Robert Torricelli

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment of the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman, with regard to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Among the great attributes of our country, historic memory may not be our greatest strength. It was only 25 years ago that America found her economy crippled by attempts made to compromise her national security by an oil embargo placed upon states that disagreed with fundamental aspects of our national foreign policy. The 1970s may be a memory, but we have been revisited by the low oil prices that preceded the oil embargo of that decade. Mr. President, because of the foresight of this Congress in creating a Strategic Petroleum Reserve, there is now space for 120 million barrels of oil. This Congress had the foresight, during and after the oil embargo, to plan to preserve our foreign policy independence, to preserve a large capacity to store oil so we could not be intimidated. What is missing now is the foresight to fill that reserve. The Senator from New Mexico has noted there is no better time, with oil being sold at historically low prices. But it is important for Members of the Senate to understand that this is a propitious moment not only because the reserve has capacity and prices are low, but because in many ways the principal factors that led to the embargo of the 1970s, in an attempt to exercise leverage over American foreign policy, many of those factors are being revisited. In 1973, the United States imported less than 27 percent of its crude oil requirements. In 1979, we imported less than 43 percent of our requirements. Yet, an embargo, given those numbers, was enough to create a national recession, hyperinflation, and caused a serious debate about foreign policy objectives. The United States has now passed the 50 percent limit on importing foreign crude oil--9.2 million barrels per day--and by the year 2015 could import fully 70 percent of America's oil. Indeed, in the last 10 years, the rate of increase in the American importation of oil is more than all the imported oil of all nations in the world, other than Japan and Russia. Not only are we dependent, not only is it at historic highs, it is increasing. Secretary of Energy Pena said: The United States is highly dependent on Persian Gulf oil for a large and growing percent of our imports. Mr. President, it is not only a question of the level of our imports, it is also the fact that many of those importations of oil continue to come from volatile areas of the world, including the Persian Gulf where we have serious foreign policy disputes with nations in the region. It is estimated by the year 2010, the Persian Gulf's share of world export markets could surpass 67 percent, a level not seen since the oil embargoes of 1973 and 1974. Simultaneously, while American dependence on foreign oil is increasing, and world dependence on Persian Gulf oil is increasing, the United States continues to abandon domestic wells at an extraordinary rate. In the last 10 years alone, 173,000 U.S. oil wells have been abandoned. And oil production from smaller stripper wells is at its lowest level in 50 years. Mr. President, at a time when Americans are enjoying a low price for oil and foreign policy threats have retreated for the moment, it is difficult for the Senator from New Mexico to rise and gain support of the Congress for this important initiative. But almost certainly this country will be revisited at another time when there will be an attempt to compromise our foreign policy and use the economic leverage of oil against this country. We cannot be so foolish to forget what the oil lines were like or the recessions or the high inflation. In only a year after the Shah fell in Iran, in 1979, oil prices rose 250 percent. There are few easy ways to guard against this attempted intimidation or the economic shocks that would follow. Indeed, I know of only one. It is not perfect, it is not complete, but it is a contribution--it is the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It is time again to take advantage of these low prices to begin filling the reserve. For that reason, Mr. President, I rise in favor of the amendment offered by the Senator from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, and I urge its adoption. I yield the floor. Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.

