Robert Torricelli

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the FY 2000 Defense authorization bill. This legislation demonstrates a strong commitment to America's defense and to our ability to meet future military challenges. I am particularly pleased by the committee's inclusion of $176.1 million to purchase 17 UH-60L Blackhawk helicopters. A coalition of eight companies in my state manufacture critical components for the Black Hawk, which is the Army's premier tactical transport helicopter. First produced in 1977, it is used for combat assault, combat re- supply, battlefield command and control, electronic warfare and medical evacuation. This year, the Black hawk provided critical support functions for our armed services in the Kosovo. This funding will ensure that our military has the ability to continue its current operations and sustain readiness for future dangers. I am also pleased by the committee's support for high school ROTC programs. The additional $32 million for high school ROTC program will make a particular impact in my State where many programs have been approved for participation in ROTC but remain unfunded. Clark High School is an example of one such program which has remained on a waiting list of approved ROTC program but has been unable to participate because funding has not been available. I am hopeful that this funding will be appropriated, allowing the Department of Defense to immediately utilize this funding so that unfunded programs, like Clark High School, can begin operating as soon as possible. Additionally, the additional benefits for all members of the military included in this bill deals with serious concerns I have had regarding quality of life and morale of our soldiers. The pay raise of almost five percent addresses serious inequities between military pay and civilian wages. In addition, the legislation creates a civilian-style 401(k) by allowing military personnel to contribute up to 5 percent of their pre-tax to a tax-shelter investment fund. These benefits will go a long way toward reaching our goals of recruiting and retaining highly trained personnel. Most importantly, it will give our soldiers and their families the quality of life they deserve. I am also pleased by the $10 million in procurement funding for secure terminal equipment for the military services and defense agencies. This versatile equipments is the cornerstone of our multi- media secure digital communication. The new generation of secure terminal equipment, produced by a defense company in my State, is more effective technology and generates significant operations and maintenance cost savings. Finally, I am extremely pleased by the committee's inclusion of a provision regarding the Economic development conveyance of base closure property. When an installation is recommended for closure, it is imperative that the transfer of property benefit the local community. This provision will accomplish this goal by allowing a more efficient transfer of property to the local re-development authority for job creation and economic development. I again thank Chairman Warner, Ranking Member Levin and Ranking Member Inouye for their commitment and attention to these important issues.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of the achievements of the Toms River East Little League baseball team, who overcame great odds to return their team to the National Little League final for the second year in a row. The Toms River squad, known as the ``Beast of the East'', were Little League world champions in 1998. This year, they sought to be only the second American team ever in the fifty-three year history of the Little League World Series to repeat as world champions. Unlike professional sports, where champions often repeat using much the same lineup from one year to the next, Toms River attempted to repeat as champions using almost an entirely new roster, with ten of the twelve players new to the team for the 1999 season. Although they fell one game short of returning to the Little League World Series, the fact that Toms River advanced to the national final in 1999 is an impressive accomplishment in its own right. In the aftermath of their exciting run last year, I had the opportunity to meet many of the players and parents involved with the team. I was impressed not only by the skill, poise, and manners with which the team conducted itself on and off the field, but also by the way that the entire community of Toms River rallied around the team. The true character of the squad was demonstrated this year, when even in defeat, they displayed the good sportsmanship and class that is a hallmark of the Toms River community. Truly, these ``boys of summer'' have given us another August to remember with their fine play and tremendous love of the game. I am proud to recognize the accomplishments and contributions of Steve Bernath, Jeff Burgdorff, Eric Campesi, Dave Cappello, Mike Casale, Bobby Cummings, Chris Cunningham, Zach Del Vento, Derrick Egan, Chris Fontenelli, Casey Gaynor, and RJ Jones and I know they will continue to make New Jersey proud for years to come.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Judge Maryanne Trump Barry's confirmation to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I have followed Judge Barry's nomination closely as it has moved through the confirmation process. During this time, I have been impressed by her candor, intelligence, and qualifications for the position. She has moved through the process quickly, and I believe the overwhelming support for her nomination is evidence of her ability to ultimately fulfill the obligations of serving on the Third Circuit. Those who know Judge Barry, and have had the pleasure of working with her, have spoken openly of her integrity and thorough knowledge of the law. Some have highlighted her decency, while others have focused upon her razor-sharp wit. However, everyone has agreed on one point--Judge Barry has developed a reputation as a skilled jurist with a judgment and temperament that are highly respected by her peers. The other members of the Senate Judiciary Committee agreed with this