Robert Torricelli

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Lautenberg to jointly recognize Larry Doby, the first African-American player in the American League. Mr. Doby's lifelong dedication to major league baseball, his community, and his country is truly remarkable and must be recognized. As an ambassador for baseball, Mr. Doby has served the league for nearly 20 years as a player, as a coach, and currently as a special assistant to the president of the American League. Mr. Doby, born in Camden, SC, later moved to Paterson, NJ, where he starred in four sports and ultimately garnered numerous offers for athletic scholarships toward his higher education. Although Larry Doby accepted an offer to play basketball for Long Island University, his collegiate athletic career was shortened as he enlisted in the U.S. Navy to serve our country in World War II. Following World War II, Doby played for the Negro League Newark Eagles, where he led the league with a batting average of .458 and 13 home runs. Some of Larry Doby's major league baseball accomplishments include being the first African-American player in the American League, the first African-American player on a world series team, and the second African-American to manage in the major leagues. Mr. Doby will be recognized by major league baseball at the all-star game in Cleveland. The naming of this post office in Larry Doby's honor in his hometown of Paterson would be a fitting tribute to this great American. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, today, Senator Kerry and I are introducing the Save America's Forests Act. I rise to draw this country's attention to the management practices that threaten the health of our Nation's forest lands. When this country was founded over 200 years ago, it is estimated that there was 1 billion acres of forest land across this Nation. Today, 95 percent of those original virgin forests have been cut down. Forests are unique and valuable public assets. Large, unfragmented forest watersheds provide high-quality water supplies for drinking, agriculture, industry, as well as habitat for recreational and commercial fisheries and other wildlife. The large-scale destruction of natural forests threatens other industries such as tourism and fishing with job loss. As a legacy for the enjoyment, knowledge, and well-being of future generations, provisions must be made for the protection and perpetuation of America's forests. We must also set an example to poorer developing countries to preserve their vast forests so they do not make the same mistakes we did. We cannot call upon these countries to preserve large portions of their rain forests when we do not preserve the last fraction of our own ancient forests. Clear cutting, even aged logging practices, and timber road construction have been the preferred management practices used on our Federal forests in recent years. These practices have caused widespread forest ecosystem fragmentation and degradation. The result is species extinction, soil erosion, flooding, declining water quality, diminishing commercial and sport fisheries--that is, salmon--and mudslides. Mudslides in Western forest regions during recent winter flooding have caused millions of dollars of environmental and property damage, and resulted in several deaths. An environmentally sustainable alternative to these practices is selection management: the selection system involves the removal of trees of different ages either singly or in small groups in order to preserve the biodiversity of the forest. Destructive forestry practices such as clearcutting on Federal lands was legalized by the passage of the National Forest Management Act of 1976. From 1984 to 1991, an average of 243,000 acres were clearcut annually on Federal lands. During the same time period an average of only 33,000 acres were harvested using the protective selection management practices. Interpretations of forestry laws have also been used by Federal managers to include the promotion of even age logging and road construction. In addition, the laws are not effective in preserving our forests because in many cases judges do not allow citizens standing in court to ensure that the Forest Service or other agencies follow the environmental protections of the law. I am introducing this legislation to halt and reverse the effects of deforestation on Federal lands by ending the practice of clearcutting, while promoting environmentally compatible and economically sustainable selection management logging. It is important to note this legislation would only apply to Federal forests which constitute 20 percent of the country's harvestable timber supply, the vast majority of the 490 million acres of harvestable timber are privately owned and unaffected by the bill. This legislation puts forward positive alternatives that will achieve two principle policies for our Federal forests. First, the act would ban logging and road building in remaining core areas of biodiversity throughout the Federal forest system including roadless areas, specially designated areas and 13 million acres of Ancient Forests. Second, in noncore areas it would abolish environmentally dangerous forms of logging such as clearcutting and even aged logging. The act requires selection management logging practices to be used whereby timber companies would only be allowed to log a certain percentage of the forests over specified periods of time. Further it takes extra steps to protect watersheds and fisheries by prohibiting logging in buffer areas along streams, lakes, and wetlands. The act would also call for an independent panel of scientists to develop a plan to restore and rejuvenate those forests and their ecosystems that are damaged from decades of these logging practices. And finally, the legislation would empower citizen involvement in insuring compliance with environmental protections of forest management laws by making certain that all citizens have standing to pursue actions in court. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I have an amendment, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, throughout the course of this day, Members of the Senate have offered amendments which on occasion were of considerable benefit to people of great wealth, to encourage them to make investments for the benefit of our economy. As we have just witnessed, on occasion during the day, Members of the Senate have offered amendments for people of modest incomes, to encourage their savings, help them with the high cost of living and raising children. Indeed, many segments of society will find in this tax legislation various forms of benefits--to help with retirement and health and the rearing of children. Tomorrow, I will offer an amendment to the bill, not designed for those of high income and not specifically for those of moderate income. More particularly, it is designed for those of no income. The leading cause of unemployment in America for the last decade remains large-scale corporate downsizing. Even in a healthy economy, because of the introductions of new technologies, requirements of new skills, changes in trading patterns, acquisitions, mergers, people who are competitive, people who get up every day and work hard and are devoted to their communities, their families and their professions, their jobs, through no fault of their own, can find themselves in a situation without employment. Indeed, in the last decade 20 million Americans have been excused from their employment because of a large-scale corporate downsizing. But, in a considerable and rising tide of corporate responsibility, many of these companies have adopted the modern practice of giving severance pay to their employees. It is a chance, by the corporation, to give to the employee modest amounts of money upon their departure to reorganize their lives, seek new skills, move to a new location, start a business or go into retirement. Indeed, in a recent experience in my own State of New Jersey, one of the largest corporations in America, AT&T, only a year ago laid off 40,000 employees in a single announcement. A third of those employees decided to start their own businesses. A third went into retirement. Indeed, only a minority ever found employment in the short term under similar circumstances, and they were all offered severance pay. The problem, and it is the subject of my amendment tomorrow, is that while corporate America is offering this severance pay for people to continue and reorganize their lives in this competitive economic environment, the Government responds by taxing the severance pay up to a third, as if it were income. Imagine the circumstances. You have worked in a company all of your life and because of a merger or acquisition, a skill you may no longer possess, a change in the economy, even in good times you are excused from your employment, given $5,000 or $10,000, which you think goes best to continuing your education or opening a small business. Yet, when it is time to pay your Federal taxes, the Government takes a third of it from you, money that can make the difference in whether or not you can reorganize your life, move to a different place in the country to seek new employment, pay a tuition, or start your business. The amendment I offer tomorrow is as simple as it is important. The first $3,000 of any severance package offered to any employee in America whose severance package is less than $150,000, if that person does not get reemployment in 6 months, up to 95 percent of their previous compensation, that $3,000 is tax-free. The person should use it for what is best for themselves, their own families and their own future. I know at a time when our economy is growing, unemployment is low, a time of relative economic prosperity, few people are thinking about those who are without employment. In which State in this country, in what community have we not witnessed, through these extraordinary economic changes that indeed are the signature of our time, the dislocations of the marketplace? The times when many Americans would gain employment at the age of 18 or 22 or 25 or 30 and remain with a corporation most of their lives, those times have passed. The times when you gain skills in high school or college, and sought and obtained and retained employment all of your life with those skills, those times have passed. Even in good economic times, the length of employment with a single employer is shrinking. The consistency of employment with any employer is being reduced. What I offer is a response, a chance to make this tax bill relevant to those 20 million Americans who may in the next decade find themselves in similar circumstances. There is not a Member of this Senate who faces this amendment tomorrow who does not have a chance to address the people of their own State in a critical way, not just the 40,000 people of AT&T in my native State of New Jersey, but the 2,000 employees of IBM in New York State who are suing at this moment, trying to establish by law that their severance package is not income. In the State of Alaska, 1,200 people in the fourth quarter of 1996 were laid off; 88,000 people in the State of California; 22,000 people in the State of Illinois; 5,700 people in the State of Minnesota; 2,800 people in the State of Montana; 27,000 in Pennsylvania; 11,000 in West Virginia. In every State, in thousands of communities across this Nation, these dislocations have become a part of American life. I am very proud that tomorrow this Senate will adopt a tax bill, one that I am proud to vote for, that addresses so many different economic concerns of this country. It has a reduction in capital gains taxes for middle- and high-income people that is needed to encourage investment. I am for it. I am going to vote for it. It has a change in the inheritance tax to allow families to retain family businesses in higher incomes, upper-middle-class families; IRA's to encourage families to save for education for their children's welfare. Each and every one a legitimate response to a real problem. Mr. President, this is a problem, too. What is it we say to these people who want only to keep the money given them to reorganize their lives but are forced to share it with the Federal Government? Tomorrow I will offer this amendment and ask for the support of my colleagues. Thank you for the time, Mr. President, and I yield the floor. Mr. FRIST addressed the Chair.