Mr. TORRICELLI. It has come to our attention that concerns have been raised regarding report language in the Treasury-General Government Appropriations bill on tax standards for tax-exempt health clubs. We would like to enter into a colloquy to clarify our intent in including the report language.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, today I rise in support of H.R. 1151. Credit unions have been, and remain, a vital component of our national banking system. At a time when credit unions serve more than 74 million people nationally, any initiative that would impede the ability of credit unions to provide services to their members, would seriously undermine the financial well-being of the public, and the fortitude of our financial industry. That is why today's action is so important to the future of the credit union industry. Despite the claims by opponents of credit unions that state otherwise, credit unions are nonprofit entities that provide much needed opportunities for hard-working people. To millions of Americans, the low-interest loans that credit unions offer represent the opportunity to buy their first home, the chance to purchase a much needed automobile, the ability to send their children to college, or achieving the dream of starting their own business. For example, in my home State of New Jersey, there are over 315 credit unions that serve more than 1.1 million people. Passage of this credit union legislation demonstrates a commitment by the U.S. Senate to millions of hard-working American families. Supporting credit unions means bolstering our economy and providing more financial opportunities to save and invest soundly. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support credit unions by voting in favor of H.R. 1151.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of the ``Old Grange'' Restaurant, which has recently been placed on the New Jersey Register of Historic Places. The Old Grange, which is part of Historic Cold Spring Village, has been honored by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection through inclusion in the Register as one of New Jersey's Cultural treasures. It is a pleasure for me to be able to note this historical designation and to celebrate the Old Grange. The Old Grange is located in the Cold Spring section of Lower Township. Grange #132 was organized in the late 1800's with a charter membership of thirty-two people. Also known as the Patrons of Husbandry, the Grange is America's oldest farm organization and the only rural fraternity in the world. During the early 20th century, the Old Grange was the site of many Township of Lower activities, serving as a school, voting area, and meeting hall, in addition to supporting projects and programs relating to the Grange Association. By 1970, Cold Spring Grange #132 was no longer able to maintain a membership base to support the organization. In 1973 it became the first building in the complex later known as Historic Cold Spring Village, the 19th century open-air living museum located adjacent to the Grange. Since 1981, visitors to the Village have enjoyed the grand meals offered by the Old Grange Restaurant, and the memory of Cold Spring Grange #132 has been kept alive. The preservation of one's history is important to creating a sense of personal responsibility for one's community. All those who have worked to preserve the Old Grange and the Historic Cold Spring Village should be celebrated for embodying this concept and successfully instilling it in others. It is a pleasure to know that the rich and diverse cultural heritage of Cape May County is alive and well at the Village. I am proud to recognize the Old Grange Restaurant as a historic site, and I am pleased that the State of New Jersey has made this designation.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I am in support of Senator Kyl, but I must state my objection to Senator Craig's amendment. In my career in the U.S. Congress, representing Atlantic City, I have never risen on the floor to oppose gaming. But this is too much. All of our communities have a right to decide when and where we want gaming. We restricted it to one city in New Jersey. Under Senator Craig's amendment, every living room, every child's bedroom in America will become a gaming parlor. The Internet will bring gaming to children, and it won't be restricted to problem gamers. There will not be any control. If we want to have Indian tribes having Indian gaming, let them do it on their reservation. That is their right, their sovereignty. But my State has sovereignty, too. We have decided not to allow gaming in every community. Some States, like Utah, and many of your States, have decided not to have it at all. Now it will be imposed upon you with a monopoly of gaming on the Internet, available to everyone. I urge my colleagues to defeat the Craig amendment.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. I would be glad to assure Senator Hatch that I will work with him to ensure that the product that emerges from conference resolves both of our concerns.

Mr. TORRICELLI. I say to the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee that that is a correct interpretation of my intent.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I would like to thank Senators Gregg and Hollings for accepting this amendment to the Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary Appropriations Bill which directs $3 million to the implementation of nonpoint pollution control plans in the Coastal Zone Management Program. I rise to draw this country's attention to the national significance of our coasts as an integral part of our national infrastructure. As we approach the next century, we must treat them like our roads, schools, and technology, as the foundation of economic development, job creation, and current prosperity. Our coasts are a central element of the tourism industry which nationally employs 14.4 million people and contributes over 10% to our GDP, making it the second-largest sector in the economy. With more than 50% of the nation's population living within 50 miles of the shore, our coastal areas are heavily used resources under severe environmental pressures from land development and associated activities as well as seasonal pressures from summer vacationers. For example, over 400,000 people live in the immediate vicinity of the Barnegat Bay estuary in New Jersey; in the summer that number doubles to 800,000. The popularity of Barnegat Bay has caused non-point source pollution from runoff and storm water discharges resulting in blooms of brown tide algae in 1995, 1997, and as recently as last month. Polluted runoff is the major reason why pfiesteria and hazardous algal blooms frequently close rivers, kill fish and make people sick. Nationwide, 40% of our waters are not fit for fishing and swimming; 30% of our shellfish beds are closed or restricted for harvest; and 2500 beaches were