Robert Torricelli

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank my friend, the Senator from North Dakota, for his consideration.

Mr. TORRICELLI

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.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to join people in New Jersey and throughout the nation in recognizing Colombia's 190 years of independence from Spain. On July 20, 1810, the citizens of Bogota created the first representative council to challenge Spanish authority. Total independence was proclaimed in 1813, and in 1819 the Republic of Greater Colombia was formed. In 1822, the United States became one of the first countries to recognize the new republic and to establish a resident diplomatic mission. In addition to recognizing the day of Colombia's independence, this is an excellent opportunity to celebrate the contributions of the growing population of Colombian-Americans in New Jersey and throughout the United States. Almost 100,000 Colombian-Americans reside in Northern New Jersey alone. The Colombian-American culture is vibrant and rich and it is important to acknowledge the impact it is having on our communities. While Colombia boasts one of the oldest democracies in South America, that democracy faces many serious challenges today. Celebrating this day of independence reminds us that Colombia has a long journey ahead as it works to overcome the problems of drug trafficking and rebel violence that continue to plague its society. The United States Congress is committed to helping in that struggle in any way we can. I commend the great accomplishments and contributions of the Colombian-American community and as we join Colombian-Americans in celebrating their nation's independence we also look to establishing peace and justice in their homeland.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to draw attention to the increased number of environmental enforcement actions brought against repeat violators in the United States. In 1970, many of America's rivers and lakes were dying, our city skylines were disappearing behind a shroud of smog, and toxic waste threatened countless communities. Today, after a generation of environmental safeguards, our rivers and lakes are becoming safe for fishing and swimming again. Millions more Americans enjoy clean air and safe drinking water, and many of our worst toxic dumps have been cleaned. Yet more remains to be done before we can truly say our environment is a healthy environment. Indeed, in 1997 alone, over 11,000 environmental enforcement actions had to be taken at the State and Federal levels. Sadly, it is also becoming much more common for the defendants in these actions to be repeat violators. For instance, in 1994, a chemical company in New Jersey was fined $6,000 for environmental violations. Just four years later, the same chemical company was again cited for an environmental crime--releasing cresol into the air. Unfortunately, this time 53 children and 5 adults had to be hospitalized and the EPA had to evacuate the local community. Incidents such as this are becoming all too common. Under current law, the penalties for repeat environmental violators, or parties responsible for environmental catastrophes resulting in serious injury, are too low. Indeed, paltry fines are insufficient deterrents for large corporations or parties that repeatedly commit environmental crimes. Between 1994 and 1998, New Jersey had 774 repeat violators--more than any other State in the nation. This lack of deterrence has serious repercussions for the environment and public health. To provide a real safeguard against these repeat violators, today I will introduce the ``Zero Tolerance for Repeat Polluters Act of 2000.'' This legislation will create stiffer penalties for repeat violators of environmental safeguards and provides penalties that will more accurately reflect the costs to public health and the environment of catastrophic events. The bill also gives the EPA emergency order and civil action authority to address imminent and substantial endangerments of health and environment and creates a new EPA trust fund into which recovered funds can be used to address other significant threats. Repeat environmental polluters that negligently endanger the public with their actions or inaction will not be tolerated. No individual or business should be able to endanger the public's health and safety with only the threat of a slap on the wrist hanging over them. The ``Zero Tolerance for Repeat Polluters Act of 2000'' goes a long way towards ensuring that public health and the environment are truly protected for future generations.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to draw attention to the increased number of environmental enforcement actions brought against repeat violators in the United States. In 1970, many of America's rivers and lakes were dying, our city skylines were disappearing behind a shroud of smog, and toxic waste threatened countless communities. Today, after a generation of environmental safeguards, our rivers and lakes are becoming safe for fishing and swimming again. Millions more Americans enjoy clean air and safe drinking water, and many of our worst toxic dumps have been cleaned. Yet more remains to be done before we can truly say our environment is a healthy environment. Indeed, in 1997 alone, over 11,000 environmental enforcement actions had to be taken at the State and Federal levels. Sadly, it is also becoming much more common for the defendants in these actions to be repeat violators. For instance, in 1994, a chemical company in New Jersey was fined $6,000 for environmental violations. Just four years later, the same chemical company was again cited for an environmental crime--releasing cresol into the air. Unfortunately, this time 53 children and 5 adults had to be hospitalized and the EPA had to evacuate the local community. Incidents such as this are becoming all too common. Under current law, the penalties for repeat environmental violators, or parties responsible for environmental catastrophes resulting in serious injury, are too low. Indeed, paltry fines are insufficient deterrents for large corporations or parties that repeatedly commit environmental crimes. Between 1994 and 1998, New Jersey had 774 repeat violators--more than any other State in the nation. This lack of deterrence has serious repercussions for the environment and public health. To provide a real safeguard against these repeat violators, today I will introduce the ``Zero Tolerance for Repeat Polluters Act of 2000.'' This legislation will create stiffer penalties for repeat violators of environmental safeguards and provides penalties that will more accurately reflect the costs to public health and the environment of catastrophic events. The bill also gives the EPA emergency order and civil action authority to address imminent and substantial endangerments of health and environment and creates a new EPA trust fund into which recovered funds can be used to address other significant threats. Repeat environmental polluters that negligently endanger the public with their actions or inaction will not be tolerated. No individual or business should be able to endanger the public's health and safety with only the threat of a slap on the wrist hanging over them. The ``Zero Tolerance for Repeat Polluters Act of 2000'' goes a long way towards ensuring that public health and the environment are truly protected for future generations.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise to ask the distinguished managers of the bill if they would consider a request I have concerning the conference. Mr. GORTON; I would be happy to consider a request from my colleague from New Jersey.