Robert Torricelli

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, every Senator who has taken the floor has given the appropriate compliments to Senator Feingold and Senator McCain. I will be no exception. Congress has been considering campaign finance reform for more than a decade. There have been, by my estimation, 3,000 speeches made on the floor of the Senate for campaign finance reform, some 6,500 pages of Congressional Record, 300 pieces of legislation. Indeed, we would not be at this moment without Senator Feingold or Senator McCain. They deserve that credit. I found their arguments in recent years so persuasive that I am today joining Senator Daschle in presenting their own legislation. The original McCain-Feingold bill, which found its way to the House of Representatives, is before the Senate now as the Shays-Meehan legislation. Similar in content and purpose, it is comprehensive campaign finance reform. Regarding advocacy of that reform, I take a second place to no Member in my years in the Congress. I have never voted against campaign finance reform, and I never will. I believe the integrity of this system of government and the confidence of the American people is at issue. It is not by chance that only a third of the American people are participating in some elections. Even in the choice of the Presidency of the United States, with those not registered and those not choosing to vote in many of our localities and States, half of the American people are not participating. It is not that they do not recognize the choice is important. I do not believe they have a lack of confidence in our country. They do not respect the process because they believe they do not have an equal position, and it is money that is the heart of that problem. When we entered into this new phase of campaign finance reform 2 years ago, along with most Members of this institution, I had great ambitions for how far we could go with reform. Indeed, in private conversation, almost every Member of this Senate knows the fundamentals of comprehensive reform. We started with such ambition. We were going to subject all independent advocacy groups in issue advertising to the rules of the FEC. We were going to require full and immediate disclosure by all contributors. We were going to ban soft money to the political parties. We were going to prohibit foreign interests. We were going to reduce the cost of television time. We even discussed the subsidies of mail to inform voters. One by one almost every one of these reforms has been eliminated from the legislation. Political cultures in all of our States are different. In my State, in Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Texas, and California, I don't believe real campaign finance reform is possible without reducing the cost of television advertising. There is a reason for the spiraling rise of campaign spending; it is the cost of television advertising. In each of the large metropolitan areas, 90 percent of the money goes to feed the television networks. That was the first reform to be eliminated. Then there was the advocacy of subsidized mail. It went the way of public finance--one by one by one. Yet, because the need for reform is so overwhelming and the public confidence is so much in question, I joined in the last Congress with Senator McCain and Senator Feingold and reluctantly supported their legislation. Although I believe these critical provisions for the reduced cost of television advertising were essential for reform in my area of the country, I joined in support of the McCain-Feingold. That was to be followed by the House of Representatives which reached the same judgment in a historic vote for Shays-Meehan. That brings the Senate to this moment. In a frustration I share with other advocates of campaign finance reform, the mantra of the day has become: Do something, do anything. Pass some legislation. Call it reform. Let's put the problem behind us. If only it were so easy. The new legislation presented by Senators McCain and Feingold has a single objective: to eliminate soft money fundraising from Democratic and Republican Parties. It is a worthwhile objective, but it does raise the prospect that if passed it will eliminate the chance to have any further campaign finance reform. If history is any guide, every decade we get one chance to redesign this system. We are largely still governed by the Watergate reforms of 1974. Through a series of court rulings and FEC decisions, they clearly are no longer producing a system that was once envisioned. If we institute but this single change, we will not create a new system of our design but, in my judgment, be governed by the law of unintended consequences. Let's look for a moment at this new national campaign system. If Senator Daschle and I fail and the House of Representatives legislation in Shays-Meehan is rejected and instead we adopt this very narrow reform as envisioned by Senators McCain and Feingold, we eliminate soft money fundraising by the political parties, but it is maintained for issue advocacy and independent expenditures. The principal rise in campaign advertising in recent years is not the political parties; it is this independent advocacy expenditure. This chart tells the story. In 1998, the Democratic and Republican Parties spent $64 million in issue advocacy spending; nonparty advocacy groups spent $276 million, rising at a rate of 300 percent cycle to cycle. In my hand I have the list of 70 advocacy groups. It begins alphabetically with the AFL-CIO and ends with the Vietnam Veterans. In between are many organizations I support and believe have a worthwhile contribution to the national political debate; some I note I do not believe have great contributions to the political debate. But they are all heard--in the last election cycle, $276 million worth of advocacy. The legislation before the Senate by Senators Feingold and McCain does nothing about the expenditures, nothing. Nothing. Many exist as nonprofit tax-free organizations under the IRS Code. From whom they raise money is unknown. As to the sources of their contributions, no one in this Senate could attest. They often exist before the public eye as names that misrepresent their purpose and are designed to shield their objectives. They are not just a part of the national political advertising debate; they are coming to dominate it. What is this new campaign finance world that will be produced if Senator Daschle and I fail and the House of Representatives Shays- Meehan legislation is rejected? A national political debate that is fought by surrogates. The Democratic and Republican Parties will be within FEC rules, raising money only at $1,000 per person, $50 a person, $100 a person--a good system, where every name will be known, limits will be imposed to reasonable amounts. But over our heads will be a far larger contest fought by the AFL-CIO, with millions more dollars of expenditures, the Christian Coalition, anti-abortion groups, chemical companies, automobile companies, steel companies, that will spend millions, indeed, if history now is any guide, hundreds of millions of dollars of advocacy.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Let me say to the Senator from Nevada, that is not atypical. Health care in this country has been undermined by advocacy of insurance companies whose principal interest is not the delivery of quality health care to people who are currently uninsured, but they stand behind these blind advertising campaigns where no one knows where the money comes from. Just as in the campaign of my colleague from Nevada, we have polluters who are running ads on environmental protection; we have people on consumer safety who are representing groups that are damaging to individual consumers. That is because none of these groups is disclosable and none is accountable. In the current system, bad as it is, while these groups can run these advertising campaigns, the political parties are also raising soft money and there is a chance to answer them. Now the political parties will no longer be able to raise these funds, but these advocacy groups will continue in an upward spiral of spending. Senator Daschle's point is, let's eliminate this gross fundraising and these soft money expenditures across the board within 60 days of an election by putting everybody under the FEC rules. Senator McCain has said, ``But that will not pass.'' It may not. But it passed in the House of Representatives, and 60 Republicans came to join with the Democratic majority in passing it. We are not 20 or 30 or 40 votes from passing it in the Senate, we are 7 or 8. I would come back here every week of every month of every year until we restored the integrity of this Government and got comprehensive campaign finance reform. But the answer is not to lower our ambitions for campaign finance reform, to have a new, distorted system to make American politics fought by surrogates over the heads of candidates. The answer is to remain committed to this reform, reveal to the American people who is voting against it, who is stopping it, and let the American people decide.

Mr. TORRICELLI. I would.

