Robert Torricelli

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.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I thank you for the time and I thank my colleagues for their indulgence. I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize one of the truly gifted athletes of the state of New Jersey. It gives me great pleasure to extend my congratulations to Tom Wilkens on winning the bronze medal in the men's 2000 meter individual medley event at the XXVIIth Olympic Games in Sydney, Australia. Despite having asthma and a severe allergy to chlorine, Tom Wilkens has consistently performed as a champion. At the 1999 Pan Pacific Championships, he won a medal of each color, gold in the 200 meter individual medley, silver in the 200 meter breaststroke, and bronze in the 400 meter individual medley. To this impressive collection, he adds a bronze from the Games of the XXVIIth Olympiad. Tom Wilkens represents the best of New Jersey's athletes. His outstanding representation of New Jersey and the United States at these Olympic Games is a testament to the dedication that has afforded him success in the face of diversity. Through his efforts, Tom Wilkens has been able to achieve athletic greatness. His commitment to excellence serves as an inspiration and it is an honor for me to be able to recognize his accomplishments.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize one of New Jersey's extremely talented and humble public servants, the Honorable Judge Julio Fuentes. This distinguished member of my State is being honored with the dedication of the 25th Hispanic-American Parade of New Jersey Annual Banquet in his name, and it gives me great pleasure to recognize his accomplishments. Judge Fuentes is a man of great intellect and a distinguished record of public service. He is constantly seeking to improve himself, as can be attested to by his pursuit of master's degrees in Latin American affairs and liberal arts during his time as a sitting judge. Those who have had the opportunity to work with Judge Fuentes universally praise his integrity as well as the depth and breadth of his knowledge of the law. Through a great internal drive and determination, Judge Fuentes has risen from Newark Municipal Court Judge to his current post of judge for the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Fuentes also has the distinction of being the first Hispanic-American to sit on this prestigious court, an honor he has truly earned. Judge Fuentes is a good, honest, decent man. He is an exemplar of the coveted American ideal of public service. It was truly an honor to be able to recommend his nomination to President Clinton. We are truly fortunate to have someone of his immense capabilities and desire for public service sitting as a judge on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Father Albert R. Cutie, to whom the 25th Hispanic-American Parade of New Jersey Annual Banquet is being dedicated. This tremendous honor is being bestowed upon an individual who is a true example of the possibilities that are available to all in our great nation. Father Albert's parents were forced, like many others, to flee from Cuba to Spain due to the atheist-communist dictatorship that took over their homeland. Fortunately, his family was reunited a few years later in San Juan, Puerto Rico, and was able to emigrate to the United States when he was seven years old. Here he has been able to pursue a life that would not have been possible in communist Cuba. Father Albert has always been a talented and industrious soul. From a young age, he showed vibrant entrepreneurial skills by turning his love for music into his own business. During his High School years his experience in parish youth groups and spiritual retreats began to foster his great love for the Church and its mission. Hearing his calling, Father Albert entered the Seminary in 1987 and was ordained on May 13, 1995. Since his ordination, countless individuals have benefitted from Father Albert's love and guidance. Not only does he continue to reach out to individuals, families, the sick, and those in need, but he works diligently to give the youth of our society a better future. We are truly fortunate to have an individual such as Father Albert as a member of our society. I am confident that our future is much brighter thanks to the efforts of Father Albert and other young Americans like him.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise to recognize William Hernandez for his efforts as president of the Hispanic State Parade of New Jersey. His work has done a great deal for Hispanic-Americans, and it is an honor to acknowledge him today. As president of the Hispanic State Parade of New Jersey, Mr. Hernandez has been able to honor the accomplishments of many prominent Hispanic-Americans. For the last three years he has also served as the president of DesFile Hispanoacericano of New Jersey. During that time, he has worked to arrange the first international cultural and health fair, and create unity and cultural pride among Hispanic-Americans. Mr. Hernandez is an extremely talented and energetic individual. His work on behalf of Hispanic-Americans has been truly beneficial, and I am confident he will continue to work tirelessly for all Americans of Hispanic decent as well as all of society.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, in only a matter of 2 or 3 weeks, the Congress will adjourn--I trust having passed H-1B visas, but in all likelihood without passing a Patients' Bill of Rights, or, unfortunately, a prescription drug benefit, and probably without any real improvement in gun safety legislation. While many of us will take comfort in helping American high- technology companies by providing H-1B visas, it is not even a mixed success. Worse, however, than most of these frustrations is the most unnecessary of all of these failures; that is, the failure to pass the Violence Against Women Act. Five years ago, Senator Biden led this Congress in passing a Violence Against Women Act, which I believe became noncontroversial and which benefits have been widely accepted. It makes it all the more difficult to understand that this $1.6 billion package is languishing and will expire. Under this legislation, we have trained thousands of police officers to make them sensitive to the problems of family violence and abuse. Judges and counselors have received training in sensitivity. We have increased the means of reporting domestic violence. So our records are accurate. We know the extent of the problem and how to respond. Most importantly, we have provided real services, medical services, for a woman or a family who is abused; a place to go to get counselling from someone who understands domestic violence and how to deal with it; a place to take a child. I think the most important of all is temporary housing. No American parent should have to choose between subjecting their child or themselves to violence, sexual abuse, or even a threat to life, and homelessness. Thousands of American women face that every night. Do I take my child to the streets, to a temporary motel, unsafe shelter, no shelter at all, or do I stay in a home where the child can be abused, where my life can be threatened? The Violence Against Women Act has created thousands of beds in temporary shelters across the country so women do not have to face that choice. It established an emergency hotline which continues to get 13,000 calls a month, half a million calls since its inception; where a desperate woman, not knowing her options, or how to protect her child, not knowing what to do, how to get medical help, how to get counseling, how to get a police officer who understands, can call and get someone on the other end of a phone and get help. The greatest part of the Violence Against Women Act is that it is showing results. Since 1997, the programs created by the Violence Against Women Act have reduced the rate of partner violence against women by 21 percent. This is a dramatic decline in the amount of violence against women since the act came into being. There may be many reasons. We are also seeing dramatic drops in murders. Fewer murders were committed by intimate partners in 1996, 1997, and 1998, than any year since 1976. The number of women raped has declined by 13 percent between 1994 and 1997. Members may cite many reasons why violence is down, rape rates are down, and most importantly, murder rates are down, but one of those reasons must be that police officers are better trained and are responding more promptly, judges are move sensitive to the crime, and most importantly, women who feel threatened in these circumstances have a choice, are getting out of residences and into shelters, into protected environments. During a recent recess, I visited a number of the shelters across my State of New Jersey. The Women's Center in Monmouth County, NJ, is receiving $285,000 for counseling and shelter and emergency services. The Passaic County Women's Shelter in Paterson received $185,000 under the Violence Against Women Act for Spanish-speaking women to get help and advice. If this act is not reauthorized, these shelters lose their Federal funding, potentially close their doors, with the unescapable conclusion that violence may rise as women lose choices. We have come to recognize in these years, the criminal justice system has come to recognize, as well, that violence in the family, particularly in cities, is dangerous not only to the individuals in the family, but society, which is built upon a family unit. We decided not to ignore the problem. But that may be exactly what this Congress is doing. This legislation will lapse, this funding will end, and people will get hurt. Those are realities. They are not partisan comments. They don't represent a philosophy or ideology. They are cold, hard, facts because for all the progress we have made, family violence in this country remains an epidemic. One in three women continues to experience domestic violence in their lifetime. A woman is still raped every 5 minutes, and still there are no arrests in half of all the Nation's rape cases. The risks of not acting are great: Lose the shelters, lose another generation of police officers or judges who are not properly trained, a phone call in the night that cannot be made, beds that will not be available. Is it worth the price, the cost of this inaction? I am pleased we are voting on this H-1B visa today. I wish we were doing many other things. Other things may be controversial, we may have our own ideas about them, but surely this could bring us together. It did once. In 1995, we acted together, without division. Are we less now than we were then--is the problem so much less in our minds? I urge the leadership to bring the Violence Against Women Act to the floor and to do so now.