assessment, and I was pleased that Judge Barry's nomination was passed out of the Committee by voice-vote on July 29th. For those who are unfamiliar with Judge Barry's distinguished career, she has graduated with Master's and law degrees from Columbia and Hofstra Universities respectively. Judge Barry first worked for the U.S. Attorney's Office in New Jersey and quickly rose through the ranks. She served as Chief of the Appeals Division, and then as a first assistant to the U.S. Attorney. At the time, Judge Barry was the highest-ranking female prosecutor in any major U.S. Attorney's Office in the country. In 1983, Judge Barry was appointed to the U.S. District Court by President Reagan. For almost 16 years, she has served as a pragmatic and vocal presence on the bench in Newark, New Jersey. As a former President of the Association of the Federal Bar of the State of New Jersey, Judge Barry has had a tremendous impact on policy across the State. She currently serves on its advisory board, and continues to be highly regarded for her insights and opinions. Judge Barry has consistently impressed me as an extraordinary woman, and one who will continue to distinguish herself. I urge my colleagues to support her confirmation to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I believe we have defined the issue appropriately and at length. That ultimately is where we now differ. The technology of trapping has clearly moved. Eighty-five percent of those who are trapping in the country are not using these traps. The largest States in the Nation have now banned these traps, as have other nations. What remain are those few on Federal wildlife refuge lands who continue to use these two traps identified as inhumane who would admittedly, as Senator Stevens suggested, for purposes where they are in the cash business of killing the animal and getting the fur, have to change to use other traps. If they are eating the food, they can use the same trap. If it is against predators, they can use the same trap. If they are in management for wildlife species, they can use the same trap. If they are going to sell the fur and they are in the business of making money by doing so, they are going to have to move to a more humane trap. That is as narrow as I know how to write this. That is the issue. That is our difference. I commend it to the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI. First, let me repeat my offer. If the Senator would like, for the sake of fairness, to abandon this, not only by the managers of the land and recreational, but also commercial people, I would be the first to vote for his amendment. This has been narrowly construed only for commercial purposes as an accommodation to the Senator from Alaska. Now, I believe that, as you know, overwhelmingly, trappers are not using these two traps. Overwhelmingly, they are using alternate kinds of technology that are not inhumane, are recognized internationally, and by most other States. If, indeed, by further banning these, we can encourage others to use these traps, I would be the first to do it. It is simply my belief that people who are in this for cash business, they are trapping for furs, getting cash for their furs, we have a right to ask them to spend the extra money to get different traps that either kill the animal outright or catch it alive and unhurt so it can be released and the wrong species are not caught. I think we can put that extra burden on a person who is trapping for cash dollars to buy the different trap. The subsistence people, who are eating the game they are trapping, are exempt from this, as the Senator knows--particularly native peoples who may not be able to afford to do so, or it is in their tradition to do so. They are exempt. So we are dealing with a minority of a minority, only on wildlife refuge lands. I think that is fair; it is narrowly construed, and mostly to accommodate the Senator from Alaska. The Senator was probably unaware of this or he would not have put the earlier statement in the Record, but after the letters the Senator submitted for the Record, Secretary Babbitt wrote to me as he did to Congressman Farr, making clear that ``The letter dated July 20, 1999, from Mr. John Rogers and the enclosed effect statement do not represent the position of the Department of the Interior.'' I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. TORRICELLI. As the Senator knows, I have respect for him for his extraordinary advocacy in all interests of Alaska. We simply have a difference of judgment on what is a relatively narrow matter. You have pointed out that one-fifth of Alaska is in a Federal wildlife refuge. That means in four-fifths of Alaska you can use any trap you want, any way you want, for any purpose you want. But on those lands set up as refuges--20 percent of your State--in those few lands where, by political judgment, this institution in previous years decided it wanted wildlife to have a refuge, it is basic to the concept of a refuge that we try to use, at least for the killing of animals, a technology that is understood and accepted to be relatively humane in those lands and only for these narrow purposes. For all the concerns that you legitimately bring and Senator Burns brings about the destruction of livestock, or culture, people who live on subsistence, they are free to do what they want, even in the refuge. If we cannot make this narrow exception here, with a letter from the Secretary of the Interior making clear the position of his Department, something endorsed by the House of Representatives, by my party and 89 members of your party, by every other industrialized nation in the world, and we alone are doing this, all I am asking--and it is overwhelmingly in the United States--if you want to use a leghold trap, though it is inhumane and rejected by the rest of the world and most of the Nation, you are free to do so under my amendment. For all these purposes, I ask that, in those few narrow lands, these two specific traps be banned for these few narrow purposes. That is our fundamental disagreement. But that is our only disagreement on that narrow point. I wanted to clarify that.