Mr. TORRICELLI. That route will be blocked. Instead, the environment we create would be this. Is the Senator from Wisconsin, with his familiarity with American politics and American fundraising, generally of the belief that people who are now contributing $100,000 or $250,000 contributions, because they are advocating some perspective in American politics, when you pass this law, you are going to sit at home and say: You know, I guess I'm just not going to be heard; I'm going to remove myself from the process because that's the right thing to do? I think the Senator from Wisconsin must at least be suspicious that that money, that same check, is going to work itself into Americans for Tax Justice or one of these other 70 organizations that are engaged in this political advertising. It may not happen, as the Senator has appropriately written the bill, that a Member of Congress or a political party leader calls one of these contributors and says: Send your check to so-and-so. But certainly the Senator is aware it will not be very hard for political leaders to divert this money by a wink or a nod or some smile in the right direction, and we are going to end up, instead, having these surrogate organizations running these campaigns.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to this legislation. It does not provide adequate relief to farmers across this country. It fails to address issues which will decide the fate of tens of thousands of family farms. It fails to give relief to an entire region with a significant farming community. The drought afflicting farmers in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions is as severe a threat to their existence as low crop prices are to others. The farmers of my state wish they had crops to receive low prices for. Yet this bill fails to remotely begin to address their concerns. The entire relief package of $8.7 billion is primarily focused on low crop prices in the South and to a much lesser degree the Midwest. Only $1.2 billion or slightly over 10% is for ``weather-related disaster relief''. To put this in perspective, let me explain the extent of the drought damage. Despite recent rains, New Jersey is in the middle of its driest season in 33 years. From June to August the State received less than 2 inches of rain. Normally, we receive more than 8 inches during this period. Reservoir levels in Northern New Jersey dipped to 10% below normal--and despite the recent ``rains'', farmers have not recovered. The impact of the drought on New Jersey agriculture is devastating. 400,000 acres on 7000 farms have sustained damage from 30%-100%. Damage estimates are $80 million, and expected to reach $100 million. But let me be clear that New Jersey is not alone. Secretary Glickman estimates that the need for drought relief in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast regions is over $2 billion. Governors of our States estimate the damage to be closer to $2.5 billion. But even the limited amount of funds offered in the Agriculture Conference report isn't designated for drought--the entire country including losses from Hurricane Floyd will compete for this funding. Mr. President, my region of the country has a long tradition of helping out other regions in need. I recall my House colleagues referring to the Great Midwest Drought of 1988. Many considered this drought the worst in the Midwest since the Great Depression. That year, we passed an emergency relief bill which provided direct disaster payments to farmers in the amount of $3.4 billion. I voted for this bill because it was the right thing to do. I realized that farmers in these states needed drought relief, and I gave my vote of support, because it was needed. In 1992, Hurricane Andrew, one of the most destructive storms of this century, ripped through Florida, inflicting $30 billion in damage. I voted for the Emergency Supplemental bill which brought $9 billion to Florida, to help the citizens of that state recover from the enormous damage to infrastructure, homes, businesses, and crops. 1993 was another horrible year for the Midwest, this time, hit by flooding. Many call it the Great Midwest Flood of 1993. Midwestern states were horribly damaged by the breaching waters of the Mississippi. I voted for this $2.5 billion supplemental for farm disaster payments. Mr. President, New Jersey was not hit with severe flooding in 1993. In fact, New Jersey only received $5.5 million in the bill. But I voted for this package nonetheless. Because farmers in the Midwest needed it, and it was right to provide them with adequate relief. In January of 1994, the Northridge Earthquake rocked Southern California, causing in excess of $30 billion. I voted for H.R. 3759 which provided $4.7 billion in supplemental funding to assist Californians in their time of need. My point, Mr. President, is to illustrate that I have voted to assist the people of other regions of this country in their time of need, despite the fact that my state may not reap substantial benefit. I ask that my colleagues respect that New Jersey and other Northeast states have endured a prolonged drought that threatens our remaining agriculture. Over the August recess, I visited farms and county fairs and spoke to New Jersey farmers about the effect of the drought on their livelihood. They understand weather and they accept the difficult life of a farmer but they cannot understand how Congress, which repeatedly sends billions to the South and Midwest, can ignore them in their time of need. I don't have an answer for them but I can only imagine it is because Members do not realize the extent of the agriculture community in my State and our region. So I would like to educate this body to the significant agriculture community in New Jersey and the Northeast. There is a reason why they call New Jersey the Garden State. The $56 billion food and agriculture complex is New Jersey's third largest industry, behind only pharmaceutical and tourism in economic benefit. Last year, New Jersey's 9,400 farms generated over $777 million in sales. Nearly 20% of the entire state of New Jersey is productive farmland. That's one million acres of working farms in New Jersey. And in an era of increasing consolidation in the agriculture industry, virtually all of New Jersey's farms are family-owned. The average farm size in New Jersey is just over 100 acres. At $8,370 an acre, our farmland is the most valuable in the nation. Farmers in the Garden State produce more than 100 different kinds of fruits and vegetables for consumption locally in New Jersey but also for export around the world. Nationally, New Jersey is one of the top ten producers of cranberries, blueberries, peaches, asparagus, bell peppers, spinach, lettuce, cucumbers, sweet corn, tomatoes, snap beans, cabbage, escarole and eggplant. Mr. President, in addition to the fruit and vegetable farmers of my state, a small number of individuals from Warren, Salem, Sussex, Burlington, and Hunterdon counties are the backbone of agriculture in New Jersey. These are New Jersey's dairy farmers. The dairy industry is an important segment of our agricultural economy, supplying almost one-fifth of the fluid milk and dairy products used by over 7.5 million residents in New Jersey. The industry is comprised of 180 dairy farmers. Farmers who get up early to milk 7 days a week, 365 days a year, starting out long before dawn, before most of us are up. However, this pales in comparison to what the dairy industry used to be. New Jersey has lost 42% of its dairy farms in the past decade. New Jersey dairy farmers produced 300 million pounds of fresh, locally produced milk in 1997, with a value of $41.3 million. If we do not re-authorize the New England Dairy Compact and allow for New Jersey's entrance the remaining 180 farmers will be gone in the next decade. New Jersey's state legislature has already approved entry into the compact. The loss of dairy farms--whether from inadequate relief from this summer's drought or from an inability to enter the Dairy Compact means more that just a loss of business in New Jersey. This is more than just a nostalgia about the decline of a time in America when agriculture was dominated by family farms, it is also about the practical reality of the loss of open space. It is about farms being sold to developers and turned into parking lots & strip malls. It is a story we know all too well in New Jersey. An average of 10,000 acres of rural/agricultural land is being developed piecemeal every year in New Jersey. In 1959, New Jersey had 1,460,000 acres of farmland; today we have but 800,000. In 1959, New Jersey had 15,800 farms. Today we have 9,400. As I said earlier this horrible drought has crippled the fruit and vegetable farmers in my state. Unfortunately, it has also had a devastating impact on New Jersey's already very tenuous dairy industry. It has compounded the dire circumstances affecting dairy farmers from low prices. Erratic fluctuations in dairy prices is forcing many out of business. For example, in March