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Madam President, I rise to address a provision included in WRDA that will help local communities in many parts of the nation deal with the burden they often face when the federal government undertake dredging projects in their region. Before discussing the merits of this legislation, I want to first thank my colleagues, particularly Senators Smith, Baucus, and Voinovich for their assistance and cooperation. My colleagues have been remarkably helpful in this matter, they have understood the need, and I am grateful that they have agreed to include it in the managers package. Within WRDA there is a $2 million annual authorization to allow the U.S. Army Corp of engineers 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. Beneficial reuse is a concept which has largely been largely underutilized. As a result, dredged material is often dumped on the shorelines of local communities to their disadvantage, instead of sold to construction companies and other developers who would be eager to have this material available. We have known about this strange and ironic, even tragic, situation for some time, yet until now, not enough has been done to bring relief to these communities. The people of southern New Jersey are all too familiar with this situation. Current plans by the U.S. Army Corps call for more than 20 million cubic yards of 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 Army corps has recently identified nearly 13 million cubic yards of that material for beneficial reuse in transportation and construction projects that would have otherwise been simply placed in upland sites. From this experience, which is also happening in port projects in other parts of the country, we should learn that contracting companies, land development companies, and major corporations want this material. This means we need to encourage the Army corps to be thinking about ways to beneficially reuse dredged material 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 local communities are treated fairly. I would again like to thank chairman Smith, Ranking Member Baucus, and Senator Voinovich for their commitment and attention to this important issue.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize one of the truly dedicated public servants of the State of New Jersey. It gives me pleasure to extend my congratulations to Thomas Corcoran on receiving the Outstanding Citizen Award for 2000 from the Phillipsburg Area Chamber of Commerce. Over the years, Mr. Corcoran has done a great deal for the betterment of Phillipsburg, New Jersey. He has fought for a better education for the children of the area through his efforts to promote a bond issue for the construction of new schools. He was appointed by former Governor Florio to serve as a commissioner on the Phillipsburg Housing Authority. Further, he has worked towards the revitalization of Phillipsburg's tourist industry by working with New Jersey State Legislators and other prominent individuals to promote Phillipsburg as the site of the New Jersey Railroad Museum. Mr. Corcoran has always been there for the Town of Phillipsburg. Be it serving as town mayor and other public posts, or taking the time to serve as the public address announcer for Phillipsburg High School football games, Mr. Corcoran has been an exemplar of citizenship, town pride, and selflessness. Through his efforts, Mr. Corcoran has shown the great dedication he holds for the town he calls home. Those efforts make it an honor for me to be able to stand with the Phillipsburg Area Chamber of Commerce and recognize an individual such as Mr. Corcoran.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Under the previous order, Senator Biden was to be recognized at this point. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to proceed under his time and that, in turn, he proceed following the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I think it is important to remind the Senate of the issue before the body. It has been argued that China should be allowed into the World Trade Organization. That is not a question of this amendment. China is coming into the World Trade Organization under PNTR. It has been argued that there should not be an interference in trade between China and the United States; it was argued strenuously by my friend and colleague from California. That is not before the Senate under this amendment. It has been argued that the internal politics of China should not interfere with trade. That is not before the Senate. The Senate has defeated the measures on internal matters in China. It is going to support WTO and the PNTR. The issue before the Senate is narrowly defined. Under Thompson-Torricelli, there is a single issue before this body: Whether repeated acts of violations of nonproliferation agreements by Chinese companies will give the President the authority, which he will have the right to waive, to interfere with Chinese access to American capital markets. That is the only issue before the Senate. I recognize that we come to this institution with a variety of local interests. Some of us represent agriculture and some industry; some labor and some business; some in the West, some in the North; some in the South; some in the East; some rural; some suburban. We have one unifying common interest--the national security of the United States. Wherever we are from, whatever our priorities, whatever our philosophy, that single guiding responsibility unites us all. I recognize there are economic interests in the country that are on different sides of the issue of PNTR. But on this single issue, the proliferation of dangerous weapons of mass destruction that are a threat to the life and the security of the United States of America, we can find common ground. Indeed, as enthusiastic as any individual farmer in America may be to get access to Chinese markets, notwithstanding the fact that this amendment does not deal with agricultural exports, I would challenge any Member of this Senate to find an individual American farmer who, even if this amendment did threaten agricultural exports, would trade a single sale for the United States not being resolved in denying Chinese companies the ability to export missile or nuclear or biological technology that threatens the American people. Find me a single high-tech executive, given the choice between an individual contract and the ability to restrict a single Chinese company from selling technology that threatens the United States of America, find me one who would not take a stand for this amendment. Individual interests, I understand them. My friend and coauthor of this amendment, Senator Thompson, stood on the floor reciting comments by the president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, who threatened retribution against Senators who support Thompson-Torricelli and cited the ``politics of nuclear proliferation.'' What have we come to as an institution? The ``politics of nuclear proliferation''? I thought the issue of nonproliferation knew no politics, was supported by Democrats, Republicans, liberals and conservatives. We can all differ on some of the strategies of defending the United States. We may differ on the question of a missile shield defense. We may differ on how we allocate our national defense resources. But I thought the question of proliferation was the one uniting aspect of our foreign policy that knew no bounds--we are all united in the question that there are some governments that are so irresponsible, some nations that live so far out of the norms of accepted behavior, that they must be denied these weapons. The evidence is unmistakable that the People's Republic of China, despite 20 years of commitments to accede to this policy of denying these rogue nations these technologies, continues to export this dangerous technology. The evidence is overwhelming. The Director of Central Intelligence reported to this Congress, last month, that China has increased its missile-related assistance to Pakistan, continues to provide assistance to Iran, North Korea, Libya; that China has proliferated to Pakistan. This Senate has debated what to spend and how to spend to defend ourselves against the possibility, by 2005, of nuclear-tipped missiles from North Korea. We have all lived in anguish with the destruction of American citizens by the terrorism in Libya and Iran. Now before this Senate is the most modest of amendments--not an interference with trade; not a restriction on exports, though indeed that may be justifiable; not a sanction against the violations of workers' rights or human rights, though that may be arguable. We have not dared, in the most modest of positions, to ask, to request, to suggest any of those things. Just this: That the authority exists to deny companies in the People's Republic of China that consistently, regularly are found, by overwhelming evidence, to be proliferating dangerous technologies that threaten the United States of America, access to our capital markets. But, indeed, that would be too ambitious to ask, so we have given the President waiver authority to cancel that restriction and simply tell the Congress