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Madam President, I, too, would like to join in words of praise for Senator Byrd. Every Member of this institution knows the Senate of the United States has no finer scholar nor better defender of the U.S. Constitution than the Senator from West Virginia. I share his disappointment in the decision of the Court today that standing does not rest with Members of Congress. But, indeed, as Senator Moynihan noted, this is not only not a defeat, it is not even a retreat. The only two judges who were to consider this matter on its merits have reached the inescapable conclusion that by statute the Congress of the United States cannot rearrange basic constitutional powers as contained in the Constitution itself. There will be another day with other parties who will bring this matter before the Court on its merits. And on that date, this Court will again, as it has on so many occasions, preserve the basic structure of the U.S. Government as contained in the Constitution. On that day, Senator Byrd will have his victory. It is postponed, it is delayed, but it will not be denied. I once again offer my congratulations to the Senator from West Virginia on what will be his ultimate victory. I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of Tom Hartmann as he celebrates seventy-five wonderful years. Tom has been a cornerstone of academic life at Rutgers University, and he has made equally significant contributions to political and civic life in the State of New Jersey. It is a pleasure for me to be able to honor his past accomplishments. Prior to his academic career, Tom served admirably in the United States Marine Corps, flying 89 combat missions in the Pacific as a dive bomber pilot, during World War II. As a result of his efforts, he received the Navy Cross for valor. Upon returning to the United States, Tom transferred his sense of duty to the community. As the Associate Director of the New Jersey Office of Economic Opportunity, and then as Deputy Director of the Governor's commission on the Newark riots, Tom has played an important role in promoting better community relations within the State of New Jersey. As a Rutgers alumnus, I am proud to say that I have known Tom Hartmann personally. Tom's integrity and commitment to New Jersey's youth are two of the qualities I have admired most. He has worked to pass these same qualities along to the thousands of students who have sat in his classes or listened to him speak. There is no mistaking the sheer joy Tom has brought to his profession. Without his guidance and counseling, few Rutgers students would be as successful as they are today. This impact has been felt most in the political arena as Rutgers students have sought to make a name for themselves. A number of state and national government officials, including myself, have been the direct recipients of his advice. It is fair to say that Tom has a gift for crystallizing a student's goals and talents in order to make some of the most difficult career decisions easy. Tom's political astuteness is well-known at all levels of government. He worked closely with my predecessor, Senator Bradley, for many years on some of the most complex issues of our time. I have sought advice from Tom on more than one occasion, and his counsel has been welcome. Tom's ability to assess the political implications of any decision is truly invaluable, and I thank him for the years of support he has provided. Tom's contributions have done much for the future of New Jersey, and our nation as a whole. I congratulate Tom on a job well done, and I wish him the best for seventy-five more years of happiness.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with Senator Sarbanes, the Quiet Communities Act of 1997. It is estimated that noise levels in communities across the country have increased more than 10 percent over the last decade. Studies indicate that noise affects one's ability to concentrate and can cause sleep deprivation, resulting in deleterious effects on health. Air noise is polluting our communities, and we must face and address this reality that affects the quality of life of our constituents. The Federal Aviation Administration predicts there will be 36 percent more flights in 2007 than there are today and that 60 of the 100 largest airports in this country are proposing to build new runways. A recent study by the Natural Resources' Defense Council found that the FAA's noise policy threshold is far too high for residential communities. Additionally, the study found there are over 250,000 people residing near Newark, JFK, and LaGuardia suffering from more noise than even the FAA deems fit for residences. In the 1970 Clean Air Act, Congress authorized $30 million for the establishment of the Office of Noise Abatement and Control [ONAC] within the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] to study noise and its effect on public health and welfare, and to consult with other Federal agencies on noise related issues. In 1982, ONAC's funding was terminated and the Office has been virtually dormant since. Each year, new studies show potential links between high noise levels and health and quality of life issues. Few issues are as volatile or as controversial as air noise. The EPA has consistently differed with the FAA--and advocated stricter measures--on the selection of noise measurement methodologies, on the threshold of noise at which health impacts are felt, and on the implementation of noise abatement programs at airports around the Nation. It is time to properly address the aircraft noise that affects millions of people every day in manners that are both short and long term. The Quiet Communities Act of 1997 will reestablish within the EPA an Office of Noise Abatement and Control which will be responsible for coordinating Federal noise abatement activities, updating or developing noise standards, providing technical assistance to local communities, and promoting research and education on the impacts of noise pollution. The Office will emphasize noise abatement approaches that rely on State and local activity, market incentives, and coordination with other public and private agencies. The act will also provide for the EPA to submit recommendations to Congress and the FAA regarding recommendations on new measures that could be implemented to mitigate the impact of aircraft noise on surrounding communities. I ask unanimous consent that this be printed in the Record.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with Senator Sarbanes, the Quiet Communities Act of 1997. It is estimated that noise levels in communities across the country have increased more than 10 percent over the last decade. Studies indicate that noise affects one's ability to concentrate and can cause sleep deprivation, resulting in deleterious effects on health. Air noise is polluting our communities, and we must face and address this reality that affects the quality of life of our constituents. The Federal Aviation Administration predicts there will be 36 percent more flights in 2007 than there are today and that 60 of the 100 largest airports in this country are proposing to build new runways. A recent study by the Natural Resources' Defense Council found that the FAA's noise policy threshold is far too high for residential communities. Additionally, the study found there are over 250,000 people residing near Newark, JFK, and LaGuardia suffering from more noise than even the FAA deems fit for residences. In the 1970 Clean Air Act, Congress authorized $30 million for the establishment of the Office of Noise Abatement and Control [ONAC] within the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] to study noise and its effect on public health and welfare, and to consult with other Federal agencies on noise related issues. In 1982, ONAC's funding was terminated and the Office has been virtually dormant since. Each year, new studies show potential links between high noise levels and health and quality of life issues. Few issues are as volatile or as controversial as air noise. The EPA has consistently differed with the FAA--and advocated stricter measures--on the selection of noise measurement methodologies, on the threshold of noise at which health impacts are felt, and on the implementation of noise abatement programs at airports around the Nation. It is time to properly address the aircraft noise that affects millions of people every day in manners that are both short and long term. The Quiet Communities Act of 1997 will reestablish within the EPA an Office of Noise Abatement and Control which will be responsible for coordinating Federal noise abatement activities, updating or developing noise standards, providing technical assistance to local communities, and promoting research and education on the impacts of noise pollution. The Office will emphasize noise abatement approaches that rely on State and local activity, market incentives, and coordination with other public and private agencies. The act will also provide for the EPA to submit recommendations to Congress and the FAA regarding recommendations on new measures that could be implemented to mitigate the impact of aircraft noise on surrounding communities. I ask unanimous consent that this be printed in the Record.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. I believe I have consumed all of my time.

