Robert Torricelli

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank the majority leader for yielding. When the Senate unanimously passed this legislation previously, we included waiving income taxes and payroll taxes for families of the victims of September 11. The House of Representatives in their bill included only income taxes and not payroll taxes. When the House repassed the bill and sent it to us, they included a provision that did not include payroll taxes but set a minimum of $10,000 so lower income people would receive some tax refund. The House wanted to retain the principle of not waiving payroll taxes but did want to give some refund to low-income families. This was seen as agreeable to both sides and fair.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Will the majority leader yield?

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I thank the Republican leader for his courtesy. I want to say a word of thanks to all of my colleagues. I was proud to have offered this provision in the Finance Committee and again on the Senate floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI. I express my thanks to Senator Daschle, Senator Lott, Senator Baucus, Senator Grassley, Senator Nickles, and so many Members of the Senate who made this possible. I know during this Christmas season that the plight and distress of the families of those who lost their lives in Virginia, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania will be in all of our thoughts. That really is not enough. Charities have raised an enormous amount of money, but it has not gotten to the victims' families. There is a victims' fund this Government has raised, but it has not yet gotten to these victims' families. This tax relief offers real and immediate benefits. It has the promise that as American citizens give funds to charities, the funds from those charities will not in turn be taxed as they get to the widows, the parents, or other relatives. It holds the promise that there will be a refund given to many of these families. Offering financial relief is little solace given such enormous pain, but it is of some help. Families who have buried their loved ones are also paying mortgages, tuition, and buying groceries. This is real help. I am grateful to the Members of the Senate who have helped pass this legislation. I am grateful to Chairman Thomas of the House Ways and Means Committee who has been with us as an architect in its passage. I express on behalf of all the families for whom this means so much in this holiday season their gratitude to all of you who have made this possible. I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. I would like to take the opportunity to thank Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens and the Defense Appropriations Staff for their cooperation in securing $2 million for the procurement of smokeless nitrocellulose in this year's Department of Defense, DoD, Appropriations Bill. Indeed, the provision included in this legislation will help ensure that our nation will continue to have at least two domestic suppliers of smokeless nitrocellulose. The $2 million direct procurement for this vital product will reestablish Green Tree Chemical Technologies of Parlin, New Jersey as a viable competitor for the DoD industrial base. Furthermore, this purchase will enable Green Tree to be viable for the long term. It will continue to produce the qualified material for DoD programs and provide the only other production base in the United States for what is a volatile product.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, when the Voting Rights Act was signed into law over 30 years ago, many thought it was the end of a long journey to recognize that the ideals on which this country was founded were more than just abstract notions. The Voting Rights Act and before it the 14th amendment were definitive expressions by our Nation's government that liberty and equality in theory is only as meaningful as liberty and equality in practice. As my colleague from Connecticut noted yesterday in this Chamber, Thomas Paine captured the essence of our Nation's democracy when he stated that the right to vote is ``the primary right by which all other rights are protected.'' The immediate consequence of the 2000 elections and its unsettling aftermath was a realization that even 30 years after the Voting Rights Act became law, the Nation's election system was not what people thought it was. The election brought to light many problems with the Nation's voting system, including the impact that outdated voting machines, undertrained poll workers, and poorly-designed ballots can have on an election. Throughout the past year, Congress and the Nation have evaluated how best to ensure that future elections are ones in which Americans can have faith in the results. I have spent countless hours devoted to the subject. A year ago last week, Senator McConnell and I introduced one of the first bills seeking to improve election systems and procedures. Others soon followed with their own ideas about how to best bring about change to what we had learned was a clearly flawed system. With so much at stake, the process has not been without disagreement and at times it seemed that little would be changed. Both the House of Representatives and the Senate, however, have finally made progress in crafting bipartisan legislation seeking to make elections more fair for all Americans. The House of Representatives has passed legislation supported by a majority of both parties. Yesterday, Senators