why he did so. Is there a man or woman in the Senate who thinks this request is so ambitious, would so threaten the economic life of the United States, that we cannot ask this? I challenge my colleagues in the Senate, if you will not accept the evidence from the Director of Central Intelligence on this proliferation, if you will not cede the warning, accept the overwhelming evidence of this proliferation and the threat it constitutes to the United States of America, then have the intellectual honesty and courage to rise on the floor of this Senate to say the Central Intelligence Agency no longer provide this evidence. Because if you will not read it, you will not accept it, and you will not act upon a request that is this modest in scope, then have the intellectual honesty not to even receive it. I say to my colleagues, it has been stated on this floor that the history of economic sanctions has been uniformly disappointing; that there is no evidence that they succeed. In the long history of economic sanctions, this would be the most modest. We interfere with no trade, restrict no product, restrict no market, only the raising of capital, and only then if the President does not exercise a waiver. But even if this were a more ambitious amendment, do my colleagues in the Senate really want the record to reflect that we do not believe economic sanctions are ever justifiable or ever successful, particularly members of my party? The birth of economic sanctions was from Woodrow Wilson, former Governor of my State, who believed they were the civilized alternative to avoiding armed conflict and war. They are not a perfect weapon, but they have avoided conflict. Who here would rise and say that unilateral sanctions by European states against South Africa and apartheid was wrong, or against Rhodesia or against the Soviets after invading Czechoslovakia? Who here would argue that they were wrong against Cambodia after the death camps? Who would argue they were wrong against fascist Italy, against Abyssinia and Ethiopia? Who here would argue that Roosevelt was wrong in using them against the Nazis or the Japanese invasion of Manchuria or Wilson himself against unrestricted submarine warfare in the North Atlantic? For the entire 20th century, these sanctions have been used-- not a perfect tool, not always successful, but always an alternative to conflict and in defense of the national security. That issue is before the Senate again. Because while these may not be sanctions, because it may appear the Senate, given the economic opportunity, would not accept them, Senator Thompson and I have offered something far less ambitious, a simple standby authority. But it is an alternative. What will we say to the American people if one day we discover that missile or nuclear or biological weapons are in the hands of our most feared enemies threatening the lives of the American people? Someone on this floor would be right to rise and quote the old Bolshevik maxim: They will sell us the rope with which we will hang them. No one on this floor wants to provide that explanation. I urge support for the Thompson-Torricelli amendment. It is right. It is modest. I believe the Senate would be proud to take this stand. I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Reserving the right to object, if the Senator will amend the request that I be recognized following him, I will not object.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Gun Parts Trafficking Act of 2000. For years, I have fought along with many of my colleagues against the gun violence that has plagued America. We have sought to keep firearms from the hands of children and those who would use them to do harm. After long debate, we succeeded in enacting a ban on assault weapons as well as the Brady bill requiring a criminal background check at the time of a firearms purchase--positive steps in the effort to protect our communities from gun violence. Gun violence, however, continues to have a devastating impact on our nation. The statistics have been well documented, but bear repeating. In 1997 alone, more than 32,000 Americans were shot and killed. Fourteen children die from gunfire every day. The economic toll of firearms deaths and injuries on our country--$33 billion each year--is astronomical. In light of these staggering figures it seems obvious that we must do more, including regulating guns like any other consumer product. But while we look forward, we must also be mindful of attempts by some to subvert the progress we have made. Gun dealers are exploiting a loophole in current law that allows them to sell, through the US mail, gun kits containing virtually every single item needed to build an automatic weapon. When we enacted a ban on these deadly automatic weapons, we exempted automatic weapons legally owned prior to the ban. We also allowed replacement parts to be legally sold so that these grand-fathered weapons could be repaired by their owners, and we allowed these parts to be shipped through the nail. These provisions, however, have been exploited and replacement part kits that can convert a legally owned firearm into an illegal automatic weapon are readily available and heavily advertised in numerous publications. Some of these kits even go so far as to provide a template that shows how to make this conversion. This is a flagrant effort to evade the laws of the United States. This activity must be stopped in order to maintain the integrity of our ban on assault weapons and protect our communities from gun violence. Legislation is needed that provides simple, common-sense measures to remedy the glaring loopholes in current law. To that end, I am introducing the Gun Parts Trafficking Act of 2000, legislation designed to close the loopholes in existing law and end the sale of kits designed to convert legally owned firearms into illegal automatic weapons. The bill will expand the definition of ``firearm'' to include the main components of the weapon and will prohibit the manufacture or assembly of guns by an individual who does not have a license to do so. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the Gun Parts Trafficking Act and ask unanimous consent that the full text of the legislation be printed in the Record following my statement.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Gun Parts Trafficking Act of 2000. For years, I have fought along with many of my colleagues against the gun violence that has plagued America. We have sought to keep firearms from the hands of children and those who would use them to do harm. After long debate, we succeeded in enacting a ban on assault weapons as well as the Brady bill requiring a criminal background check at the time of a firearms purchase--positive steps in the effort to protect our communities from gun violence. Gun violence, however, continues to have a devastating impact on our nation. The statistics have been well documented, but bear repeating. In 1997 alone, more than 32,000 Americans were shot and killed. Fourteen children die from gunfire every day. The economic toll of firearms deaths and injuries on our country--$33 billion each year--is astronomical. In light of these staggering figures it seems obvious that we must do more, including regulating guns like any other consumer product. But while we look forward, we must also be mindful of attempts by some to subvert the progress we have made. Gun dealers are exploiting a loophole in current law that allows them to sell, through the US mail, gun kits containing virtually every single item needed to build an automatic weapon. When we enacted a ban on these deadly automatic weapons, we exempted automatic weapons legally owned prior to the ban. We also allowed replacement parts to be legally sold so that these grand-fathered weapons could be repaired by their owners, and we allowed these parts to be shipped through the nail. These provisions, however, have been exploited and replacement part kits that can convert a legally owned firearm into an illegal automatic weapon are readily available and heavily advertised in numerous publications. Some of these kits even go so far as to provide a template that shows how to make this conversion. This is a flagrant effort to evade the laws of the United States. This activity must be stopped in order to maintain the integrity of our ban on assault weapons and protect our communities from gun violence. Legislation is needed that provides simple, common-sense measures to remedy the glaring loopholes in current law. To that end, I am introducing the Gun Parts Trafficking Act of 2000, legislation designed to close the loopholes in existing law and end the sale of kits designed to convert legally owned firearms into illegal automatic weapons. The bill will expand the definition of ``firearm'' to include the main components of the weapon and will prohibit the manufacture or assembly of guns by an individual who does not have a license to do so. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the Gun Parts Trafficking Act and ask unanimous consent that the full text of the legislation be printed in the Record following my statement.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I hereby recognize Ms. Emily E. Rome of the Paterson School District as the 2000-2001 Passaic County Teacher of the Year. For the past 50 years, Ms. Rome has served as a physical education teacher and has received numerous awards and accolades along the way. Her accomplishments range from prestigious recognition by the U.S. Congress and the Governor of New Jersey to various awards granted by the New Jersey Education Association and the National Education Association. However, the effectiveness of her service reaches far beyond the view of the public eye. In the classroom, Ms. Rome has dedicated herself to creating a supportive and productive environment for the youth of Passaic County. As a educator, she as helped to shape the mind and spirit of these individuals during a crucial stage of development in their lives. Further, as a member of the community, Ms. Rome has demonstrated the high level of service and commitment that we all should strive to achieve. Ms. Rome's accomplishments and accolades reflect only a small portion of the many contributions she has made to those she has served. He efforts have spanned from the children of Passaic County to a variety of young individuals who aspire to follow in her footsteps and education and service in the future. She is a exemplar of the professionalism that we hope to find in our educators, and the type of citizen that we hope to find in our communities. Ms. Rome is a representative of excellence, and her dedication to the world both inside and outside of the classroom is to be commended.