Mr. TORRICELLI. The 10 seconds I have remaining I yield to the Senator from Nebraska.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I thank Senator Specter and Senator Kerrey for joining me in this effort. We asked the Senate to do that which you have done three times before, that which three previous Directors of the Central Intelligence Agency have endorsed, that which the Brown Commission, in a bipartisan review of this issue, has endorsed--that is to share with the American people and the Members of this Congress the total aggregate amount spent on intelligence activities by the U.S. Government. No details, no programs, no internal facts--one aggregate number, so the people can make their own judgments whether the direction and the amount of intelligence spending is appropriate and proper for the U.S. Government. I urge an affirmative vote.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I have an amendment filed at the desk.

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

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, the Senate is faced with an issue as old as the Republic itself. It is the continuing debate between the public's right to know and the Government's need to retain information only unto itself. It is an old argument, but it is one that has largely been settled through time. We have decided as a country that the best source of good judgment in this Nation remains with the people and that they should be trusted with the public welfare in having a maximum exposure to the facts and judgments that govern our society. Indeed, it was that wisdom which led to the first amendment to the Constitution itself, and equally significantly as it led to article I, section 9, clause 7 of the Constitution, which reads: * * * a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time. For a long time, Mr. President, despite these national ambitions, this consistency with our greatest national principles, we as a Congress determined this was not possible because of the dangers of world war and the continuing struggle in the cold war. It was the judgment of this Congress that even the total aggregate amount of expenditures for our intelligence agencies, including the Central Intelligence Agency, would remain private and not be published and shared with the people. The end of the cold war has raised this question anew. Not only for the intelligence community, but indeed for all of the U.S. Government. And most of this Government has responded appropriately. The Defense Department began to share information about programs it was developing, technologies that it possessed. Weapons hitherto unknown were shared with the press and the public. And perhaps predictably that is why since 1980, according to the bipartisan Brown Commission, defense expenditures of the United States in real terms have declined by 4 percent. Accountability by the people themselves led this Congress to adjust our national priorities to deal with the new emerging security situation internationally. No doubt, an equal reflection of the fact the intelligence community retained privacy of its budget is that the bipartisan Brown Commission found that since 1980 the intelligence community's budget, in adjusted terms, increased by 80 percent. Mr. President, what we are facing today in honest debate can no longer be concluded to be whether or not adversaries of the United States will gain information about our intentions and abilities of our intelligence community, because our adversaries have neither the means to respond nor probably the ability in all cases to understand the operations of our intelligence community. The only people being shielded from this information are not adversaries, but the taxpayers of the United States. Indeed, general accountings, in estimates, of American intelligence expenditures appear in all of our major newspapers. Only the exact aggregate numbers are denied, and not denied to adversaries; they are denied to the people of this country who need to make informed judgments as voters, as taxpayers about our national priorities. So I rise today with an amendment that this Senate has considered before. It is simply this: To publish, not the details of the CIA expenditures, not to reveal their programs, to share no numbers and no estimates on any technology, any element of spending of the intelligence community but one, the total aggregate amount of money spent in the U.S. Government for the Central Intelligence Agency. This one number would allow the American people, as an informed electorate, to make their judgments on a comparative basis about whether or not, as compared to defense, social programs, foreign assistance, and the intelligence community, this Congress is making the right judgments. And yet, it will be argued that our adversaries would have this information and use it for their own purposes. I understood that argument when we were concerned that the Russians, the Soviet Union with all of its capabilities, as our principal adversary would have this information and could adjust their own intelligence programs to respond. There is no Soviet Union; and the cold war has ended. The decline and change of our national defense expenditures give the best testament to the fact that this Senate has accepted that fact. Now we face new adversaries, terrorist organizations, a list of pariah states from North Korea to Libya, to Iraq and Iran. And so the question begs itself, what if these nations possessed this one aggregate number, of what value would it be to them? By most press estimates, total expenditures of the Central Intelligence Agency are not only more than the intelligence expenditures of each of those countries, it is more than all those countries combined. Indeed, the United States, by most published estimates, spends more on its intelligence community than the gross national product of every one of these potential adversaries of the United States. And so for those who will argue that we cannot share this information with the American people, I ask, what is it North Korea would do with this information or Libya or Iran? What possible change would they have in their own programs or their own expenditures? They have not the means to respond or to change. I repeat in my argument, Mr. President, as I began. There is only one people on this Earth that need this information to make important judgments about their future who are being shielded from it, and it is the people of the United States. Mr. President, if this argument seems familiar to Members of the Senate, it is because it is not new. This Senate voted on this question in 1991, a sense-of-the-Senate resolution in 1992, and again in 1993. Indeed, most Members of the Senate who in a matter of moments will vote on this question have already voted in previous years to share this information with the American people. Eighty members of the House of Representatives have cosponsored legislation to do so. The Federation of American Scientists have gone to Federal court to compel its release on constitutional principles. But perhaps most significantly, the President of the United States himself, our Commander in Chief, who has the ultimate authority for the security of the United States, suggested if the Congress would concur, he would release this information. This Senate on previous occasions has confirmed for the directorship for the Central Intelligence Agency Admiral Turner, Mr. Gates, Mr. Deutch. Each of those CIA Directors themselves have argued that concealing this information serves no purpose and it should be shared with the people. This Congress has disagreed on this issue before. And so a bipartisan commission, chaired by former Secretary of Defense Brown, and by our former Senate colleague, Senator Rudman, addressed this question in their own report. And they urged the public release of this information. To my colleagues, when you have voted on this question previously, when Directors of the Central Intelligence Agency, the President of the United States, and a commission charged for this very purpose argues that this single individual aggregate amount of spending should be released, by what possible logic do we continue to shield the American people from these facts? But if, Mr. President, in their individual judgment my colleagues are still convinced that because of the danger of these new pariah states and the rise of international terrorism, this expenditure must be concealed from our people, I urge them to consider the fact that we are also not the first of the allied nations to face this judgment. The British Parliament has had this debate. And Britain decided its people should share with this information. The Canadian Parliament, the Australian Parliament, and perhaps most significant, the Israeli Knesset--no nation on Earth is faced with the threat of terrorism more than Israel--but they have decided, in spite of the fact that their program cannot conceivably have our capabilities nor the relative advantage versus their adversaries as we face as opposed to our own, they share this information with