declared unsafe for swimming in 1996. Created in the 1970's, the Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Program is a voluntary partnership between the federal government and coastal states and territories to preserve and restore our coastal areas. The program encourages the wise use of land and water resources through the preparation of special area management plans to protect natural resources while providing for coastal dependent economic growth. Section 6217 of the 1990 Coastal Zone Reauthorization Amendments requires states and territories with approved coastal zone management programs to develop and implement coastal nonpoint pollution plans. Through prior federal assistance, 29 plans (see attachment) have been conditionally approved and are ready for implementation. (In addition, Texas, Georgia, and Ohio, recently entered the CZM program and will also be working to develop nonpoint runoff plans.) The premise behind this amendment is simple: the federal government must continue to support those who have developed nonpoint pollution plans and are now ready to implement them. These funds are an investment in our future, an investment that will pay dividends not just for our towns and states, but for the entire country and for generations to come. I ask unanimous consent that the list of states with approved plans be entered into the Record.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Illinois. Privilege of the Floor

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Harkin amendment to fund President Clinton's Food Safety Initiative. In supporting this effort to fund food safety in our country, I must admit to some surprise about the debate. Through the years in this Congress, we have had controversial debates with legitimately and strongly held different views. This is a difference of opinion that I just do not understand. It is now estimated that there are 9,000 Americans per year losing their lives because of food safety. There is a rising cost in human life and suffering because of compromises in the quality of food consumed in America. In a nation where we are accustomed to automobile accidents and crime, the leading reason in our country to visit an emergency room is because of food that you purchased and consumed. It is not an insubstantial cost to our economy. Mr. President, 6.5 million people suffering from foodborne illness; $22 billion in cost to our economy. Two years ago, on a bipartisan basis, across philosophical lines as a national community, we came to recognize that this cost was not sustainable and mostly was not necessary. This Congress began to fund, under President Clinton's leadership, an initiative to ensure the quality and safety of our Nation's food supply. We are now about to enter into the second year of that program, which has included hiring more inspectors, enhancing surveillance and early warning, increasing research into pathogens like the E. coli bacteria, and to develop more fast, cost-efficient, and more modern detection methods. The second year is about to begin, but a preliminary judgment has been made on the budget of the Government to abandon the effort: No research, no new technology, no new inspectors--nothing. It would be a legitimately held view to come to the floor of this Senate and say, ``The President's plan has been tried and has been evaluated, it is understood, but there is a better idea.'' There may be better ideas. There is no monopoly of wisdom in constructing this plan. But to argue, in the U.S. Senate, in the face of this rising problem, that the better answer is to do nothing, confounds logic. I do not understand it--governmentally or politically. The American people may be under the impression that their food supply is safe. It is certainly true by world standards; compared with many nations, it is safe. But it is not what they believe. Mr. President, 9,000 deaths is unconscionable, but it is not even the full extent of the problem. Some years ago, like most Americans not recognizing the full extent of this problem, I heard testimony from a constituent of mine named Art O'Connell. His 23-month-old daughter, Katie, had visited a fast-food restaurant in New Jersey. The next day she wasn't feeling well. Two days later she was in a hospital. By that night her kidneys and her liver began to fail. A day later, she was dead. I thought it was about as bad a story as I could hear, and then in the same hearing I heard mothers and fathers from around America whose children had also been exposed to the E. coli bacteria, and realized that sometimes the child that dies can be the fortunate child. The E. coli bacteria will leave an infant blind, deaf, paralyzed for life. In the elderly, it can strike more quickly and also result in death. It is a crisis in our country, but it is one that will not solve itself. Indeed, it is estimated over the next decade, the death toll and the suffering from foodborne illness in America will increase by 10 to 15 percent per decade. There are, to be certain, a number of reasons--the sources of food supplies, a more complex distribution system, failures to prepare food properly, and almost certainly because of rising imports of food. Food imports since 1992 have increased by 60 percent. Yet, notably, inspections have fallen by 22 percent. There are 53,000 potential sites in America involved in the production of food for the American people-- 53,000. The United States has 700 inspectors. To place this in context, in the State of New Jersey where we operate a gaming industry, in Atlantic City, we have 14 casinos. We operate with 850 inspectors. What my State government in New Jersey is doing to assure that the roulette wheels and gaming tables of Atlantic City are safe for gamers, the United States of America is not doing for the food supply of the entire country. Mr. President, 700 inspectors for this country. To be honest, I do not argue that, even if Senator Harkin's amendment is accepted, that the Members of this Senate can face their constituents honestly and claim that this problem is being solved, no less managed. It would, in truth, require much more. Over the years, in working with Senator Durbin, we have outlined legislation that is far more comprehensive, in my judgment, much more attuned to what is required--to create a single food agency to replace the current 12 Government agencies involved in food safety, to remove agencies whose principal mission is to prevent the consumption and sale of food from inspection--to remove an inherent conflict of interest in the management of the Nation's food supply; and certainly to give the Department of Agriculture a mandatory recall authority so the moment we know there is a problem and health is endangered, we can eliminate the distribution problems. All these things are required, but we are asking for none of that today. All that Senator Harkin is asking is to fund at the commitment levels we decided