Robert Torricelli

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.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank my colleague for yielding me the time. Mr. President, in my brief tenure in this institution I have never felt more motivated on an individual amendment and in addressing a higher national priority than endorsing and speaking today on the amendment of Carol Moseley-Braun regarding school finance. She has made an enormous contribution to this institution. Mr. President, like every Member of this Senate, I share the priority of balancing the Federal budget. It is due, it is required, and it is essential. We do no service to the country, however, if in our desire to balance the Federal budget we also lose sight of all other Federal priorities. Balancing the Federal budget is important, but it is not the only business of this country. It is noteworthy that the principle contribution in reducing the Federal debt in recent years has come from neither reducing spending nor raising taxes. It is the unmistakable result of a growing, expanding economy. The amendment before the Senate is relevant and not an obstacle to reducing the debt of the U.S. Government because education is the foundation of an expanding economy. My goal is not simply to see us balance the Federal budget for the next few years but for the next generation. That is unachievable in a Nation with a $100 billion inventory of crumbling schools, schools which cannot teach modern technology, where children cannot even sit safely in a classroom. The GAO has reported that 14 million of our own children are in schools with extensive need of repair or requiring total replacement. Half of our schools are unable to take advantage of the latest technology because of inadequate wiring. Mr. President, 74 percent have outlived their usefulness. Recently, I toured some of the most troubled schools of my own State of New Jersey. In Perth Amboy, Newark, Jersey City, and Paterson, I saw students sitting in classrooms trying to learn the latest of mathematics and science with buckets next to their desk to collect the rain, classrooms that were being held in school corridors because science classes were not safe, gymnasiums used for lecture halls because of inadequate space. It may be that what we do today involving the Federal Government and the rebuilding of our schools is a precedent. So be it. There was a time when the Federal Government had no role in the building of roads. It was local. Then we built a national economy. There was a time the Federal Government was not involved in transportation. Then we saw the need for expanded interstate commerce. Today there can be no misstating that this country will go no further and no farther in the education of our children and their preparation for the future. I respect my colleagues who may have a different view. But I would ask this: If you believe that this is not a crisis, that there is no Federal role, and that we can build a modern economy, pay our bills and balance our budget into the future without rebuilding these schools, come to New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Newark, or Camden and stand in those schools. Look those children in the eyes. Tell them they have a future and they can play a role in expanding the American economy competitive with other students around the world without rebuilding these schools. Tell them and convince yourselves that there is a strong and stable American economy without this effort. Mr. President, only a few months ago the President of the United States came to this Congress with a single new domestic initiative. He too recognized that we live in times of limits. The budget must be balanced. He provided the leadership that got us to this day in sight of a balanced budget. But his single new initiative, his single promise to this country for the next year, was the rebuilding of these schools. There is a $5 billion program represented today by the Senator from Illinois that will allow $20 billion worth of construction across America by reducing the local costs of borrowing; $20 billion will not solve the problem with a $100 billion inventory. But it is a real contribution. It is a real beginning by having this country address this extraordinary and deep problem. Mr. President, I, too, support the tax cut provisions of the balanced budget plan. I do not want to see it lessened or diminished in any way. That is why it is significant. The provisions by the Senator from Illinois will allow the Finance Committee to either eliminate some tax loopholes or provisions of corporate welfare to compensate so that we can reach a balanced budget and keep the current tax reduction plan.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Thank you, very much. I urge support for Carol Moseley-Braun's amendment. Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today, on behalf of myself and the distinguished Senator from California, Senator Feinstein, to introduce the Gun Kingpin Death Penalty Act of 1997. I hope that our colleagues will soon join us in sending a clear and strong signal to our most violent gunrunners--your actions will no longer be tolerated. Mr. President, the fight against gun violence is a long-term, many- staged process. We have already succeeded in enacting the Brady bill and the ban on devastating assault weapons. Last year, even in the midst of what many consider a hostile Congress, we told domestic violence offenders that they could no longer own a gun. And these laws have been effective: 186,000 prohibited individuals have already been denied a handgun due to Brady background checks--70 percent of these people were convicted or indicted felons. Traces of assault weapons have plummeted since the ban, and prices have gone up. And our law enforcement officers are no longer dying at the hands of criminals armed with assault weapons. As I said, we have been successful. But we cannot be satisfied with victories in battle--we must use every avenue possible to win the war against gun violence. Mr. President, it is for this reason that I rose just a few weeks ago with Senator Durbin to introduce a new prosecutorial tool in the fight to stop gun traffickers--the Gun Kingpin Penalty Act of 1997. That bill would institute a sliding scale of mandatory minimum penalties for the worst gunrunners, and I hope we can debate it soon. But we must also address the problem of the most violent and dangerous offenders--those who commit murder in furtherance of their gun trafficking crimes. So I rise again today to issue a new challenge--send a message to murderous gunrunners that their violence must stop. Our Gun Kingpin Death Penalty Act of 1997, which is modeled after the Drug Kingpin Death Penalty legislation already enacted into law, provides that any criminal who commits murder or successfully orders a murder committed during the course of trafficking in more than 25 firearms may receive life in prison or the death penalty. This provision gives Federal prosecutors one more tool in the fight against gun trafficking, and sends out a warning to all violent gunrunners-- think twice before you act. Mr. President, when I rose with Senator Durbin last month to introduce the first in this two-bill attack on gunrunners, I cited recent numbers gathered by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms which clearly demonstrate what many of us already knew all too well-- several key highways in this country have become so-called firearm freeways--pipelines for merchants of death who deal in illegal firearms. We learned from the ATF data that in 1996, New Jersey exported fewer guns used in crimes, per capita, than any other State--less than one gun per 100,000 residents, or 75 total guns. In contrast, Mississippi exported 29 of these guns per capita last year. Meanwhile, an incredible number of guns used to commit crimes in New Jersey last year came from out-of-State--944 guns were imported and used to commit crimes compared to only 75 exported--a net import of 869 illegal guns used to commit crimes against the people of New Jersey. In fact, the top six exporters of illegal guns used to commit crimes in New Jersey supplied 62 percent of the guns, 585, and only one of those six States--North Carolina--has strong gun control laws. This represents a one-way street--guns come from States with lax gun laws straight to States--like New Jersey--with strong laws. New Jersey has long been proud to have some of the toughest gun control laws in the Nation. But for far too long, the courageous efforts of New Jersey citizens in enacting these tough laws have been weakened by out-of-State gunrunners who treat our State like their own personal retail outlet. It is clear that New Jersey's strong gun control laws offer criminals little choice but to import their guns from States with weak laws. We must act on a Federal level to send a clear message that this cannot continue and will not be tolerated. And we must send an equally clear message that gunrunners who commit murder risk the ultimate of penalties. Finally, Mr. President, I remind my colleagues that we cannot rest satisfied simply because we have succeeded in the past. The problem of illegal gun traffickers will not just go away, and we cannot stand by and watch as innocent men, women, and children die at the hands of criminals armed with these guns. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I ask that the bill be printed in the record.