the people of Israel. We remain the exception. Fifty years since the Second World War when a judgment was made that for national security, a judgment appropriately made for national security, that this information was best concealed, we retain this last relic of the cold war. Mr. President, this is a national policy to conceal the gross expenditures of the Central Intelligence Agency that has lost its rationale. It is time for this Senate once again, as it has on three previous occasions, to vote to allow the sharing of this information with the American people. But we do so not because we believe it is a compromise with national security that has become necessary, but because indeed many of us believe it would enhance our national security. Perhaps most significantly in the Brown report was a conclusion that, in the commission's words, ``Most intelligence agencies seem to lack a resource strategy apart from what is reflected in the President's 6- year budget projection. Indeed, until the intelligence community reforms its budget process, it is poorly positioned to implement strategies.'' Efficiency, accountability, proper judgments for national security, like all other aspects of the governance of the United States, are best made under the careful scrutiny of the people themselves. National security is not only the exception, it may be the best rule. It is the lives of the people of this country themselves--from terrorism and from a new group of potential adversaries--that we are charged with protecting. Allow the people of the United States to participate in this judgment. I urge my colleagues, once again, as you have done on several previous occasions, to join with the previous leadership of the Central Intelligence Agency in concurrence with the commission report that you commissioned to be done, and allow this single number, this one gross expenditure of the Central Intelligence Agency's budget, to be released to the American people. I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I first thank my colleagues who have joined me in this effort today, most significantly, Senator Specter of Pennsylvania, who has led this effort previously and makes this a genuinely bipartisan effort to share this information with the American people, Senator Bumpers of Arkansas, who has argued so passionately on this cause previously, and, of course, the ranking member of the intelligence committee, Senator Kerrey of Nebraska. Mr. President, I know that many Government agencies would have liked the right to keep the information of their expenditures on a proprietary basis. This logic must have occurred to the Defense Department. Indeed, it was difficult for the Defense Department, at the end of the cold war, to begin to share some of the programs, exhibit some of the technology and the assets it possessed that previously had remained secret. This Congress and the leadership of this Government made a judgment that the people could not make the proper decisions about their elected representatives and we could not make the proper judgments for them without complete access to information. I want to remind my colleagues, we have faced this issue previously in 3 different years since the end of the cold war, and on each of those occasions this Senate has voted, even if contained in other legislation, either by law or by a sense of the Senate, to permit the publishing of this one single number. If we fail to do so today, it will be a change in the position of this Senate. It will be an inconsistency by a majority of Senators who served in this institution in those previous years. By what logic would we now change our minds? Because it will endanger an employee of the Central Intelligence Agency? On what basis and by what theory would anyone be endangered because they knew a total amount of money spent by the intelligence community? Because an adversary will change their plans, initiate a new program, compete with the intelligence community of the United States--when I have demonstrated that every and each potential adversary of the United States has a gross national product that is, according to published reports, smaller than the gross expenditures of the American intelligence communities? Mr. President, I conclude as I began: There is only one group of people who have real need of this information upon which to make decisions, and it is the taxpayers of the United States. This is the last cloud of secrecy necessitated by war, cold war and struggle, that should be removed by this Government. My colleagues have decided to do so before, but we have been frustrated in conference, and our will has not been done. It can be done now. I urge an affirmative vote to allow the public release of the aggregate expenditures of the United States intelligence community, a single number, published each year. The people of our country can make a good and accurate judgment. I want to thank again Senator Specter, Senator Bumpers, and Senator Kerrey for joining me in this and each of my colleagues who have voted previously on a majority basis to allow its release. I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI. I yield the remainder of our time to Senator Specter of Pennsylvania, and I thank him for his leadership.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I want to identify myself with the remarks of my colleague, Senator Lautenberg, and I join with him in offering this amendment today. What we have before us is a classic case of adding insult to injury. The people of various communities in New Jersey have lived for 40 and 50 years with the problem of thorium. The stories are long and often involved, but the thorium is clearly dangerous in the case of Maywood and the thorium in Wayne. They are all the result of wartime production, the production of lanterns and bomb sights and other war material that required a low level of radiation. In an extraordinary story of success of the U.S. Government, in the case of Maywood all the thorium involving residential communities has now been removed. Now we are beginning to do the same in the community of Wayne. But it is not enough that the people of Wayne have the thorium removed. The question remains who will pay the bill? This was not an operation of the U.S. Government. This was not a question where the Government was operating the facility and it was left for the residents. This is a profitmaking corporation that had public and private contracts, earned money on the site, left it polluted, and the taxpayers are now left with the bill. To date, $50 million has been spent. It is estimated the final cost could be as high as $120 million to remove 100,000 cubic yards of waste material. Mr. President, only several months ago, I, as Senator Lautenberg, in concern that as we began to make progress in the removal of this thorium, wanted to know the progress and who was going to pay the bill. We pressed the Department of Energy to seek legal recourse in recovering costs and assuring future contributions. I, too, met with the W.R. Grace Corp., and I was very pleased after those meetings to receive this letter, as Congressman Pascrell, who represents this district, received this correspondence and claimed ``we are entered into good faith negotiations with the Department of Energy in an effort to fairly resolve this matter.'' The letter from the Grace Corp. concluded: Grace has acted in good faith and desires to achieve an amicable resolution to this problem. Only to discover in this legislation a prohibition in section (a) and (b): The Department of Energy may not recover from a party described in subsection (b) any costs of response actions for actual or threatened release of hazardous substances that occurred before reenactment of the act. The net result would be that all of our efforts to ensure the Department of Energy uses all legal recourse and continues in good- faith negotiations, that the private parties that profited by these operations also bear the cost of removal of the thorium contamination, would have been lost and the taxpayers would be left with the entire cost, $120 million. Mr. President, I am very pleased Senator Lautenberg and I have the chance today to strike this provision, and I am very pleased that Senator Smith, in his secondary amendment, will simply seek good-faith efforts in negotiations to resolve this matter. But let the record be clear to the Department of Energy, a good-faith resolution is nothing less than the Federal policy of polluter pays prevails. We fully expect the Department of Energy to seek those parties who profited and that they pay. We cannot allow an enormous environmental potential success to be transferred and transformed into a failure. As the communities of Maywood have seen much of the thorium now leave, Wayne is witnessing the first departure of that same thorium. We intend to see it not only removed, but the taxpayers not be left with a legacy of debt. I am very pleased we have a chance to offer this amendment today, and I am glad Senator Smith is now joining us in having good-faith negotiations proceed. I urge my colleagues to support both efforts. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I am very pleased today to join my colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, in offering this legislation, and very proud, as a Member of this institution, that Senator Specter has taken the leadership in correcting what would clearly be an inexplicable action upon the execution of Timothy McVeigh. Mr. President, in the United States today there are 114 national cemeteries. They contain the bodies of 2.5 million brave Americans who have fought for over 200 years to protect this country, its people, and its ideals. Fifty-seven of those cemeteries remain open. And many Americans living in the last years of their lives who fought bravely for this country intend one day to be interred into that soil. I do not know how the Members of this Senate, how this Government could ever explain to those brave souls or their families who will visit those national cemeteries through the years, generation after succeeding generation, if by chance some of that soil, one of those graves, next to someone they love and they admire and respect, were to contain the body in a Federal grave of someone who committed a capital offense against the U.S. Government. Timothy McVeigh is responsible for the greatest loss of life in a terrorist act of anyone in the long and proud history of these United States. When he committed that act and took the lives of these brave Americans, including officers and employees of the U.S. Government, he forfeited, according to a jury of his peers, his life. Today, by the actions of the U.S. Senate, he can also have forfeited his right to be buried and have the honor of being in the sacred ground of a national cemetery of the United States. Mr. President, a person cannot both commit a capital offense and then receive the high honor of the U.S. Government for having served this country. They are in conflict. They cannot both occur. I am very proud today once again to be joining with Senator Specter in offering this legislation. I am very pleased to have received the support of Senator Rockefeller and so many of our colleagues. I am very proud today to be offering this legislation. By our action today, we let every family of every brave American who remains at rest in these national cemeteries to know these soils will remain sacred, these cemeteries will remain only the home for the brave. That is the exclusion we vote upon today. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today, on behalf of myself and the distinguished ranking member of the Terrorism Subcommittee Senator Feinstein, to introduce the Protection of the Sanctity of National Cemeteries Act. In so doing, I urge my colleagues to join me in my effort to close a huge loophole in our laws, which will allow Timothy McVeigh a hero's burial in a national cemetery--even after the Federal Government puts him to death for his heinous act of terrorism. Mr. President, current law lists a whole host of criminal acts by which even an honorably discharged veteran loses the right to burial in a national cemetery. These acts include espionage, treason, sedition, sabotage, rebellion and disclosure of national secrets, among other offenses. But for some reason, the use of a weapon of mass destruction against the property or persons of the U.S. Government is not included in this list. Nor is the murder of Federal law enforcement officers or the rest of the offenses already included in the definition of a Federal crime of terrorism. Each of these offenses is as clear a threat to the National Security of the United States as the crimes already listed, and should clearly disqualify the perpetrator from an honorable burial at Government expense. Because of this gaping loophole in the law, Timothy McVeigh-- amazingly--remains entitled to burial next to true national heroes--men and women who have fought and died to defend this country and everything it stands for. He remains entitled to this hero's burial despite having committed the worst act of terrorism ever perpetrated on American soil. This situation is unacceptable. It is an insult to the memories of the 168 victims killed in the Oklahoma City blast. It is an insult to the memories of the truly courageous men and women who have earned and maintained the right to a hero's burial by the Federal Government. And it is an insult to justice, plain and simple. Today, I am introducing a bill to close this loophole once and for all. My bill would amend current law to include every crime listed as a Federal crime of terrorism, including McVeigh's crimes, in the list of disqualifiers for military burial. We should not provide honorable burials for persons who commit acts of terrorism against the U.S. Government. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, I ask unanimous- consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today, on behalf of myself and the distinguished ranking member of the Terrorism Subcommittee Senator Feinstein, to introduce the Protection of the Sanctity of National Cemeteries Act. In so doing, I urge my colleagues to join me in my effort to close a huge loophole in our laws, which will allow Timothy McVeigh a hero's burial in a national cemetery--even after the Federal Government puts him to death for his heinous act of terrorism. Mr. President, current law lists a whole host of criminal acts by which even an honorably discharged veteran loses the right to burial in a national cemetery. These acts include espionage, treason, sedition, sabotage, rebellion and disclosure of national secrets, among other offenses. But for some reason, the use of a weapon of mass destruction against the property or persons of the U.S. Government is not included in this list. Nor is the murder of Federal law enforcement officers or the rest of the offenses already included in the definition of a Federal crime of terrorism. Each of these offenses is as clear a threat to the National Security of the United States as the crimes already listed, and should clearly disqualify the perpetrator from an honorable burial at Government expense. Because of this gaping loophole in the law, Timothy McVeigh-- amazingly--remains entitled to burial next to true national heroes--men and women who have fought and died to defend this country and everything it stands for. He remains entitled to this hero's burial despite having committed the worst act of terrorism ever perpetrated on American soil. This situation is unacceptable. It is an insult to the memories of the 168 victims killed in the Oklahoma City blast. It is an insult to the memories of the truly courageous men and women who have earned and maintained the right to a hero's burial by the Federal Government. And it is an insult to justice, plain and simple. Today, I am introducing a bill to close this loophole once and for all. My bill would amend current law to include every crime listed as a Federal crime of terrorism, including McVeigh's crimes, in the list of disqualifiers for military burial. We should not provide honorable burials for persons who commit acts of terrorism against the U.S. Government. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, I ask unanimous- consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Taking Back Our Neighborhoods Crime Fighting Act. This bill has already been introduced in the House by Representative Bob Filner, and I thank him for his efforts in crafting this innovative and exciting approach to neighborhood crime fighting. Mr. President, this is a very simple bill. Our legislation would provide a $50 tax credit to any American who actively participates in a Neighborhood Watch or other local crime fighting program. These local, citizen-run initiatives have proven extremely effective in reducing crime and restoring confidence in the safety of our local communities. Neighborhood Watch programs empower residents and bring neighbors together, creating a renewed sense of community, and common purpose. Working hand in hand with law enforcement, these groups are a vital part of the community policing which has been so successful in dramatically reducing crime over the last few years. It is no wonder that this tax credit proposal has received support from hundreds of public officials, including dozens of big city mayors, local sheriffs, police chiefs, and district attorneys. Mr. President, by providing this tax credit, we focus attention on the benefits of these local programs, and we reward those who already participate with a small token of appreciation. But more importantly, we also provide one more incentive to those who may have been reluctant to join a local group, or perhaps just didn't take the time to look into it. We hope that this additional incentive will create the final push needed to encourage everyone in our communities to join in the effort to stop crime and take back our streets. Even if people intend to go just a couple of times in order to qualify for the tax credit, I am certain that many of them will become active and lifelong participants once they are exposed to what Neighborhood Watch is all about. Mr. President, just a few months ago I traveled to a Newark townhouse and paid a visit to a courageous woman named Donna Cherry. Tired of the violence and the gunshots plaguing her neighborhood, Donna Cherry took matters into her own hands and formed a neighborhood watch organization to protect her community. Starting within her own townhouse complex, she and the group soon set their sights on surrounding areas. Members of the group patrol the streets, log and report suspicious activity, and plan youth conferences to educate local children about cooperation and making the right choices. By their actions--indeed simply by their visible presence on the streets of their community--these people undoubtedly deter crime. When I visited that neighborhood in March, I assured the group that the Federal Government would always stand behind efforts within communities to cooperate in the fight against crime--valiant efforts to save communities should not fail for lack of resources. We already provide indirect Federal funding for many of these groups, but funding is useless without the people to use it efficiently. Our bill will provide one more tool for community leaders like Donna Cherry to recruit new members and clean up our communities. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this economical and exciting bill to encourage local crime fighting. Every step we take towards encouraging citizen action is a step toward the reduction of crime in our communities. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Taking Back Our Neighborhoods Crime Fighting Act. This bill has already been introduced in the House by Representative Bob Filner, and I thank him for his efforts in crafting this innovative and exciting approach to neighborhood crime fighting. Mr. President, this is a very simple bill. Our legislation would provide a $50 tax credit to any American who actively participates in a Neighborhood Watch or other local crime fighting program. These local, citizen-run initiatives have proven extremely effective in reducing crime and restoring confidence in the safety of our local communities. Neighborhood Watch programs empower residents and bring neighbors together, creating a renewed sense of community, and common purpose. Working hand in hand with law enforcement, these groups are a vital part of the community policing which has been so successful in dramatically reducing crime over the last few years. It is no wonder that this tax credit proposal has received support from hundreds of public officials, including dozens of big city mayors, local sheriffs, police chiefs, and district attorneys. Mr. President, by providing this tax credit, we focus attention on the benefits of these local programs, and we reward those who already participate with a small token of appreciation. But more importantly, we also provide one more incentive to those who may have been reluctant to join a local group, or perhaps just didn't take the time to look into it. We hope that this additional incentive will create the final push needed to encourage everyone in our communities to join in the effort to stop crime and take back our streets. Even if people intend to go just a couple of times in order to qualify for the tax credit, I am certain that many of them will become active and lifelong participants once they are exposed to what Neighborhood Watch is all about. Mr. President, just a few months ago I traveled to a Newark townhouse and paid a visit to a courageous woman named Donna Cherry. Tired of the violence and the gunshots plaguing her neighborhood, Donna Cherry took matters into her own hands and formed a neighborhood watch organization to protect her community. Starting within her own townhouse complex, she and the group soon set their sights on surrounding areas. Members of the group patrol the streets, log and report suspicious activity, and plan youth conferences to educate local children about cooperation and making the right choices. By their actions--indeed simply by their visible presence on the streets of their community--these people undoubtedly deter crime. When I visited that neighborhood in March, I assured the group that the Federal Government would always stand behind efforts within communities to cooperate in the fight against crime--valiant efforts to save communities should not fail for lack of resources. We already provide indirect Federal funding for many of these groups, but funding is useless without the people to use it efficiently. Our bill will provide one more tool for community leaders like Donna Cherry to recruit new members and clean up our communities. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this economical and exciting bill to encourage local crime fighting. Every step we take towards encouraging citizen action is a step toward the reduction of crime in our communities. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, almost 60 years ago, President Roosevelt, in his State of the Union Address, challenged the American people to not simply be content with our own freedom or our own economic progress but to fight for what he called, a world founded upon four essential human freedoms. He described them as the freedom of speech and expression, the freedom of every person to worship God as he sees him in his own heart, freedom from want, and freedom from fear of attack and aggression anywhere in the world. There was a sense of immediacy to President Roosevelt's remarks. He reminds us that these were not simply distant hopes for another time, but in his words, ``It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our own time and generation.'' The world we live in, Mr. President, is largely the fulfillment of his vision on that day. After two world wars and a long-enduring cold war, we live in a time where democratic values have become common, markets are open, the rule of law governs the many nations of the globe. From South Africa to the former Soviet Union, across Latin America, freedom--free markets and free expression--have become the common coin of the realm in our time. But because these values are succeeding does not mean that they have met any final triumph. We have been reminded that in the fight for human freedom, there is no final victory. That is why, Mr. President, I take the floor today to remind our country and my colleagues that it is time to face the terrible truth about China. I raise this question not because China is not important but because it is central to the issue of prosperity and security in the 21st century. There will be no separate future. The free peoples of the world and those who live in China, because of its massive size, rising military power, enormous economic growth and even greater potential, the question about our own freedom and prosperity and most certainly the security of the United States and the allies and other free peoples of the world are inexplicably, inevitably tied to the fate of the Chinese people. We have learned in the 20th century the painful lesson that nations that may obtain great economic power inevitably translate that economic power into military means, and that military power invites its own use. We have also tragically learned that those nations that rule without the consent of their own people are inherently unstable and inevitably aggressive. These are truths we do not want to have to recognize. They are facts that I wish could be otherwise, but there is nothing in the history of our time that would lead us to any other conclusion and nothing that can lead us to believe that China in any way will be any different. Indeed, Mr. President, the record of the Beijing Government, for those who would promote most-favored-nation status and those who do not, for those who seek constructive engagement and those who argue against it, the record is not only remarkably clear but largely indisputable. In recent years, the Peoples Republic of China has shown little to no regard for commitments that have been made under the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty, the Missile Control Technology Regime, or the Chemical Weapons Convention. China has had a largely open policy regardless of international commitments or responsible policies of nonsignatories by selling technology of a nuclear and missile basis to Pakistan, Iran, and other governments. In a 1992 memorandum of understanding, China vowed to prohibit the export of any product manufactured by prison labor, but it has almost certainly systematically and knowingly ignored this pledge. Indeed, the activist Harry Wu has documented labor camps where millions of Chinese prisoners, against their own will, manufactured goods for export to the United States and other countries. In March 1996, the Beijing Government responded to the first ever free election held by a Chinese people on the island nation of Taiwan by firing missiles off the coast of Taiwan, seeking to intimidate its people and its government. Similarly, the human rights situation within China has continued to deteriorate since the horrible results of its