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation which will ensure the preservation of our nation's coastal areas. Protection of our beaches is paramount; they are not only where we go to enjoy the sand and surf, but they also generate a significant portion of our nation's revenue. Tourism and recreational activity are extremely important to New Jersey, especially to our small businesses and shore communities. New Jersey's $17 billion a year tourism industry is supported by the 160 million people who visit our 127 miles of beaches each year. This spending by tourists totaled $26.1 billion in New Jersey in 1998, a 2 percent increase from $25.6 billion in 1997. My state is a microcosm of coastal tourism throughout the United States. Travel and tourism is our Nation's largest industry, employer, and foreign-revenue earner, and U.S. beaches are its leading tourist destination. In 1997, total tourism expenditures in U.S. coastal areas was over $185 billion, generating over 2.7 million jobs with a payroll of nearly $50 million. Americans are not the only ones eager to enjoy our beaches and coastal regions. They are also the top destination for foreign tourists. Each year, the U.S. takes in $4 billion in taxes from foreign tourists, while state and local governments receive another $3.5 million. In Florida alone, foreign tourists spent over $11 billion in 1992, $2 billion of that amount in the Miami Beach area. This Florida spending generated over $750 million in Federal tax revenues. A recent article by Dr. James R. Houston, published in the American Shore and Beach Preservation Journal, shows that annual tax revenues from foreign tourists in Miami Beach are 17 times more than the Federal government spent on the entire Federal Shore Protection program from 1950 to 1993. If the Federal share of beach nourishment averages about $10 million a year, the Federal government collects about 75 times more in taxes from foreign tourists in Florida than it spends restoring that State's beaches. Delaware, one of the smallest states in the Union, is visited by over 5 million people each year. This, in a state where just over 21,000 people actually live in beach communities and another 373,000 live within a several hours drive. Beach tourism generates over $173 million in expenditures each year for ``The First State.'' Equally significant, however, beach erosion results in an estimated loss of over 471,000 visitor days a year, a figure which is estimated to increase to over 516,000 after five years. A 1998 study by Jack Faucett Associates (Bethesda, MD) in cooperation with independent consultants for the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control shows that during this five-year period, beach erosion will cost an estimated $30.2 million in consumer expenditures, the loss of 625 beach area jobs, and the reduction of wages and salaries by $11.5 million. Business profits will drop by $1.6 million and State and local tax revenues will decrease by $2.3 million. Finally, beach erosion will reduce beach area property values by nearly $43 million. The situation in Delaware is indicative of beach erosion problems throughout the coastlines of our nation. Unless we increase our efforts to protect and re-nourish our coastline, we jeopardize a significant portion of our country's revenue. The Federal government spends $100 million a year for the Federal Shore Protection program. While the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers does a benefit-cost analysis in connection with every shore protection project, that analysis suffers from its own myopia. It places its greatest emphasis on the value of the private property that is immediately adjacent to the coastline. It is not reasonable to assume that a healthy beach with natural dunes and vegetation will benefit only that first row of homes and businesses. Homeowners spend money in the region; hotels attract tourists, who also spend money; local residents who live inland come to the beach to recreate. They too, spend money. Countless businesses, from t-shirt vendors to restaurants, all depend on these expenditures. Prior to the 1986 Water Resources Development Act, the Army Corps of Engineers viewed recreation as an equally important component of its cost-benefits analysis. However, the 1986 bill omitted recreation as benefit to be considered, and our coastal communities have suffered. Indeed, the economy of our nation has suffered. My legislation would make it clear that recreational benefits will be given the same budgetary priority as storm damage reduction and environmental restoration. Companion legislation has been introduced in the House of Representatives, by Congressmen Lampson and LoBiondo, and enjoys bipartisan support. Beach replenishment efforts ensure that our beaches are protected, property is not damaged, dunes are not washed away, and the resource that coastal towns rely on for their lifeblood, is preserved. It is imperative that federal policy base beach nourishment assistance on the entirety of the economic benefits it provides. To limit benefits to hurricane or storm damage reduction ignores the equally important economic impact of tourism.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, it has been obvious for some time now that when permanent normal trade relations for China comes to a vote in the Senate, it will, indeed, pass overwhelmingly. My colleagues proceeding with this debate in recent days have detailed at length the enormous potential economic benefits to the U.S. economy. Other colleagues have appropriately discussed the human rights record in China, problems with religious freedom, and the rights of workers in China. They are all legitimate points and each belongs in a debate on PNTR with China, but the debate is not complete. The relationship of the United States with the People's Republic of China is not only about economics; it must include human rights, religious rights, and workers rights. But it is not just about those rights; it is also ultimately about the security of the United States. Our relationship with the People's Republic of China, a nation of 1.3 billion people, an immense land of economic, geopolitical significance, goes beyond that, perhaps, of any other trading partner of our country. Indeed, how we define this relationship in this vote and in this debate has enormous ramifications in the next generation. Indeed, just as the debate in those first few months and years after the Second World War changed permanently the security and economic relationship between the United States and Western Europe and the remainder of the world, this debate will permanently alter our relationship with the People's Republic of China, and it is not right and it is not appropriate that it be done on a single plane. Economics is important, but it is not everything. That is why Senator Thompson and I have offered our amendment to address the continuing problem of the proliferation of weapons and technology from the People's Republic of China. It was, of course, our hope that this vote could have been taken independently of PNTR. It was our desire not to complicate PNTR but to have a separate debate and separate vote. Regrettably, that proved not to be possible. So we return today with this amendment actually on the bill. As I understand the arguments now for the bill, the most compelling is that PNTR will integrate China into the international economy, that it will encourage China to follow international trading rules. It is a strong argument, but even with passage of PNTR, even if the proponents are correct that China will then adhere to international trading rules, that does not automatically make China a member in good standing of the global community. Trading rules do not govern all international conduct. A nation is not a nation in good standing in the world simply because it trades according to these rules; it is by all the rules by which it chooses to live. Truly to participate in the global community, China will, as has been argued on this floor, have to reform its human rights practices, the way it treats its workers, the way it relates to Taiwan, and how it deals with sensitive military technology that threatens all peoples everywhere. Despite many assurances that it will reform its behavior, China has continued to be one of the most persistent and serious violators of international nonproliferation agreements. Ultimately, that is the question every Senator must ask themselves: If, indeed, PNTR is passed and China continues to violate trade agreements, you can go to your local townhall meeting and complain to the autoworkers and you can explain it to the Chamber of Commerce, but if China continues to violate proliferation agreements which leads to the spread of nuclear technology and missiles to a variety of dangerous neighbors that one day leads to warfare involving our Nation or others, to whom will you apologize then? Where will the explanations lie? That is the question before the Senate. Last month, the Director of Central Intelligence delivered to the Congress the intelligence community's biannual ``Unclassified Report on the Acquisition of Technology Relating to Weapons of Mass Destruction.'' The DCI report clearly states that China has increased