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the distinguished minority leader for yielding. Mr. President, for 25 years the question of abortion has been among the most divisive in our Nation. It divides our families and poisons our political debate. We come to this floor today still holding, I know, fundamentally different views on this question. I believe strongly that the issue of bringing a pregnancy to term remains with a woman in consultation with her conscience and her doctor. I know others have fundamentally different views. But there is a real chance at long last, at least for this moment, for one narrow part of this issue, to find some common ground. Because, on this day, there is a chance to address at least the issue of postviability, late-term abortions. And the question largely rests with those who have dedicated these years in opposition to abortion rights generally. The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle] has offered an alternative--that it is constitutional because it deals only with postviability pregnancies. It, and it alone, can pass the constitutional test of Roe versus Wade. It alone does not have an undue burden or a substantial obstacle, as outlined in Casey versus Planned Parenthood. And it alone will get the signature of the President of the United States. Yet, there are those who passionately want to prohibit this procedure but will not be voting with us on this occasion. It raises the question of whether they avoid this chance to end late-term abortions because they seek to preserve a political issue more than to end the procedure which many Americans find offensive. Mr. President, I will be voting with Senator Daschle because, while I strongly believe--as our Supreme Court has affirmed--that there is an inherent right to privacy, that every woman has a constitutional right to reach her own judgment about whether to bring to term or terminate a pregnancy before viability, there is a legitimate public policy question affirmed by the courts on whether or not this procedure or any other should be allowed to continue postviability. Senator Daschle, in the alternative that he brings to the Senate today, prohibits not only the late-term abortion procedure described in detail by those supporting Mr. Santorum's legislation, but he also prohibits other alternatives dealing with postviable fetuses. And he alone does so. It again begs the question whether or not this Senate is intending to actually prohibit late-term abortions, or whether, cynically and regrettably, this is genuinely an effort to maintain a political issue, because, if Senator Daschle fails, our opponents may, in fact, outlaw this single procedure, but at least three other procedures also dealing with postviable fetuses would be allowed to continue, and many women whose lives would be better protected, their health better assured, would be forced to use other procedures that are more dangerous. Mr. President, I urge the adoption of Senator Daschle's alternative. It is constitutional. It protects a woman's choice. It is a better balance. It is the only chance for common ground. Let us resume the fight tomorrow and today to end this late-term abortion struggle.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of Senator Kempthorne's effort to provide Medal of Honor recipient Vernon Joseph Baker, and the heirs of Medal of Honor recipients Edward Carter and Charles Thomas, with retroactive compensation for their awards. During World War II, Mr. Baker was an Army 2d lieutenant serving with the 92d Infantry Division in Europe. During a 2-day action near Viareggio, Italy, he single handedly wiped out two German machinegun nets, led successful attacks on two others, drew fire on himself to permit the evacuation of his wounded comrades, and then led a battalion advance through enemy minefields. Mr. Baker is the only one of these three men still alive today, and he currently resides in St. Maries, ID. Edward Carter, of Los Angles, was staff sergeant with the 12th Armored Division when his tank was destroyed in action near Speyer, Germany, in March 1945. Mr. Carter led three men through extraordinary gunfire that left two of them dead, the third wounded and himself wounded five times. When eight enemy riflemen attempted to capture him, he killed six of them, captured the remaining two and, using his prisoners as a shield, recrossed an exposed field to safety. The prisoners yielded valuable information. Mr. Carter died in 1963. Charles Thomas, of Detroit, was a major with the 103d Infantry Division serving near Climbach, France, in December 1944. When his scout car was hit by intense artillery fire, Mr. Thomas assisted the crew to cover and, despite severe wounds, managed to signal the column some distance behind him to halt. Despite additional multiple wounds in the chest, legs, and left arm, he ordered and directed the dispersion and emplacement of two antitank guns that effectively returned enemy fire. He refused evacuation until certain his junior officer was in control of the situation. Mr. Thomas died in 1980. I commend Mr. Baker, Mr. Carter, and Mr. Thomas for their bravery and Senator Kempthorne for leading this effort. As a result of their heroics these men had clearly met the criteria for being awarded a Medal of Honor, the Nation's highest award for valor. This medal is only awarded to a member of the U.S. armed services who ``distinguishes themselves conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of their life and beyond the call of duty,'' with an act ``so conspicuous as to clearly distinguish the individual above their comrades.'' However, because of the racial climate of the time and the segregated nature of the Army in 1945, African-Americans were denied the Medal of Honor. It is a sad testament to America's legacy of discrimination that although 1.2 million African-Americans served in the military during the Second World War, including Mr. Baker, Mr. Carter, and Mr. Thomas, none received 1 of the 433 Medals of Honor awarded during the conflict. This past January our Nation took an important step in correcting this injustice by awarding Mr. Vernon Joseph Baker, and six of his dead comrades, the Medal of Honor during a long-overdue ceremony at the White House. This recognition of these men's extraordinary courage was a vindication for all African-American heroes of World War II. In order to further demonstrate our profound thanks to these brave men, I support Senator Kempthorne's effort to retroactively compensate Mr. Baker, and the heirs of Mr. Carter and Mr. Thomas for the money that they would have received from the Army for receiving the Medal of Honor. The other three heroes died as a result of the brave deeds which qualified them to receive the Medal, and thus would not have received any compensation by the military. Each recipient of this Medal is entitled to receive a token monthly stipend from their respective branch of the military after they leave active duty service. In 1945 the stipend was $10 and today it has risen to $400. Since he was denied the Medal more than a half century ago, Mr. Baker and the survivors of Mr. Carter and Mr. Thomas, deserve to receive the same amount of money that they would have received had they been awarded the Medal at the close of World War II. American is profoundly thankful for the patriotism of these men, and awarding retroactive compensation to them is a simple way to express our gratitude for their service. For these reasons I stand today to recognize Mr. Baker, Mr. Carter, and Mr. Thomas, and support retroactively compensating them for their accomplishments.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, today I am introducing ``The Personal Computer Truth in Advertising Act of 1997,'' which is designed to ensure that consumers are provided with accurate information about the performance of what is becoming one of the most important consumer products in the Nation, the personal computer. My bill requires the Federal Trade Commission to investigate and conduct a study of the marketing and advertising practices of personal computer manufacturers and retailers with regard to possibly misleading claims made about the performance of their products. As we head into the next century, the personal computer is quickly becoming one of the most important consumer products. Indeed, the market for computers in the home has exploded in recent years with the market expected to double by 2000. Still, despite their growing popularity, purchasing a personal computer involves technology and terminology that can be very intimidating and confusing to the average consumer. Of particular concern to me is a practice by personal computer retailers and manufacturers in how they advertise the speed of the central processing unit (CPU) of the personal computer. Indeed, when marketing and advertising personal computers, the CPU speed is a prominent selling point and consumers are frequently charged hundreds of dollars more for models with faster CPU's. The CPU is to the personal computer as an engine is to an automobile. Measured in millions of cycles per second [mhz], the faster the CPU, the better the software performs. The CPU's in personal computers, including the popular Pentium chip, operate at two speeds, an external speed and an internal speed. The external speed affects computing activity the user sees in action--the scrolling of a web page or a word processing document, the smoothness of an animated interactive storybook and the complexity and frame rate of a flight simulator. The internal speed of the CPU involves activity invisible to the user-- spreadsheet calculations, spell checking and database organization. Nonetheless, personal computers are commonly marketed according to their internal, and faster, speed. For example, a Pentium computer advertised as a 200 mhz screamer runs at only 66 mhz externally. Still, most advertisements fail to mention this discrepancy and retailers and manufacturers charge hundreds of dollars more for the 200 mhz than they would for a 66 mhz model. Moreover, driving the sales of personal computers has been the availability of advanced multimedia and interactive entertainment software. This is the very software whose performance depends greatly on the CPU's external clock speed. My legislation would require the Federal Trade Commission to conduct a study of the marketing and advertising practices of manufacturers and retailers of personal computers, with particular emphasis on claims made about the CPU. My bill requires the FTC to perform their study within 180 days of enactment of the bill. I had previously written to the FTC on this issue as a member of the House. Car manufacturers provide both highway and city mileage performance figures for the performance of their engines and computer manufacturers should follow the same logic with the engines of the personal computer, the CPU. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill and I will work hard for its enactment into law. 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 in strong support of Senator Kempthorne's effort to provide Medal of Honor recipient Vernon Joseph Baker, and the heirs of Medal of Honor recipients Edward Carter and Charles Thomas, with retroactive compensation for their awards. During World War II, Mr. Baker was an Army 2d lieutenant serving with the 92d Infantry Division in Europe. During a 2-day action near Viareggio, Italy, he single handedly wiped out two German machinegun nets, led successful attacks on two others, drew fire on himself to permit the evacuation of his wounded comrades, and then led a battalion advance through enemy minefields. Mr. Baker is the only one of these three men still alive today, and he currently resides in St. Maries, ID. Edward Carter, of Los Angles, was staff sergeant with the 12th Armored Division when his tank was destroyed in action near Speyer, Germany, in March 1945. Mr. Carter led three men through extraordinary gunfire that left two of them dead, the third wounded and himself wounded five times. When eight enemy riflemen attempted to capture him, he killed six of them, captured the remaining two and, using his prisoners as a shield, recrossed an exposed field to safety. The prisoners yielded valuable information. Mr. Carter died in 1963. Charles Thomas, of Detroit, was a major with the 103d Infantry Division serving near Climbach, France, in December 1944. When his scout car was hit by intense artillery fire, Mr. Thomas assisted the crew to cover and, despite severe wounds, managed to signal the column some distance behind him to halt. Despite additional multiple wounds in the chest, legs, and left arm, he ordered and directed the dispersion and emplacement of two antitank guns that effectively returned enemy fire. He refused evacuation until certain his junior officer was in control of the situation. Mr. Thomas died in 1980. I commend Mr. Baker, Mr. Carter, and Mr. Thomas for their bravery and Senator Kempthorne for leading this effort. As a result of their heroics these men had clearly met the criteria for being awarded a Medal of Honor, the Nation's highest award for valor. This medal is only awarded to a member of the U.S. armed services who ``distinguishes themselves conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of their life and beyond the call of duty,'' with an act ``so conspicuous as to clearly distinguish the individual above their comrades.'' However, because of the racial climate of the time and the segregated nature of the Army in 1945, African-Americans were denied the Medal of Honor. It is a sad testament to America's legacy of discrimination that although 1.2 million African-Americans served in the military during the Second World War, including Mr. Baker, Mr. Carter, and Mr. Thomas, none received 1 of the 433 Medals of Honor awarded during the conflict. This past January our Nation took an important step in correcting this injustice by awarding Mr. Vernon Joseph Baker, and six of his dead comrades, the Medal of Honor during a long-overdue ceremony at the White House. This recognition of these men's extraordinary courage was a vindication for all African-American heroes of World War II. In order to further demonstrate our profound thanks to these brave men, I support Senator Kempthorne's effort to retroactively compensate Mr. Baker, and the heirs of Mr. Carter and Mr. Thomas for the money that they would have received from the Army for receiving the Medal of Honor. The other three heroes died as a result of the brave deeds which qualified them to receive the Medal, and thus would not have received any compensation by the military. Each recipient of this Medal is entitled to receive a token monthly stipend from their respective branch of the military after they leave active duty service. In 1945 the stipend was $10 and today it has risen to $400. Since he was denied the Medal more than a half century ago, Mr. Baker and the survivors of Mr. Carter and Mr. Thomas, deserve to receive the same amount of money that they would have received had they been awarded the Medal at the close of World War II. American is profoundly thankful for the patriotism of these men, and awarding retroactive compensation to them is a simple way to express our gratitude for their service. For these reasons I stand today to recognize Mr. Baker, Mr. Carter, and Mr. Thomas, and support retroactively compensating them for their accomplishments.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens]; the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords]; and the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], for their assistance in what is, for the State of New Jersey, a very important matter. Mr. President, while the people of the Dakotas were realizing an extraordinary emergency of massive proportions, which the entire Nation was witnessing, the people of Ocean County, NJ, were witnessing an equally devastating, though not nearly so noticed, tragedy in their lives. Extraordinarily high rates of childhood cancer, brain cancers, and neurological cancers were occurring in only a few individual communities in Ocean County, NJ. I am extremely proud that the Department of Health of the State of New Jersey and, in the Federal Government, the Centers for Disease Control responded immediately in undertaking studies to find possible environmental causes for these high rates of cancer. Today, with the help of Senators Bond, Stevens, Kennedy, and Jeffords, we are responding in this emergency supplemental appropriations bill. We are authorizing the continuation of the study to try to find the reasons for these childhood cancers. I am very grateful for this Federal response. This legislation assures that these studies will continue to their conclusion, possibly, and hopefully finding the reasons for these tragedies. For this, I am very grateful to my colleagues, Mr. President. I wanted to express my thanks.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the efforts by the Appropriations committee to fund research into environmental risk factors associated with breast cancer as a part of S. 672. I would especially like to thank and acknowledge the efforts of the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee Senator Byrd, as well as the efforts of the chairman of the Labor, HHS Subcommittee, Senator Specter and its ranking member, Senator Harkin for their attention to the concerns I have raised regarding this issue. All have been dogged advocates of breast cancer research and I am grateful for their previous efforts and for what they have done in the legislation before the Senate. I am especially grateful for their acknowledgement in the committee's report of the alarmingly high breast cancer rates in the Northeast and specifically my State of New Jersey. Few issues pose as significant health threat to the constituents I represent as does breast cancer. It is estimated that nationally 1 in 8 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer in their lifetime and over 46,000 women die annually from breast cancer. It is truly one of the leading health threats facing American women. However, it is an absolute health crisis confronting the women of New Jersey with mortality and incidence rates that far exceed the national average. New Jersey has the highest breast cancer mortality rate of any State and our incidence rate of breast cancer is 11 percent higher than the national average and the average for in the Northeast. It is estimated that there will be 6,400 new cases of breast cancer diagnosed this year and 1,800 women will die from breast cancer in 1997 alone in New Jersey. I have long believed that behind our State's history of environmental problems lies the reasons for our high breast cancer rates. I do not believe that it is a coincidence that the State, New Jersey, with more Superfund sites than any other, as well as thousands of other contaminated sites not listed under Superfund, has the highest cancer rates in the Nation. In response to this I recently introduced the New Jersey Women's Environmental Health Act with Senator Lautenberg that would authorize a 4 year $10.5 million study into the possible association between environmental risk factors and breast cancer. I believe this effort will provide not only answers to the women of my State but ground- breaking research into this association. In New Jersey, we are extremely fortunate to have one of the leading cancer research institutes in the Nation. The University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey is only 1 of 7 academic institutions in the United States which houses a National Cancer Institute designated clinical center and an NIH-designated comprehensive Center of Excellence for environmental health sciences. Indeed, not only does it have the State's only NCI-designated cancer center, but the University is also home to a HHS-designated Women's Health Initiative site. I believe that this unique institution is the type of multicenter institution envisioned by the committee to do this important research. Working with these scientists and clinicians, we have developed a proposal that would assess breast cancer in New Jersey at many levels, from molecular markers of environmental exposure to clinical evaluation and treatment. It also includes the involvement of the State Department of Health in a population-based epidemiological study. Mr. President, our leading environmental health scientists from Rutgers, our State University, and the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, both partners in the State's NIEHS Center of Excellence, concur that there are several key elements of this study which must be pursued. These include the need to: (a) identify the disease patterns in the State--ethnicity, geographic location, occupation and education of the victims; (b) identify and characterize the potential etiologic factors--such as exposure to Superfund effluents, pesticides and occupational hazards; (c) analyze tissue samples and environmental samples for etiologic agents and tissue samples for genetic markers of disease; and (d) conduct a full scale case control study. That is why I am so encouraged by this committee's efforts to fund research into this important area and am thankful that the project I have developed in consultation with the University of the Health Sciences of New Jersey and the New Jersey Department of Health will have an opportunity to immediately compete for the funds necessary to begin its implementation. I would like also to thank the subcommittee chairman, Senator Specter, for his recognition that the issues this initiative proposes to address are the type of issues the committee envisioned to be studied with this funding. As I have stated earlier, I believe our initiative will not only provide answers to the women of New Jersey but will provide ground- breaking research into the association between environmental conditions and breast cancer in this Nation and greatly assist in this committee's goal of providing answers that may account for some of the startling regional variations of breast cancer in this Nation.