dairy farmers across the country experienced a 37% drop in milk prices. When the price drops, the price family farms must pay to feed their cows, hire help, and pay utility costs stays the same. As prices decline and costs increase, farmers need a mechanism to ensure stable prices for milk or they will go out of business. In addition to the erratic market, New Jersey's family farms face a threat from a pricing system introduced by the Department of Agriculture. This system, Option 1B, would almost surely be the death knell for New Jersey's dairy farmers. Option 1B, would reduce dairy farmer income in New Jersey by $9 million a year. New Jersey's membership in the Compact would set a floor on dairy prices and reimburse farmers in times of financial trouble. It would provide protection in the event of another drastic price drop. Compacts would also help maintain environment efficiency and open space by preserving the more than 100,000 acres of New Jersey farmland for agricultural use and preventing development. Unfortunately, the Dairy Compact and Option 1A pricing provisions are not included in this Conference Repot. This will force dairy farmers in my state out of business. Like real drought relief, the dairy provisions necessary to sustain farmers in our region are simply not present. I urge my colleagues to vote against this conference report and send a message that we should implement farm policy for a nation of farmers, not to serve certain regions at the expense of others.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Seven minutes.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I first note my appreciation, and I suspect all Senators, for the manner in which Senator Warner and Senator Biden have conducted a debate of profound national importance. It speaks well of the quality and tone of debate in the Senate. There are always moments in our lives we suspect we will always remember, those times that punctuate our activities and our experiences. Several nights ago, on the eve of the Senate's consideration of this treaty, President Clinton, sitting in the residence, reminded some of us that the last time the Senate rejected a treaty was in 1920, the Treaty of Versailles. The Treaty called for the establishment of a League of Nations. The United States, as reflected by the Senate, was so traumatized by the First World War, so anxious for the creation of a time that it would never visit again, that it drew all the wrong lessons from the First World War. As a consequence, it defeated the Treaty. A Treaty that was, in Woodrow Wilson's words, ``the last hope of mankind.'' We now find ourselves in this debate 80 years later. Yet having emerged from the cold war, the trauma and sacrifices of generations in dealing with that enormous national struggle, I fear that, once again, we are drawing all the wrong lessons. Essentially, it is the belief of many of my colleagues that the arms control regimes of the last 40 years were successful; that the bipartisan foreign policy from Eisenhower to Clinton, based on a concept of nonproliferation and arms control regimes, could provide real security for the United States; and, that seeking security in arms races and technological military dominance was illusory. It is extraordinary that, during this debate, we demonstrate a lack of confidence in arms control regimes or believe the United States is better defended outside of these treaties because that is such a contradiction with national experience. In the last 40 years, the United States, from Eisenhower to Nixon, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Bush, and Reagan have ratified START I and II, SALT I and II, the ABM Treaty, the Chemical Weapons Convention, Biological Weapons Convention, the Nonproliferation Treaty, the Limited Test Ban Treaty, the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, Partial Test Ban Treaty, the Open Skies Agreement, the Outer Space Agreement, and signed the Missile Technology Control Regime. The nation is profoundly more secure because of each and every one of those treaties and regimes. Every Senate and each President at a moment in history faced the same judgment we face today. Are we better off by allowing other nations and ourselves to develop weapons outside of these regimes or should we have confidence in our ability to verify and be more secure within their limits? It appears the Senate may, for the first time in a generation and for the second time in this century, believe that it is better to reject a treaty negotiated by an American President and operate outside of its regime. It is a profound decision with enormous consequences. The simple truth is, arms control regimes have enhanced the security of the United States; indeed, they have enhanced the security of all nations. Since 1945, despite their development, possession, and deployment by a variety of nations, nuclear weapons have never been used in a hostile environment. It may be the first or certainly the longest period in human history that weapons were developed and not used. Indeed, nations have even gone to war with each other or been in severe conflict and not used these weapons. It is the ultimate testament that arms control works to protect national security. I would understand if the leader of the Iranian Parliament or the North Korean Supreme People's Assembly were to rise in their respective chambers and argue passionately against this treaty. They would have their reasons. The treaty will allow the United States to maintain the preeminent nuclear stockpile in the world, having the only effective means of continuing to test its weapons by simulation, while the treaty would make it difficult for those nations to continue to develop and modernize their nuclear arsenal. Their opposition would be rational. Our opposition is irrational. It would be understandable if members of the National People's Congress in Beijing would rise in indignation against China becoming a signatory to the treaty. The thought that China, a great power, possessing 18 missiles capable of delivering a weapon, now on the verge of developing important new and dangerous technology both to deliver these weapons and to miniaturize them to threaten a potential adversary in the United States or Russia or Europe, would join this treaty would be troubling to them. The Chinese, by entering into this treaty, would be unable to test those weapons, making it difficult to know their effectiveness or their reliability. Their opposition would be understandable; it would be rational. Ours is not. This treaty is an endorsement of the international military status quo, and at this snapshot in time in the life of this planet, the military status quo is that the United States is the preeminent military power with an abundance of weapons, sophistication of weapons, delivery of weapons. If this current arrangement and distribution of power is to be preserved for a generation, it means that every nation is accepting American preeminence. By their endorsement of this treaty and their signature of this treaty, extraordinarily, every other nation seems to be willing to accept that preeminence, ironically except us. We would reject the treaty and allow other nations at a relative disadvantage to test, develop, or deploy effective weapons. There are several important consequences in the defeat of this treaty the Senate needs to consider: first, the damage, not necessarily militarily, but diplomatically to the leadership of the United States. This country has recognized for more than 50 years the only real security of this country is an alliance based principally on the foundation of NATO rested on the credibility of American political leadership. The defeat of this treaty will put us at variance with the leaders of Germany, France, and Britain, who even on this day have appealed to the Senate to endorse this treaty. France and Britain have communicated their strong desire. They have reminded us that they have made changes in their own doctrine, and their own weapons choices, based on this treaty. They have also reminded us that if we defeat this treaty, we are in some measure separating not simply our judgments but our future planning and security from our traditional allies--the foundation of our international alliance system of our security. It will cause damage to our credibility and our leadership that will not be easily repaired. Second, defeat of this treaty, for all practical purposes, is an end to our efforts, undertaken on a bipartisan basis for a generation, on nonproliferation. It is a practical end to our nonproliferation efforts because it sends a message to each rogue regime, every nation that possesses the capability to develop nuclear weapons, that there is this new sense of legitimacy in them doing so, because the United States has rejected a treaty that would have contained this threat. The United States will lose credibility with nations, like India and Pakistan, when we argue that they should not test again or deploy weapons. Third--perhaps