Mr. TORRICELLI. If, indeed, it is required to have a rollcall vote, that would be OK. I have some expectation that it might not be required.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, the amendment before the Senate deals with the issue of trapping on Federal wildlife refuge lands. It recognizes the reality that trapping has been part of the economic and cultural life of the United States for generations and, indeed, an important part of the economic life of many communities. But as anything else in life, there is a right and a wrong way to have trappings on these Federal lands. Overwhelmingly, trappers on Federal lands are using relatively humane methods of trappings that ensure the death of the animal so that there is no suffering. But in a small minority of these instances there are particularly egregious types of traps that continue to be used on Federal lands though many States have banned them for years. Most egregious of all are steel-jaw leg-hold traps and neck snares. These traps almost assure the suffering of an animal. The legislation before the Senate would ban these two specific types of traps and no others-- traps used in a small minority of the trapping industry and no others, and not for all purposes. Trapping for research is not included in this amendment. All scientific research can continue with any traps. Subsistence: Many Native American tribes that live off these traps-- live off the game they collect--should not be impacted and are not impacted. Facilities protection, or conservation: For any of those purposes, trappers are free to use whatever type of traps they would like. But for recreational purposes or other subsistence purposes, we would ban these two specific types of traps. I know some Senators have raised the question of whether or not banning any traps would cause a problem for the Government itself in maintaining stocks, endangered species, or other legitimate purposes of the Government itself. It is important to note that Secretary Babbitt was asked to address this question, and he wrote: The amendment would not impact the ability of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to manage refuges under the Organic Act of 1997. Specifically, therefore, Secretary Babbitt had given testimony that banning these traps would not contradict the lawful purposes of the U.S. Government. It should also be noted that it is not a new issue for the States. It is not a new issue for the Congress. The House of Representatives on July 14 was confronted with the identical issue on whether or not these two specific traps should be banned for these narrow purposes. By a vote of 259 to 166, with 89 Members of the Republican majority, it overwhelmingly passed this same prohibition. The question arises: Why have the States, why has the House of Representatives, and why have so many of our colleagues expressed concern and support on this floor about a ban on these two specific forms of traps? A leg-hold trap is simply designed to trap an animal by its leg with the force of this steel jaw and hold the animal until the trapper returns. There are several problems with this very old, very tested, but very cruel technology. The trapper may not return for days, or a week, in which case the animal starves to death, becomes dehydrated, and suffers over a period of days and days and days. Second, the extraordinary power of this trap is nearly certain to cause a laceration, or to break the leg of the animal. The animal suffers. As is the case with 80 or 90 percent of these traps, the trap catches the wrong animal. It is not the animal the trapper wants. It is some other animal. If it were a live cage, as overwhelmingly trappers use, the trappers would then release to the wild the animal that was unwanted. But in 80 or 90 percent of the cases the trapper has an animal that he didn't even want. The leg is now broken, or the animal is bleeding to death. It cannot be released to the wild. And an unwanted species is destroyed for no purpose when another technology--a live-bait trap, which most trappers use--would have avoided the whole problem. Even crueler, what is often happening is, these animals caught in the leg-hold trap for days and the trapper does not return are chewing off their own legs--destroying themselves to get free. The reality is that it is destroying unwanted species, with extraordinary suffering, with animals maiming themselves, and for absolutely