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Bryan amendment, which would ensure protection of our nations forests. This amendment would cut $30 million from the National Forest System's forest products program and would redirect $15 million to the Wildland Fire Management's fire preparedness program. The amendment would return the remaining funds to the Treasury to reduce the national debt. There are many reasons why I support this amendment, but let me discuss just two. First, is the need to end corporate welfare. It is estimated that within the federal budget corporate welfare makes up anywhere from $86 billion (CATO Institute) to $265 billion (Progressive Policy Institute). A recent report by the Green Scissors Coalition estimates that over a five year period the Federal government will spend $36 billion on wasteful and environmentally harmful projects such as the forest products program. Second, simply, is that by passing this amendment, we enact good environmental policy. The continual construction of new roads required to access our nation's forests removes ground cover and creates a channel for water to run down, accelerates soil erosion, weakens hillsides and fouls steams, destroying the foundation of our recreational and commercial fisheries. Logging roads are a major source of non-point source water pollution. According to the National Forest Service, 922 communities receive their drinking water from streams within the national forests-streams that are polluted from contaminated run-off associated with construction. The protection of our roadless areas is important because they represent an important legacy for future generations. Areas without roads are becoming scarce in this country and in our national forests. Roadless areas provide significant benefits including: opportunities for dispersed recreation, clean, clear sources of public drinking water; large undisturbed landscapes that provide privacy and seclusion; bulwarks against the spread of invasive species; habitat for fish and game and other rare plant and animal species. While I would prefer to see this program eliminated completely, at the minimum timber companies should not be subsidized by the taxpayers. The timber industry, like any other business, should bear its own costs. At a time when we are asking all Americans to do more with less, we should have the courage to ask the special interests to at least pay their own way. I support the Bryan amendment, and ask my colleagues to join me by voting for this important initiative. While I have the floor, I will take a moment to comment on legislation that the Senate will soon consider. The Conservation and Reinvestment Act would guarantee full funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and afford permanent protection to our nation's threatened natural, cultural, and historical treasures. In 1964, Congress made the decision to reinvest revenue from the development of non-renewable resources into acquisition and permanent protection of key land, water, and open space. In the 30 years since its creation, the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) has been responsible for the acquisition of nearly seven million acres of parkland-contributing to the creation of the Appalachian Trail, Everglades and Rocky Mountain National Parks. In New Jersey, it helped fund the acquisition of Sterling Forest, and the Cape May and Walkill National Wildlife Refuges. However, the LWCF is not a true trust fund in the way ``trust fund'' is generally understood by the public. Despite the fact that by law, the revenues are supposed to go to the LWCF, Congress must appropriate the money before it can be spent; if appropriations are not made, the revenues instead go to the General Treasury, to be spent on defense, or roads, or whatever Congress decides. The practical effect is that historically, only a small portion of the funds in the LWCF has actually been used for land preservation. At no time has full funding of the LWCF been more needed than today, as the demands of development and suburbanization jeopardize land preservation efforts. The United States loses 50 acres an hour to development. In New Jersey, we know all too well the effects of suburban sprawl. Since 1961, New Jersey has lost half a million acres to sprawl. This is not surprising when you consider that New Jersey ranks 9th in terms of population. The reality is that sprawl is settling in over our open space. In a very exciting development, the House of Representatives recently passed LWCF legislation, and this bill now stands in the Senate. I am hopeful that the Senate will mark up its legislation this week, and I urge the Leadership to schedule floor time for this landmark initiative as soon as possible. Inscribed in one of the hallways of our nation's Capitol are the words of Theodore Roosevelt. He said: ``The nation behaves well if it treats the natural resources as assets which it must turn over to the next generation increased, and not impaired in value.'' Let us act on this vision and pass this extraordinary initiative during the 106th Congress.

Mr. TORRICELLI. I rise to talk about two sites in New Jersey which are worthy of federal funding for their protection. I would hope that should additional funding become available, the Senate would consider providing federal funding to contribute to the acquisition of these sites. The first is The Historic New Bridge Landing, located in Bergen County, New Jersey. I am concerned that this site will be lost unless federal protection is afforded to it. In November 1776, reeling from a series of devastating defeats in Brooklyn and Manhattan, the Continental Army fled across the Hudson River to New Jersey. The Red Coats, in hot pursuit, continually forced Washington to retreat. After crossing New Bridge, Washington instructed a contingent of troops to dismantle the bridge and protect the army's rear. Though unable to destroy the bridge, Washington's troops held off the British long enough to allow the Army to escape. This bridge called ``The Bridge that Saved a Nation,'' was strategically situated at the narrows of the Hackensack River. The bridge and surrounding area were a hotly contested battleground, encampment ground, military intelligence post and headquarters. In 1780, when the Continental army regained control of the area surrounding the New Bridge, Washington used the Steuben house as a headquarters and stayed in a second floor bedroom. This property has been the object of attention for historians and preservationists for many years. The historical significance of this has been confirmed; the site is listed on both the New Jersey and National Registers of Historic Places. In addition, in 1999, the site was named among the 10 Most Endangered Historic Sites in New Jersey by Preservation New Jersey, a private state-wide historic preservation organization. Finally, this site is included in the National Park Service's Revolutionary War and War of 1812 Battlefield study, which aims to catalog important sites in need of protection. New Bridge Landing encompasses 18 acres on both sides of the Hackensack River in Central Bergen County, New Jersey. Commercial development, neglect and time, have combined to erode and threaten to destroy this historically significant site. Since 1995, the Historic New Bridge Landing Commission has been working toward the establishment of a major new historic and cultural park at Historic New Bridge Landing, in Central Bergen County, NJ. The Commission has established a General Management Plan which outlines the objectives of the proposed park. Today, this site remains a hotly contested battleground, and while the nature of the battle is different, the importance of prevailing is no less important. New Jersey has undergone a revolution from ``Garden State'' to ``Suburban State,'' More than 40 percent of New Jersey is developed. New Jersey is by far the most built-over state in the nation and it is number 1 in the rate at which it is losing its open space. Since 1961, New Jersey has lost over half a million acres to sprawl. The area adjacent to New Bridge Landing have not been spared. Virtually all of the land adjacent to the site has been developed. This development is visible from the site, altering its character and diminishing the visitor's experience of the park's historic landscape. Mr. President, I would like to introduce this letter from the National Park Service testifying to the importance of Historic New Bridge Landing, and the need for federal efforts to preserve and protect it. Historic New Bridge Landing is worthy of our protection, and I would hope that the Senate would consider providing funding for the protection of this important site. The second site which I rise today to speak in support of, is the Glen Gray Boy