Dodd, McConnell, Bond, Schumer and I introduced bipartisan legislation to modernize the Nation's election procedures. The Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act of 2001 represents a balance between establishing national standards for voting and giving States the flexibility to make improvements tailored to their State's needs. First, this bill creates a permanent Federal system of analysis and assistance. This legislation establishes an Election Administration Commission, consisting of two commissioners from each party who will serve 4-year terms. The commission will bring expertise to modernizing elections and provide States and localities with advice for their enhancing voting procedures. This permanent commission was the cornerstone of election reform legislation that Senator McConnell and I introduced over a year ago and I am extraordinarily pleased to see it included in this landmark legislation. Second, this legislation establishes three minimum national requirements for voting procedures to ensure that voting across the Nation is uniform and nondiscriminatory. These minimum national standards include requiring States and localities across the Nation to utilize voting systems that enable voters to verify how they voted and ensure accessibility to language minorities and individuals with disabilities, requiring States and localities to provide for provisional balloting, and requiring States and localities to establish a statewide voter registration list with the names and addresses of eligible voters. Perhaps most importantly, however, this legislation provides $3 billion in Federal grants for States and localities to update voting systems, improve accessibility to polling places, and train poll workers, among other things. States and communities must show that they comply with the three national requirements to be eligible for the grants. An additional $400 million is authorized for providing early funds so that States and localities can implement some improvements quickly; $100 million of the bill's funding is directed to provide grants to make polling places physically accessible to those with disabilities. This funding ensures that for the first time in our Nation's history, the Federal Government will contribute our share to the cost of administering elections for Federal office. I hope that this legislation completes our Nation's journey to ensuring that all eligible Americans are able to cast their vote fairly, accurately, and without interference. To some, this legislation may not be perfect, but I can assure my colleagues that it is the result of reasoned compromise and is a balanced response to all that our Nation has learned from the 2000 elections. I hope that when my colleagues and I return in January, we can work with the Senate leadership to ensure that bringing this legislation to the Senate floor is one of our top priorities.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank Senators Smith, Helms, Ensign, Graham, and Nelson for being part of this effort. The administration supports these amendments and opposes the provision in the bill. It would be shocking if the President of the United States did not support us. President Bush has made very clear, in this world, you are with us in the fight against terrorism or you are against us. We are in the middle of a worldwide fight against terrorism and almost unbelievably in this Senate this bill contains a provision that the United States would allow private banks, guaranteed by the U.S. Government, to sell products to Fidel Castro's Cuba while the State Department has listed Cuba as harboring terrorists--not one terrorist group but four terrorist groups. Further, it is amending the bill to say to Fidel Castro: If you want the privilege of our finance, get yourself off the terrorist list; if you want the privilege of our finance, return the 77 fugitives living in Cuba wanted for murder, hijacking, and terrorist activities. I ask my colleagues to think about what we are doing, what kind of a message we are sending. We send troops halfway around the world to fight terrorists. But now on the floor of the Senate, before our troops even come home, we are authorizing the financing of exports to a country we have identified as harboring terrorists. It doesn't make sense. Of course, the President is opposed to it. Of course, we should be opposed to it. But it will be argued that we need this for business, that we need this to help our farmers. I don't believe there is a farmer in America who wants to make a buck selling products to people who harbor fugitives from justice. But even if they did, what kind of a business proposition is this? Fidel Castro owes $11 billion to financial institutions, he has not paid it back; $20 billion to former Soviet Union; he hasn't paid it back. His current account deficit is $700 million. He can't meet the bills. Even if you loaned him the money, he couldn't pay it back. Don't let anybody tell you that in doing this we are not being a generous people. Fidel Castro can buy American food. He has to pay for it. The United States has given more food and medicine to Cuba in the last 10 years than any one nation has given to any other nation in modern history. He is getting donations. He can buy our food. We just should not finance it because he can't bay it back and he doesn't deserve it. Consistency in America foreign policy; financing sales to a nation on our terrorist list, never.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Is there a unanimous consent request now before the Senate?

