racial and ethnic boundaries on a daily basis. I have no doubt that as America's Hispanic American community grows, it will maintain the legacy that it has built while also adding a new chapter to its rich history as an important piece of the American mosaic.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Federal Drug Courts Foundation Act of 2000.'' This legislation will usher in an new era in the struggle against drug-related crime by establishing a system of federal drug courts. These courts will help bring an end to the cycle of repeated and escalating crimes committed by small-time drug offenders. As General Barry McCaffrey has said: ``The establishment of drug courts . . . constitutes one of the most monumental changes in social justice in this country since World War II.'' Mr. President, I have long fought against the scourge of drug-related crime that has plagued this nation. The legislation I introduce today will continue that fight by creating a three-year pilot program establishing federal drug courts in ten cities selected by the Department of Justice. Drug courts are a response to the fact that more than fifty percent of state parole violators were under the influence of drugs, alcohol, or both when they committed their new offense. They represent a creative new way to address this disturbing fact and are aimed at cleaning up first-time, small-time offenders through comprehensive supervision, drug testing and treatment. Drug court programs have been successfully implemented at the state level. Since 1989, more than 100,000 drug offenders have participated in drug court programs at the state level and there are now more than 400 drug courts in existence. These drug courts have proven to be both effective and cost-efficient. A study in one New York drug court showed that only 11% of offenders were rearrested as compared to 27% in the general prison population. And while the incarceration of a drug offender costs between $20,000 and $50,000 annually, a drug court costs less than $2,500 per offender. Drugs continue to be one of the greatest threats to our children and to the well-being of our communities. For this reason, we must continue to fight against the scourge of illegal drugs ravaging our communities. To that end, I am introducing the ``Federal Drug Courts Foundations Act of 2000,'' legislation designed to sensibly combat the epidemic of drug-related crime. I hope that this much-needed legislation will enjoy your support and I look forward to working with each and every one of you in order to get this legislation enacted into law. I ask unanimous consent the text of the legislation be included in the Record.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Federal Drug Courts Foundation Act of 2000.'' This legislation will usher in an new era in the struggle against drug-related crime by establishing a system of federal drug courts. These courts will help bring an end to the cycle of repeated and escalating crimes committed by small-time drug offenders. As General Barry McCaffrey has said: ``The establishment of drug courts . . . constitutes one of the most monumental changes in social justice in this country since World War II.'' Mr. President, I have long fought against the scourge of drug-related crime that has plagued this nation. The legislation I introduce today will continue that fight by creating a three-year pilot program establishing federal drug courts in ten cities selected by the Department of Justice. Drug courts are a response to the fact that more than fifty percent of state parole violators were under the influence of drugs, alcohol, or both when they committed their new offense. They represent a creative new way to address this disturbing fact and are aimed at cleaning up first-time, small-time offenders through comprehensive supervision, drug testing and treatment. Drug court programs have been successfully implemented at the state level. Since 1989, more than 100,000 drug offenders have participated in drug court programs at the state level and there are now more than 400 drug courts in existence. These drug courts have proven to be both effective and cost-efficient. A study in one New York drug court showed that only 11% of offenders were rearrested as compared to 27% in the general prison population. And while the incarceration of a drug offender costs between $20,000 and $50,000 annually, a drug court costs less than $2,500 per offender. Drugs continue to be one of the greatest threats to our children and to the well-being of our communities. For this reason, we must continue to fight against the scourge of illegal drugs ravaging our communities. To that end, I am introducing the ``Federal Drug Courts Foundations Act of 2000,'' legislation designed to sensibly combat the epidemic of drug-related crime. I hope that this much-needed legislation will enjoy your support and I look forward to working with each and every one of you in order to get this legislation enacted into law. I ask unanimous consent the text of the legislation be included in the Record.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the adoption of the conference report to H.R. 3244, the Sexual Trafficking Victims Protection Act. This conference report contains two pieces of legislation that are critically important for ensuring the safety of women and their children in our Nation as well as around the world, the Reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 and the Sexual Trafficking Victims Protection Act. I am extraordinarily pleased that the Senate is finally poised to join our colleagues in the House and pass both of these legislative proposals. Although it is unfortunate that Congress allowed the Violence Against Women Act to expire at the end of the fiscal year on September 30, 2000, today's action on this legislation goes a long way towards sending a message to battered women and their children that domestic violence is a national concern deserving the most serious consideration. An important component of the Reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act that is contained in the conference report today is the provision of resources for transitional housing. Due to the fact that domestic violence victims often have no safe place to go, these resources are needed to help support a continuum between emergency shelter and independent living. Many individuals and families fleeing domestic violence are forced to return to their abusers because of inadequate shelter or lack of money. Half of all homeless women and children are fleeing domestic violence. Even if battered women leave their abusers to go to a shelter, they often return home because the isolation from familiar surroundings, friends, and neighborhood resources makes them feel even more vulnerable. Shelters and transitional facilities are often located far from a victim's neighborhood. And, if emergency shelter is available, a supply of affordable housing and services are needed to keep women from having to return to a violent home. Due to the importance of ensuring that battered women may access transitional housing, I remain concerned that the conference report provides only a one-year authorization for the transitional housing programs. Consequently, I intend to work closely with my colleagues throughout next year to ensure the continued authorization and funding of these critical programs. I look forward to working with my colleagues to strengthen transitional housing programs for battered women and their children and I hope they will lend their strong support to this effort.