Scout Camp, located in the heart of the Ramapo Mountains, in New Jersey. Much like the rest of my state, this 850 acre tract is threatened with development. Sprawl threatens to eat away at this pristine site, and the remainder of the Highlands. New Jersey knows all too well the peril of sprawl and has paid a terrible price at the hands of developers of shopping malls and subdivisions. An average of 10,000 acres of rural/agricultural land is being developed piecemeal every year in New Jersey. The NY-NJ Highlands has seen a 60 percent increase in urbanization in the last 25 years, and is expected to absorb a 14 percent increase in population by 2010. Years ago, we made an important step in the preservation of the Highlands with the effort to protect Sterling Forest. This effort was aided by a study of the New York-New Jersey Highlands Region, conducted by the Forest Service. That study also found the Highlands to be of national significance due to the diversity and quality of its natural resources and landscape. In addition, the study confirmed threats from development to water quality, critical open space, and recreational resources. The Highlands regional study has shown us that this region is deserving of federal funding to allow for its protection. I am hopeful that the Committee will share my concern for this region, and commit funding for its protection. I realize that the Committee faces many demands when putting this bill together. While these requests were not included in the bill, I would ask the Committee to consider funding for these worthy projects in the Conference.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to withdraw my amendment to the fiscal year 2001 Defense authorization bill. As the matter between the U.S. Air Force and the New Jersey Forest Fire Service has been resolved, the need for legislative language to rectify this matter is no longer necessary. At this time, I would like to show my appreciation to the Secretary of the Air Force and his staff for their professionalism and cooperation in helping bring about an expeditious and satisfactory resolution to this matter. I would like to thank the staff members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, in particular Mike McCord, for their assistance in seeing this matter through. The reimbursement from the Air Force to the New Jersey Forest Service will help enable the men and women of this vital department to continue their important duties in protecting the forests and state parks of New Jersey from disaster. redstone arsenal

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise to ask the distinguished managers of the bill if they would consider a request I have concerning the conference.

Mr. TORRICELLI. I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for a very important initiative to both myself, the State of New Jersey, and the Nation. The University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ)-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School has developed the Child Health Institute (CHI) of New Jersey--a comprehensive biomedical research center focused on the development, growth and maturation of children. The mission of the Institute is to improve the health and quality of life of children by fostering scientific research that will produce new discoveries about the causes of many childhood diseases as well as the treatments for these diseases. Researchers will direct their efforts toward the prevention and cure of environmental, genetic and cellular diseases of infants and children. The hospitals in central New Jersey birth nearly 20,000 babies each year. The founding of the Child Health Institute has created an extraordinary health care resource for these hospitals and the patients they serve. The new Children's Hospital at Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital is scheduled to open in 2000 and the Child Health Institute in 2001. Together these institutions will provide state of the art clinical and scientific research and treatment complex to serve children and their families, not only in New Jersey, but throughout the nation with cutting edge care and the latest scientific developments. At maturity, the Child Health Institute is also expected to attract between $7 and $9 million of new research funding annually with the total economic impact on the New Brunswick area estimated to be $50 to $60 million per year. This facility has also already attracted the private funding of two endowed professorships designed to allow recruitment of world-class faculty. Mr. President, funding for the University of Medicine and Dentistry's Child Health Institute in this bill would be entirely appropriate under the Health Resources and Services Administration account. It would be money well spent. I ask the Chairman to consider providing $5 million for the completion of the Child Health Institute.

Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank my distinguished colleague for his assistance with this matter. I am thankful for the Committee's acknowledgment of the expertise and dedication that Strengthen Our Sisters brings to helping our most vulnerable population and I hope that funding for this important organization can be found in conference. comprehensive school reform funding in labor hhs appropriations bill

Mr. TORRICELLI. I rise for the purpose of engaging the Chairman, Mr. Specter, in a colloquy.

Mr. TORRICELLI. I rise in support of Strengthen Our Sisters, a non- profit, tax-exempt shelter in West Milford, New Jersey that has provided homeless and battered women and children with safe shelter and supportive services since 1988. The mission of Strengthen Our Sisters is to help women and children break the cycle of domestic violence and homelessness, which, if unchecked, is passed from one generation to the next. To date, Strengthen Our Sisters has experienced great success in fulfilling its mission as evidenced by its remarkable growth. While in 1988, Strengthen Our Sisters started with an annual budget of less than $36,000, this year's budget stands at $1.3 million. Strengthen Our Sister's continued growth is a result of their demonstrated expertise in management and dedicated and knowledgeable staff. As a way to help more women, Strengthen Our Sisters would like to expand the service their program offers for older women. In 1998, Strengthen Our Sisters served four women over age fifty-five, a number that jumped to fourteen in the span of less than a year. The older women they serve often arrive with long histories of abuse that requires special services related to domestic violence, drug and alcohol addictions, unemployment and mental health. Indeed, the need for assistance naturally increases as we grow older. And, adding life changing circumstances such as abuse, homelessness and physical challenges to the equation increases the need for assistance exponentially. Thus, Strengthen Our Sisters would like to expand the services its program offers to address the needs of senior women in a comprehensive and integrative manner that focuses on helping them attain appropriate shelter, resources and advocacy services. The work of Strengthen Our Sisters is an appropriate focus for the Committee because domestic violence is a national epidemic. Expanding the Strengthen Our Sisters program to help senior women could be a model for shelters across the country that are confronting similar problems and population trends.