Robert Torricelli

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I want to thank the President and the leadership of the Congress for their support and immediate response to the tragic events that have transpired over the past few days. While the attack on the World Trade Center physically occurred in New York City, the emotional physical, and financial tolls will be felt throughout the Metropolitan area but especially in northern New Jersey. I have heard estimates that over 50 percent of the people employed at the World Trade Centers were New Jersey residents. The Port Authority which is headquatered at the centers is a joint, bi-State New York/New Jersey agency that coordinates infrastructure needs for the airspace, mass transit, and commuter needs of our area. When the port rebuilds, it will rebuild as a joint entity. Fire, medical and emergency personnel and equipment, as well trades workers and their heavy equipment, hospitals and triage centers as well as transportation equipment shuttling the wounded and rescuers all have emanated from New Jersey communities. Let me share with my colleagues a few examples. Six hundred wounded were transferred to New Jersey hospitals for treatment. Jersey City Medical treated 150 people; 21 were admitted overnight; St. Francis Hospital/St. Mary's in Jersey City treated 50 people and UMDNJ in Newark treated and released 17 victims. The New Jersey State Police mobilized 40 boats to ferry victims across the Hudson River and State Troopers have been sent to sort through rubble. New York Waterway has put all 24 of its ferries into service, transferring free of charge an estimated 200,000 people. The New Jersey National Guard established a field hospital at Liberty State Park that evaluated 2,600 people. At the Meadowlands, a makeshift hospital with hundreds of ambulances and 50 surgeons was created. The Jersey City Fire Department sent 4 fire trucks and Union County has sent 24 fire trucks and over 100 firefighters. The city of Trenton has sent 10 ambulance/paramedic teams. Middlesex County send 42 ambulances, 20 fire trucks and 70 police officers. Burlington County in southern New Jersey sent 20 ambulances. The Elizabeth Urban Rescue Team which specializes in confined spaces rescue has been there from day one on 24-hour rotating duty because the heroic New York City teams were wiped out in the first minutes. The cost of this effort has already reached $150,000. Regular fire personnel from Elizabeth have been dispatched to Staten Island to free Staten Island Fire personnel to go to the World Trade Center site to help. The Sheriff's and Prosecutor's Office in Hudson County which is directly across from New York City has conservatively incurred $50,000 in expenses. In Jersey City there are 60 officers working full time and countless numbers of fire fighters and equipment manning a major supply effort to New York via the Jersey City waterfront. The North Hudson Regional Fire Co. has spent over $150,000 on overtime, personnel, and equipment.

Mr. TORRICELLI. I appreciate Senator Byrd's statement and the opportunity to clarify this issue.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, the calendar and history rarely perfectly coincide. It was remarked that the 20th century really began in August of 1914 with the commencement of European hostilities. It may, on reflection, prove to be true that the 21st century did not begin when that famous ball fell in Times Square; it began on September 11, 2001. The world has now been introduced to a new and difficult struggle against terrorism, asymmetrical war, held along the fissure lines of culture, prosperity, and commitment to law. I regret that the front lines of this new struggle have formed through the communities I represent in northern New Jersey and our neighbors in New York City. Last night, children waited at home for parents who never arrived. Spouses held dinner for husbands and wives who never came home. The battlefield of this new war was Manhattan and Jersey City and Fort Lee and Queens. We are all soldiers. There is a temptation to accept that this new chapter in the war on terrorism in a new century is merely a continuum of the same. Perhaps the scale and the intensity is only different from Lebanon or Saudi Arabia or, indeed, the World Trade Center itself 8 years ago. By definition, it is fundamentally different. The very scale of this attack and the premeditation of those involved suggest that the organizations or the nations that planned this attack intended to strike at the Government of the United States itself. I offer these observations not because I differ from the President of the United States but because I offer my support and because I believe that, as a Congress and as Americans, we must all stand together in this moment when we are all tested. But I do offer a difference in my observation. The arbiter of this act of terrorism will never be a jury. It is history. It is not those who were agents in the commission of this crime that we seek but the organizations that are responsible. At the outset, it must be made clear this is not a law enforcement matter. It does not matter who rented the cars or even who flew the airplanes. They are agents of others. I