on a year ago, to do the second half of a 2-year program to provide for the inspections, the technologies of this food safety program. Mr. President, many of us years ago learned of a different period in American history through the words of Upton Sinclair in his writing, ``The Jungle.'' At a time when the Federal Government was not doing little to ensure the safety of our food supply for our people, it was doing nothing. Most Americans will be surprised to learn that, as they read as a student of Upton Sinclair, the technology of food inspection has not really changed in these several generations. The principal instrument used by the U.S. Government to ensure that meat is safe is the human nose of an inspector. The second line of defense is his eyesight. As food comes down the assembly line, assuring that it is safe is based on the instinct of those inspectors, albeit inspecting 2 percent of the Nation's imported food supply. Part of this program is to advance the technologies which we are using in every other aspect of American life, the extraordinary technologies of our time which uniquely, incredibly and inexplicably are not being used on a very item of life and death of our citizens-- our food supply. This program will develop and advance those technologies. New pathogens are being found all the time. The E. coli bacteria itself is changing. This program will research to understand those pathogens, to use our technology to defeat them in biomedicine. As the Senator from Iowa has said, we also need enhanced surveillance. Because we live in a time when the food supply of one State can appear in another State within hours, a single source of contaminated food can be across America in days. We need to track it through surveillance to find it and eliminate it. Of course, as I suggested, we need more inspectors to also ensure the presence of the Government is there. All we are doing is attempting to fulfill what the American people believe they already have. Most Americans, if you were to ask them today, would tell you: ``Yes, there's a Federal inspector where that meat is produced, those fruits and vegetables, that syrup, they are there, and we are using the best technology and we are understanding the pathogens.'' We are asking that this Senate help fund that which we committed to 2 years ago and that which the American people already believe exists. Finally, there is ample time for us to disagree on many issues. There are legitimate concerns about which we can differ. If ever there was an issue about which we could come together in common cause, this is that issue. This is not an expansion of Government power, it is a power which the Government has had for all the 20th century. It is not draining significant resources we do not have. It is $100 million in a modest program. I am proud to join with Senator Harkin, Senator Durbin and Senator Kennedy in offering this amendment. I hope we can receive an affirmative vote and proceed with this program and avoid all that suffering, which is just so unnecessary, and begin to turn the corner on dealing with this very important problem. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Will the Senator from Florida yield?

Mr. TORRICELLI. If the leader would yield, it is my understanding, from our conversation, that the Roberts amendment would be accepted; and I will, in turn, have a second-degree amendment.

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

Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank my colleagues.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, Members of the Senate, we are about to cast a vote that we will remember for many years. I know the issue of the day is the farm crisis in the Midwest. The answer to that problem is in this market, in this Senate, not by changing a fundamental of American foreign policy. The issue today may be the farm crisis, but last year and the years before that, it has been the war against terrorism. My amendment is simple. We have lifted the American embargo against selling food and medicine unless--unless--you are from a country that is engaged in terrorism against the United States of America. Mr. Qadhafi does not deserve, tomorrow morning, to wake up and find out we forgot about Pan Am 103; or Castro, with his political prisoners; nor should we end with North Korea our actions just when we are negotiating the control of atomic weapons. I know the frustration of my colleagues from the Midwest, but these nations, with per capita incomes of $100, $200, $300, they are not buying agricultural products from anyone in the world, so they are not going buy them from us, because they have no money, because they are failing Marxist regimes. For 30 years, this country has held the line that on human rights and on actions of terrorism against our country we would not deal with them. Things are so close, the handful of Marxist regimes that are left--the handful--do not throw them a lifeline. Can you imagine the frustration tomorrow morning of activists in Cuba who are fighting for freedom to find out we have taken the heart out of this embargo? Make no mistake, this is the heart. These countries, from Libya to North Korea, to those that are harboring assassins in the Sudan, the Hezbollah in Syria, these terrorist nations, they are not seeking to buy airplanes or high technology. This is all they would have if they had the resources. This is not a message you want to send. Today it may be the farm crisis. But terrorism is not gone from this Earth. The State Department has told us that there are these nations, these six nations, engaged in terrorism against our people. They do not deserve an exception. The Senate has done its will. It has lifted food and medicine. Just keep this exception on these few terrorist states.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Well, let me conclude, and then I will allow the Senator from Connecticut to end on his amendment, as is only right and appropriate. I don't know how a Member of this Senate tomorrow morning could call the families of the victims of Pan Am 103, who are now suing to get financial reimbursement for the loss of their loved ones from Qadhafi, and now suggest that we are going to be financing food exports to Libya or Cuba. Not only are we not selling, but we will be financing. This brings us back to where we were with Saddam Hussein when the gulf war started. How could we explain to any American that, while American soldiers were having to fight in Iraq, Iraqi soldiers were eating food not only made in the United States but financed by American taxpayers? That would be returned to. Senator Graham and I specifically prohibited medical devices because there was evidence that Fidel Castro was using medical devices made in the United States to torture and interrogate prisoners in Cuba. That is the sum and substance of what the Senate faces. I apologize to the Senator for consuming so much time.