no reason. This legislation, I repeat, does not deal with scientific reasons, subsistence reasons for Native American tribes, or other scientific purposes. It is only for recreation. It is only for a minority of trappers. It is only for these two kinds of traps, and it only deals with wildlife refuges. What kind of wildlife refuges are the United States maintaining if we are to allow these particularly egregious and cruel types of traps? These are refuges. They are set up for the safety and maintenance of an animal species. It allows trapping and harvesting of species, but not with this one particularly cruel kind of trap. That is the purpose of the amendment. Only 1 out of every 10 species actually gets caught in these traps. It is the intended species--1 in 10. I brought before you a protected species of bird caught in a leg-hold trap. No one was trying to trap an eagle. No one wanted to do so. It was unlawful. There is no purpose in doing so. But the trap doesn't discriminate. When the trapper arrives, what is he to do? The leg of this bird is broken. You can do nothing but kill this animal, though it was no one's intention. This has been endorsed by the American Veterinary Medical Association, the American Animal Hospital Association, hunting groups, and sportsmen. The States of California, Arizona, Colorado, and Massachusetts have already passed statewide ballot initiatives banning these specific traps. Florida, New Jersey, and Rhode Island have legislative or administrative bans. Eighty- eight nations--virtually the entire industrialized world--developed nations, all have banned these traps. We, and we alone, use them. And we are not only using them, we are using them in wildlife refuges that we have had set up for 100 years to protect these animals. How could anyone rise in defense of this trap? Mr. President, I ask that the Senate join the House of Representatives and the various States and impose this narrow prohibition on these two specific traps for these narrow recreational purposes and on these Federal lands. It is a modest request for what is an egregious problem. I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, it is basic in this institution, indeed in our Union, that each of us, as representatives of some States, have respect for the economy, the culture, and the traditions of other States. Indeed, this should not, and cannot, be a debate between Illinois and New Jersey against Montana and Alaska. Disproportionately, this would impact the great State of Alaska and several other Western States. Because of the gracious invitation of the Senator from Alaska, I have visited his State. I have been to Montana many times. I have enormous respect for their traditions and their cultures. It is because of that fact that this amendment was so carefully designed. Senator Burns has appropriately talked about the problem of ranchers and farmers who lose livestock and need to protect their own properties. The Senator from Montana need not be concerned. The management of species protection of those lands is exempt from this amendment. Private lands are exempt from this amendment. There is no greater advocate of native peoples than Senator Stevens. He appropriately has talked about the need for subsistence of people who live off the land. And while he has talked about the need to sell some of those species, to the extent that he is concerned about the need of people to trap for their own subsistence, he need not be concerned. That is exempt from this amendment. Maintenance of species, dealing with predatory animals, research are all exempt from this amendment. Private lands are all exempt from this amendment. We are talking about wildlife refuges set up by this Congress to protect species from two specific traps. The question was raised by the Senator from Montana whether or not it was accurate that 80 percent of the species caught in these traps are not the intended species. The life of the animal lost is wasted because these specific traps cannot distinguish between the fox or the mink or the coyote, whatever it is that is being hunted, and another animal. Indeed, 80 percent, upon further research, is not accurate. In 1989, a study by Tomsa and Forbes from the Fourth Eastern Wildlife Damage Control proceedings found that 11 nonintended animals were maimed or killed for every 1 that was being sought, 11 to 1.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Yes.