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, today I am introducing ``The Personal Computer Truth in Advertising Act of 1997,'' which is designed to ensure that consumers are provided with accurate information about the performance of what is becoming one of the most important consumer products in the Nation, the personal computer. My bill requires the Federal Trade Commission to investigate and conduct a study of the marketing and advertising practices of personal computer manufacturers and retailers with regard to possibly misleading claims made about the performance of their products. As we head into the next century, the personal computer is quickly becoming one of the most important consumer products. Indeed, the market for computers in the home has exploded in recent years with the market expected to double by 2000. Still, despite their growing popularity, purchasing a personal computer involves technology and terminology that can be very intimidating and confusing to the average consumer. Of particular concern to me is a practice by personal computer retailers and manufacturers in how they advertise the speed of the central processing unit (CPU) of the personal computer. Indeed, when marketing and advertising personal computers, the CPU speed is a prominent selling point and consumers are frequently charged hundreds of dollars more for models with faster CPU's. The CPU is to the personal computer as an engine is to an automobile. Measured in millions of cycles per second [mhz], the faster the CPU, the better the software performs. The CPU's in personal computers, including the popular Pentium chip, operate at two speeds, an external speed and an internal speed. The external speed affects computing activity the user sees in action--the scrolling of a web page or a word processing document, the smoothness of an animated interactive storybook and the complexity and frame rate of a flight simulator. The internal speed of the CPU involves activity invisible to the user-- spreadsheet calculations, spell checking and database organization. Nonetheless, personal computers are commonly marketed according to their internal, and faster, speed. For example, a Pentium computer advertised as a 200 mhz screamer runs at only 66 mhz externally. Still, most advertisements fail to mention this discrepancy and retailers and manufacturers charge hundreds of dollars more for the 200 mhz than they would for a 66 mhz model. Moreover, driving the sales of personal computers has been the availability of advanced multimedia and interactive entertainment software. This is the very software whose performance depends greatly on the CPU's external clock speed. My legislation would require the Federal Trade Commission to conduct a study of the marketing and advertising practices of manufacturers and retailers of personal computers, with particular emphasis on claims made about the CPU. My bill requires the FTC to perform their study within 180 days of enactment of the bill. I had previously written to the FTC on this issue as a member of the House. Car manufacturers provide both highway and city mileage performance figures for the performance of their engines and computer manufacturers should follow the same logic with the engines of the personal computer, the CPU. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill and I will work hard for its enactment into law. 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 in strong support of Senator Kempthorne's effort to provide Medal of Honor recipient Vernon Joseph Baker, and the heirs of Medal of Honor recipients Edward Carter and Charles Thomas, with retroactive compensation for their awards. During World War II Mr. Baker was an Army 2d lieutenant serving with the 92d Infantry Division in Europe. During a 2-day action near Viareggio, Italy he single-handedly wiped out two German machinegun nests, led successful attacks on two others, drew fire on himself to permit the evacuation of his wounded comrades, and then led a battalion advance through enemy minefields. Mr. Baker is the only one of these three men still alive today, and he currently resides in St. Maries, ID. Edward Carter, of Los Angeles, was a staff sergeant with the 12th Armored Division when his tank was destroyed in action near Speyer, Germany, in March of 1945. Mr. Carter led three men through extraordinary gunfire that left two of them dead, the third wounded, and himself wounded five times. When eight enemy riflemen attempted to capture him, he killed six of them, captured the remaining two and, using his prisoners as a shield, recrossed an exposed field to safety. The prisoners yielded valuable information. Mr Carter died in 1963. Charles Thomas, of Detroit, was a major with the 103d Infantry Division serving near Climbach, France, in December of 1944. When his scout car was hit by intense artillery fire, Mr. Thomas assisted the crew to cover and, despite severe wounds, managed to signal the column some distance behind him to halt. Despite additional multiple wounds in the chest, legs, and left arm, he ordered and directed the dispersion and emplacement of two antitank guns that effectively returned enemy fire. He refused evacuation until certain his junior officer was in control of the situation. Mr. Thomas died in 1980. I commend Mr. Baker, Mr. Carter, and Mr. Thomas for their bravery and Senator Kempthorne for leading this effort. As a result of their heroics, these men had clearly met the criteria for being awarded a Medal of Honor, the Nation's highest award for valor. This medal is only awarded to a member of the U.S. armed services who ``distinguishes themselves conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of their life and beyond the call of duty,'' with an act ``so conspicuous as to clearly distinguish the individual above their comrades.'' However, because of the racial climate of the time and the segregated nature of the Army in 1945, African-Americans were denied the Medal of Honor. It is a sad testament to America's legacy of discrimination that although 1.2 million African-Americans served in the military during the Second World War, including Mr. Baker, Mr. Carter, and Mr. Thomas, none received 1 of the 433 Medals of Honor awarded during the conflict. This past January our Nation took an important step in correcting this injustice by awarding Mr. Vernon Joseph Baker, and six of his dead comrades, the Medal of Honor during a long-overdue ceremony at the White House. This recognition of these men's extraordinary courage was a vindication for all African-American heroes of World War II. In order to further demonstrate our profound thanks to these brave men, I support Senator Kempthorne's effort to retroactively compensate Mr. Baker, and the heirs of Mr. Carter and Mr. Thomas for the money that they would have received from the Army for receiving the Medal of Honor. The other three heros died as a result of the brave deeds which qualified them to receive the Medal, and thus would not have received any compensation by the military. Each recipient of this Medal is entitled to receive a token monthly stipend from their respective branch of the military after they leave active duty service. In 1945 the stipend was $10 and today it has risen to $400. Since he was denied the Medal more than a half century ago, Mr. Baker and the survivors of Mr. Carter and Mr. Thomas, deserve to receive the same amount of money that they would have received had they been awarded the Medal at the close of World War II. America is profoundly thankful for the patriotism of these men, and awarding retroactive compensation to them is a simple way to express our gratitude for their service. For these reasons I stand today to recognize Mr. Baker, Mr. Carter, and Mr. Thomas, and support retroactively compensating them for their accomplishments.