its missile- related assistance to Pakistan, and it continues to provide missile- related assistance to countries such as Iran, North Korea, and Libya. What is especially troubling about China's activities is that this sensitive assistance is going to the most dangerous nations in the most volatile areas of the world, with the greatest potential to do harm. Indeed, looking at this map I have here--from Algeria to Libya to Syria to Iran--what is it that China could do more? What would be worse? What other nation would have to receive nuclear or missile technology before it would offend Members of the Senate? In the entire list of rogue nations, almost no one is absent. Just a couple of months ago, Chinese sales to Iran led to the test by Iran of a Shahab-3 medium-range ballistic missile. It is believed that components of Iran's missile program are from Beijing. The People's Republic of China companies were sanctioned in 1997 for transfers to Iran, contributing to chemical weapons proliferation. Yet the DCI's August 2000 report said Iran continues to seek production technology, expertise, and chemicals for its chemical weapons program. So it is missiles and chemicals. Pakistan is a country located, perhaps, in the most volatile region of the world, which in recent years exploded a nuclear device and has come to the brink of war with India on several occasions since its new nuclear status. The DCI reported last month that the PRC provided ``extensive support'' to Pakistan's weapons of mass destruction program, and in the second half of 1999 Iran had ``ongoing contacts'' that could not be ruled out, despite a 1996 promise by the PRC to stop assistance to unsafeguarded nuclear facilities. In unpublished press accounts, U.S. intelligence agencies have reportedly concluded that China has stepped up its shipment of specialty steels, guidance systems, and technical expertise to Pakistan. Chinese experts have also been sighted around Pakistan's newest missile factory, which appears to be partly based on Chinese design. Libya is a country with a history of promoting regional instability, sponsoring state terrorism, including the destruction of our own aircraft and our own citizens. The August 2000 DCI report publicly confirmed the PRC's assistance to Libya for the first time. The Defense Department reportedly discovered in December 1999 that the PRC plans to build a hypersonic wind tunnel in Libya for missile designs for the Al-Fatah missile program. According to reports in the Washington Times, the director of Libya's Al-Fatah missile program is planning to travel to China to attend China's premier training center for missile scientists and technicians. North Korea's missile program is now believed to be achieving the potential to reach the United States with a ballistic missile, potentially by the year 2005--a direct security concern of the United States, leading this Congress to authorize and appropriate billions of dollars for missile defense, leading all of us to a sense of new vulnerability. The DCI first publicly confirmed in 1999 that the PRC is supplying components to North Korea. The August 2000 report states that North Korea acquired missile-related raw materials and components ``especially through firms in China'' in the second half of 1999. These countries--Iran, Pakistan, Libya, and North Korea--are just the countries China has proliferated to in recent years. In the past, proliferation by the People's Republic of China has also included sending weapons technology to Iraq, Syria, and Algeria. I cannot imagine any accusation against a foreign government that could or should raise more serious concerns in this body. How, indeed, could any Member of this Senate ever explain to the American people granting the greatest economic gift in the world, a normalized trade relationship with the United States, the greatest economy in the world, without at least, at a minimum, seeking enforcement of previous agreements for arms control and nonproliferation? Until China ceases to allow this type of sensitive equipment, technology, and expertise to flow through its borders, it must understand that it can never have normalized political and economic relationships with the United States or, indeed, be accepted into the family of nations on an equal status with all other nations. Opponents of our amendment contend that the current nonproliferation laws are effective; that Chinese proliferation is under control; that unilateral sanctions never work. They could not be more wrong. As the reports I have just cited demonstrate, Chinese proliferation behavior is not improving. It is not getting better. And the DCI's report delivered to this Congress proves it. Existing nonproliferation laws are simply not working. This provides a real incentive, in actual quantifiable costs, for sharing technology with dangerous nations. Our nonproliferation laws must be strengthened. This amendment--and only the Thompson-Torricelli amendment--offers that opportunity. Under this amendment, the President of the United States would submit a report to Congress by June 1st of each year identifying entities in key proliferating nations that have contributed to the development or acquisition of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons, or ballistic or cruise missiles by foreign countries--every year a report identifying the entities. The President would be required to impose measures against companies in key supplier nations that have been identified as proliferators, and the President would also be authorized to impose measures against any supplier countries as he sees fit. The President is given the discretion, but he is also given the responsibility. And this Congress is given the information that it needs to know whether or not the Nation is being safeguarded. Over the past several months, we have substantially revised this legislation to address a number of concerns by the administration and by our colleagues. This amendment was not drafted by Senator Thompson or by myself alone. The administration raised legitimate concerns that it dealt only with specific technologies, only with the nations about which we should be concerned. It has been redrafted to deal specifically with those concerns. The revised bill now applies to all countries identified by the Director of Central Intelligence as key suppliers of weapons of mass destruction. The list currently includes China, Russia, and North Korea. Countries could be added or removed from the list over time based on the DCI's guidelines. So there are no unintended consequences of other states. There were objections originally that the President did not have enough discretion in applying the sanctions; that the sanctions in the bill were too broad; and that they were applied with a standard of evidence that was too low. Every one of those problems was changed to meet the administration's objectives. The bill is now drafted so that any sanctions against supplier countries are totally within the discretion of the President. The list of measures available to the President are the same as in the original bill. But now the President is authorized--not mandated--to apply these sanctions. So those within the Senate who had concerns that we were taking away Presidential discretion, forcing him to act when the facts may not warrant it, prohibiting him from negotiating by not having this discretion, have had their concerns addressed. The President is given authorization. He is not mandated. The only mandatory measures remaining in the bill would be applied against specific entities or countries that are determined by the President to be proliferators. Only if the President determines they are a proliferator will any entity be sanctioned. If a company is determined to be a proliferator, the President must deny all pending licenses and suspend all existing licenses for the transfer to that company that are controlled for export under the Arms Export Control Act, the Export Administration Act of 1979, or the Export Administration Regulations. Isn't that how the Senate would have it? If a company has been identified, if they have been multiple violators, if they have been cited by the President, shouldn't that company then be denied the benefits of these various export acts? There is also an across-the-board prohibition on any U.S. Government purchase of goods or services from, and U.S. Government assistance or credits to, the proliferator. Would any Member of the Senate argue with this? To use the taxpayers' money, U.S. Government resources to buy from a company that has been repeatedly cited as a proliferator by the U.S. Government? Certainly they should not be entitled to the benefits of trade with the Government itself. Is it too much to ask that we impose the sanctions on companies that are already identified, already established as having been engaged in this conduct? But for some Members of the Senate, this was not enough. So we gave the President one further set of powers, waiver authority, which allows the President to waive the imposition of measures required under this legislation if he determines that the supplier country was taking appropriate actions to penalize the entity for such acts of proliferation and to deter future proliferation. The President also can waive the sanctions if he determines that such a waiver is important to the national security of the United States. How little would be enough? It isn't mandatory. It is optional. It requires multiple instances. It must be an entity already identified by the President. It must be a technology already identified by the Government. It isn't mandatory. The President can waive it. He can cite larger national interests. I believe there is a positive impact with the passage of this amendment. Now I ask the Senate another question: What is the impact of failing to enact it? Who could ever believe that this Senate considers proliferation issues to be serious, that we are concerned that there is a price to selling these