most profoundly and immediately--it will lead to the possibility of the testing and the development of the technologies that China has obtained from the United States, through espionage or other means, and allow them to develop a full capability. There is a final factor. The Senate has convened to debate the question of a treaty on a comprehensive test ban. But it is not the only treaty that is at issue. The defeat of this Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty will certainly mean that the START agreement pending before the Russian Duma will never be adopted. Our chance, with a stroke of a pen, to destroy thousands of Russian nuclear warheads, potentially aimed at the United States--the greatest single threat to the security of this Nation under changed political circumstances--will never be destroyed. We debate one treaty, but we are deciding the future of two. Earlier in this day debates centered on procedures and hearings, whether or not the treaty was fully considered. I serve as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee. I, too, must express my profound disappointment, as a representative of the State of New Jersey, and as a member of that committee, of not being given the opportunity to fully debate, to consider, to hear witnesses on what potentially could be the most important vote I will ever cast as a Senator. People of good judgment might be able to differ on the merits of this treaty, but no one can defend that an issue of this profound importance to the life of this country did not receive the consideration it deserved or Senators within the comity of this institution were not given the due consideration to learn, debate, and be heard. Because I believe, however, this issue is so important--while I am convinced of its merits and the need for immediate ratification--I end much as I began with that memory of 1920. Most of us are probably convinced the Senate made the wrong judgment on the League of Nations, setting the world on a dangerous downward spiral of confrontation, having come to the false conclusion that America would be secure alone behind her oceans, that in isolation somehow we would find peace. It was wrong. But in truth, if the moment could be revisited, President Wilson, while right on the issue, should have been less proud, more willing to meet his adversaries, and given them extra consideration on the treaty. While I profoundly believe President Clinton was right to endorse this treaty and to urge its adoption, I urge him to do the same today. Let us make it unequivocally clear that the President of the United States, upon being told by the Director of the CIA that he cannot provide complete assurances that any unexplainable explosions of any source within Russia or China--by our national technical means--that it cannot be identified, it will cause the United States, unless explanations and inspections are made immediately available, to abrogate the treaty. Second, the President make abundantly clear that any refusal to allow inspections, even if not absolutely required by the treaty, because it is in the national interest, would cause us to abrogate the treaty. Third, the President commit the United States immediately to develop a national technical means to distinguish between different forms of explosions and small-level nuclear testing, and a program begin immediately. And fourth, that if, indeed, as I believe is provided in the treaty, this President is informed by lab Directors that they can no longer assure the safety or the operational capability of our weapons, we will abrogate the treaty. Let that be clear to the Senate and to the American people, let there be no question. And if there is no question on those issues, then there is no argument against this treaty. I can remember as a boy asking a history teacher why it was, if history occurred as a continuum, from generation to generation through the centuries, history was written in chapters and in volumes, which both began and ended? And I remember she told me: Because that is how it occurs. We are between the volumes of history. If this Senate is to decide that the bipartisan commitment to arms control as an element of national security for the last 40 years has been an error, we are ending not only a chapter but a volume of the military and diplomatic history of this country, we are entering into a very uncertain future, for our security is dictated only by what weapons are designed, deployed, and used--a lawless time that is not safer than the 20th century, but where the 21st century will be profoundly less safe. It will be a time in which, I believe, Members of this Senate will have difficulty looking in the eyes of their children and their children's children explaining how there was a brief moment when we could commit all the nations of the world not to test these nuclear weapons and therefore as a practical matter to be unable, by many nations, to deploy them or ever to use them--and we lost the moment. You may feel confident in your vote today; it may make political sense. You may be convinced of your own rhetoric, but you will never ever--if one of these weapons is ever used in a hostile environment; if one of these rogue regimes, from North Korea to Iran, ever tests one of these weapons--you will never look your own children in the eye with confidence in your judgment or feeling that you served them or your country. I have not been in this institution long, but long enough to know this treaty does not have enough votes to be ratified. The President of the United States, recognizing the enormous potential diplomatic damage of its defeat and the consequences militarily of sending a message to other nations that there will be no further proliferation efforts or control on testing, has asked, as the Commander in Chief, the elected representative of the American people, that this vote not occur. What have we come to as a Senate, if the President of the United States makes such a request in the interest of our national security and our diplomatic position in the world and we turn a deaf ear? If you cannot do good by voting for this treaty, do not do harm by defeating it. Allow the moment to pass. At least allow the world to live with an ambiguous result rather than a definitive conclusion to our national commitment to arms control. We vote on this treaty, but, indeed, we vote on whether to ratify or reject a national strategy of a generation and whether arms control will continue to be part of the security of the United States and our strategy of dealing with potentially hostile nations. It is not a judgment I would have had to mark the beginning of the 21st century. It shows a profound failure to learn the lessons of the 20th century, but it is what it is. At least we should be able to lose this moment and go on to debate and make judgments another day. I beseech of other Members of the Senate, do not hold this vote.

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. Knowing the great difficulty they faced in reporting a bill that would not exceed this year's stringent budget restrictions, I understand why they were not able to provide funding for the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey's (UMDNJ) Child Health Institute. However, I hope that funding for the Children's Health Institute can be found in conference. The increased attention to childhood disease clusters in various communities throughout New Jersey and other states require molecular studies for an explanation and solution. In that regard, UMDNJ of the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School developed the Child Health Institute of New Jersey as a comprehensive biomedical research center focused on the development, growth and maturation of children. The mission of the Institute is to improve child health and quality of life by fostering scientific research that will produce new discoveries about the causes of many childhood diseases and new 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 Institute will work closely with both the Cancer Institute of New Jersey and the Environmental and Occupational Health Science Institute--two NIH-designated centers of excellence. Organizations which also played a part in developing the Child Health Institute. The Institute is seeking funds to develop three components: a program in Molecular Genetics and Development; (2) a program in Development and Behavior; and (3) a program in Environment and Development. These programs will study human development and its disorders, noting the changing environmental conditions which alter gene function during development, maturation and aging. Institute scientists will also study human growth and development and the emergence of cognition, motion, consciousness and individuality. 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 those 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.

Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank both my distinguished colleagues for their assistance with this matter.

Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank the Senator from New Jersey for his efforts on this project. I believe that the work of the Institute is an appropriate focus for the committee because the research focus will be of enormous value for the nation as a whole. Indeed, the Child Health Institute will be one of the world's only research centers to examine not only the biological and chemical effects on childhood, but also the effects of behavioral and societal influences as well. The Child Health Institute's request is for $10 million in one time funding from the federal government for the construction of the Institute building. Total building costs are estimated at $27 million. The Institute has already raised more than $13 million from private sources including $5.5 million from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and $5.5 million from Johnson and Johnson. Also, the Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital has made a $2 million in-kind contribution of the land on which the Institute will be built. At maturity, the Child Health is expected to attract $7 to $9 million in new research funding annually, as well as provide $52 million in revenue for the local economy. Mr. President, funding for the Child Health Institute in this bill would be entirely appropriate under Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) account. Indeed, it would be money well spent. Senator Lautenberg and I simply ask that when the bill goes to conference the managers remember this request for funding the UMDNJ Child Health Institute.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont for yielding. I thank him in behalf of the dairy farmers in New Jersey and agricultural interests in our State and region for his extraordinary leadership in what is a defining moment for those of us in the Senate as to whether or not we will stand with agriculture in the Northeast or the dairy farmers and the farmers who remain in our region of the country are simply to dwindle and die as did so many who came before them. I could not feel more strongly about this issue at this moment in the Senate. As the Senator from Vermont, year after year I have come to this well--or in my service in the House of Representatives--as an American feeling the need and the pain of others who suffered from hurricanes in Florida, earthquakes in California, tornadoes in the Midwest, floods in the upper Northwest to get assistance to people in need. Through the years, I voted for agricultural appropriation after agricultural appropriation because I understood the hard work of American farmers in our heartland and the difficulties they face in flood or in diseases to crops, whatever the problem might be. You can imagine my surprise to find, when the State of New Jersey, New England, and the Mideastern States have suffered the worst drought in generations, that our farmers are not receiving the same consideration. From June through August, in a normal year, the State of New Jersey would receive 8 inches of rain. This year, New Jersey received 2 inches of rain. Our reservoirs were severely drained. The crops of many fruit and vegetable growers were devastated with losses of 30 to 100 percent. Yesterday, Senator Santorum noted that this legislation deals with the falling prices of crops in the Midwest and offers relief. He appropriately said: We wish we had falling prices at which to sell our crops. The crops of New Jersey farmers are destroyed. Yet this legislation, which offers $8.7 billion in relief, goes largely for low crop prices in the South and to a lesser degree in the Midwest. Only 10 percent is for natural disaster assistance for the entire Nation. Not only is it not adequate, it is an insult to the hard-working farmers in New Jersey and New England who have been devastated by the drought. In my State, 400,000 acres of farmland, on 7,000 farms, have sustained what is estimated to be up to $100 million worth of damage. Secretary Glickman has estimated there could be $2 billion worth of damage in the entire Northeast. The Governors of our States, including Governor Whitman in my own State, have estimated it could be $2.5 billion. That was before Hurricane Floyd brought its own damage to North Carolina and New Jersey and other agricultural interests. This legislation offers but 10 percent--less than half, probably less than a third--of what the need really is at the moment. It will surprise some around our country to understand why a Senator from New Jersey would take this stand attempting to block the entire agricultural appropriations for the whole Nation because of farmers in New Jersey. New Jersey has not been identified as the Garden State by chance. Agriculture in New Jersey is a $56 billion industry. It is the third largest industry in the entire State. It matters. The nursery industry alone is a $250 million annual business. The sale of vegetables, such as tomatoes, peppers, and cucumbers, is a $166 million industry. And the sale of fruits, such as cranberries, peaches, and blueberries, is a $110 million business. Our field crops, such as corn, winter wheat, and soybeans, generate $66 million in sales while our dairy industry is a $41 million business. This is not some ancillary problem in the State of New Jersey. It is the economic life of whole counties, entire communities, and thousands of people. At $8,300 for an average acre of land in New Jersey, our farmland is the most valuable in the Nation, growing 100 different kinds of fruits and vegetables for local and national consumption. I take a stand against this legislation because I have no choice. I join with the Senator from Vermont because of the devastation of our agriculture industry but also because I share the Senator's deep concern for the future of dairy. The dairy industry was once one of the largest and most important in the State of New Jersey. There are now no more than 180 dairy farms left, with hard-working people in Salem, Warren, Sussex, and Hunterdon Counties. I know if the Senator from Vermont does not get consideration for his dairy farmers, his dairy industry will become tomorrow what the dairy industry has come to be today--prices that do not sustain a quality of life and do not allow people to keep the land. Those dairy farms will be destroyed. In the last decade alone, 42 percent of the dairy farms in New Jersey have been destroyed--beautiful lands that sustained families and communities and are now parking lots and shopping centers or simply vacant, idle land. The fact is, a dairy farmer today in New Jersey cannot get a price to sustain the costs of his business. Without the compact that the Senator from Vermont is advocating, they never will. New Jersey dairy farms have experienced a 37-percent drop in the price of their product. It is not sustainable. So I thank the Senator from Vermont for yielding the time. I pledge to return to this floor with him to fight for disaster assistance for New Jersey farmers who have lost their crops and need help--not a loan, because they cannot sustain a loan; they cannot pay interest on a loan. These are small family farms that simply need a Federal grant, a fraction of the kind of expenditures that will go to the South and the Midwest--a fraction--so they can plant their crops again in the spring and have a new crop next year to feed their families and feed our communities. For this dairy compact, we need to make sure these few remaining dairy farmers are not lost and the 20 percent of the fresh milk that goes to New Jersey families can continue to come from our own farms. For those people who live in the urban areas of New Jersey and in suburban communities, who think they are far away from these dairy and agricultural needs, this remaining agricultural land in New Jersey must not be destroyed, because with every dairy farmer who goes out of business, every family farmer who has to sell their land, that open space is lost to suburban sprawl, and it affects the quality of life of every family in our State. So I thank the Senator from Vermont for yielding the time. I pledge to return again and again with him to try to fight this legislation and, if by chance we should fail, to urge the President to veto it. I thank the Senator for yielding the time. I yield the floor. Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of the Reverend Gregory J. Jackson as he celebrates his 15th year as pastor of the Mount Olive Baptist Church in Hackensack, New Jersey. Reverend Jackson has been an ordained minister for over twenty-three years and has ministered to the Hackensack community since 1984. It is a pleasure for me to be able to honor his accomplishments. Since his ordination on May 16, 1976, Reverend Jackson has worked to help those less fortunate throughout New York and New Jersey. During his career, Reverend Jackson has shown commitment to public service as well as dedication to the disabled. These life experiences have proved invaluable in his ministry. His activism is widely known and admired throughout the State of New Jersey. In addition to his ministry in Hackensack, Reverend Jackson has played a very active role in strengthening the political and economic life of New Jersey. He has served on a number of civic organizations including the NAACP of Bergen County, Fair Housing Board of Bergen County, and the Advisory Board of the Office on Aging. He has also served as the President of the Hackensack Board of Education, Treasurer of the North Jersey Baptist Association, Vice-President of the Fellowship of Black Churches and as Vice-President of the Bergen County Council of Churches. Reverend Jackson recently been named as Director of Promotions of the Lott Carey Baptist Foreign Mission Convention. Although Reverend Jackson has dedicated so much time to civic organizations, he has never lost sight of the need to serve his community. During his fifteen year tenure as the pastor of Mount Olive Baptist Church, the parish has grown by more than 1,000 new members. In addition, Reverend Jackson has implemented ministry programs to improve the Hackensack community both spiritually and educationally. I am pleased to recognize a leader of great stature in New Jersey, and a close friend. Through all of the years we have spent, working to strengthen New Jersey's communities, I have always known Reverend Jackson to stand on principle, loyalty, and commitment. I look forward to continuing to work with Reverend Jackson, and I wish him the best as he celebrates this momentous occasion.