Mr. TORRICELLI. I wanted to ask a question, if I could, and then I will yield to the Senator from Connecticut. In my reading of the Senator's amendment, not only would it be lifting these restrictions on food, but also on pharmaceutical products, including medical devices, and including the financing of food; is that accurate?

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, this issue has now been debated at great length. And having listened to so many of my colleagues, for my own part, I wanted only to respond to several things that have been said and then leave the issue with the Senate. It is being suggested that somehow the idea of economic sanctions is some aberration of policy, inconsistent with our values, inappropriate in the final years of the 20th century. I want to remind my colleagues that the American effort to impose economic sanctions began with Woodrow Wilson, after the Great War, as an alternative to military conflict. So many lives had been lost and the war was so senseless that we began this 20th century with a commitment that this was the better alternative. I don't believe that Members of this Senate have been dissuaded from that view, given the outrageous conduct by terrorist states and facing the choice of military attack or expressing our outrage by separating them out of the international trading community. Sanctions are the better choice. Contrary to the statements of my friend, the Senator from Nebraska, the record is replete that they do succeed. How many Soviet Jews would have left Russia had it not been for Jackson-Vanik? What cooperation would we have had from Vietnam in finding POW crash sites if it hadn't been for sanctions? Where would North Korea had been now in stopping the development of atomic weapons if not for sanctions? Where would we be in negotiating with Qadhafi for the killers of Pan Am 103 if not for sanctions? Indeed, would Fidel Castro have had the Pope in Havana if there had not been sanctions? They are not always perfect, but they are the better alternative to military action. My friend Senator Durbin, the Senator from Illinois, asked the rhetorical question whether or not there would be an impact on national security. What an easy vote to cast on this floor. But what a difficult thing it would be to face if tomorrow morning Castro, Saddam Hussein, and Qadhafi found that the sum and the substance of America's economic boycott on principle against their regime had been destroyed. Thirty years of American foreign policy is on the line. Without a hearing, without the administration being heard, without an alternative being offered, the sum and substance of American foreign policy would be taken off the books. I suggested earlier in a colloquy with my friend from Florida, Senator Graham, that I know why it is being done. I understand the frustration of our colleagues from the Middle West. But the suffering of American farmers is addressed by changing American farm policy, not changing American foreign policy. These are the poorest nations in the world. It is not fair to the American farmer to say that plummeting prices and failing farms are going to be answered by ending the embargo on Cuba, where the average person makes $300 a year, or the Sudan, or North Korea. These are poor, small nations, without the ability to buy. If they had the ability to buy farm products, they would be buying them from Argentina, Australia, or France, or other American competitors. But they are buying from no one, because they have nothing. Let's at least be honest about the debate. This will not add up to one dime of American farm sales. It is a political answer for an economic problem. I suspect that the numbers would bear me out that my State of New Jersey manufactures as much in the gross value of pharmaceutical products as the State of Nebraska and the State of Kansas produce in agricultural products. Every major pharmaceutical company in America is in my State. I have never heard one pharmaceutical executive or one worker suggest that we should give in to Qadhafi on Pan Am 103, or the political prisoners in Cuba, or terrorism in Syria or Sudan because of a market opportunity--not one. And I don't believe that your farmers feel any differently than my pharmaceutical executives.