Mr. TORRICELLI. I am happy to yield.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Reclaiming my time, the Senator from Alaska cites an interesting point, but it is one that has been done to accommodate people concerned about trapping. Senator Burns has noted the problem of maintaining stocks, of protecting ranchers. We have kept the power on these lands to use these traps by government or private citizens or scientists or universities or trappers or anybody else, if it is to manage the stocks, if it is to deal with predatory animals or research. What is interesting about Senator Stevens' points is, to identify the extent of what this amendment does in order to minimize the impact on ranchers, on the economy, on hunting, we are taking what in essence, by the Senator's own statement, is only 15 percent of all the activity with these traps, recognizing these traps only represent 10 or 15 percent of all trapping activity. We are dealing with 10 percent of 10 percent of trapping activity and then only on Federal wildlife lands. Now, if the Senator from Alaska wants to offer an amendment to ban these traps on all lands and by everybody and for all purposes, I can assure the Senator from Alaska, he will have my vote. I have narrowly constructed this because I do not want to impact native peoples who are on subsistence. I do not want to interfere with predatory animals. I do not want to interfere with the management of these lands by the Government. My main purpose is to try to prohibit this for recreational purposes, only with these two traps, or other purposes where it is not necessary to protect ranchers or other legitimate objectives. I yield to the Senator from Alaska.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Allow me to finish. If it is a predator and it is for management of the species, they are free to use any trap they want. Second, it was appropriately pointed out if they are in the business of getting furs, they are in that cash business. My amendment would impact them. However, if they are using these traps for subsistence for their own consumption, as the Senator knows, they are also exempt from my amendment. There is a great deal of debate on this floor for a great number of people who have no relationship to my amendment. We are dealing with two traps, one kind of land, narrowly defined, with six exemptions. We are dealing with a fraction of a fraction of the hunting that is going on, which will still leave the United States as the only developed nation in the world that is allowing the traps to be overwhelmingly used. If we cannot take the narrow stand for the wildlife refuge, my guess is we can take no stand at all. I yield the floor and I thank the Senator from Alaska for what has been an enlightening discussion.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Yes.

Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, trapping has been part of the American economic and cultural life before there was a United States, whether for recreational purposes or subsistence----

Mr. TORRICELLI. So our colleagues are clear on this narrow difference that we represent, two things have been said that deserve further attention. One, if the trapping is to deal with a predator--and indeed this is part of the management of the refuge--my amendment does not affect them. They can trap.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I ask at the end of 4\1/2\ minutes I be notified the time has expired.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, in life you can extend your hand, but to make any real progress someone has to grasp it. For these several weeks, many of us have worked to try to find some reasonable middle ground in the cause of reducing taxes on the American people. It was a worthwhile effort. I believe, indeed, taxes on middle-income Americans are too high and it is the American people who worked hard and paid their taxes who have produced this extraordinary American surplus. They deserve a dividend for the American economic performance. But a tax reduction is not all the American people deserve. They also deserve to know their children are getting educated in quality schools with good teachers. I am for tax reduction, but I want a tax reduction that allows teachers to reduce class size and the rebuilding of crumbling American schools. I am firmly committed that tax reductions for the middle class are required and should be enacted by this Congress. But I also believe the American people must have a health care system that provides for prescription drugs through Medicare for elderly Americans. My point is simply we are at a time when the Nation can both afford and requires multiple objectives. In the bipartisan tax reduction plan of $500 billion, Senator Breaux, Senator Kerrey, and I, working with our Republican colleagues, fashioned a plan where we believed we could reduce taxes on savings to encourage the American people to invest in the new economy by reducing or eliminating capital gains taxes on modest investments and by eliminating taxes on interest on modest savings accounts so all Americans save for their own future for security for their own families. In our plan we expanded by 4 million families the number of people from the 28-percent tax bracket to the 15-percent tax bracket because this Government has no right to tax at 28 percent the modest incomes of families who earn $50,000, $60,000, and $70,000, raising one and two children. Indeed, at this point in our history it is something we can afford--to allow people to keep that money for their own needs. Perhaps it was always going to be so, but that bipartisan tax plan was not enacted. But I am not a man who is discouraged easily. When the bipartisan plan was introduced, we described it as the October plan because there are tax plans that are presented because they have political value and communicate a political message, and there are tax plans enacted because they can be attained and they change the law. This was never going to be a brief process and perhaps it was never going to consist of a single phase. Tonight, the first phase is concluded. A message is being sent to the President and to the American people by both political parties. The Democratic Party is committing itself to middle-class tax relief after protecting Social Security and allowing for national objectives of Medicare and education.