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleague from Illinois Senator Durbin, to introduce the Gun Kingpin Penalty Act of 1997. In introducing this bill, Senator Durbin and I hope that our colleagues will soon join us in sending a clear and strong signal to gunrunners--your actions will no longer be tolerated. Mr. President, recent numbers gathered by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms clearly demonstrate what many of us already knew all too well--several key North-South highways in this country have become pipelines for merchants of death who deal in illegal firearms. My own State of New Jersey is proud to have some of the toughest gun control laws in the Nation. But for far too long, the courageous efforts of New Jersey citizens in enacting these tough laws have been weakened by out of State gunrunners who treat our State like their own personal retail outlet. We learned from the ATF data that in 1996, New Jersey exported fewer guns used in crimes, per capita, than any other State--less than 1 gun per 100,000 residents, or 75 total guns. In contrast, Mississippi exported 29 of these guns per capita last year. Meanwhile, an incredible number of guns used to commit crimes in New Jersey last year came from out of State--944 guns were imported and used to commit crimes compared to only 75 exported--a net import of 869 illegal guns used to commit crimes against the people of New Jersey. In fact, the top six exporters of illegal guns used to commit crimes in New Jersey supplied 62 pecent of the guns--585--and only one of those six States--North Carolina--has strong gun control laws. This represents a one way street--guns come from States with lax gun laws straight to States, like New Jersey, with strong laws. It is clear that New Jersey's strong gun control laws offer criminals little choice but to import their guns from States with weak laws. We must act on a Federal level to send a clear message that this cannot continue and will not be tolerated. Mr. President, once again this year Senator Lautenberg and I have introduced our one-gun-a-month bill, which would go a long way toward preventing bulk sales and massive trafficking in firearms. But today's bill is the next logical step--hitting illegal traffickers where it hurts with tough mandatory minimum sentences that will get these gunrunners off our streets. The Gun Kingpin Penalty Act of 1997 would create a new Federal gunrunning offense for any person who, within a 12-month period, transports more than five guns to another State with the intent of transferring all of the weapons to another person. The act would establish mandatory minimum penalties for gunrunning as follows: A mandatory 3-year minimum sentence for a first offense involving 5 to 50 guns; a mandatory 5-year minimum sentence for second offense involving 5 to 50 guns; and a mandatory 15- year minimum sentence for any offense involving more than 50 guns. Additionally, the bill contains two blood-on-the-hands provisions, which will significantly increase penalties for a gunrunner who transfers a gun subsequently used to seriously injure or kill another person. A mandatory 10-year minimum sentence is required if one of the smuggled guns is used within 3 years to kill or seriously injure another person. And a mandatory 25-year minimum sentence must be imposed if one of the smuggled guns is used within 3 years to kill or seriously injure another person and more than 50 guns were smuggled. Finally, our bill adds numerous gunrunning crimes as RICO predicates, and authorizes 200 additional Treasury personnel to enforce the act-- Congress must provide law enforcement with the resources to enforce the laws we pass. The fight against gun violence is a long-term, many-staged process. We succeeded in enacting the Brady bill and the ban on devastating assault weapons. Last year, we told domestic violence offenders that they could no longer own a gun. And these laws have been effective: 186,000 prohibited individuals have already been denied a handgun due to Brady background checks. Some 70 percent of these people were convicted or indicted felons. Traces of assault weapons have plummeted since the ban, and prices have gone up. And not a single law enforcement officer has been killed with an assault weapon in over a year. Mr. President, I will soon be introducing a companion piece to this legislation--the Gun Kingpin Death Penalty Act of 1997. That bill, modeled after the drug kingpin legislation passed by Congress several years ago, will allow for the Federal death penalty if a gunrunning kingpin commits murder in the course of his or her operations. As I said before, this is a many-staged fight, and we can never rest when it comes to gun violence. This problem will not just go away, and we cannot standby and watch as innocent men, women, and children die at the hands of criminals armed with these guns. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I ask that the full text of the legislation be printed in the Record following this statement. I yield the floor to my friend from Illinois Senator Durbin.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleague from Illinois Senator Durbin, to introduce the Gun Kingpin Penalty Act of 1997. In introducing this bill, Senator Durbin and I hope that our colleagues will soon join us in sending a clear and strong signal to gunrunners--your actions will no longer be tolerated. Mr. President, recent numbers gathered by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms clearly demonstrate what many of us already knew all too well--several key North-South highways in this country have become pipelines for merchants of death who deal in illegal firearms. My own State of New Jersey is proud to have some of the toughest gun control laws in the Nation. But for far too long, the courageous efforts of New Jersey citizens in enacting these tough laws have been weakened by out of State gunrunners who treat our State like their own personal retail outlet. We learned from the ATF data that in 1996, New Jersey exported fewer guns used in crimes, per capita, than any other State--less than 1 gun per 100,000 residents, or 75 total guns. In contrast, Mississippi exported 29 of these guns per capita last year. Meanwhile, an incredible number of guns used to commit crimes in New Jersey last year came from out of State--944 guns were imported and used to commit crimes compared to only 75 exported--a net import of 869 illegal guns used to commit crimes against the people of New Jersey. In fact, the top six exporters of illegal guns used to commit crimes in New Jersey supplied 62 pecent of the guns--585--and only one of those six States--North Carolina--has strong gun control laws. This represents a one way street--guns come from States with lax gun laws straight to States, like New Jersey, with strong laws. It is clear that New Jersey's strong gun control laws offer criminals little choice but to import their guns from States with weak laws. We must act on a Federal level to send a clear message that this cannot continue and will not be tolerated. Mr. President, once again this year Senator Lautenberg and I have introduced our one-gun-a-month bill, which would go a long way toward preventing bulk sales and massive trafficking in firearms. But today's bill is the next logical step--hitting illegal traffickers where it hurts with tough mandatory minimum sentences that will get these gunrunners off our streets. The Gun Kingpin Penalty Act of 1997 would create a new Federal gunrunning offense for any person who, within a 12-month period, transports more than five guns to another State with the intent of transferring all of the weapons to another person. The act would establish mandatory minimum penalties for gunrunning as follows: A mandatory 3-year minimum sentence for a first offense involving 5 to 50 guns; a mandatory 5-year minimum sentence for second offense involving 5 to 50 guns; and a mandatory 15- year minimum sentence for any offense involving more than 50 guns. Additionally, the bill contains two blood-on-the-hands provisions, which will significantly increase penalties for a gunrunner who transfers a gun subsequently used to seriously injure or kill another person. A mandatory 10-year minimum sentence is required if one of the smuggled guns is used within 3 years to kill or seriously injure another person. And a mandatory 25-year minimum sentence must be imposed if one of the smuggled guns is used within 3 years to kill or seriously injure another person and more than 50 guns were smuggled. Finally, our bill adds numerous gunrunning crimes as RICO predicates, and authorizes 200 additional Treasury personnel to enforce the act-- Congress must provide law enforcement with the resources to enforce the laws we pass. The fight against gun violence is a long-term, many-staged process. We succeeded in enacting the Brady bill and the ban on devastating assault weapons. Last year, we told domestic violence offenders that they could no longer own a gun. And these laws have been effective: 186,000 prohibited individuals have already been denied a handgun due to Brady background checks. Some 70 percent of these people were convicted or indicted felons. Traces of assault weapons have plummeted since the ban, and prices have gone up. And not a single law enforcement officer has been killed with an assault weapon in over a year. Mr. President, I will soon be introducing a companion piece to this legislation--the Gun Kingpin Death Penalty Act of 1997. That bill, modeled after the drug kingpin legislation passed by Congress several years ago, will allow for the Federal death penalty if a gunrunning kingpin commits murder in the course of his or her operations. As I said before, this is a many-staged fight, and we can never rest when it comes to gun violence. This problem will not just go away, and we cannot standby and watch as innocent men, women, and children die at the hands of criminals armed with these guns. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I ask that the full text of the legislation be printed in the Record following this statement. I yield the floor to my friend from Illinois Senator Durbin.