Mr. TORRICELLI. In my estimation, there are too many Senators to be commenting in 45 minutes. There are four on our side and three or four on the other side. We may be able to accommodate that in an hour, but 40 minutes is unlikely. I say to the Senator from Iowa, if he does offer a unanimous consent request, I have to ask him to include a secondary amendment that Senator Smith wants to offer, as long as that is in order in the time period as well.

Mr. TORRICELLI. It is acceptable to me, but that Senator Smith before the close be recognized to offer a second-degree amendment.

Mr. TORRICELLI. The problem is, we have a number of Senators who all want to be heard.

Mr. TORRICELLI. My suggestion is, if there are four or five Democrats and four or five Republicans who are for it, there are people in opposition, at 5 minutes we have to have an hour at a minimum to accommodate them.

Mr. TORRICELLI. One hour, at which point there will be secondary amendments.

Mr. TORRICELLI. I suggest we begin the debate and, during the course, see if we can work it out.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, the most extraordinary thing about this debate is we are having it at all. The President of the United States has declared war on terrorism. American soldiers are fighting terrorist organizations, and the Senate is about to approve legislation, but for this amendment, which would allow the financing of American products in some instances from American institutions--insured by the American taxpayer--to governments that we have established are harboring terrorists. If I didn't hear it myself, I would not believe it. And the American people are not going to believe it. Countries on this terrorist list are not broad. They are well defined. It is specific: Libya, Iran, Iraq, and in this instance, in this legislation for our purposes, Cuba. Is it a fair designation? It is from the State Department. It was designated in the Clinton administration, and it is designated in the Bush administration with the following language from the State Department: A number of Basque terrorists gained sanctuary in Cuba some years ago. They continue to live on the island, as do several American terrorist fugitives. I continue: Havana has maintained ties to other state sponsors of terrorism and Latin American insurgents. Colombia's two largest terrorist organizations, the FARQ and the ELN, maintain a permanent presence on the island. In addition to our national policy against terrorism, we have a national policy against states that are involved in bioterrorism. Cuba has the greatest bioterrorist capability in the Western Hemisphere. Cuba prohibits international inspection of its biological facilities. In 1998, Secretary of Defense Cohen, a former member of this institution, wrote to the Armed Services Committee: I remain concerned about Cuba's potential to develop and produce biological agents, given its biotechnology infrastructure. The Defense Department, in 1998, in a report entitled ``Cuba's Threat to American National Securities,'' said: Cuba's current scientific facilities and expertise could support an offensive bioweapons program. In at least the research and development stage, Cuba's biotechnology industry is among the most advanced in all developing countries. There needs to be one message from this Government. We are fighting terrorism, but now we are going to finance exports to countries that harbor terrorists. We are attempting to undermine the capability of nations that develop bioterrorism, but now we are going to finance products by our institutions to those very countries. It doesn't make sense. No one could defend this vote to their constituents. I don't care if every person who lives in your State is a farmer. I don't believe there is a farmer in America who wants to make a buck by having this country finance exports to Governments such as that. President Bush has stated it very plainly. In this war against terrorism, you are for us or you are against us. Where is this Government now that we want to subsidize by financing exports to them? In May 2001 in Tehran, Fidel Castro proclaimed: Iran and Cuba, in cooperation with each other, can bring America to its knees. Mr. Castro has decided whether he is with us or he is against us. The Canadian security intelligence service, which investigates terrorist threats, said in a 1996 report: Cuba has been a supply source [to terrorist groups] for toxin and chemical weapons. In a 1999 book ``Biohazard,'' a former KGB colonel, Ken Alibek, second in command of the Soviet offensive biological warfare program until 1992, wrote that he was convinced the Castro government was deeply involved in biological warfare research programs. In each of these ways, if you do not want to take the testimony of the U.S. State Department, if you do not want to follow President Bush's command about which governments chose sides, recognize that the conclusions I bring to the Senate are not American alone. On Castro's involvement in terrorism, his involvement in bioterrorism, we have the testimony not simply of Americans but of our Canadian allies, and even our former Soviet adversaries. I do not rest my case on the support of terrorism by Castro alone or his biochemical