policies in Tiananmen Square. These 8 years later, there not only is no progress on free speech or expression, there is no free speech or expression. Even today, 300 demonstrators who survived Tiananmen Square with their lives remain in jail. Indeed, Mr. President, not a single demonstrator or organizer or individual who spoke in sympathy of the events of Tiananmen Square and was jailed in the days that followed has been released. There is no freedom of religion. The Dalai Lama remains in exile, a prominent Catholic bishop was recently brutalized, and China has persecuted more Christians than any other nation on Earth for the single crime of worshiping their God. There is no freedom from want. The benefits of liberalized trade and high import tariffs flow to a small, corrupt, ruling elite while 300 million Chinese live on a single dollar a day. Finally, its neighbors live in increasing fear of attack. A China that cannot provide for its own people finds the means to build increasing military capability with new technology that it both exports at will and builds to potentially intimidate its neighbors, including the free government of Taiwan. Mr. President, the facts that I mention today are remarkably not in dispute. Those who even now decide their own position on free and liberalized trade with China and those who argue for or against constructive engagement will, in a matter of weeks, come to this floor to dispute not the facts, only the policy conclusion, because there are those who argue in good faith and will do so in this Chamber that regardless of these conclusions and all the evidence at hand, that if we will only put these facts aside and continue with a policy of liberalized trade, almost certainly as the day follows the night, the Chinese leadership will recognize the error of their ways, share their new prosperity with their people, allow free expression within their institutions and among the Chinese people, and in due course a new government more respectful of international commitments and of human rights will almost certainly evolve. Mr. President, the simple truth is 8 years have passed since Tiananmen Square. Free expression is not better; it is worse. Respect for the many faiths has not been enhanced; it has deteriorated. Commitment to arms control and a more responsible policy of restricting dangerous technologies for nuclear weapons and missile technologies has not been enhanced; it is also worse. Mr. President, we do the cause of freedom and the security of our country no benefit by postponing reaching the horrible truth. The 21st century, Mr. President, will be guided by whether or not there is progress in China in respecting her own people and being a responsible member of the international community. This relationship, more than any other in the world, will answer the critical question of whether the 21st century will be more peaceful, more respectful of humankind, and respect human life more than any other single relationship the United States will have with any other nation in the world. The facts would argue that this policy of constructive engagement is not leading us to that different future. Last year, the United States had a $40 billion trade deficit with China. This year, it will pass $50 billion. Patience and understanding is not leading China to recognize their obligations as a trading partner. From piracy of copyrighted CD's, to laser discs, to pharmaceutical products, the United States is losing billions of dollars' worth of intellectual property of our own people. In trying to continue to riddle our barriers with exports, with high tariffs, quotas, licensing agreements and discriminatory practices, patience is not leading China to become a responsible trading partner any more than it is leading to respect of rights, or religion, or arms control. Mr. President, last week in Detroit, the House minority leader, Mr. Gephardt, asked that we ground our policy toward China on principle and that it be consistent with other aspects of American foreign policy in our own history. He asked us to remember the words of William Allen White, who said, ``Whoever is fighting for liberty is defending America.'' The questions that we face with regard to policy on China may be larger because of the enormous power and size of the Chinese nation, but they are not novel. We have faced these issues before in Rhodesia, South Africa, Eastern Europe, and the former Soviet Union. We have found that trade sanctions--and in its most modest form, the denial of preferred trade status--is not only a legitimate but an effective means of promoting human rights and changing national policies. Jackson-Vanik was a remarkable success in leading the Soviet Union to change its immigration policy toward Jews and dissidents by withholding trade preference. Apartheid in South Africa was met by a denial of a policy of constructive engagement by simply refusing to allow our markets to be open until South Africa abandoned apartheid, and it succeeded. Those policies worked in the past. Today, we impose much stricter policies toward Cuba, Libya, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea--in many instances, for the same violations of arms control agreements, irresponsible sharing of dangerous technologies, violations of human rights, of religion and speech, for the very same instances that I take this floor today to cite in the case of China and which, ironically, will be ceded by proponents of most-favored-nation status for China, we have a policy of denying trade preference. For China, we seek to see a different conclusion, while we cede the same facts. Mr. President, I argue, however, for more than consistency. I argue that because China has violated these critical rights of her own people, because her Government continues without the consent of the governed and therefore is inherently unstable and potentially dangerous, because these rights have been violated, trade agreements with the United States have been ignored, because dangerous technologies are being shared with the world despite commitments to the contrary, China should not be the exception, she should be the rule. Withholding these trade preferences are not less important because of China's size and power. They are more important. Mr. President, regardless of our party, our philosophy, or our ideology, I know no Member of the Senate wants anything but friendship with the Chinese people. They have a rich culture, a great history, and in their hands, perhaps more than those of any other people on Earth, lies the question of peace, freedom, and prosperity for the many peoples of the globe. Mr. President, as President Roosevelt concluded in his State of the Union Address 60 years ago, he reminded us that we needed to be governed by reality and not hope. He concluded, Mr. President, by saying: No realistic American can expect from a dictator's peace international generosity, or return of true independence, or world disarmament, or freedom of expression, or freedom of religion--or even good business. Such a peace would bring no security for us or our neighbors. Mr. President, so be it. The world turns, generations succeed generations, but some truth remains eternal. The wisdom that Roosevelt brought to that dark day facing the authoritarianism of the Third Reich and of fascism, facing the prospect of a cold war he may not have been able to predict, but whose dimensions were beginning to become clear, the wisdom of that day can govern us as well. It is time to face the truth about China. I know every Member of this Senate wishes they had a chance to revisit in history the gulag, the concentration camps, all the blindness that we brought, the terrible problems of fascism and communism. We all wish that we could have seen the world as clearly as Roosevelt saw it on that day. We didn't all have his wisdom. We could not have all seen the future as clearly. Mr. President, there is no changing history, but there is still time for the 21st century. I rise today, Mr. President, to ask my colleagues to see China as it is, not as we would have it be. Someday, we will be accountable to the Chinese people themselves, and they will ask: Did you stand with us while we sought to worship our God? Did you defend us when we wanted to speak to our own future? Did you stand with us when we sought to choose our own government? Or, as you did in Iran, as you did often in the cases of communism, as you did in the early years of fascism, did you pretend to see the world as you would have it rather than the facts as they were presented to you? Were you part of change? Did you challenge our leaders? Did you put a price on their oppression? Or did you conspire with them in silence? Mr. President, that is the choice before us. It is not new. It has faced every generation that has ever stood on the floor of this Senate, every generation that ever succeeded the governance of this country. In a few weeks, when most-favored-nation status becomes an issue on the floor of this Senate, it will come again. I urge my colleagues to confront it with wisdom and reality, recognizing the extraordinary consequences for a new time and a new century, which we so desperately want to be different than the past. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Electronic Mailbox Protection Act of 1997, in the hopes of addressing an increasingly serious threat to online commerce and personal privacy rights--the distribution of unsolicited, bulk e-mail by unidentifiable senders. It is an unfortunate side effect of the burgeoning and exciting world of online communication and commerce that more and more individuals are finding their electronic mailboxes filled to the cyber-brim with unsolicited messages. And many Internet service providers are facing slowdowns or even breakdowns of their systems due to uncontrollable and unaccountable senders of unidentifiable and unsolicited bulk e-mail. Mr. President, some have suggested that we simply ban all unsolicited e-mail. But some people do want to receive these unsolicited messages, especially when they are tailored to their personal interests. And legitimate businesses and organizations are increasingly using unsolicited e-mail to recruit new customers, new members, or even financial assistance. However, many people do not wish to receive unsolicited e-mail at all. And many new businesses are less than fully legitimate--all too frequently, unsolicited e-mail arrives with no return address, and no means of opting-out of future mailings. In fact, it is precisely because many bulk e-mailers know that their activities are going to meet massive opposition that they disguise their identities or alter their return addresses. Newly developed software and increasingly brazen cyber-promoters have only exacerbated the problem. In some cases, these messages have slowed down or even crippled Internet service through local or national Internet service providers. Many of these new cyber-promoters collect millions of addresses from service providers without consent, mail to those who have already expressed a desire to be kept off bulk e-mail lists, or purposefully disguise their identity or return address. They refuse to yield to public pressure, private suit or any other citizen action, and the more destructive of their tactics must be addressed before the situation overwhelms the Internet and paralyzes legitimate online commerce-- something must be done. As a result, I have been working for some time now with privacy groups, marketers, online service providers, and others to develop strong but reasonable legislation to put a stop to the most destructive e-mail practices, while protecting the first amendment rights of all who wish to send legitimate e-mail of any kind. Mr. President, I have long been concerned about excessive--indeed any--Government regulation of the Internet. Many of the best qualities of American life are represented and enhanced by the Internet--the world's most democratic medium--and I do not wish to stifle speech or inhibit the freedom of commerce or expression. However, the problem of unaccountable junk e-mailers will not go away, and if we do not address this problem with legislation we risk the destruction of all legitimate expression and commerce on the information superhighway. After a long back and forth process with a wide variety of interests, I believe we are all finally in agreement that the bill I introduce today represents the strongest and most balanced approach to this growing problem. Specifically, my bill includes the following key provisions. First, and most simply, my bill will prohibit anyone from sending e- mail to a person who has asked not to receive such mail--either prior to receiving the first message or in response to an unsolicited message that made its way into the recipients mailbox. Mr. President, this provision requires no more than common courtesy and proper business sense. But unfortunately, this provision is sorely needed by the thousands--even millions--of recipients of repetitive and unsolicited e-mail. And the bill also contains a pro-active provision which effectively defines prior notice as including either direct notice or notice through a standard method adopted by an Internet standard setting body, like the Internet Engineering Task Force. In other words, we allow the IETF or another community-recognized organization to discuss, develop, and adopt a method of preemptively informing all senders that certain recipients do not want to receive any unsolicited electronic mail. This could take the form of an opt-out system, an opt-in system, or even some sort of address labeling standard--whatever the Internet community chooses to adopt. But once the standard is in place, my bill will require that senders comply with that standard. We have given the Internet community the tools to enforce their own pro-active steps, and I believe this achieves a proper balance between Government action and self-regulation. As much as is possible, Congress should avoid dictating the details of Internet architecture. Second, my bill will prohibit sending unsolicited e-mail from an unregistered, illegitimate, or fictitious Internet domain for the purpose of preventing an easy reply. Such tactics have become increasingly common in recent months, because the less responsible marketers know--they just know--that many of the recipients of their unsolicited junk will be unhappy and wish to respond. Rather than act responsibly and respond to complaints as they come in, these fly-by- night marketers prefer to make it impossible to respond. We have all heard from constituents who are simply fed up with these practices, and this bill will empower our constituents to do something about it. Third, my bill will prohibit the use of procedures designed to defeat or circumvent mail filtering tools. Consumers and service providers are getting better at using mail filters to block out unwanted mail. But these filtering programs, still in relative infancy, are no match for cyber-promoters with sophisticated techniques and all the time in the world to work on skirting the filters and making it into your mailbox. Next, my bill will prohibit anyone from using a computer program to harvest, or gather, a large number of e-mail addresses for the purpose of sending unsolicited e-mail to those addresses or selling the list to other senders of unsolicited e-mail--if such activity would be against the policy of the computer service from which the addresses are collected. In other words, if America Online or AT&T or Panix or Erols have policies against using a computer to harvest addresses of their subscribers, cyber-promoters would have to comply. My bill also puts a stop to so-called hit and run spamming, which occurs when someone gets access to a temporary e-mail account, sends out thousands of unsolicited messages, and then abandons the account and leaves the service provider to clean up the mess. Under my bill, registering an Internet domain or e-mail account for the purpose of sending unsolicited e-mail and avoiding replies would be prohibited. Finally, Mr. President, my bill directs the FTC to pay close attention over the next 18 months to the affects that this bill has on the junk e-mail problem. At the end of that time, the FTC will submit a report to Congress detailing its findings, and we can determine whether or not new action is necessary. And what will happen to those who break the rules we intend to set down in law? Well, there are two possibilities. First, there is a $5,000 civil penalty for each violation, to be imposed by the U.S. Government. But more importantly, this bill empowers the individual recipient or service provider suffering the effects of a violation of this bill to sue for damages. These damages range from $500 for simple violations all the way up to $5,000 for particularly egregious or willful abuses. And if we think about the possibilities for class action suits, we can quickly see the deterrent effect of these provisions. Mr. President, this bill will not prevent all unsolicited e-mail. Legitimate marketers, nonprofit organizations and others will still be able to send unsolicited e-mail, even in bulk. However, this legislation will make the senders of the e-mail accountable to the service providers and to the e-mail recipients. No longer will brazen promoters be able to disguise their identity and hide behind technology--from now on, they will be accountable for what they send and punished if their tactics are of the kind that merit such action. Put simply, Mr. President, my bill will empower consumers and Internet service providers alike to block, filter, reply to, or prevent unwanted and unsolicited electronic mail. We all recognize that we should not lightly enter into Internet regulation. But some practices are simply too destructive to ignore, and certain types of unsolicited e-mail must be stopped. I hope you will join me in working to pass this fair but strong bill to protect individual privacy, preserve freedom of expression, and allow legitimate commerce on the Internet to flourish. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the legislation be printed in the Record.