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I regret that will mean the process will have to continue longer than otherwise required. I hope we can return in the fall and pass a reasonable tax cut that accommodates other national objectives on a bipartisan basis. I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Thank you, Mr. President. I believe that is still a worthwhile objective and I join with my party in doing so. It is, however, my hope that we can accelerate this process. This bill can be passed tonight, the President can exercise his judgment, and we can return. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent if the conference agreement passes, the bill be enrolled within 5 days and sent the following day to the President.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise with Senators Specter and Schumer in support of the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact. This issue is one of critical importance to the dairy farmers of New Jersey. It is rare that I come before this body to talk about issues affecting our Nation's farmers, however this is an issue of extreme importance to my state and family farms nationwide. Today New Jersey has less than 200 family dairy farms. These farms have been in families for centuries, and have been handed down from generation to generation. I've met with New Jersey's family farmers, from Sussex and Warren and Hunderdon Counties, and heard their concerns. I know how important they are to my State. Dairy farming is not an easy or lavish life. They milk 7 days a week, 365 days a year, starting out long before dawn, before most of us are out and about. These courageous farmers want to keep their farms, and pass them down to their children. However, without our help, they will not be able to realize this dream. The family farm is the backbone of agriculture in New Jersey; however, today, it is on the verge of extinction. In fact, New Jersey has lost 42 percent of its dairy farms in the past decade. Erratic fluctuations in the prices dairy farmers receive for their raw milk is causing such losses that these farmers are forced out of business. These farms produce over 289 million pounds of milk each year, but as prices decline and costs continue to increase, farmers need help to stabilize milk prices for survival. Without a mechanism to ensure stable prices for milk, New Jersey's family dairy farms will be forced out of business. However, this problem is not unique to my State. Family farms all across the country are hurting. Our Nation's dairy farmers recently experienced a 37 percent drop in the price they receive for their milk. This presents a dilemma for family farms, which must still pay the same amount to feed their cows, hire help, and pay utility costs. This enormous strain will no doubt force some dairy farmers out of business. We must protect America's family farms, and ensure the future vitality of America's dairy industry by re-authorizing and expanding the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact. I am hopeful that my colleagues will consider the farmers of my state when this issue is debated in conference.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Ashcroft amendment. As every other Member of this institution, I understand the hardship in American agriculture. I know the suffering of American families, and I know something of the problem of the policy. This amendment is based on a false promise. We are telling the American farmer that with all of his problems, a significant difference in his life can be made if only we can stop these sanctions. It is a false promise. All of these countries combined, their total importation of agricultural products is 1.7 percent of agricultural imports. So even if they bought nothing from Canada, nothing from Argentina, nothing from Australia, and nothing from Europe, altogether it would be 1.7 percent of these imports. What is the potential of these countries that we are being told markets will open by the Ashcroft amendment? How much money is it that these people have to spend to help the American farmer? In North Korea, the total per capita annual income of a North Korean is $480. In Cuba, it is $150. Mr. President, the American farmer is being told: There is a rescue here for you. Rather than deal with the substantive problems of American agriculture at home, we have an answer for you. We are going to open up importation and export to all these terrorist nations, and that will solve the problem. Really? With $150 in purchasing power in Cuba? The purchasing power of the North Koreans? The fact of the matter is, to the extent there is any potential in these countries to purchase American agricultural products, the administration has already responded. There may not be much of a potential, but what there is, we have responded to. Last week, the administration permitted the limited sale of food and agricultural commodities to these countries by licenses on a country- by-country basis. We did so for a responsible reason. If the North Koreans are going to import American agricultural products, we want to know who is importing them and who is getting them--in other words, that they are going to go to the people of North Korea and not the military of North Korea. If they are going to Cuba, we want to know the Cuban people are getting them, not the Cuban military. The same goes for Iran and Libya. The potential of what Mr. Ashcroft is asking we