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I introduce the Explosives Protection Act of 1997. I do so just over two years after the tragic bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City, because I hope that this bill will, in some small way, prevent future bombings--whether by terrorists of symbolic targets, malcontents of random ones, or even spouses involved in marital disputes. This bill, while not directly related to the circumstances in Oklahoma City, is a first step towards protecting the American people from those who would use explosives to do them harm. Not many people realize, Mr. President, just how few restrictions on the use and sale of explosives really exist. While we have increasingly restricted the number of people who can obtain and use a firearm, we have been lax in extending these prohibitions to explosives. For instance, while we prohibit illegal aliens from obtaining a gun, we allow them to obtain explosives without restriction. And this same divergence applies to those who have been dishonorably discharged from the armed forces, those who have renounced U.S. citizenship, people who have acted in such a way as to have restraining orders issued against them, and those with domestic violence convictions. Each of these categories of persons are prohibited from obtaining firearms, but face no such prohibition on obtaining explosive material. Additionally, while this Congress has been moving to prevent nonimmigrant legal aliens from obtaining a gun, in response to the recent shooting at the Empire State Building, we have neglected to work towards this same goal with regards to explosives. Mr. President, many of these differences in the law are simply oversights--Congress has often acted to limit the use and sale of firearms, and has neglected to bring explosives law into line. And in so doing, we have made it all too easy for many of the most dangerous or least accountable members of society to obtain materials which can result in an equal or even greater loss of life. Congress has already made the determination that certain members of society should not have access to firearms, and the same logic clearly applies to dangerous and destructive explosive materials. It is time to bring the explosives law into line with gun laws, and this is all my bill does. Specifically, my bill would take the list of categories of people who cannot obtain firearms and would add any of those categories not currently covered under the explosives law. Additionally, my bill would insert the Durbin-Kennedy nonimmigrant provisions into the law to protect us from persons entering the country and quickly moving to purchase and use deadly explosive material. Mr. President, this is a simple bill meant only to correct longstanding gaps and loopholes in current law. I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I hope we can quickly move to get this passed and protect Americans from future acts of explosive destruction. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I introduce the Explosives Protection Act of 1997. I do so just over two years after the tragic bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City, because I hope that this bill will, in some small way, prevent future bombings--whether by terrorists of symbolic targets, malcontents of random ones, or even spouses involved in marital disputes. This bill, while not directly related to the circumstances in Oklahoma City, is a first step towards protecting the American people from those who would use explosives to do them harm. Not many people realize, Mr. President, just how few restrictions on the use and sale of explosives really exist. While we have increasingly restricted the number of people who can obtain and use a firearm, we have been lax in extending these prohibitions to explosives. For instance, while we prohibit illegal aliens from obtaining a gun, we allow them to obtain explosives without restriction. And this same divergence applies to those who have been dishonorably discharged from the armed forces, those who have renounced U.S. citizenship, people who have acted in such a way as to have restraining orders issued against them, and those with domestic violence convictions. Each of these categories of persons are prohibited from obtaining firearms, but face no such prohibition on obtaining explosive material. Additionally, while this Congress has been moving to prevent nonimmigrant legal aliens from obtaining a gun, in response to the recent shooting at the Empire State Building, we have neglected to work towards this same goal with regards to explosives. Mr. President, many of these differences in the law are simply oversights--Congress has often acted to limit the use and sale of firearms, and has neglected to bring explosives law into line. And in so doing, we have made it all too easy for many of the most dangerous or least accountable members of society to obtain materials which can result in an equal or even greater loss of life. Congress has already made the determination that certain members of society should not have access to firearms, and the same logic clearly applies to dangerous and destructive explosive materials. It is time to bring the explosives law into line with gun laws, and this is all my bill does. Specifically, my bill would take the list of categories of people who cannot obtain firearms and would add any of those categories not currently covered under the explosives law. Additionally, my bill would insert the Durbin-Kennedy nonimmigrant provisions into the law to protect us from persons entering the country and quickly moving to purchase and use deadly explosive material. Mr. President, this is a simple bill meant only to correct longstanding gaps and loopholes in current law. I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I hope we can quickly move to get this passed and protect Americans from future acts of explosive destruction. 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 Lautenberg and I are introducing the New Jersey Women's Environmental Health Act. I rise to draw this country's attention to breast cancer and the threat that it faces to all American women. It is estimated that more than one in eight women will be diagnosed with breast cancer in her lifetime. Over 46,000 women will die each year. The American Cancer Society estimates 6,400 new cases of breast cancer in New Jersey in 1997--an estimated 1,800 deaths in this year alone. It is for this reason that I speak today, in an effort to heighten the awareness of breast cancer in our Nation and its possible environmental causes. Breast cancer in New Jersey is much worse than the rest of the country. New Jersey has the highest breast cancer death rate of any State in the Nation. Overall, New Jersey has an 11 percent higher incidence rate of breast cancer than the national rate. Between 1988-92 New Jersey's rate was 110.8. For the United States the rate was only 105.6. The highest counties include: Warren, 34.8 percent; Morris, 20.7 percent; and Monmouth, 18.5 percent. During this time, 19 of New Jersey's 21 counties had a higher incidence rate of breast cancer than the national average and two-thirds of these counties had a 10 percent or higher incidence rate of breast cancer than the national average. Federal and national foundation funding is disproportionately low for a State with a significant academic and research presence, and an exceptionally high death rate from breast cancer. The per capita expenditure on breast cancer funding in New Jersey is only $0.15. Neighboring states with lower breast cancer rates have received significantly more funding per capita. New York receives $1.11 and Massachusetts receives $3.05. In general, New Jersey gets only $0.62 back for every tax dollar sent to Washington. We contribute $17 billion more to the Federal Treasury than we get back--the lowest return in the Nation. I believe that behind our State's history of environmental problems lies the reasons for our high breast cancer rates. It is not a coincidence that New Jersey, the State with the most Superfund sites, also has the highest breast cancer rates. The current breast cancer research efforts are not being focused on epidemiological studies that investigate the effect of environmental factors. The value of providing expanded research concerning the environmental factors for breast cancer in New Jersey is essential not only to New Jersey women, but to all women across the country. I am optimistic that not only will this study provides some answers for women in New Jersey, but will provide groundbreaking research on the impact of environmental conditions on breast cancer rates which will benefit doctors across this country in their efforts to find a cure for this tragic disease. I ask unanimous consent that this be printed in the Record.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Madam President, this is a moment of judgment that this Senate has faced before. History instructs us that we cannot afford to be wrong. Over 75 years ago, this body chose the wrong route and the toll was monumental. During consideration of the treaty for the League of Nations, the United States took the lead in forming the principles of collective security. It was our leadership which brought the world to understand that there was no separate peace, there was no individual security, and yet in that instance, as in this moment, the United States, after providing the intellectual and the political leadership, was a reluctant participant. The judgment then, we were told, was that there were reservations because of individual provisions of the treaty. But, indeed, history instructs us, and I believe would guide us now, that those reservations were not because of individual aspects of the treaty but because of a general ideologic opposition to arms control and the general notion of collective security. It is time for the United States, after all the painful lessons of previous generations, to simply understand there is no unilateral security in a multilateral world. From Pearl Harbor to the Persian Gulf, history demands us to recognize an essential truth: American security, because of a changing world and developing technology, requires and demands that we deal with other nations. The choice before this Senate is clear. From the doughboys who endured the horrors of mustard gas in the trenches of Europe, the Kurdish refugees who suffered in Iraq, to the refugees of Cambodia who suffered yellow rain, to our own veterans of the Persian Gulf, it is time to put an end to chemical weapons. That power is in the hands of the Senate. If we fail to do so, a host of rogue nations will take advantage of the opportunity. Before this Senate on July 10, 1919, Woodrow Wilson closed the debate saying, ``We are the only hope of mankind. Dare we reject it and break the hearts of the world.''