Mr. TORRICELLI. The Senator from Florida makes a valuable point that somehow the responsibility for the economic ailments of failing Marxist governments incredibly is being placed on the U.S. Senate. The reason that there is hunger in Cuba and North Korea is because their systems have failed. I recognize that in the great farm belts of America, there is tremendous frustration and suffering because of the farm crisis. But it is not frank, it is not fair to the American farmer to suggest that if the United States abandons its human rights policies and its economic embargoes on these terrorist governments, that is the salvation for the American farmer. As my friend and colleague from Florida stated, the per capita income of Cuba is $300. Cuba has 7 days' worth of foreign exchange. Just how much wheat or corn does the Senator from Kansas believe Fidel Castro will be buying? North Korea has no foreign exchange at all. Nothing. The Sudan has a per capita income of $100 per year. These are not countries that are markets for American farm products. I share the concern of our colleagues from the Midwest of the plight of the American farmer, but believing that we can compromise our policies on terrorism or for human rights by offering sales to nations that have no resources is a false promise and, what is more, simply contradicts the facts. The Senator from Florida has said it right. There is blame for these failing economies and the fact the poor are suffering, but it is not here. The Senator from Florida was my cosponsor in offering in the Senate the Cuban Democracy Act which is the foundation for the current embargo against Cuba. He should be proud of everything that he did because, indeed, as is now the case with the Sudan and with North Korea and with Iraq and with Cuba, we have assured that the poor, on a humanitarian basis, will get food even though they can't buy it. That policy now will be undermined by offering to sell these products to people who can't buy it. I think the Senator from Florida has made the case persuasively. Thank you for yielding.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, in regard to the amendment offered by the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, this institution should take some pause. This is some moment. Thirty years of American foreign policy by Democrats and Republicans are about to be put aside. The consequences of what Senator Dodd suggests that we do here are enormous. Consider the moment. These are not isolated humanitarian items. This would open trade for the United States of America with the greatest rogue regimes in the world, where Presidents of the United States, through 3 decades, have drawn the line and said that we will not do business with these governments unless and until they take specific actions to free their people, allow basic human rights, or make basic concessions in their relations with the United States. We are about to clear the table and tell them all is forgotten and all is forgiven. Consider the actions, Mr. President, through the years about what would be changed. In my State, perhaps more than most in this country, tonight every Member of this Senate would have to address the families of the victims of Pan Am 103. It has been clear to Mr. Qadhafi, until he brings those to justice who were responsible for destroying that aircraft and the lives of all of those families, there will not be trade with the United States on a bilateral basis. With the amendment of the Senator from Connecticut, the war of wills in which we have been engaged with Mr. Qadhafi, even now while he is discussing bringing those murderers to justice--we proceed. The line that was drawn those years ago is now erased. With the Sudan--another terrorist state to which now we would sell food and medicines, engage in normal commerce; it harbors Hezbollah guerrillas, the assassins who attempted to kill President Mubarak of Egypt; we were so brave in those days, the United States was so forthcoming in drawing this line--all is forgotten and forgiven. In North Korea--just when we have succeeded in getting the North Koreans to come to the table and enter into an agreement to stop the development of atomic weapons and try to get some responsible behavior--no need for the negotiations, we are now going to engage in commerce. With Syria--its harboring of terrorism against Israel; its occupation in Lebanon--we will now engage in commerce. And Iraq--at the moment, sanctions against Iraq are multinational. But every Member of this Senate knows that the day is fast approaching when America could stand alone. Inspectors would be barred, our military would be barred from the skies. And the United States would have to have its own sanctions. And this amendment--even though Saddam Hussein has been identified again as a terrorist regime and America could be alone in its sanctions --here we would engage in commerce. It has been contended to the Senate that we do this as a decent people because the real victims here are the poor of all these nations. That indeed is not fair, Mr. President, to this country or this Government, because, indeed, while we maintain sanctions on each of these terrorist States, for good and sound reasons that I have outlined, this Government has gone to every length to protect the poor of the poor. In North Korea, the shipment of 800,000 tons of food, only on the condition that we know who is getting the food and that it is not going to the North Korean military. But it is not fair that the poor of the poor of North Korea are victimized because of our embargo--800,000 tons of food distributed to the poor. And the Sudan, one of the poorest nations in the world--Senator Dodd is right, the poor of the poor should not be victimized because that Government harbors terrorists and assassinates foreign leaders. And so we have approved $76 million in food assistance, only on the condition that we know that it gets to the poor of the poor. And in Iraq, $2.8 billion worth of food and medicine, only on the condition that it not go to Saddam Hussein, that it not