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, last week the Senate voted to tighten regulations on 527 organizations--organizations created to influence political campaigns in the United States; that section of the Tax Code allows them to operate without disclosure of their contributors or without limitations on their expenditures, and, indeed, on a tax- deductible basis. The vote last week was genuinely historic in the Senate. It was the first time since 1993 that a campaign finance reform measure passed the Senate. I congratulate Senator Lieberman on his leadership in bringing the Senate to this important moment of judgment. These ``527 organizations,'' as they have come to be known, are the latest threat to the integrity of our Nation's electoral process, with unlimited funds unaccountable from unknown sources. If this legislation does not become law, they threaten to change the entire electoral process of the country. Every reform instituted not only since Watergate but, indeed, in this century could be undone. There is no assurance that even those limited protections--from the progressive movement in the times of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson that barred unlimited and undisclosed corporate contributions-- and reforms could remain in place if these 527 organizations are allowed to operate and, indeed, to proliferate. The Senate's vote last week sent a very strong message that for whatever we are unable to do on campaign finance reform we can at least agree that complete and full disclosure is required and that we will not allow the Tax Code to be misused for the raising of unknown political funds. It is, however, important that the public not accept this limited achievement as the sum total of all the Congress can do on campaign finance reform. It is only a beginning. Indeed, it is a modest beginning. It is also true that our efforts on soft money in McCain-Feingold have been frustrated. For a variety of reasons, it is now very clear McCain-Feingold and limitations on soft money contributions are not going to be enacted in this Congress. Some of the barriers are political. Some are legislative. Indeed, as my friend, Mitch McConnell, has pointed out, some are very real and constitutional. There are real problems to enacting a complete soft money ban. Federal courts have spoken on the subject. There are many who believe their individuals rights might be limited. That debate will continue for years on the merits. Now the Congress is left with a partial achievement on 527 organizations, a frustration on soft money prohibitions. The question is whether anything else can be done. Indeed, a great deal more could be done that is both easier to achieve and in some respects more important. There is primarily a single reason that campaign fundraising is rising exponentially in the Nation. It is very simple. Campaign expenditures are rising exponentially in the Nation. It is becoming more and more expensive to communicate with the American people through more and more news outlets. It is the heart of the problem. A recent study has indicated that records are being broken across the Nation in the cost of political advertising. The study, led by the Alliance for Better Campaigns, cited the Senate primary in my own State of New Jersey as evidence of how broken the campaign finance system has now become and that the same broadcasters in the news media who are leading national efforts for campaign finance reform are a central part of the problem. Television stations in New York and Philadelphia during the recent New Jersey Democratic primary took in a record $21 million in advertising. The chart shows the stations in New York and Philadelphia, the four rated stations, the amount of time they actually devoted to hard news. We have these stations in New York and Philadelphia bringing in $21 million in revenue from political advertising. Yet in actual news coverage of the campaigns per evening--two stations in Philadelphia--one is giving 19 seconds of coverage per evening; another, 1 second; in New York, the two top stations, WNBC and WCBS, 23 seconds and 10 seconds, respectively. Advertising rates soar. News coverage collapses. Candidates are left with no choice. There being no other means to communicate with people who live in our States, they must buy more advertising time at ever- higher and higher rates. Indeed, in the final 2 weeks of the New Jersey primary, voters in Philadelphia and New York markets were 10 times more likely while watching a news program to see a campaign advertisement than a news story--10 times more likely to see an advertisement than a legitimate news story on an issue in the campaign. That, my colleagues, is the heart of the problem. However, it is not only a senatorial problem or not only a problem in my own region of the country. During the month before the March 7, Super Tuesday primary, the national networks aired a nightly average of only 36 seconds discussing an issue of importance to the national voters. The situation that Democrats and Republicans face in the New Jersey primary is identical to what Al Gore and George W. Bush face in the national elections--no news coverage, rising rates, higher expenditures. It is, of course, part and parcel of this problem that is driven by the individual rates for specific advertising time. An example of this would be, in New York City, a 30-second advertisement can now cost as much as $50,000. In Chicago, the same advertisement could cost $20,000. Television stations in the Nation's top 75 media markets took in a record of $114 million in the first 4 months of this year in political advertising. There is no other nation in the world where the public airwaves are licensed to a private corporation which will then set commercial rates as the cost of discussing public policy issues with the Nation's voters. This wouldn't happen in Britain, Canada, Italy or France. These airwaves belong to the American people. The issues, be they Democrat, Republican, or Independent, be they from some other group or political party, are issues of importance to the American people. Yet the broadcasting networks are using them as a revenue source while they incredibly claim to be campaigning for campaign finance reform. There is no mistaking that the power to change the campaign finance system belongs in the Congress. We could lead to a solution. For a variety of political reasons, legislative reasons, and constitutional reasons, that is not going to happen. The question now is whether the television networks will spend the remainder of this electoral season complaining about this political problem of reaching a solution or be part of the answer. I believe they should lead by example. Only a year ago, Mr. Kennard, the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, raised the prospect of, by regulation, lowering the cost of television advertising. Rather than $50,000 in New York or $20,000 in Chicago, the FCC could mandate, if the networks are unwilling to do it voluntarily, a lower cost. Since television accounts for 80 or 90 percent of the cost of the Senate or Presidential campaign, lowering the cost of that advertising would dramatically remove pressure on fundraising. The problem could begin to solve itself. The FCC chose not to do so under pressure from Members of Congress. The question remains, Why do the networks not do so themselves? I understand the networks looking to the Congress for an answer. They should. They are entitled to look to us, and they are entitled to expect an answer. But I also look back to them. Rather than 20 seconds a night for candidates to discuss the future of our Nation, rather than using the national airwaves to discuss every latest crime trend or weather pattern or cultural abnormality, the national airwaves could be used to actually discuss the Nation's future--not 10 seconds a night or 20 seconds a night but 10 minutes a night or 15 minutes a night so candidates believe there is an alternative to communicating with the American people other than buying the public airwaves to do so. Second, the networks, most obviously, could enhance this national debate and reduce the cost of this fundraising, remove the pressure on fundraising by dramatically reducing these costs. Political advertising is now the third largest source of revenue for the television networks. We have become an industry supporting the networks themselves, only behind retail sellers of merchandise in the Nation, spending hundreds of millions of dollars in this Presidential and congressional campaign. A reduction of those rates to allow challengers to compete with incumbents and lesser-financed candidates to compete with multimillionaires would enhance the American political system and start setting an example of how the Nation can begin to change the dominance of money in the American political system. I hope at some point the networks, as good corporate citizens and as Americans, no less as people who claim to be for campaign finance reform, would hear this message and join this movement. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington and the Senator from Maine. I congratulate each of them on this amendment. There are good and sound arguments that people who serve in the Armed Forces of the United States deserve some special privilege. Their lives are at risk. They give months and years of their time in service to our Nation. Certainly, they deserve some special recognition and accommodation to their needs. I know of no argument that people in service to our country, because they are in the Armed Forces, deserve less. Access to safe abortions is not a national privilege. It is not a benefit we extend to the few. It is, by order of the Supreme Court of the United States, a constitutionally mandated right. Yet people would come to the floor of the Senate and say those who take an oath to defend our Nation and our Constitution by putting their lives in harm's way deserve not those constitutional rights of other Americans but less. To the extent my colleagues want to debate the law, fight on the constitutional issue, I respect them. To the extent they simply want to provide barriers when a woman wants to exercise her constitutional right while in service to our country, it does not speak well of the anti-abortion movement. Women in the Armed Forces serving abroad must arrange transportation, incur delays. Ironically, to those in the anti- abortion movement, these are women whose abortions get postponed to later stages of pregnancy and must have the personal dangers of travel while pregnant because of this prohibition. In spite of words I heard said on this floor, there are no public funds involved. Women would pay for these procedures themselves. No providers of health care in a military hospital or other facility would be forced to do this against their will. This would be done only on a voluntary basis by regulation of the Armed Forces. It is voluntary; it is privately paid for; it is constitutional; and it is right. How would we account for the expense, the Senator from Arkansas has raised. This was done in 1994 and 1996; it was done before 1993. In all those years, in hundreds and thousands of cases, we had no accounting difficulty. A woman is presented with a bill: Here is what it costs. Is it a private matter? You pay for it. The Armed Forces themselves may be in the best position to speak for their own members. On May 7, 1999, Assistant Secretary of Defense Sue Bailey stated: The Department of Defense believes it is unfair for female service members, particularly those members assigned to overseas locations, to be denied their constitutional right to the full range of reproductive healthcare. * * * Exactly. Members of our Armed Forces ask for no special privileges. They ask for no special rights. They want to have the constitutional rights of all other Americans. It is not right. It is not fair. It is not even safe to ask a woman at this dangerous, important, critical moment of her own life to seek transportation to travel across continents to exercise the abortion rights that every other American can get from their own doctor at their own hospital. No matter what side you are on in the abortion debate, this is just the right thing to do. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, on all sides of this debate, if ever there was a moment for unity on reproductive rights, I urge support for the Snowe-Murray amendment.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank the Senator from New Hampshire for yielding the time. If this argument seems familiar to my colleagues, it is because it is. We have had this debate three times in as many years, always to the same bipartisan conclusion. I approach it today from several perspectives; first, from the institutions. Is what we are proposing and arguing to the American people really fair? The American farmer is being told in the midst of an agricultural crisis that if only you could sell some crops to Cuba, your problems would be relieved--11 million people in the Caribbean who earn $10 a month. Rather than coming to this floor honestly and dealing with agricultural crises and agricultural policies which have left farmers in my State and most States in genuine trouble, instead we hold up this false promise. The truth is, Cuba can buy agricultural products from every other nation in the world today. From Australia, Canada, Argentina, they can buy corn and they can buy wheat. They do not. Yet the false promise is held on this floor that somehow, magically, they would buy those products from us. If they don't buy them from Canada, for the same reason they will not buy them from the Dakotas or Nebraska or Iowa-- Cuba has no money. The average Cuban earns $10 per month. The Nation is bankrupt. Yet somehow Castro, in the last totalitarian state in the Americas, the most repressive dictator of human rights possibly in the world, is being seen somehow as victimized and the United States is the aggressor. This argument has been made so many times but never seems to register with my colleagues. Let me say it again: Since 1992, the United States has issued 158 licenses for medicine--virtually every license request filed. We have given $3 billion worth of humanitarian assistance to Cuba. There is no relationship between two peoples on Earth where one nation has given more food and medicine to another than the United States to Cuba. We have given more food and medicine to Cuba than we have given to our closest ally of Israel or other nations struggling in Latin America. We have given food and medicine. Say what you will about the policy, but be fair to the United States of America. We are a generous people. This policy has a moral foundation. No Cuban is suffering because of the U.S. Government. They are suffering because of Fidel Castro and failed Marxism. We have said it every year, and every year we return to the same point. It is not right and it is not fair to the United States. Then we hear the argument that this has failed for 40 years, how could we go on? This policy was instituted by Bill Clinton in 1993 on a bipartisan vote with the leadership of a Republican Congress and a Democratic administration. Until then, there essentially was no embargo. You can say 40 years as long as you want; it does not make it true. Until 1993, corporations were trading through Europe. Every American corporation was able to trade with Cuba through European affiliates. Until 1990, the Soviet Union was putting $5 billion worth of aid into Cuba. There was no embargo. Is 7 years too long to take a stand for the freedom of the Cuban people? We waited 50 years with North Korea. We fought apartheid with an embargo for 30 years--the international community. With Iraq, we have waited 12 years. We can't give 7 years to try to bring some hope to the Cuban people in this moment of extraordinary despair? Why do you choose this moment? Why now? The Clinton administration has but 7 months left in office. A new President, with a mandate of the American people, will want his own foreign policy, be it Gore or Bush. Yet you would saddle this new administration with a commission not of its choosing, with a policy not of its directive for 4 years that do not belong to Bill Clinton? What message is this to Fidel Castro? It is not as if things in Cuba have gotten better. If, indeed, my colleagues were coming to this floor and saying, you know, Senator, there has been an election, there is now an opposition threat, and the Cubans are now acting responsibly, they are finally recognizing the rights of our people and we must respond-- in fairness to my colleagues, they don't even make that argument. Things are not getting better. Indeed, things are not even the same. Human rights organizations have classified last year as the worst year in a decade for human rights in Cuba. This is the reality to which you respond. The U.N. Commission on Human Rights in Geneva voted to condemn Cuba several months ago, accusing it of ``continuing violations of human rights, fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of expression, association, and assembly.'' The U.S. State Department, a few months ago, called Cuba a totalitarian state that ``maintains a pervasive system of vigilance through undercover agents, informers, and rapid response