Mr. TORRICELLI. Thank you, Madam President. I ask the Senator from Delaware to yield 3 additional minutes.

Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator from Delaware for yielding. Madam President, tomorrow the Senate will exercise its historic constitutional powers of treaty ratification. It is a solemn power that we have exercised for two centuries. That power has often defined the security of the Nation and sometimes been determinant of war and peace itself. The issue before the Senate now is the ban on chemical weapons, probably the most important foreign policy question remaining before the United States in this century. Perhaps because the consequences are so great the choice is also clear. This treaty demands ratification. The treaty itself is a culmination of a process that began over 12 years ago under the leadership of Ronald Reagan. The United States began a review and then determined that it would eliminate chemical weapons. We did so because of the need to reduce the numbers of those weapons in the world and to restrict the ability of those nations that did not possess them to obtain them. Since Ronald Reagan's judgment a decade ago, we have made extraordinary progress. In 1985, President Reagan signed into law a judgment that would eliminate American stockpiles by the year 2004, having an important impact on the ratification of this treaty because, whether it is ratified or not, no matter what judgments are made by this institution, the United States is going to eliminate chemical weapons. Second, the United States then followed our own judgment by leading the international effort with 160 other nations to enact a multilateral ban. It is the result of that process that is now before the Senate. The process, it is important to note, did not culminate with the Reagan administration. In 1992, President George Bush announced a strong American support for the treaty and the United States became an original signatory. A year later, under President Clinton, the United States once again announced its support. Today, we have come full circle. From Ronald Reagan's first pronouncements, the treaty, now endorsed by a Democratic President, seeks ratification under a majority Republican Congress. The Secretary of State said only a week ago: This treaty has ``made in America'' written all over it. It was Ronald Reagan's idea, George Bush negotiated it and signed it, and Bill Clinton has embraced it. In truth, however, Madam President, the treaty is neither Democratic nor Republican. It reflects the bipartisan commitments of the United States toward our security, our values, and a century of learning the lessons of collective security because after 80 years of living under the threats of chemical weapons, it is the judgment of this administration and those that preceded it that it is time to eliminate these weapons. The treaty does several direct and important things. It bans the development, production, and stockpiling of chemical weapons. Second, it requires the destruction of all chemical weapons and their production facilities. Third, it provides the most extensive verification process in the history of arms control. Finally, it grants member nations the effective tools for dealing with those who refuse to comply, tools that will be denied the United States if we fail to ratify the treaty. And yet many of my colleagues have questioned the need for the United States to become a member state. They note two principal objections. First, that the burden of reporting requirements and verifications would be onerous on American industry; and second, the impact on American defense capabilities. Allow me to deal with each. First, the economic impact. In my State of New Jersey, the chemical industry represents fully one-third of the entire industrial capability of the State; 150,000 citizens of the State of New Jersey are employed in this vital manufacturing industry of chemicals. Let us be clear. The entire industry, from small companies to among the largest industries in the State of New Jersey, not only supports this treaty but has joined in demanding its ratification. Second, on the question of American defense capabilities, it should be self-evident that if the United States is unilaterally forgoing these weapons and rogue nations continue to embrace them, American military personnel will be more vulnerable and, indeed, endangered if the United States is not a signatory, allowing us to help enforce the provisions of the treaty and deny capability to rogue nations than if we are to remain on the outside. That is why this treaty has been endorsed by General Powell, 17 other four-star generals and every former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff--in the Carter, Clinton, and Ford administrations. I ask my colleagues who oppose this treaty, would all these members of the general staff, would each of these men who have held the principal responsibility for guiding and leading our Armed Forces have endorsed this treaty if there was any chance, if there was any judgment, that, indeed, our Armed Forces would be less safe?