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, all of us in our public lives on occasion meet an individual under circumstances and remains with us. They are so powerful in their impact that they haunt us and, if we are true to our responsibilities, also lead us to involvement. It could be circumstances of a struggling family attempting to pay their bills. It could be someone in enormous physical or emotional distress. I rise today because 3 years ago I met a young family from Burlington County, NJ, who had exactly this impact on me, my life, and my own service in the Senate. Kevin O'Donnell was 31 years old, a devoted father who was skiing with his daughter one weekend, when he noticed a strange pain in his leg. It persisted, which led him to visit his family doctor. Here, he was shocked to learn, despite his apparent good health, the vibrancy of his own life and his young age, that he had been stricken with ALS, known to most Americans as Lou Gehrig's disease. We are fortunate that ALS is a very rare disorder. It affects 30,000 individuals in our Nation, with an additional 5,000 new cases diagnosed every year. We should be grateful it is so rare because the impact on an individual and their health and their family is devastating. Indeed, there are few diseases that equal the impact of ALS on an individual. It is, of course, a neurological disorder that causes the progressive degeneration of the spinal cord and the brain. Muscle weakness, especially in the arms and legs, leads to confinement to a wheelchair. In time, breathing becomes impossible and a respirator is needed. Swallowing becomes impossible. Speech becomes nearly impossible. Muscle by muscle, legs to arms to chest to throat, all motor activity of the body shuts down. While ALS usually strikes people who are over 50 years old, indeed, there are many cases of young people being afflicted with this disease. Once the disease strikes, life expectancy is 3 to 5 years. But the difficulty is, life expectancy is not measured from diagnosis; it is measured from the first symptoms. Diagnosing ALS is very difficult. What can appear as a pain in the leg can be overlooked for months. Muscle disorders can be ignored for a year. Doctors have a difficult time diagnosing Lou Gehrig's disease. Not surprisingly, after diagnosed, the financial burdens are enormous. Work is impossible. Twenty-four hour care is likely. Wheelchairs, respirators, nursing care can easily cost between $200,000, to a quarter of a million dollars a year. Families struggle with this financial burden while they are also struggling with the certainty of death at a young age. This leads me to the responsibilities of this institution. Patients with ALS must wait 2 years before becoming eligible for Medicare. For 2 years--no help, no funds, no assistance. As a result, 17,000 ALS patients currently are ineligible for Medicare services. And thousands of these individuals will die having never received one penny of Medicare assistance. Their death from ALS is a foregone conclusion. It could come in a year or 2 years or 3, but we are requiring a 2-year waiting period before there is any assistance. Clearly, ALS, the problems of diagnosis, the certainty of death, the rapid deterioration of the human body, was not considered with this 2- year waiting period. Nearly 3 years ago, I first introduced legislation that would eliminate the 24-month waiting period for ALS from Medicare. Most of the people who were with me that day here in the Senate when we introduced this legislation are now dead. Most of them never received any Medicare assistance. Only I remain, having been there that day offering this legislation again to bring help to these people. But their agony and the burdens on their families have now been succeeded by thousands of others, who at the time probably had never heard of ALS disease, certainly did not know that Medicare, upon which their families had come to rely, would be out of reach to them in such a crisis. The ALS Treatment and Assistance Act, since that day, has enjoyed bipartisan support, with 28 cosponsors in the Senate, 12 Republicans and 16 Democrats. In the House of Representatives, 280 Democrats and Republicans have cosponsored the legislation. This spring, the Senate unanimously adopted this legislation as part of the marriage penalty tax bill, which, of course, did not become law. Both Houses, both parties have responded to this terrible situation. Two weeks ago, when Senator Moynihan and Senator Daschle introduced S. 3077, the Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 2000, I was very proud that the ALS provision was included in their legislation. Last Wednesday, the ALS waiver was included in the balanced budget refinement legislation approved by the House Commerce Committee. So there is still hope. As every Member of this institution knows, the calendar is late. Regretfully, we are again at a time of year when the legislative process ceases to work as it is taught in textbooks across the country. There will not be an opportunity for me to advocate this legislation for ALS patients by offering an amendment on the Senate floor to the Medicare package developed by the Finance Committee. That option is simply not going to exist under the procedures and the calendar of the Senate. I am, therefore, left with the following circumstances. Having lost many of those ALS patients, on whose behalf I originally began this effort, a new group of families are now helping me across the country. They, too, have a year or two remaining in their lives and need this help. If I can succeed in getting this provision, with the support of my colleagues, in the balanced budget refinements that ultimately will be passed by this Senate, for those people before their deaths, there is still hope. If I fail, then these people, too, will expire before they get any assistance from the Government. I do not know of an argument not to pass this legislation. I do not know of a point that any Senator in any party, at any time, could make, to argue on the merits, that these ALS patients should not get a waiver under Medicare, in the remaining months or years of their lives, to get some financial assistance. The unanimous support of the Senate previously, I think, is testament to the fact that we are of one mind. I simply now would like to ask my colleagues, in these final days, knowing that there will be a Medicare balanced budget refinement bill, that this provision be included. I also, Mr. President, ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of the letter that was sent to Chairman Roth last week, signed by 16 of my colleagues in the Senate, Democrats and Republicans, asking for inclusion of the ALS legislation in a balanced budget refinement package.