brigades in neighborhood communities to root out any and all dissent.'' Since last November, Cuban police have detained 304 dissidents, restricted the movements of another 201, and have been holding 22 more for possible trials. The Cuban statutes were changed last year to make it a felony to communicate with the U.S. Government, against the law to communicate with American Government agencies, or to be interviewed by the American media. This is the reality to which you are responding. I do not say it lightly, but it is a reward for deteriorating circumstances in Cuba. Several years ago, in 1994, 72 men, women, and children attempted to leave Havana Harbor for Miami in a tugboat. They were intercepted. The Cuban police restricted their movements. They began to fire water hoses on the boat. Women held up 20 babies to show the police that they had infants on board, with a belief that this would stop the water hoses. Instead, the pressure increased. That day, 72 men, women, and infants went to the bottom of Havana Harbor. Several days later, the relatives asked permission to retrieve their bodies. They didn't get it that day; they haven't gotten it since. Those babies are at the bottom of Havana Harbor. This is Fidel Castro's Cuba. This is what you are responding to--a deteriorating, despicable situation. There will come a change in American policy to Cuba. It is in the law. The burden is on Fidel Castro. It is the fault of his policies, not our own. Hold an election, allow a free press, allow free expression, release political prisoners, and everything is possible. You may disagree with that policy, but it is the law. It is bipartisan. But at least until you do, be fair to this country. We have not abused Cuba. Fidel Castro has abused Cuba.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Mr. Joseph A. Mezzo of New Jersey and the 4th Regiment of the United States Marine Corps, whose gallant actions in 1937 prevented an already tumultuous conflict from destabilizing further. The 4th Marines were deployed near the Soochow Creek in China to diffuse tensions that emerged after Japanese forces penetrated Chinese boundaries. Further intensifying the situation, a Chinese officer killed two members of the Japanese military, creating a hostile climate that culminated in armed conflict. Amidst heavy gunfire from both Japanese and Chinese forces, Mr. Mezzo and the 4th Marine Regiment demonstrated tremendous fortitude and resolve as they assisted in the stabilizing of the Soochow Creek, halting what could have been a major international battle. After all other American forces returned home, the 4th Marines remained in the Soochow Creek, accepting an even greater challenge of returning a Chinese rice barge that had been captured by the Japanese to its rightful owner. Mr. Mezzo and his fellow Marines executed this risky maneuver, thereby diffusing a situation which could have added fuel to an already volatile situation. The 4th Marine Regiment courageously exhibited the Marine Corps standard of Semper Fidelis, which saving the lives of many people. Although Mr. Mezzo and his comrades acted with bravery and selflessness, their efforts, and the efforts of many gallant veterans, have gone virtually unrewarded and unappreciated. While their exploits may not be found in history books, the services with which these veterans have provided our country are invaluable. I would like to recognize Mr. Mezzo, the 4th Marine Regiment, and all veterans who have risked their lives for the welfare of our country. Their willingness to accept these dangerous missions is a testament to their senses of duty, honor and patriotism. For this, I salute our veterans to whom we own a debt of gratitude and our ceaseless appreciation, for they exemplify what it means to be American.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Ballistics Fingerprints Act of 2000'' which will help reduce gun violence in our communities. Despite recent progress in reducing gun violence, the number of people killed or injured each year in this country remains too high. Each year more than 32,000 Americans are killed by gunfire. This means that each day, almost 90 Americans, including almost 12 young people under the age of 19, die from gunshot wounds. For each fatal shooting, three more people are injured by gunfire. These grim statistics require all of us to do more to further reduce gun violence. History has shown that coordinated law enforcement strategies involving the public and private sector are the most effective tools in reducing gun violence. This includes targeting the illegal shipment of firearms and implementing strategies to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. It also includes using advanced technologies, such as computer ballistic imaging, to assist law enforcement in investigating and identifying violent criminals. Like fingerprints, the barrel of a firearm leaves distinguishing marks on a bullet and cartridge case and no two firearms leave the same marks. Computer ballistic imaging technology allows these distinguishing marks or characteristics to be maintained in a database where they can be rapidly compared with evidence from a crime scene for possible matches. The ATF and FBI have been using this technology since 1993 to help state and local crime laboratories across the country link gun-related crimes and recently these agencies entered into an agreement to create one unified system. In 1999 alone, a total of 2,026 matches were made with this unified system which represents the linkage of at least 4,052 firearm related crimes. The ``Ballistice Fingerprints Act'' would take this innovative approach to crime fighting one step further by creating a national registry of ballistic fingerprints. Under this legislation, every gun manufacturer will be required to obtain the ballistic fingerprints or identifying characteristics for every gun manufactured prior to distribution so that guns used in the commission of a crime can be easily traced and identified. The bill also requires the Department of Treasury to inspect this information and create a national registry of ballistic fingerprints. With the help of this information, police will be better able to locate and identify the guns used in criminal activity and to prosecute the criminals who use these guns. The saturation of guns in American communities and the frequency of gun related violence calls upon all us to do more to combat gun related violence. Common sense tells us that one way to further reduce firearm violence is to identify the guns used in committing these crimes so that the criminals who use these can be brought to justice. Regardless of where one stands on gun control, we all should be able to unite behind this simple but highly effective crime fighting tool. I look forward to working with my colleagues to see this legislation enacted into law. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the legislation appear in the Record.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the distinguished career of an outstanding American, Mr. Michael Valmoro of Mahwah, New Jersey. Serving his community as a teacher of English, world literature and the works of William Shakespeare at Teaneck High School for the past thirty-eight years, he is one of the longest serving teachers in the history of the New Jersey school system. That tremendous achievement alone is worthy of praise. However, his commitment to his students by opening their young minds to the world's great literature and the genius of William Shakespeare has made him a respected educator and pillar of the community. Cicero once professed, ``What nobler employment, or more valuable to the state, than that of the man who instructs the rising generation.'' It is clear that Mr. Valmoro has taken Cicero's wisdom to heart during the course of the last four decades, as he has enlightened and inspired the thousands of students fortunate enough to have passed through his classroom. Whether he was teaching his students to express themselves through creative writing, introducing them to the tragedy of ``Romeo and Juliet'' or reveling in the simple joy found in one of Shakespeare's sonnets, Mr. Valmoro approached each of his lessons with the wisdom and perspective of a scholar and the unbridled enthusiasm of an eager student. In one of the scenes of ``King Lear,'' the titular monarch asks his audience, ``Who is it who can tell me who I am?'' This question often presents itself to an individual upon the twilight of their career. If the outpouring of accolades, fond reminiscence and affection are any indication, the answer to this probing question for Mr. Valmoro is, an excellent teacher, a trusted mentor, a lover of great literature and an inspiration to his colleagues, students and family. Throughout his distinguished tenure, Mr. Valmoro has exemplified the ideals which the American people value in their educators. It is with my most sincere congratulations and respect that I recognize him today in the Senate.