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize an outstanding woman in the State of New Jersey. Joan Flatley is being honored with the prestigious Spirit of Asbury Award for her activism and commitment to the Asbury Park community. Joan is recently retired as the Executive Director of the Asbury Park Chamber of Commerce, and her legacy in the community will be felt for years to come. For over twelve years, John used her depth of knowledge and breadth of experience to contribute to the successful functioning of the Chamber. It is through her effort that the Chamber became a dynamic force in the Asbury Park business community, and the State of New Jersey as a whole. Joan has been the main force behind the Chamber's development and growth. She has consistently been receptive to the community's need, and has responded to them under the auspices of the Chamber. The Chamber is now a respected source of information, both in Asbury Park and across the country, for business and community events. Without Joan's unyielding commitment, the Chamber's development would not have been as pronounced. Joan's continued and unwavering service to the people of Asbury Park is indicative of her love of the community in which she lives. Whether she was giving out travel information, sending out newsletters or organizing a business meeting, Joan met every task with an unbridled enthusiasm and pleasantness that made the community around her a better place to live. Indeed it is a testament to her service that New Jerseyans from every walk of life from across the state have come to celebrate the end of her distinguished career. Joan's dedication to community service has always been clear, and the people of Asbury Park have benefitted from her involvement. I can think of few individuals more worthy of this distinguished award than Joan Flatley, and I am pleased to extend my congratulations to her.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I am grateful to Chairman McCain and Senator Hollings and Rockefeller for their cooperation and support. I look forward to collaborating with them again on this very important issue.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of a provision in S. 82, the FAA Reauthorization Bill, that will provide an additional $36 million over three years to the National Airspace Re-Design project, and to thank Chairman McCain and Senators Hollings, and Rockefeller for their critical role in securing this funding. Many of my colleagues may not realize this, but the air routes over the U.S. have never been designed in a comprehensive way, they have always been dealt with regionally and incrementally. In order to enhance efficiency and safety, as well as reduce noise over many metropolitan areas, the FAA is undertaking a re-design of our national airspace. In an effort to deal with the most challenging part of this re-design from the outset, the FAA has decided to begin the project in the ``Eastern Triangle'' ranging from Boston through New York/Newark down to Miami. This airspace constitutes some of the busiest in the world, with the New York metropolitan area alone servicing over 300,000 passengers and 10,000 tons of cargo a day. The delays resulting from this level of activity being handled by the current route structure amount to over $1.1 billion per year. While many of my constituents, and I am sure many of Senators Hollings' and Rockefeller's as well, are pleased by the FAA's decision to undertake this difficult task, they are concerned by the timetable associated with the re-design. The FAA currently estimates that it could take as long as five years to complete the project. However, my colleagues and I have been working with the FAA to expedite this process, and this additional funding will go a long way toward helping us achieve this goal. In fact, I had originally offered an amendment to this legislation that would have required the FAA to complete the re-design process in two years, but have withdrawn it because it is my understanding that the Rockefeller provision will allow the agency to expedite this project. I want to recognize Senator Rockefeller again for including this funding in the bill, and ask Chairman McCain and Senator Rockefeller if it is the Committee's hope that this additional funding will be used to expedite the National Re-Design project, including the portion dealing with the ``Eastern Triangle's'' airspace.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. The Department of Education estimates we will need 2 million new teachers in the next decade. In my State of New Jersey, that is 109,000 teachers currently in shortage. When schools started this year in the city of Newark, there were 200 classrooms without teachers available. You can have your idea about American education, but the debate starts here. Empty classrooms, overcrowded classrooms, retiring teachers are not part of the formula for American educational or economic success. The fact is, if we did not have massive retirements, if there were not already shortages, we would still need Senator Murray's amendment. The Department of Education in May 1998 also concluded that the one principal variable that we know in improving education in America is class size. Educational Testing Services found that smaller class sizes raised achievement from fourth to eighth grade students, it reduced drop-out rates, and increased performance. It is the one variable we know that works. The strange thing about this debate, as the Senator from Connecticut has pointed out, is that a year ago, as Democrats and Republicans on this Senate floor, we accepted these arguments and we endorsed this program. For the last year, Democrats and Republicans, with pride, have noted that we spent $1.2 billion hiring 29,000 teachers to begin dealing with this educational crisis. You were proud of it, and we were proud of it. I have not heard a single Senator come to this floor and say: You know those 29,000 teachers, they failed. They did not show up to work, they were not trained, the teachers did not perform, the students did not perform. No evidence, no argument, not even a contention, because it was not a failure. It worked. But is this the extent of our national commitment? We deal with an educational crisis, and every Member of the Senate knows the greatest variable in America's economic future is the quality of education, and the sum total of our commitment as a Senate is 1 year for 29,000 teachers in a nation of a quarter of a billion people. That is quite a commitment, and now we are going to abandon the effort. The strange thing about this is, this is not the first time the United States has had an educational crisis. One of the proudest things I know in the 20th century history of this country is that between 1890 and 1920, the United States of America opened a new high school every single day. That is a commitment. We did it through war, depression, recession, and stagnant economic growth. Now the United States is experiencing the greatest economic growth in our Nation's history, nearly full employment and a budget surplus, and the response of this Congress is a 1-year program of $1.2 billion to hire 29,000 teachers, and a year later we are going to fire them. Quite a commitment; quite a source of pride. I know the alternative program is to return, instead, to block grants. Never in my experience has so much authority been given to people. I came to the Senate to deal with issues and national problems, not to give that authority to somebody else. There is a national educational crisis. It requires the hiring of teachers on a national scale, and that is our responsibility. If the judgment of this Senate is simply to send money to the States and let them decide whether they want new football teams, more buses, athletic fields, or science teachers, hire an accounting firm and get rid of the Congress, not the teachers. That is not why I came to the Senate. Senator Murray's amendment is not the end of the debate on education quality in America. It is not the completion of a national program, it is the defense of a national program that started last year. It should be continued. And for her leadership on this issue, the Senator from Washington has both my respect and admiration. I urge the Members of the Senate to follow her lead. Education should not be a partisan issue in the United States. Every schoolchild in America would benefit in a competition between Democrats and Republicans for educational leadership. I do not want to see that ceded to my party. Indeed, I hope we can all join in it. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding. On the question of education in America, there are both those exhilarated by our progress and those who are frustrated by our failures. It really is a tale of two cities: America has the finest universities in the world, the best colleges, proof that we know how to educate and build institutions. However, we have secondary and grade schools which simply, by any accounting, are not making the grade. Forty percent of our fourth graders failed to attain basic levels of reading; 40 percent of eighth graders could not attain basic levels of math; and 76 percent do not even reach proficiency levels. The fact is, we are not meeting an international standard. We are debating the fact that there is an educational crisis, but, if unaddressed, it will in our own generation become an economic crisis. The Senator from Connecticut is correct: There are schools in my State of New Jersey for which I have enormous pride. Many are succeeding. But in the world in which we live today and our economy, if schools are failing in Alabama or California or New York or some distant community in New Jersey, it is as much your problem as it is mine. It is an economic difficulty, a social difficulty, at some point in our country's history, even a political difficulty if unaddressed. The truth of the matter is, our country suffers some from a false sense of complacency. Parents come to me and say: Senator, I don't understand your concern. The schools are as good as I remember them 40 years ago. Or, I think the schools in my community are as good as the schools in the community that is next to us. That, I say to my friends, is not the point. The point is whether our schools are as good as countries halfway around the world. A national education testing service recently concluded that in math and science our students were 19 out of 21. We do not need to compare our schools with ones we remember as children. We need to compare them with schools in Germany and Japan, and we are not meeting that standard. I know every Senator has a different idea about what we should do about American education, and the truth is, they are all right. There is no one answer. Senator Coverdell and I had an innovative program to bring private money to help private and public schools. There are others who have a variety of different answers. They are all part of the solution. But no one can construct a solution that does not involve the hiring of teachers. Your ideas may be right, but this idea is central. The Department of Education estimates we will need 2 million new teachers.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of the achievements of the Millville Girls All-Star Softball Team, who recently captured the first-ever Babe Ruth Softball World Series. This past year has seen tremendous accomplishments by American female athletes, including the 1999 Women's World Cup Soccer Champions. I am pleased that the state of New Jersey can now boast its own champion's in women's athletics through the Millville team. The Millville team, comprised of girls 16 years old and younger, defeated several worthy opponents at the Softball World Series. The event, which took place in Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina, was the first Championship of its kind. All of the games were close, particularly the championship game. Millville won this in spectacular fashion, 1-0, on a two-out, ninth-inning-single which scored the winning run. The girls demonstrated outstanding skills and sportsmanship throughout the tournament. From pitching a no-hitter, to numerous diving catches, to clutch hitting; the Millville team proved themselves to be superb players, and model young athletes. The character and manners displayed by the thirteen girls on the Millville team throughout the Softball World Series should be a source of pride for the Millville community, the Southern New Jersey region, and the State as a whole. The values of the parents, teachers, officials, and volunteers of Millville are clearly reflected in the play and conduct of the World Champions. I am proud to recognize the accomplishments and contributions of Rachel Barber, Amy Holliday, Jil Conner, Constance DeSalvo, Tara Haines, Colleen Scholl, Rachel Mudry, Danielle Weber, Megan Lore, Adina De Hainaut, Jodi Dick, Christin Carpini, and Debra Vento. I know they will continue to make New Jersey proud for years to come, and I look forward to watching them defend their title next year.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I want to say, before Senator Byrd leaves the floor, however, how much I identify with his remarks. Like the Senator from West Virginia, year after year, with natural disasters around this country, in the House of Representatives and now in the Senate, I have come to the floor as an American, as part of a national union to respond to their emergencies. Like the Senator from West Virginia in advocacy of his small farmers, I will not allow, as long as I serve in the Senate, the State of New Jersey to be a caboose on the train of the national union. We have a farming crisis. The Appropriations Committee not only reducing but eliminating any assistance for farmers who are being bankrupt and forced from the land is inexcusable. Like the Senator from West Virginia, at the appropriate time, I will come to the floor and if it requires standing here day after day, night after night, I will not see them abandoned. I apologize for taking the time. I wanted to comment on the Senator's comments.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I think it is best we go next to each other.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise with some considerable regret to discuss the bankruptcy reform bill that was pulled from the floor of the Senate last week. Senator Grassley and I have worked for over 8 months to craft what I believe is a broadly bipartisan bankruptcy bill. Indeed, Senator Grassley has worked tirelessly for years to craft this legislation. He deserves the considerable gratitude of every Member of this institution. I regret that after all these months of work, last week we were forced to vote on a cloture motion. I do not believe that the cloture vote was in any way indicative of support for the bill. It is important that that be understood. Bipartisan support for this bankruptcy legislation is broad and it is deep. The legislation has seven cosponsors; five of them are Democrats. The legislation was voted successfully out of the Judiciary Committee with support from both parties. The inability to move forward on a bankruptcy reform bill is entirely due to unrelated events. The legislation on its merits still stands. I believe it is important that Senator Grassley and I make clear to people, both within the institution and outside the institution, that we are absolutely committed in this Congress, in this year, to continuing to have bankruptcy legislation considered and passed. Indeed, I believe if the majority leader brings bankruptcy reform to the floor of the Senate, in a matter of only a few days we can resolve the outstanding issues. I also think it is important that our colleagues understand why we are so motivated to have this bankruptcy reform legislation passed. There are considerable reasons. We are, to be sure, living in the most prosperous economic period in our Nation's history. The facts are renowned: Unemployment is low, inflation is low, the Nation has created 18 million new jobs, and now the Federal Government is having a burgeoning budget surplus. But amidst all this prosperity, there are some troubling signs, things that deserve our attention. One is a rapidly declining personal savings rate. Indeed, that is what motivated me to vote for tax cut legislation: To stimulate private savings in America so Americans will prepare for their own futures. But second is an issue that relates to this legislation: A rapid, inexplicable rise in consumer bankruptcies. In 1998 alone, 1.4 million Americans sought bankruptcy protection--this is a 20-percent increase since 1996 and a staggering 350-percent increase in bankruptcy filings since 1980. It is estimated that 70 percent of the petitions filed were in chapter 7, which provides relief from most unsecured debt. Only 30 percent of the petitions were filed under chapter 13, which requires a repayment plan. No matter what the cause of so many bankruptcies, what every American needs to understand is that somebody is paying the price. If people are availing themselves of chapter 7, rather than chapter 13, which ultimately requires the repayment of many of these debts, the balance is going to be paid by somebody, and that somebody is the American consumer. Indeed, I believe this is the equivalent of an invisible tax on the American family, estimated to cost each and every American family $400 a year, as retailers and financial institutions adjust the prices of their products and their costs to reflect this growing tide of bankruptcy. The reality is that the majority of people who file for bankruptcy-- low- to middle-income, hard-working people--do so to manage overwhelming financial problems. That is as it should be. That is why the United States has always had a bankruptcy code--to protect people and allow them to reorganize their lives, to give people a second chance in American society. But just the same, with these staggering numbers of increase-- 20 percent in only 3 years--there must be something else going on in our society. That something is revealed in a recent study by the Department of Justice indicating that as many as 13 percent of debtors filing under chapter 7--182,000 people each year--can, indeed, afford to repay a significant amount of their outstanding debt. That amounts to $4 billion that would have been paid to creditors but is being avoided, inappropriately, by what amounts, in my judgment, to a misuse of the bankruptcy code. I believe the Congress must act. This invisible tax impacts the health of our financial institutions, forces small business people to absorb these costs, forces some family businesses out of business, and it is a cost we can avoid. The bankruptcy legislation that Senator Grassley and I have crafted strikes an important balance, making it more difficult for the unscrupulous to abuse the system but ensuring that families who really need bankruptcy protection to reorganize their lives still have access to it. At its core, the Grassley-Torricelli bill is designed to assure that those with the ability to repay a portion of their debts will be required to do so but that judicial discretion will ensure that no one who is genuinely in need of debt cancellation is prevented from having a fresh start in American life. When this legislation passed the Judiciary Committee, there were those who had legitimate concerns about some of its other provisions. I was among them and stated so at the time. These ranged from the liability of a debtor's lawyer to ensuring that low-income debtors with no hope of repaying their debts were not swept into the means test. Colleagues should understand that Senator Grassley and I are prepared, with a managers' amendment, both to ensure that the debtor's lawyers are protected from liability