go to the elite, that it not support the Iraqi military--just that it go to the poor of the poor under U.N. inspections. The amendment of the Senator from Connecticut, if indeed we at one point predictably stand alone against Saddam Hussein, our food sales will not just go to the poor of the poor, they will go to the entire Iraqi establishment. As the author of the modern Cuban embargo, I make no apologies in this case, either. The United States provides more food and medicine per capita to Cuba than any nation in the world provides to any other nation of the world, bar none. No Member of this Senate has any apologies to make for American support of the poor of the poor in Cuba. In the last 12 months alone, there were 123 licenses to ship food and medicine to Cuba, worth $2.5 billion. I challenge any Member of the Senate to find any country more generous than the United States of America, giving to any adversary, more generously than we have to the people of Cuba. We have a license program and we have a license program for a reason, rather than unrestricted sales of food and medicine, as the Senator from Connecticut suggests. The reason is because we found when those food and medicines are not licensed, Mr. Castro has resold them or used them to support his own military establishment, like Saddam Hussein. There is no denial of food and medicine. We simply are requiring that it be done properly. Senator Helms and I, with other colleagues, have joined in this Congress in an alternative to Senator Dodd's proposal. Humanitarian shipments go to Cuba through the church and are licensed, on an unrestricted basis--simply that we know who is distributing them, the church, humanitarian organizations, not the Communist Party and not Fidel Castro. It is a question of control. It is argued, finally, that these sanctions, this restriction on commerce with terrorist regimes should be lifted because they don't succeed. On the contrary. The record is otherwise. Sanctions on South Africa to end apartheid, to the Jackson-Vanik amendment to allow Soviet Jews to leave Russia, to restrictions on Vietnam until they cooperated with POWs, the record is that, while imprecise, while offering no guarantees, economic sanctions, including the leverage on our greatest, most successful export products, foods and pharmaceutical products, can and do yield results. No one should assume, no one should believe that they work in every case or work quickly. But the historic record is that they are an alternative to military action. Where would Ronald Reagan--or George Bush--have been when Pan Am 103 was shot down, if he did not have the opportunity to have economic sanctions and this leverage? There would be nothing available but military action. Where would we have been after the shoot down of an American aircraft 2 years ago in the Straits over Cuba, if the President could not have tightened economic sanctions? No, they are not perfect, but they give the President added authority and weight to change policy. Every one of the countries most impacted by Senator Dodd's amendment in the course of the last year and every year for the last 5 years has been identified by the State Department as a source of terrorism against the international community, every country I have mentioned on this floor tonight. Is it really the intention of this Senate, after all these years of claiming that we had the will to fight this war on terrorism, we were as resolved as Qadhafi and Saddam Hussein and Fidel Castro, after all these years, now we are to say to them we have lost our will, we changed our minds? If that is the intention of the Senate, at least have the intellectual honesty to come to the floor, repeal the terrorism list, repeal sanctions entirely, because that is the effect of this statement. We will identify you as a terrorist, we will claim you are killing our citizens, harboring assassins, but we are glad to trade with you. I recognize that sometimes it is necessary, unfortunately, that the United States stand alone. Only Britain and the United States are still remembering the victims of Lockerbie; only the United States, the people who are jailed in Cuba. Only the United States may have the resolve to see it through with Saddam Hussein. That is too bad. But if the end result is the United States has to stand alone against these terrorist regimes, then we never stood in better company. We can be proud that we alone remember the victims and we alone are going to impose a price for those who violate international law and victimize people. But let it not be said, however, the Members may vote on this amendment, that any of us were a party to the poorest of the poor, and the hungry being victimized by our foreign policy, because those simply, my colleagues, are not the facts--from the tons of wheat that goes to North Korea to the pharmaceutical products licensed and distributed in Cuba. My colleagues, consider carefully this amendment. This is not a question of the Clinton administration. It is policies and embargoes that go back as far as John F. Kennedy. It is not just a question of a couple of governments. It is virtually every nation on the terrorist list. It is not simply a question of taking the stand because of an isolated incident, like Pan Am 103 or a disagreement with Saddam Hussein. They are issues as serious as preventing another Persian Gulf war by using our leverage and continuing leverage on North Korea to cooperate on a missile regime and on atomic weapons. This is, indeed, a serious matter. I hope if an amendment is offered to table Senator Dodd's amendment, as I am informed may happen, Democrat and Republicans, on a bipartisan basis, will not only vote to table the amendment by the Senator from Connecticut, but it will do so in an expression of true and strong resolve. I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI. His disposition looks very fair, so I withdraw the objection.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Will the leader clarify for me the time in opposition to Senator Dodd, who will be controlling time?