have already done but in a responsible way. Indeed, potentially, with Iran, Libya, and Sudan, this could be $2 billion worth of sales to those countries--but ensuring that they go to people--not militaries, not terrorist sects, but the people. Here is an example of the policy the administration has had since May 10 with regard to Cuba. Regulations permit the license and sale of food and commodities on a case-by-case basis if they go to nongovernment agencies, religious organizations, private farmers, family-owned businesses. If your intention is to sell food to any of those entities, you can get a license and you can do it. To whom can't you sell? The Communist Party, the Cuban military for re-export by the Cuban Government for Fidel Castro. The amendment offered by the Senator from Missouri solves no problem and simply contradicts the administration's policy of ensuring that this goes to the people we want to be the end users. The same is true in North Korea. Today, the United States is in a humanitarian assistance program to North Korea. Over $459 million worth of food has been donated to North Korea through the World Food Program. UNICEF has done the same. But we send monitors. When the food arrives in North Korea, we monitor that it is going to the people of North Korea, not the military. We want to know the end users. The amendment by the Senator from Missouri will be a wholesale change in American foreign policy. Sanctions that have been in place since the Kennedy administration, through Johnson, Nixon, Carter, and Reagan, will be abandoned wholesale--a radical change in American foreign policy. What are the nations and what are the policies that would be changed? I want my colleagues to walk down memory lane with me. Before you vote to end the policy of 30 years of American administrations, I want you to understand who will be getting these food exports, without licenses, which are not required to ensure the end users. I cannot be the only person in this institution who remembers Mr. Qadhafi, his destruction of an American airliner, his refusal to bring the terrorists to justice who did so to Pan Am 103. We are now in an agreement with Libya to bring those terrorists to trial. Now, in the middle of the trial, while there is an agreement, this amendment would lift the sanctions and allow the exportation of those products. The Sudan. Sanctions have not been in place long. In an act I am sure my colleagues recall, Mr. bin Laden's lieutenants plotted and executed the destruction of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August 1998; 224 people were murdered. The administration appropriately responded with sanctions, prohibiting the exportation of products of any kind to the Sudan. The amendment of the Senator from Missouri would lift those sanctions. North Korea. The intelligence community and the Japanese Government have put us on notice that, in a matter of weeks or months, the North Korean Government may test fire an intermediate to long-range missile capable of hitting the United States. We are in discussions with the North Koreans urging them not to do so. We have entered into a limited humanitarian food program to convince them not to engage in the design or testing of an atomic weapon. The amendment of the Senator from Missouri would negate that program, where we already sell food, knowing its end use and end sanctions. Iran. The administration has already entered into a program where we can license the exportation of food to Iran if we know its end use. But only this year, the administration again noted that Iran supports terrorist groups responsible for the deaths of at least 12 Americans and has funded a $100 million program to undermine the Middle East peace process, giving direct bilateral assistance to every terrorist group in the Middle East, undermining Israel and American foreign policy. Cuba. In October 1997, the United States found that the Cuban Government had murdered four Americans and found them guilty of gross violations of human rights. Last year, 12 Cubans were indicted in Florida for a plot to do a terrorist act against American military facilities in Florida. The United States already licenses food to Cuba, where we know the end use. The amendment of the Senator from Missouri would allow the wholesale exportation of food to Cuba despite these indictments, gross human rights violations, and 30 years of American foreign policy. I respect the concern of the Senator from Missouri for the American farmer. I understand the plight. But let's deal truthfully with the American farmer, his family, and his plight. The Cuban family who earns $150 a year, through their purchasing power, is not going to salvage American agriculture. If Cuba was capable of importing food today, they would do so from Argentina, Canada, or Europe. They don't because they can't, because they have no money. The same is true of North Korea. If North Korea had the money to import food, they would do so from every other nation in the world that does not have sanctions on them. They don't because they can't, because they can't afford it, because they have no money. You are making an offer no one can accept--an answer to the American farmer that has no substance. I don't believe there is a single farmer in America who either believes this argument or, even if it would be successful, even if they did have money, would want to profit off the misery of others who are victims of this kind of terrorism. I, too, represent an agricultural State. Farmers in the State of New Jersey--the Garden State--are also suffering. I have yet to find one American farmer--good Americans, patriotic Americans--who believes the answer to their problem is selling Qadhafi products, or the Iranians. American farmers--all of the American people--have long memories. These people are outlaws. Every one of these nations is on the terrorist list. Is our policy to put nations