and that low-income people are not inappropriately subjected to this means test. That managers' amendment, I believe, will pass and will make this far better legislation than the Senate considered previously or the legislation that passed the Judiciary Committee. I am very pleased that we have come so far with this bill. It is critical for our financial institutions and, indeed, it is critical for American families. There remains one other central issue, however, that must be in this legislation, and that is dealing with the other half of this balance. It is the question of the abuse, I believe, of credit in the Nation itself. The credit card industry last year sent out 3.5 billion solicitations--41 mailings for every American household; 14 for every man, woman, and child. No one wants to interfere with poor or working people getting access to credit. They should have the availability to do so, but there is something wrong when 14 solicitations per person are being received; when college students, juveniles, poor people are solicited again and again and again, often for high-interest credit. Indeed, these solicitations for high school and college students are at record levels. The result of this solicitation is not surprising: Americans with incomes below the poverty line have doubled their credit usage; 27 percent of families earning less than $10,000 have consumer debt that is more than 40 percent of their income. Indeed, it is not our intention to restrict access to credit for low-income people or even young people. Senator Grassley and I have crafted legislation that will at least ensure that consumers are protected by giving them knowledge, by having full disclosure so people can make informed judgments, when receiving these solicitations, about how much debt they want and what it will take to repay it and on what kind of a schedule. Taken as a whole--all of the provisions in the managers' amendment, the legislation from the Judiciary Committee--Senator Grassley's work in consumer protection is a well-crafted and a very balanced bill. My hope is it can receive early consideration but that, under any circumstances, this Senate does not adjourn for the year without providing for American families this credit protection by full disclosure, by providing for American business protection against bankruptcy abuse, and by redesigning this code so that it is fair to our businesses and our consumers alike. I yield the floor. Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I want to pay my compliments to Senators Bond and Mikulski. They have each made the best of a very difficult situation. I compliment them on their leadership. I particularly thank Senator Mikulski, who continues to be of service to people of my State and whose own priorities are written throughout this bill, which for all of us in our region of the country is particularly important. It is in furtherance of their priorities, not in contradiction, that I rise in support of Senator Kerry's amendment. This legislation does not contain any funding for new section 8 housing vouchers. This amendment will provide $288 million for 50,000 of those new vouchers. It is a modest but necessary addition. It does not increase authority or outlays. There are offsets for each and every one of those dollars. It is simply a reordering of priorities to recognize the state of housing in America. Rising economic prosperity in America erodes the foundation of many of our most endemic social problems. Housing is a single exception. Prosperity is not solving the housing crisis in America; it is exacerbating the housing problem in America. Indeed, what was a housing problem in the last decade is a housing crisis in this decade. Rents are rising, costs are increasing, there is homelessness, and homelessness increases as the demand on people's income to accommodate housing also rises. The single weapon the Federal Government has available to deal with the housing crisis in America is section 8 vouchers. This is not a giveaway; this is no free ride for the citizens of America. Between 30 and 40 percent of people's income must be dedicated to paying rent from their own resources as part of this program. In many of our urban areas, it is the single tool available to prevent children and families from going to the streets. In Newark, NJ, over 172,000 families are paying more than 50 percent of their income in rent or living in substandard conditions. More than 1 million people are languishing on waiting lists for section 8 vouchers or affordable housing. And they are not waiting a few days or weeks or even a few months; the average is 28 months. You realize you are in trouble, you cannot provide affordable, decent housing for your children, and then you wait in substandard conditions, paying rent where you also cannot afford health care or food for your children. You wait 28 months--unless you live in Philadelphia, where you wait 11 years. In New Jersey, the average in our cities is 3 years. We have 15,000 people waiting for vouchers in Jersey City and 10,000 are waiting in Newark. Every year, year in and year out, the numbers in America grow by 100,000. The simple reality is that this year, unless Senator Kerry's amendment is adopted, the number of section 8 vouchers will not increase--not by 100,000 to meet growing demand, not by 50,000 to meet half of the demand, but by none, not a single new family. The problem becomes a crisis, and the crisis deepens. I strongly urge my colleagues to follow Senator Kerry's leadership to improve upon the work, the already considerable work, Senators Mikulski and Bond have done. Also, as did the Senator from Rhode Island, I add my voice in defense of the Community Builders Program. This is America at its best, where young people, for modest remuneration, give their time and their talents to reach out to fellow citizens, to help them avail themselves of Government or private programs, to improve their own lives. In some cities of my State, virtually the only contact some desperate people in need of assistance for housing, drug abuse, educational services have is with these people. Their only contact with the Federal Government may be one of these young people giving a stage of their lives to go into a community and reach out. That program is not going to be reduced on the legislation. It could be eliminated. This Senate voted to allow Andrew Cuomo to become a member of this Cabinet to provide leadership for HUD. This is one of his signature programs. His talents and his time have brought him to believe this is one thing we can do for a modest cost that would make a difference. He deserves that support. This modest vote will allow him to continue with a program that he believes and I believe is critical. I urge adoption of Senator Kerry's amendment. I express my thanks, again, to Senator Bond, and particularly Senator Mikulski, for improving this legislation and bringing us to this point. We are all very grateful. I yield the floor. Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of National Hispanic Heritage Month. In my own state of New Jersey, we celebrate and recognize the proud history of a people who have a deep affinity to faith, a strong work ethic, and commitment to family values. Hispanic Americans share a diverse ancestry with countries spanning Europe, Africa, and South and Central America, and close cultural ties to Mexico, the Caribbean, Central America, South America, and Spain. This diversity has brought variety and richness to the American mosaic and has strengthened our national character with invaluable perspective, experiences, and values. For countless years, Hispanic Americans have played an integral role in all walks of life and made our country stronger. Whether it is in the entertainment industry, business, medicine or public service, the contributions of Hispanic Americans cannot be understated. I am proud to represent a state with a large concentration of Puerto Ricans, Cubans, Dominicans and immigrants from countless countries in South and Central America. In counties such as Hudson, Essex, Passaic, Union, Camden, Atlantic and Cumberland, Hispanic Americans have been contributing to my state's diversity for years. In our state legislature, we are proud to have four members of the General Assembly of Hispanic Heritage with Wilfredo Caraballo, Raul ``Rudy'' Garcia, Nilsa Cruz-Perez and Nellie Pou. At the county level, we have three distinguished members of the Board of Chosen Freeholders with Nidia Davila-Colon, Silverio Vega, and Neftali Cruz in Hudson County. And at the local level, countless Cuban Americans, Puerto Ricans and Central and Southern Americans have achieved the office of council person and mayor. New Jersey was especially proud to elect its first Hispanic member of the House of Representatives with the election of Representative Robert E. Menendez, who also serves in the House leadership. Through my own Italian heritage, I share a special bond with people of Hispanic descent. When Christopher Columbus set sail to discover this continent, it was done so with the financial support of Spain. Hundreds of years later, the Hispanic heritage continues to be an important and critical aspect of our national accomplishments. Hispanic Americans comprise eleven percent of the nation's population. In just a few years, Hispanic Americans will be the largest ethnic group in the United States. Their commitment to this country has not gone unnoticed. Whether it is serving in our Armed forces or through their growing economic consumer strength, Hispanic Americans are indeed thriving and intertwined in the fabric that is this great country. Activism is important to creating a sense of personal responsibility for one's community. The Hispanic American community embodies this concept, and should be commended for successfully instilling it in others. The contributions of Hispanic Americans has spread to other communities in a manner that transcends racial and ethnic differences, and I am confident they will continue to grow as a vital component of life in New Jersey and indeed the United States.