weapons of mass destruction or these technologies to other nations, if we cannot at a minimum pass this authorizing sanction on an optional basis, to be used if the President wants to use it? Imagine the message in Beijing or North Korea or Iran or Iraq. Are we so desperate for trade, is this economy so desperate for that one more dollar immediately, not to offend a potential investor or buyer, that we would compromise our own good judgment? I don't believe we would lose a dollar of trade with this amendment. I don't believe we lose a product, a job. But even if we did, even if I were wrong and we did, is the price too high to send a message that in our proliferation policy there is more than words? Words will not defend us. It is not at all clear that our missile defense shield will ever protect us. This might. It can't hurt. It at least can set a serious tone that we will not be dealt with with impunity. Trade with us; get the benefits of our market. But we will look the other way while you send dangerous technologies to nations that kill our people or threaten the peace. In a recent editorial, the Washington Post noted: China's continuing assistance to Pakistan's weapons program in the face of so many U.S. efforts to talk Beijing out of it shows the limits of a nonconfrontational approach. The Post went on to say: The United States should make clear that . . . Chinese missile-making is incompatible with business as usual. A Wall Street Journal editorial stated: If there is an assumption in Beijing that it can be less observant to U.S. concerns now that its WTO membership seems assured, the Chinese leadership is making a serious mistake. Are they? The Wall Street Journal was too optimistic. Whether they are making a serious mistake will be judged by the vote on this bill, win or lose. How many Senators consider proliferation issues and national security to be more than words but a policy with strength, with cost, with sanction, if our security is violated? If we pass PNTR alone and do not pass legislation addressing these important national security concerns, I fear for the message that is sent and the priorities of this Senate. This Senate will always be sensitive to business investment, trading opportunities, and economic growth. It is our responsibility to assure that America is prosperous and strong and growing. We will meet that responsibility. But it is the essence of leadership to understand that no one responsibility stands alone. As we govern the national economy, we possess responsibility for the national security. No economy can be so big, no economy can grow so swiftly, there can be no number of jobs with national income that can reach no level that makes for a secure American future if missile technology spreads to Iraq and Iran, if nuclear weapons begin to circle the globe and unstable regimes. Where, my colleagues, will your economy take you then? Balance, my friends. The Thompson-Torricelli amendment offers balance. We are pleased by our prosperity, but we are not blinded by it. We are blessed to live in a time of peace, but we understand how we earned it--by strong policies of national security. That is what the Thompson- Torricelli amendment offers today. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation which will ensure the preservation of our nation's coastal areas. Protection of our beaches is paramount; they are not only where we go to enjoy the sand and surf, but they also generate a significant portion of our nation's revenue. Tourism and recreational activity are extremely important to New Jersey, especially to our small businesses and shore communities. New Jersey's $17 billion a year tourism industry is supported by the 160 million people who visit our 127 miles of beaches each year. This spending by tourists totaled $26.1 billion in New Jersey in 1998, a 2 percent increase from $25.6 billion in 1997. My state is a microcosm of coastal tourism throughout the United States. Travel and tourism is our Nation's largest industry, employer, and foreign-revenue earner, and U.S. beaches are its leading tourist destination. In 1997, total tourism expenditures in U.S. coastal areas was over $185 billion, generating over 2.7 million jobs with a payroll of nearly $50 million. Americans are not the only ones eager to enjoy our beaches and coastal regions. They are also the top destination for foreign tourists. Each year, the U.S. takes in $4 billion in taxes from foreign tourists, while state and local governments receive another $3.5 million. In Florida alone, foreign tourists spent over $11 billion in 1992, $2 billion of that amount in the Miami Beach area. This Florida spending generated over $750 million in Federal tax revenues. A recent article by Dr. James R. Houston, published in the American Shore and Beach Preservation Journal, shows that annual tax revenues from foreign tourists in Miami Beach are 17 times more than the Federal government spent on the entire Federal Shore Protection program from 1950 to 1993. If the Federal share of beach nourishment averages about $10 million a year, the Federal government collects about 75 times more in taxes from foreign tourists in Florida than it spends restoring that State's beaches. Delaware, one of the smallest states in the Union, is visited by over 5 million people each year. This, in a state where just over 21,000 people actually live in beach communities and another 373,000 live within a several hours drive. Beach tourism generates over $173 million in expenditures each year for ``The First State.'' Equally significant, however, beach erosion results in an estimated loss of over 471,000 visitor days a year, a figure which is estimated to increase to over 516,000 after five years. A 1998 study by Jack Faucett Associates (Bethesda, MD) in cooperation with independent consultants for the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control shows that during this five-year period, beach erosion will cost an estimated $30.2 million in consumer expenditures, the loss of 625 beach area jobs, and the reduction of wages and salaries by $11.5 million. Business profits will drop by $1.6 million and State and local tax revenues will decrease by $2.3 million. Finally, beach erosion will reduce beach area property values by nearly $43 million. The situation in Delaware is indicative of beach erosion problems throughout the coastlines of our nation. Unless we increase our efforts to protect and re-nourish our coastline, we jeopardize a significant portion of our country's revenue. The Federal government spends $100 million a year for the Federal Shore Protection program. While the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers does a benefit-cost analysis in connection with every shore protection project, that analysis suffers from its own myopia. It places its greatest emphasis on the value of the private property that is immediately adjacent to the coastline. It is not reasonable to assume that a healthy beach with natural dunes and vegetation will benefit only that first row of homes and businesses. Homeowners spend money in the region; hotels attract tourists, who also spend money; local residents who live inland come to the beach to recreate. They too, spend money. Countless businesses, from t-shirt vendors to restaurants, all depend on these expenditures. Prior to the 1986 Water Resources Development Act, the Army Corps of Engineers viewed recreation as an equally important component of its cost-benefits analysis. However, the 1986 bill omitted recreation as benefit to be considered, and our coastal communities have suffered. Indeed, the economy of our nation has suffered. My legislation would make it clear that recreational benefits will be given the same budgetary priority as storm damage reduction and environmental restoration. Companion legislation has been introduced in the House of Representatives, by Congressmen Lampson and LoBiondo, and enjoys bipartisan support. Beach replenishment efforts ensure that our beaches are protected, property is not damaged, dunes are not washed away, and the resource that coastal towns rely on for their lifeblood, is preserved. It is imperative that federal policy base beach nourishment assistance on the entirety of the economic benefits it provides. To limit benefits to hurricane or storm damage reduction ignores the equally important economic impact of tourism.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I wish to enter into a colloquy with the distinguished Senators from our neighboring state of Delaware, Senators Roth and Biden. Each of us has communicated with members of the Appropriations Committee on a matter of deep concern to us and our constituents that has been included in the FY 2001 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill. The Army Corps of Engineers' Delaware River Deepening Project seeks to deepen over 100 miles of the Delaware River channel from the current authorized 40-foot depth to 45 feet. The project would dredge 33 million cubic yards of bottom sediments, placing some 23 million cubic yards in dredge disposal areas in New Jersey, and 10 million cubic yards along Delaware shores. This project continues to be highly controversial in our states for a number of reasons. First, there remain significant environmental concerns regarding the material to be dredged and its ultimate disposal and impacts on the environment of the Delaware Bay. The Corps of engineers has been criticized for its method of evaluating toxic and polluted sediments--using an averaging method, which many believe can mask the potential impact of dredging toxic hot spots and more concentrated polluted material. Our citizens continue to have strong concerns about the impacts of dredging and disposal on water quality, on drinking water supplies, on important recovering shellfish areas, and on the environment in the vicinity of proposed disposal areas. A number of members of the New Jersey and Delaware congressional delegations and state agencies have made requests to the Corps of engineers to address a number of these issues. Earlier this year, Representative Andrews and I made a request to the General Accounting Office to conduct a review of the cost-benefit and environmental analyses in light of many of the concerns that have been raised about this project. In addition, Representatives Saxton and LoBiondo also sent a similar request to the GAO regarding the economic and environmental issues regarding the Delaware Deepening project. The GAO responded that it could not conduct and complete the study as quickly as would be necessary for conclusions to assist in the consideration of the FY 2001 Energy and Water Development Appropriation. I want to state here that I intend to continue to pursue these issues and over the course of the next several months to engage the General Accounting Office, the Army Inspector General, the Army Corps of engineers, and any other appropriate agencies to get answers to the questions that I believe are critical to my constituents. For the record, Mr. President, I would like to enter into the record copies of study requests made by members of the New Jersey delegation to the General Accounting regarding the Delaware River Main Channel Deepening project. If I may address the distinguished senior Senator from Delaware, have you not also made known your concerns to the Committee on Appropriations and to the Army Corps of Engineers?

Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank the Senator for that clarification. Does that also describe the concerns and sentiments of the Senator from Delaware, Senator Biden?

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise with my colleague Senator Johnson to introduce ``The Municipal Deposit Insurance Protection Act of 2000.'' This legislation provides municipal deposits with one- hundred percent federal deposit insurance coverage by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). The lack of one-hundred percent coverage for municipal deposits has stifled the ability of community banks to invest in local families and businesses. By providing this much-needed coverage, this legislation ensures that local banks have the resources they need to grow their communities. Municipal deposits are taxpayer funds deposited by state and local governments, school districts, water authorities and other public entities. Due to the fact that the FDIC does not provide insurance coverage to municipal deposits, many states require banks to provide collateral for municipal deposits. Full deposit insurance coverage of municipal deposits could free up bank resources currently used for collateral. These resources could be used to keep local public funds at work in the communities in which they are generated. Moreover, FDIC coverage helps build consumer confidence in their bank and helps attract the core deposits that are needed for community lending and a bank's survival. Without FDIC coverage, many independent, local banks are losing substantial deposits to large, corporate banks because of the perception that larger banks are safer. Providing municipal deposits with complete insurance coverage will strengthen community banks by placing these banks in a more competitive position to attract municipal deposits. Our nation's independently-operated banks are a valued part of our communities. It is important that these banks are able to maintain their competitiveness and continue providing their communities with their characteristic attention to customer service and investments in local farms and small businesses. Finally, numerous taxpayers may be at risk municipal funds are placed in a failed bank. Recently, a bank failure in Carlisle, Iowa resulted in the loss of nearly $12 million in uninsured municipal deposits. Even though the state of Iowa has a fund that guarantees the deposits of state and local governments, there was an $8.4 billion shortfall in the fund. Consequently, this shortfall in funds will have to be made up by other Iowa banks. This is why Senator's Johnson and I are introducing ``The Municipal Deposit Insurance Protection Act of 2000.'' The legislation will provide one-hundred percent coverage for municipal deposits will free up bank resources currently used as collateral, enable local, independent banks to attract municipal deposits, and will protect municipal taxpayers from losing uninsured public money. Senator Johnson and I look forward to working with our colleagues on this much-need legislation.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I have an amendment, No. 4109, filed with the clerk. It is my understanding that will be in the manager's package. I do not, therefore, call it to the floor of the Senate at this time. I do wish for a moment to discuss with my colleagues the merits of this legislation and to thank the Senator from New Mexico and the Senator from Nevada for their cooperation and their assistance. Within this legislation is $27 million to deepen and widen the main channel of the Delaware River. To the city of Philadelphia, the city of Camden, and the States of New Jersey, Delaware, and Pennsylvania, this is of some considerable importance. The Delaware River is a major artery of maritime commerce. I have always supported, and I will always support that river being efficient and available to maritime traffic, but there are serious problems. When this legislation was considered in the House, my colleague, Representative Andrews from southern New Jersey, with the support of Congressman Kasich, offered an amendment to strike this funding. I will not do that tonight because I believe, first, the votes are not available and, second, I still hope the general problems with this dredging can be solved. The problems are relatively simple. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has proposed to dredge 33 million yards of material from the Delaware River. Three States will benefit by this dredging. Primarily the benefits will go to Philadelphia and the State of Pennsylvania, simply based on the size of the economic activity in the region by these States comparatively. Ten million of these 33 million yards will be used to replenish beaches in the State of Delaware. Twenty-three million yards will be placed on prime waterfront property in the State of New Jersey. Ten million goes to Delaware; 23 million occupies prime real estate in the State of New Jersey. And although the principal economic benefits of the dredging are for the city of Philadelphia, none--I repeat, not an ounce--of the material goes to the State of Pennsylvania. Now I recognize we all have to share the burden, and we may not share the burden equally; it may not be shared proportionally to the economic benefit. But certainly accepting nothing, while the State of New Jersey takes the overwhelming majority of the material, cannot be right and it cannot be fair. Let me make clear that Senator Specter and Senator Santorum have been remarkably helpful in this matter. They have understood the inequity. They want the three States to work cooperatively. I am very grateful to both of them that, while protecting the interests of their State first and foremost, they have been good neighbors and have been cooperative. I believe there are solutions to this problem: Primarily, ironically, that while this material is being dumped on the shorelines of New Jersey to our disadvantage, there is an enormous desire by construction companies and others in land development to have this material available. It is a strange and ironic, even tragic, situation. I hope by this experience, which is also happening in the Port of New York, the Army Corps of Engineers will begin to understand and learn from the situation. Contracting companies, land development companies, major corporations, and communities want this material. Market it, sell it, use it, but no longer use it as if it is a waste material to be dumped on valuable real estate, on the unwanted. Because of that, in my amendment, we reserve $200,000 for the Army Corps of Engineers to begin actively marketing this material for private and public projects--from road projects in south Jersey, to the future expansion of the Philadelphia Airport, to new construction in Atlantic City, there are willing users, even buyers. This $200,000 can go a long way to solving this problem. Particularly, I thank Senators Specter and Santorum for their help and cooperation. Of course, to Senator Biden, the Senator from New Mexico, and the Senator from Nevada, I am grateful that this is being put in the managers' amendment. I thank them for this time. I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. In the year 2000, they have already spent $1.4 million. As the Washington Post reported on May 2, when it comes to helping solve the political fundraising problem, the broadcasting industry ``doesn't see beyond its own bottom line.'' Exactly. They are for campaign finance reform, unless they have to make a contribution. They are the principal component of this problem. Every person in this institution is spending time raising money when they should be working on legislation--compromising public confidence in the Congress by raising exorbitant amounts of money to feed the television networks that do not meet their own responsibility in reporting the news, no less in reducing the costs. This is everybody's problem. The principal burden of solving it is in this Senate. I do not excuse that. The principal burden is here. We should be requiring free or low-cost television. But it is not our problem alone. Everyone in America can make a contribution to this. And it begins with the networks. You have a public license. The airwaves of the United States belong to the American people. In no other democracy in the world does the cost approach what we require for political candidates to raise money to use the public airwaves to communicate with our own constituents--sold at a profit. I believe this Senate should require the FCC to have the networks offer a reasonable amount of free or reduced-rate advertising to candidates for Federal office as a matter of law. But until we do, the networks, as a matter of public responsibility, need to evaluate how much time they are devoting to political news so the American people are informed, recognizing that is the only way for democracy to reach sound judgments, and to unilaterally meet their responsibility and reduce these costs unless or until this Congress takes action. I believe this is the heart of the campaign finance problem. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota, once again, for allowing me the time. I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I want to address the Senate today on the question of the national elections and the rising interest by the American people in campaign finance reform. There is no better time to debate the intricacies of how we are financing and conducting national elections than in the midst of the very contests themselves. Over the next 8 weeks, candidates for Federal office will spend more money than at anytime in American history to attempt to persuade the American people in the casting of their votes. There is one simple, compelling reason for this spiraling increase in campaign expenditures, and that is the cost of televised political advertising, the cost of being on the national television networks. This Congress has tangentially dealt with some of the campaign finance problems. It is obviously positive that Congress tightened regulations for the disclosure of contributions for section 527 organizations. It was a small victory. We have, through the years, increased the number of votes in this institution, of which I am one, for comprehensive reform as envisioned by Mr. Feingold and Mr. McCain. But indeed, even if both of these provisions were enacted, the pressure for increased expenditures would not abate. With all of these reforms in place, the pressure to raise more money and spend more money would still dominate the system, which leads to the proposition that to deal with the costs of advertising on television, either this Congress must go beyond the current debate on campaign finance reform or others outside of the Congress must become part of the solution. Ironically, the principal critique of the campaign finance system is coming from the very people who are driving its costs--the television networks. A 30-second prime time advertisement in the New York City market now costs $50,000. In Chicago, the same advertisement can cost more than $20,000. This is the heart of the problem. The New York Times estimates the 2000 elections will cost $3 billion. This is a 50-percent increase over the 1996 elections. And $600 million, or 20 percent of those expenditures, will be on political advertisements on television. This represents a 40-percent increase in only 4 years. During the Presidential primaries, both Gore and Bush spent 46 percent of all of their campaign expenditures just on television ads, twice as much as any other category of expenditures. The evidence is overwhelming. What is driving this increase in expenditures, hence requiring the raising of these exorbitant, even obscene, amounts of money, is the cost of television advertising. It could not be clearer. Potentially the most expensive Senate race in American history is going to be the current Senate race in New Jersey. A study by the Alliance for Better Campaigns focused on last June's primary in my State. It came to the following conclusions: Local television stations in New York and Philadelphia took in a record $21 million from New Jersey Senate candidates, but these same television affiliates of the networks devoted an average of only 13 seconds per night in the final 2 weeks of the Senate campaign to actual news. This chart illustrates what was available to the people of my State in choosing a Senator. In New York, a CBS affiliate--this is in the final 2 weeks of the campaign, only the last 14 days--devoted 10 seconds to coverage of news on the campaign. In Philadelphia, one network gave an average of 1 second per night to actual news about the campaign. It is, therefore, not unpredictable that this would lead to candidates unable to communicate with voters through the news spending exorbitant amounts of money in advertisements. Indeed, during the final 2 weeks of the New Jersey Senate primary, viewers in Philadelphia and New York markets were 10 times more likely to receive a communication from a candidate through a paid advertisement than they were through an actual news story. They were 10 times more likely, if they were watching the news, to see an ad rather than actually seeing a report from a reporter on the campaign. Paid advertisements have come to dominate sources of information over actual news reports in American political campaigns. During the last Presidential primary season, it was much the same. The typical local television station aired less than 1 minute of candidates discussing issues each night. During the month before the Super Tuesday primary on March 7, the national networks aired a nightly average of 36 seconds. The people of the United States were choosing their two nominees in the major national primary, and for the preceding month the television networks devoted 36 seconds to discussing issues. Of the 22 televised Presidential debates held during this year's primary season, 2 were aired on network television. ABC, CBS, and NBC reduced by two-thirds the amount of time that was then devoted to the national political conventions. This is the source of some obvious changes in the American political culture. Not only is this collapse of news coverage leading candidates to raise more money and buy more advertisements, it is obviously changing how the American people make their judgments. On average, since 1952, 22 percent of voters have said they decided how to vote based on their observation of political conventions. This is also in a state of collapse. People made judgments on hard news, they made judgments on political conventions, they watched for sources of news that were unbiased or professional, and that is being replaced by political advertisements, not by choice but because there is no choice. It is extraordinary, given this state of affairs, that the principal force driving allegedly for campaign finance reform has been in the media. The networks reduced the amount of news coverage, radically increased the cost of advertising, and then complained about campaign financing. It is an extraordinary state of affairs. Indeed, at this point, the television networks have political advertising as the third most lucrative source of their revenues--only behind the automobile companies and retail advertisers. Indeed, buying air time for political ads is now 10 percent of the revenues of the television networks. Hence, it will become clear why they may complain about the cost of political campaigns, appropriately--because we all want reform in this institution more than they--but one can see why they are leading by complaint, not by example, in doing anything about the costs. They are themselves living off of and profiting by the system. And it is accelerating. In the last decade, the percentage of political ads as a portion of total revenue of the television networks has gone from 3 percent of all revenue in political ads in 1992 to 9.2 percent this year and rising. During the last cycle, network broadcasters accepted $531 million in political advertising. This is a 33-percent increase since 1996 and over a 110-percent increase since a decade ago. It isn't just that they are charging exorbitant money; it is rising in multiples every year. They are driving the cost of American political campaigns. Candidates have been living, for the last 25 years, with the same $1,000 limit in raising hard Federal dollars--$1,000 per American per election. But the networks are up 110 percent in how much they are taking in, meaning that candidates are spending more and more time, going to more and more people, raising more and more money to communicate with the same voters. I do not know how we get this Congress to enact campaign finance reform. I trust at some point it will happen. I do not know what else the Democratic Party can do. We have had 45 seats in the Senate for the last 2 years, and every single Democrat has voted for campaign finance reform. But even if we were to have succeeded in those votes, it would not have solved this problem. We would limit how much would be raised, perhaps, but we would not deal with these expenditures. Ultimately, it is these expenditures that must be addressed. As my friend, Senator McConnell, stated many times on the floor of this Senate, the Nation does not suffer from too much political debate. It probably suffers from too little. If we lower the amount that can be raised, and the networks keep raising the amount that is required to be spent, all we are going to accomplish is less discussion of issues. If the networks were devoting more time to the impartial discussion of issues, debates, news coverage, conventions, it would be a good substitute for political advertising. But the amount of news coverage is collapsing while the costs go up. If we control the expenditures, the net result will simply be this: The American people, making vital decisions about the Nation's future, with less and less and less information. The hypocrisy of this gets worse. It is not just that networks charge more money and have less news coverage. For those of us who believe there should be a requirement for free or reduced-rate air time over the public airwaves, to reduce the need to raise this money, guess who is working against us. The very people who employ Mr. Brokaw, Mr. Rather, and Mr. Jennings, who, every night, are complaining about the cost of political advertising. Their employers are lobbying to stop the reforms. The National Association of Broadcasters, the lobbying arm of the television networks, spent $2.8 million lobbying Congress in 1998.