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, today, Senator Lautenberg and I are introducing the New Jersey Women's Environmental Health Act. I rise to draw this country's attention to breast cancer and the threat that it faces to all American women. It is estimated that more than one in eight women will be diagnosed with breast cancer in her lifetime. Over 46,000 women will die each year. The American Cancer Society estimates 6,400 new cases of breast cancer in New Jersey in 1997--an estimated 1,800 deaths in this year alone. It is for this reason that I speak today, in an effort to heighten the awareness of breast cancer in our Nation and its possible environmental causes. Breast cancer in New Jersey is much worse than the rest of the country. New Jersey has the highest breast cancer death rate of any State in the Nation. Overall, New Jersey has an 11 percent higher incidence rate of breast cancer than the national rate. Between 1988-92 New Jersey's rate was 110.8. For the United States the rate was only 105.6. The highest counties include: Warren, 34.8 percent; Morris, 20.7 percent; and Monmouth, 18.5 percent. During this time, 19 of New Jersey's 21 counties had a higher incidence rate of breast cancer than the national average and two-thirds of these counties had a 10 percent or higher incidence rate of breast cancer than the national average. Federal and national foundation funding is disproportionately low for a State with a significant academic and research presence, and an exceptionally high death rate from breast cancer. The per capita expenditure on breast cancer funding in New Jersey is only $0.15. Neighboring states with lower breast cancer rates have received significantly more funding per capita. New York receives $1.11 and Massachusetts receives $3.05. In general, New Jersey gets only $0.62 back for every tax dollar sent to Washington. We contribute $17 billion more to the Federal Treasury than we get back--the lowest return in the Nation. I believe that behind our State's history of environmental problems lies the reasons for our high breast cancer rates. It is not a coincidence that New Jersey, the State with the most Superfund sites, also has the highest breast cancer rates. The current breast cancer research efforts are not being focused on epidemiological studies that investigate the effect of environmental factors. The value of providing expanded research concerning the environmental factors for breast cancer in New Jersey is essential not only to New Jersey women, but to all women across the country. I am optimistic that not only will this study provides some answers for women in New Jersey, but will provide groundbreaking research on the impact of environmental conditions on breast cancer rates which will benefit doctors across this country in their efforts to find a cure for this tragic disease. I ask unanimous consent that this be printed in the Record.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, this morning, millions of Americans awoke to some startling revelations, news that was particularly painful to thousands of veterans of the Persian Gulf war. Yesterday the Central Intelligence Agency released a report that stated that as early as 1984 it had intelligence reports warning that chemical weapons held by the military of Iraq were stored at a previously undisclosed chemical weapons site. Indeed, in 1986, the CIA had received even more specific reports and obtained a copy of an Iraqi chemical weapons production plan that mentioned large storage facilities and the exact location and even the types of chemicals and other weapons that were being stored at that location. Despite each of these reports and the existence of this detailed information in the very files of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Pentagon was not informed at any level on any basis of any of this information when the ground war commenced in the Persian Gulf in January 1991. Without this information, tragically, American ground forces entered the specific chemical weapons storage facility named within Central Intelligence Agency files in March 1991. Fully 20,000 American soldiers were in the vicinity and potentially were exposed to the residue of those chemicals when this facility was destroyed. Two days later, after the destruction of the facility, potentially after 20,000 American soldiers were exposed to these chemical weapons, the Central Intelligence Agency informed the Pentagon of this information and a possible exposure. Mr. President, yesterday Dr. Robert Walpole, a CIA agency official investigating this incident on behalf of the Central Intelligence Agency, issued an apology to the Nation's veterans. It is not good enough. This Nation for several years has been agonizing about the cause of unknown illnesses among our soldiers. During all of that study, during all the long nights of wonder and doubt and pain, this information was not supplied to the President, the Congress, the commission studying this information or, most importantly, those veterans whose lives may have been permanently changed and damaged. And now we are given an apology. Mr. President, this is more than a failure in a single instant. It is another example of the fact that the American people and this Government are not being adequately served by the American intelligence community. Dr. Walpole stated the reasons, in his judgment, for this failure. He said, first, that there was tunnel vision in the American intelligence community; second, that there had been an incomplete search of the files; and, third and perhaps most chilling to all of us who share these concerns about the role of the American intelligence community in working with our military and civilian personnel, he said there was a reluctance by some CIA officials to share some of its most sensitive information with Government officials. It appeared that some CIA officials knowingly and consciously weighed the sources of their information with the potential of sharing that information with the U.S. military and made the wrong judgment, making victims, potentially, out of our own soldiers. Mr. President, this is not an isolated failure of intelligence policy. It is indicative of a continuing plague of bad judgment, and it is an indication of a need for large-scale institutional reform of how the intelligence community conducts its business, makes its judgments, and shares its information with elected officials and the U.S. military. We are experiencing again not only a failure of leadership, but an inability to share at the proper time in the proper manner with the leadership of this Government sensitive intelligence information. The intelligence community was created in this country to ensure that elected officials had the best information to make the right security judgments for this country, so that the U.S. military would have the best possible information to both prevail in conflicts and minimize casualties. Neither can be accomplished if officials of the intelligence community do not feel a responsibility, indeed, are not driven by the need to share the best information with the leadership of the U.S. Government. An apology has been issued to the Armed Forces of the United States and those who may have suffered as a result of this incident. It is not only inadequate, it is a disservice to every man and woman who wears the uniform of this country. The President of the United States and this Congress must respond to this latest incident by beginning institutional reform in the organization, the leadership and, indeed, the mission of the Central Intelligence Agency. Mr. President, I yield the floor and thank you for your indulgence.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to inform the Senate that Americans are still committed to economic progress and that local government is not powerless in the face of economic challenges. In my home State of New Jersey, the city of Hackensack has shown that dedication to solving long-term economic problems can be accomplished with practical leadership utilizing innovative solutions. Over the past few years, the city of Hackensack had seen its downtown population decrease and its economic stability put at risk. The people of Hackensack were not to be deterred from making their city the best it could be. So, instead of accepting an unsatisfying economic fate, Hackensack's mayor and city council called together local business leaders to establish the Hackensack Economic Development Commission. This pioneering commission set out to study the city's economic climate and propose steps toward its continuing development. This study, conducted by the Eagleton Institute's Center for Public Interest Polling at Rutgers University, is the first of its kind by a municipality in our State. The city's initiative and creativity in utilizing these research tools should be commended. Hackensack's climate study is unique in that it reached a broad range of people, over 5,000 residents and workers of the Hackensack area. The wide scope and depth of the study is a model for similarly situated cities in New Jersey. Yet, more than a model for New Jersey, the efforts of the commission serve as a model for the entire country to prove that with solid community commitment, ongoing economic growth can be a reality. Thus, I ask that you join me in recognizing the city of Hackensack in its devotion to be an improved economic development and commend its foresight and planning to other cities across the Nation.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, the months ahead will require a number of important decisions regarding the continuing evolution of U.S. policy in the region of the Taiwan Straits. Today, I am submitting a concurrent resolution to help clarify long- standing U.S. commitments in this regard. While the Clinton Administration and Congress attempt to improve relations with the communist authorities in Beijing, it is important for Congress to make clear the depth of the bipartisan commitment to the burgeoning democratic forces on Taiwan. Any improvement in U.S. relations with Taiwan, does not and should not come at the expense of our ties with the people of Taiwan. The U.S. must renew our past commitments to the people of Taiwan. For example, as a result of the Taiwan Policy Review throughout 1993 and 1994 and the balance of 1994, the Clinton Administration publicly pledged to support Taiwan's membership in appropriate international organizations. In this regard, few are as important as the World Trade Organization. Taiwan is currently the U.S.'s fifth largest trading partner and U.S. exports to Taiwan total more than $17 billion annually. This sum is almost twice as much as U.S. exports to the P.R.C. Our trade with the People's Republic has produced a crushing $39 billion deficit last year. The Clinton Administration is publicly committed to supporting Taiwan's bid to join the World Trade Organization. It has already declared that the U.S. will not oppose the bid solely on the grounds that the P.R.C., which is also seeking WTO membership, is not yet eligible because of its unacceptable trade practices. The U.S. and Taiwan have concluded discussions on virtually all outstanding trade issues necessary for Taiwan's W.T.O. eligibility. All that is left is for the U.S. to make clear that it is prepared to support Taiwan's membership and for Taiwan and the U.S. to work out the few remaining details governing trade in a few specific sectors. In the weeks ahead, we will be called upon to vote to renew Most Favored Nation Status for China and analyzing China's actions as they take control of Hong Kong. As we do all of this, we cannot forget about our commitments to the people of Taiwan. Congress should reaffirm our support for Taiwan's bid to join the W.T.O. and make clear that our decision regarding Taiwan's bid will not be held hostage to U.S. negotiations with Beijing. Today, I am submitting a Sense of the Congress concurrent resolution which affirms our support for Taiwan's membership in the W.T.O.. I am pleased that a similar concurrent resolution is being submitted with bi-partisan support in the other body.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.