Mr. TORRICELLI. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Thirteen minutes. I offer to the Senator from South Carolina to divide the time. I don't see any other choice. I would be glad at this point to divide the time with the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Higher Education Reauthorization Act of 1998 (S. 1882). I commend my colleagues, Chairman Jeffords and Senator Kennedy, for their hard work and leadership on this most important legislation. There are few pieces of legislation in this Congress that are as important to American families. I would also like to express my gratitude to Senators Jeffords and Kennedy for including in this bill two amendments I authored and which I think are critically important for students across the nation. The first, the Torricelli Campus Hate Crimes Right to Know Act, would expand the campus security information available to the over 14 million students and their parents who apply to college every year. In 1990, the Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act, was enacted in response to a steady rise in violent crime on some college campuses. This legislation paved the way for families to obtain vital security information about their college campuses. However, it is clear the law needs strengthening. Currently, the Campus Security Act requires colleges to report only those hate crimes motivated by race, religions, national origin, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, and those that result in murder, rape, or aggravated assault. This dual reporting requirement severely limits the ability of prospective students to gain information about the safety of a campus. Our nation's college campuses should be a refuge from crime, particularly heinous attacks motivated by hatred and bigotry. The disturbing truth, however, is that college campuses are often fertile ground for bigotry. Twenty-five percent of minority college students attending predominantly white colleges have been victims of a hate crime. In 1996, 90 incidents of anti-Semitic activity occurred on college campuses. Students and their parents have the right to know about any crimes, particularly those involving hatred and bigotry, that were committed on a college campus they will call home for four or more years. My legislation, which is now part of the Higher Education Act, will ensure they get that information. The Torricelli Campus Hate Crimes Right to Know Act lists hate crimes as one of the reportable offenses and expands the definition of a hate crime to include those that result in robbery, burglary, arson, motor vehicle theft, vandalism and simple assault. The legislation also expands the definition of a hate crime to include gender and disability. I am grateful to my colleagues, Senators Jeffords and Kennedy for including this language in the Higher Education Act to provide students and their parents with vital information so that they may better protect themselves against such crimes. Mr. President, I would also like to express my gratitude to the managers of this bill for including another piece of legislation I introduced. This legislation undoes a travesty. We are inadvertently penalizing student reservists who are called to active duty and deployed overseas in places like Bosnia. While these courageous individuals are enduring great personal sacrifice in the service of their country, we are putting them at a financial disadvantage by starting the clock on the six month grace period for paying back their federal student loans. Since the average call-up for a student reservist now lasts for 270 days, the grace period on their loans expires. Instead of returning home to a hero's welcome, they are coming home to a mailbox full of default notices. Although the Department of Education can grant deferments to these students upon their return, federal law prohibits reinstating the six month grace period, so interest continues to accrue whenever they are not attending classes. It is unfair and inconsistent with our increased reliance on the Reserve forces to call up these students to serve in harm's way, and, at the same time, to keep the clock running on their six month grace period for paying back their student loans. This amendment, which is based on legislation I have introduced with Senators Sessions, Hutchison, DeWine, Cleland, D'Amato and Bingaman, will not provide these veterans with any special treatment or benefit. It will simply guarantee that the repayment status on their student loans will be the same when they return as when they left. These selfless Americans are helping to maintain a tradition that is over 350 years old, and extends back in time to before the founding of our Republic. Historically, militia and National Guard units have fought with honor in all major U.S. military operations from 1637 to the present. Today, these dedicated individuals represent all fifty states and four territories, and truly embody our forefather's vision of the American citizen-soldier. Reservists are active participants in the full spectrum of U.S. military operations, from the smallest of contingencies to full-scale theater war, and no major operation can be successful without them. Since the start of operation Joint Endeavor almost 1,000 New Jerseyans have served with the New Jersey Air National Guard in Bosnia, and right now there are New Jerseyans on the ground in the Balkans fulfilling the requirements of the Dayton Accords. It is important for us to acknowledge their sacrifice so that we never forget what it means to be truly selfless. In closing, Mr. President, I would like to thank Senators Jeffords and Kennedy and their staffs for all of their hard work on the Higher Education Reauthorization Act and for their assistance with these two amendments.