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I state my regret over the position in which we find ourselves with Senator Warner. There is no one in this institution more committed to the Armed Forces. His legislation deserves being supported. I regret this amendment has become a complication. However, it is a necessity. This is an extraordinary moment in the national political process. Make no mistake, if this Senate fails to deal with the problem of 527 organizations and their influence in the American political process, what little remains of campaign finance laws in this Nation will collapse before our eyes. The Justice Department may be investigating foreign contributions and the media may be discussing soft money, but the Members of the Senate know that the newest and largest challenge to the integrity of the American political financial system are the 527 organizations. It would be difficult for most Americans to even believe the scale of the problem. It is not a new problem. In 1996, $67 million was introduced to the American political systems through these organizations; 2 years ago, it was $250 million. It could easily be hundreds of millions of dollars in the ensuing months if the Senate does not act. It is a contradiction with everything this Congress on a bipartisan basis has attempted to do to preserve some integrity in the American financial political system in the last 30 years. The donors to these organizations are secret. They are not necessarily American. They use tax deductions. They distort the national political debate. Everything we are now investigating is legal if they are done through these organizations: foreign governments, illegal organizations, individuals who simply want to distort the system through the exclusive use of their own money. Some of these organizations may not be organizations at all. It could be a single individual writing $1 million or a multimillion-dollar check in the disguise of an organization. Compounding the problem, adding insult to injury, they are reducing it from their taxes. Only a few days ago, in the State of New Jersey, two Republican primaries were influenced by these organizations. Candidates were campaigning, raising funds, gaining support, and these organizations with secret donors began their advertising campaigns. Not a single voter knew who they were, where they came from, what the moneys were about. They only heard the advertisements. In some respects, this is not a policy question; it is a law enforcement problem. If these organizations coordinate with candidates and their campaigns, it already violates laws. It is incumbent upon the Justice Department to investigate them and prosecute them if necessary. I trust on this day while the Senate debates this issue, the Justice Department will meet its responsibilities. But if they are not coordinated, they are legal. That burden falls on us. I regret the difficulty this causes for Senator Warner on this very important piece of legislation. His constitutional argument may be sound regarding the reaction of the House of Representatives. But the consequences of not acting are enormous. As chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, I have urged every Democratic senatorial candidate in the Nation not to engage in this practice of 527s, not to coordinate with them, because it is unethical and it is illegal-- denounce them. If we have learned anything by the soft money example and other exceptions that have been taken to the prevailing campaign finance laws, it is when a precedence is established and a campaign expenditure enters the political culture, it expands exponentially. This may be our last opportunity before the 2000 elections to close this new avenue of expression through large, unregulated, undisclosed political contributions. Make no mistake, if we fail to do so, we do not simply invite the abuses of the last few elections, we may create a political system where we return to the type of campaigns before Watergate, where no one knew where the money was coming from, who was providing it, and what was being spent. What little remains of this campaign finance system will collapse before our eyes, not in future years, but in future weeks. This Senate has failed to agree upon comprehensive campaign finance reform. While I regret that failure, I at least understand it. There are legitimate constitutional arguments, differences in philosophy and politics. There can be no legitimate differences on outlawing these undisclosed, unregulated 527 organizations. This should be bipartisan and it should be a deep commitment upon which we act immediately. I am proud to join with Senator Lieberman in his amendment as a sponsor. I urge the Senate to act before it is too late. The consequences of inaction are enormous, and reconstructing this system, if indeed these organizations proliferate in the ensuing months, will be extremely difficult to impossible. I urge the Senate to act. I thank the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin for the time and for his support for our amendment.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank the Senator for yielding. One can recognize why the networks are in this extraordinary hypocrisy. They are for campaign finance reform. They are against spending in national political campaigns increasing. Indeed, we all share that concern, but they are also the principal beneficiaries. In 1998, automotive ads were 25 percent of all national advertising. Retail sales were 15 percent. Political advertising was 10 percent of all revenues. They are offended at the cost of national political campaigns, but it is the third largest source of their funding. Similarly, it is not a stable problem. Political ads are a rapidly rising, indeed, the largest increasing, source of network revenues, from 3 percent in 1990 to approaching 10 percent of all network revenues in the year 2000. What an extraordinary hypocrisy. But it gets worse. They are for campaign finance reform, but they want the advertising revenues. What could be worse? The National Association of Broadcasters last year spent $260,000 in PAC money and soft money, often supporting candidates who are against campaign finance reform, and hundreds of thousands of dollars lobbying to protect their right to use the public airwaves at retail costs for people who need to communicate with the American electorate. I applaud Senator McCain and Senator Feingold for coming to this floor and fighting for campaign finance reform. I applaud my colleagues who have the courage to stand for it and fight for it. I always will. But changing the American political system in America to reduce money in the equation is not our fight; it is everybody's fight. I could understand it if the networks were to be neutral, but to engage in this headlong daily criticism of the process while they profit by it is inexcusable. My friends in the networks, join the fight. Help us reform the system. Lead by example. Reduce the costs of the public airwaves for the public good. Allow candidates to communicate ideas without exorbitant costs. And meet your public responsibilities by dedicating more--not less--time to discussions of the issues. Make that a legitimate discussion of real choices before the American people--not horse races, an accounting simply of expenditures in races. Be positive, be responsible, and be part of the process of change. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Will the Senator from Nevada yield me an additional 5 minutes?