on the terrorist list because they kill our citizens, bomb our embassies, destroy our planes, and then to say: It is outrageous but would you like to do business? Can we profit by you? We know our citizens have been hurt. But, you know, that was yesterday; now we would like to make a buck. Please, my colleagues, don't come to this floor and argue that you are contradicting the foreign policy of Bill Clinton. You are. And you are undermining his negotiations as to the North Korean missile tests and atomic weapons, and you are undermining our efforts to bring people to justice in Libya and for human rights in Cuba. But don't come to this floor and just claim you are undermining Bill Clinton. Half of these sanctions were put in place by Ronald Reagan and George Bush. This is 30 years of American foreign policy with a single vote, with a stroke of a pen, that you would undermine. Some of you may be prepared to forget some of the things through all of these years. Maybe some of these acts are distant. But my God. Saddam, the destruction of American embassies? Some of those families are still grieving. We haven't even rebuilt the embassies. We are still closing them because of terrorist threats. The man who masterminded it is still being hunted. The Sudan? This is our idea of how to correct American foreign policy? My colleagues, I want to see this amendment defeated. But, indeed, that is not enough. If from North Korea to the Sudan to Iran there is a belief that you can just wait the United States out, that we are the kind of people who will forget that quickly, who will profit in spite of these terrible actions against our people, what a signal that is to others. What a signal it is to others who engage in terrorism. I do not hold a high standard with whom we do business. Business is business. Politics is politics. But there is a point at which they meet. These rogue nations, identified after careful analysis of having engaged in the sponsoring of international terrorism, deserve these sanctions. On a bipartisan basis, we have always given them these sanctions. Don't desert that policy. Bin Laden in his cave in Afghanistan, Abu Nidal in the Middle East are even now plotting against Israel and the peace process. I don't know whether the American farmer will know of or appreciate this vote. But I know that in those capitals in those countries where the people committed these acts it will be noted. This is not a partisan affair. I am very proud that from Connie Mack, who has joined this fight for some years, to the distinguished chairman of the committee, Chairman Helms, to Bob Graham, to our own leadership in Harry Reid, to, indeed, the majority leader, Senator Lott, they have all joined in defeating this amendment because it is right for American foreign policy. Let's do justice to the American farmer by dealing with the substantive problem--not dealing with excuses, and not dealing with other matters. We do nothing by fooling the American farmer. The American farmer stands shoulder to shoulder with every other American against terrorism and the defense of our country and its interests. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a resolution regarding our extradition treaty with Mexico. This resolution expresses the sense of the Senate that the United States renegotiate our extradition treaty to allow for the possibility of capital punishment. The case of Jose Luis del Toro has made the need for this resolution clear. When Sheila Bellush was brutally murdered in November 1997, her accused murderer, Jose Luis del Toro, fled to Mexico to escape prosecution in the United States. From this time forward, there has been little consolation for the Bellush family, and a great deal of hardship. While Del Toro was apprehended in Mexico just 13 days later, a nightmare of government delays and roadblocks prevented his extradition to the United States. The details of Sheila Bellush's murder are shocking. By all accounts, her four 23-month-old quadruplets probably witnessed their mother's murder, and wandered around in her blood trying to wake her up for as many as 4 or 5 hours before the 13-year-old daughter came home from school and found Mrs. Bellush's body. There is overwhelming evidence that Del Toro was involved in the murder. The Sarasota police believe that he was, in fact, the gunman in a murder-for-hire scheme. Del Toro's cousin works at a golf course where Bellush's ex-husband plays golf. That cousin and one of the ex- husband's golfing partners have been arrested as co-conspirators. On the day of the murder, Del Toro asked directions to the Bellush house and left a clear fingerprint at the scene. He had directions to the Bellush house in his car, which was seen near the crime, and he stayed in a nearby motel, where a .45 caliber bullet was found, like the one used in the murder. The Mexican government refused his extradition unless the United States agreed to waive the death penalty. Amazingly, we approved such a provision in the U.S.-Mexico Extradition Treaty of 1978. This agreement allows Mexico the right to refuse extradition if the death penalty may be applicable in the case. In the Bellush case, this provision allowed Del Toro to evade prosecution for over a year while awaiting his extradition. I became involved in this case when Jamie Bellush moved their six children to Newton, New Jersey, and sought my help with Del Toro's extradition. I was in constant contact with the Justice and State Departments and the Mexican Embassy urging them to move quickly in returning Del Toro. The Mexican Government has since honored our request, and extradited Mr. Del Toro to Florida to stand trial. However, I believe that the U.S. should still move to renegotiate our extradition treaty with Mexico and prevent this unfortunate series of events from happening to other families in the future. I look forward to working with this Congress to pass this resolution.