warfare. There is another aspect to the amendment that Senator Smith and I offer with Senator Nelson and Senator Graham, Senator Allen, and others of our colleagues, and that is the question of harboring fugitives from justice in the United States. Under our amendment, if Fidel Castro wants to get the advantage of the financing of American agricultural exports, he can get that financing. He has to get himself off the terrorism list by stopping harboring terrorists. He has to allow the inspection of his biochemical warfare facilities. If he does those things, he can get our exports financed by institutions supported by this Government. But he has to do one more thing under the secondary amendment we are going to offer: Stop harboring fugitives from American justice. Cuba currently is giving safe haven to 77 American citizens who have been indicted or convicted of committing felonies against the United States. These include fugitives who have been convicted of murder, kidnapping, and possession of explosives. They have escaped American justice because Fidel Castro allows them to live safely and freely, in most instances, in Cuba. Most on this list--60 of the 77--were convicted of what is a terrorist act now in the minds of most Americans: Hijacking an airplane. Is there a Member of this Senate who will explain to citizens of their State that we are about to change a bipartisan American foreign policy restricting the financing of exports to Cuba and will not accept a condition that first the people who have engaged in the terrorist act of hijacking an airplane--that those fugitives not be returned to the United States? If ever I have heard an explanation difficult to give to the American people, particularly since the events of September 11, this would rank as the most difficult. This may be hard for people in most States, but in my State it would be impossible. In 1973, Joanne Chesimard was riding on the New Jersey turnpike, the ``thruway'' to most, along with some accomplices. She was stopped and opened fire on the officers involved. A New Jersey State trooper, Werner Foerster, was murdered. She was convicted. She was sent to jail for having taken his own weapon and shooting him twice in the head, killing him instantly. In spite of the fact she was given life in jail, she escaped, in 1979, from the Reformatory for Women in Clinton, NJ. She fled to Cuba where, since 1984, she has been granted asylum and has lived for 17 years. Castro gives asylum to the murderer of a State trooper, a woman who committed terrorist acts against the United States. This is the Government whose exports we would now finance from institutions supported by the American taxpayer. Fidel Castro knows how to end the prohibition on the financing of exports. Members of the Senate will hear we are using food and medicine as a weapon against the poor people of Cuba. It is not so. It has not been so for nearly 10 years. I know. Legislation that I sponsored in the House of Representatives, the Cuban Democracy Act, lifted prohibition on the sale of American agricultural products and medicine 10 years ago. Fidel Castro can buy anything he wants to buy, any food, any medicine. But he has to pay for it. That is the law. And that is the issue because under the provisions of this bill, now we are not allowing him just to buy, but we are going to finance the sale. Fidel Castro knows how to end that prohibition: Get terrorists out of your country, open up for biological weapons inspection, and send these 77 fugitives from justice back to the United States. Yet I know because I have been through this debate before, we will be told we are using food as a weapon. No, we are using the leverage of finance as a weapon for justice--for justice. Yet in moments you will hear, in a false argument to the American farmer, that if only we could end this embargo, if only we could finance these exports, the problems of American agriculture would be ended. Let's address that part of the argument. Let's assume we did not care about using this leverage to stop terrorism. Let's assume we did not want to use it for biological warfare leverage. Let's assume we didn't care about the 77 fugitives. Let's just take the argument on its merits with all that aside. Is it a fair argument to make to the American farmer that somehow, 90 miles off our shores, there is a market? We should compromise our principles because there is a market that will ease the financial burden of the American farmer? As this chart indicates, looking at markets around the world, there is a reason, in these 10 years, Fidel Castro has not bought American agricultural products in spite of the fact we changed the law to allow him to do so. It is the oldest reason in the world: He doesn't have any money. The purchasing power, by comparison, of a Cuban consumer is $1,700--below Honduras and Egypt. The per capita income of a Cuban is $500. There is no money. It provides no opportunity to the American farmer. That is why Castro has not taken advantage of our lifting of the prohibition of the sale of American products. Then they will argue maybe the consumer doesn't have any money in Cuba but we will sell to the Cuban Government. Oh, if it were so. Fidel Castro currently owes $11 billion to