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, this Senate has been engaged in more than a decade of discussion about reforming the campaign finance system in the United States. Indeed, the Senate has not only debated the issue but has focused attention on McCain-Feingold, attention that brought about a national debate about how to change this system. The Senate may be on the verge of yet another discussion in the coming days. I take the floor today because, while I praise Senator McCain and Senator Feingold and, indeed, once again pledge my vote for their reform legislation, I believe it is a disservice for the Senate to believe there are no other contributions that can be made to solving the campaign finance dilemma. McCain-Feingold, and the former comprehensive legislation, would be the best answer. It is not the only answer. There are a variety of very real problems to enacting this legislation that begin with legitimate constitutional problems, decisions by the Federal courts, legitimate differences on philosophical questions about how to conduct elections in America, and some real political problems. The reality is that whether I believe in McCain-Feingold or not, whether the entire Democratic caucus votes for it or not, it is not going to be enacted. That leads many to believe that simply, then, nothing will happen; there can be no change because there are not enough votes. I believe that is not necessary, that does not have to be the final word. Yesterday's primary election in the State of New Jersey, now setting a record of $31 million in expenditures in a single partisan primary, again focuses the Nation on the problem. Our campaign finance laws in the United States are recognized in the breach. There is no national governing system of campaign finance laws. They are misunderstood, violated, contradictory, and incomplete. Regrettably, there is a failure to look at the contributions that others can make and the alternatives that exist in law given the current deadlock in this Senate acting on campaign finance. Indeed, to listen to the network anchors each evening--Mr. Rather, Mr. Brokaw, and Mr. Jennings--one would believe there are no other answers; this is simply a case of political candidates raising as much as can be raised in a complete vacuum of other considerations. I believe that until this Congress acts and there is a majority for campaign finance reform, there are things that others can do and, indeed, it begins with the media itself. The costs of these campaigns are staggering, but I have never met a candidate for political office who wanted to raise money beyond what was actually required to win the race. It is not only a question of how much is being raised; it is how much the campaigns cost. As my friend, Mitch McConnell, has pointed out on a variety of occasions, America is not suffering from too much political discussion. There is not too much debate. Campaigns are simply too expensive. That begins with an analysis of where the money is going. In New York City today, a 30-second prime time advertisement can cost $50,000. In Chicago, the same advertisement is $20,000. A 30-second ad on the late news in New York is $6,000; in Chicago, $4,500. The effect of this is obvious. Year in and year out, the networks charge more money for the same advertisements for the use of the public airwaves, and an endless spiral of costs is driving campaign fundraising in America. Indeed, the same network anchors who rail against campaign fundraising almost every night are the principal beneficiaries of the campaign fundraiser. I do not know any candidate in America who wants to raise this money voluntarily if they had a choice. There is no other means of communicating with the American people but to buy network television advertising, and I have never seen the cost of advertising go down. The New York Times estimates that the 2000 elections in the United States will cost $3 billion. That is a 50-percent increase over 1996. Mr. President, $600 million of that advertising, or 20 percent, will be spent directly on network television advertising. That is a 40-percent increase over what the networks absorbed only 4 years ago. Isolating the Presidential campaign in 1996, President Clinton and Senator Dole spent $113 million on television ads. Half of all the money they spent went to network television. This is done for a reason. It is not only the spiraling cost of network advertising far beyond the rate of inflation; far beyond the rate of increase of the cost of anything else in political campaigns is the networks themselves. They are the principal generating force in the rising cost of campaign finance. They are part of the problem not in one dimension but in two. From Labor Day through election day in 1998, ABC, CBS, and NBC aired 73 percent fewer election stories than they did in the same period in 1994. The amount of advertising is going up and the cost is going up because candidates' ability to communicate with the American people through legitimate news stories is going down. It is not going down marginally; it is not going down significantly; it is going down overwhelmingly. There is a 73 percent reduction in the amount of legitimate news stories aired over the public airwaves to inform the American electorate. What, Mr. Rather, Mr. Jennings, and Mr. Brokaw, are candidates for elective office in the Democratic and Republican Parties to do? The amount of legitimate free news stories to inform the electorate is in a state of collapse. The number of Americans reading newspapers is declining. There is a similar reduction in the amount of newsprint for legitimate news stories, and your rates are skyrocketing. The result is clear: Costs of campaigns are soaring. Indeed, there is a solution. The most obvious solution is we could change the national campaign finance laws. For constitutional reasons, philosophical reasons, and political reasons I have suggested, that is not about to happen. I suggest the networks, therefore, look at themselves and their own ability unilaterally to reduce the cost of advertising on the public airwaves. After all, the public airwaves are not their own province. It is not something for which they paid and own exclusively. These are the public airwaves, licensed to ABC, CBS, and NBC, with a public responsibility to the American people, a responsibility they do not meet. No other democracy in the Western world allows private corporations to use the public airwaves exclusively for their own benefit charging candidates for national office what approach commercial rates to communicate with the people themselves. Use the people's airwaves, charge exorbitant rates to candidates for public office to communicate in a national election--it would not happen in Canada, and it does not happen in Britain, Germany, Italy, or France. It happens nowhere, but it happens here. While we wait for this Congress to act, I challenge the network executives: Be part of the solution, not the principal cause of the problem. Act unilaterally until this Congress can act. But they do not.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. If the Senator will yield, I would like to comment for the Record, also.