international financial institutions, among the highest per capita debt ever recorded by any nation in history. He owes another $20 billion to the former Soviet Union and other socialist countries. They all stand in line before any American financial institution would ever receive the first dollar. He owes more money for recent purchases. South Africa extended him $13 million in credit for diesel engines in 1997. It has never been paid. There was $20 million loaned for fish imports from Chile. It has never been paid. This gives you an indication of Cuba's outstanding foreign debt: $6 billion to governments; $2.7 billion to banks; and, $1.7 billion to private companies--all in arrears. I ask the authors of the farm bill exactly which American financial institution would like to ask their depositors--no less the regulatory institutions of the U.S. Government that insure--would you like a piece of this debt? Who would like to get in this line behind all of these other people? The simple truth is Fidel Castro cannot borrow from international institutions. He cannot borrow from other governments. He is certainly not in a position to borrow from American financial institutions. Since we insure those institutions, even putting aside the policy reasons I have argued, we shouldn't allow it. Finally, what will at this point be a crumbling argument, some of my colleagues may argue: Well, maybe he doesn't have money, maybe he doesn't have credit, but he can certainly bargain with our banks with Cuba's cane sugar. What sugar? Cuba is now producing less sugar than it produced in 1959. Every year's crop is less. He has already tried to barter for oil and manufactured products. He has been unable to deliver the sugar to meet the contracted price. There is no sugar. I end on this note: I think the case is compelling as far as the war on terrorism. I think the President has challenged this Congress as he has challenged every other government: You are with us or against us. Castro chose sides. He chose sides. It would be indefensible in the midst of this policy and this war on terrorism while he remains on that terrorist list to now finance these exports. But yet I know because we are a good and a generous people that some of my colleagues will be inclined to say maybe his government did these things. Maybe he can't finance the exports. Maybe it is a hollow promise to American farmers. Maybe it isn't responsible as part of the war on terrorism. But let us just show who we are. Let us do it anyway. Let us go the extra mile. We have gone the extra mile. Since 1992, the United States has approved $3 billion worth of food and medicine and humanitarian aid to Cuba. Today, we send more food and medicine to Cuba free--free--despite our relationship with their government which is more adversarial than any relationship between any other two countries on Earth. We are a generous people. We are helping the Cuban people. We have kept them alive with massive aid efforts. I rest my case. This makes no sense, and it is wrong. Senator Smith has offered an amendment that will remove provisions from this bill of allowing agricultural finance unless and until Fidel Castro gets himself removed from the terrorist list. I have an amendment at the desk that will expand this to provide that unless and until he returns fugitives from justice to the United States, he also will not be allowed to get the advantage of financing of American exports. Amendment No. 2597 to Amendment No. 2596

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I offer the amendment as a secondary amendment to Senator Smith's amendment. I ask unanimous consent that it be agreed to.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I will continue to hold the amendment. I assure Members of the Senate that unless and until I am assured that fugitives who have killed people in my State are returned as a condition of this bill that this bill will not proceed. I will continue to hold the floor. At this point, since I am not allowed to offer this amendment and it is not agreed to, I will continue on this floor if I have to read a phone book on this floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I believe I still have the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, it is my understanding now that the second-degree amendment that I have offered to Senator Smith's amendment is now incorporated?

Mr. TORRICELLI. I am happy to yield.

Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank the Senator from Florida for being an ally through the years on this issue and for so much leadership as all of us have tried to regain the freedom of the Cuban people. I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Perhaps if I can answer what I suspect the question is going to be, it was my intention that when Senator Graham finished, we would yield the floor. We had settled the matter of the secondary amendment. I assumed Senator Allen would be recognized next and, at that point, I will have yielded the floor. Senator Graham will be recognized again to make a statement.

Mr. TORRICELLI. I can't tell you how helpful it is to be reminded of these things by the Senator.

Mr. TORRICELLI. I say to the Senator from Florida, I am indeed familiar with them.