will find no satisfaction in their indictment, whether they are alive or deceased. It is those who wrote the plan, harbored the conspirators, gave them sanctuary within their borders. It is not enough that we are pursuing a legal case against those who are responsible for this crime. It has become axiomatic to suggest an act of war has been committed against the United States. Those are our words. But our deeds are suggesting that we believe we were simply victims of a hijacking, that a murder was committed, a crime of large proportions but ordinary in concept. We are missing the point. If those who committed this crime wore uniforms or had a flag or a capital, the response of the United States would be clear: This operation would be run from the military, not the Justice Department. It would be the Air Force, not the FBI, conducting operations. I support the President of the United States, but I do believe, with all respect, we are not properly conceiving the magnitude of the moment. A fissure of history was reached yesterday, and in all of our sorrow and our grief, we are not yet seizing the moment. It is my belief the President of the United States should come to this Congress and ask for a declaration that since September 11, 2001, the U.S. Government is engaged in general hostilities against a series of terrorist organizations; that in these hostilities, we will not respect the sovereignty of those nations that give safe harbor to those who committed acts against our country and our people. I recognize that it is not possible with precision to identify every organization that was complicitous or involved. I also do not believe that it is necessary. Many of these terrorist organizations previously committed acts against the United States. Others are known to have planned such operations. Many have the intention of committing such acts. Together they represent a network that is a worthy and legitimate target of our hostilities. Second, I cannot return to the people of New Jersey who have lost hundreds or, tragically, even thousands of citizens without explaining the role of the U.S. Government in their defense. The scale of what occurred in the last 48 hours may have been unpredictable, but the source and the means and the targets were not. The American people have trusted this Government through our intelligence communities to defend our Nation and its people and our varied interests. This has not occurred. It is my belief that the President of the United States should form a board of general inquiry to review the actions of the U.S. intelligence community and the failures which led to this massive loss of life and compromise of national security. It can never be enough to explain that the unforeseeable happened to the unprotectable because neither is the case. Only two decades into the 20th century, Winston Churchill remarked: What an extraordinary disappointment the 20th century has been. Here in our first year of a new century, on behalf of all those at home who suffer, who have dealt with unconscionable acts, let me simply say what a disappointment the 21st century has already been. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, the U.N. World Conference Against Racism recently proceeding in Durban, South Africa, had the enormous potential to make a contribution in the historic fight against race and intolerance. Indeed, holding the conference itself in South Africa was a tribute to the people of that country and their long struggle against racism and apartheid. It could have been a seminal moment in the evolution, in our long fight for individual liberty. While much progress has been made, we can all attest that racism and discrimination continue to affect hundreds of millions of people around the globe. This conference had such potential. It could have addressed issues such as the rising intolerance toward refugees, intolerance towards asylum seekers, the unjustified denial of citizenship because of race, religion, or origin. The conference had the potential for the United States to demonstrate the great progress we have made in this country on issues of tolerance, of the fight against racism. In showcasing the American experience, nothing could have more vividly demonstrated the changes in the United States than the presence of Colin Powell, an American Secretary of State, not only of African ancestry but of ancestry beyond our own shores. Instead of realizing this potential, the conference has collapsed in a storm of recrimination and venomous rhetoric. The United States and Israel have walked out of the conference. It appears that others will soon follow. The conference, which was intended to be forward looking and to come up with a plan of action for fighting racism around the globe has instead destroyed itself because of old hatreds and the resurrection of discredited agendas. The insistence of Israel's enemies on using this conference to launch vile attacks on Israel, to attempt to equate Zionism with racism, has fully and completely justified the Bush administration's decision to withdraw from the conference. I take the floor today because on a bipartisan basis I believe it should be clear this Senate supports the Bush administration's decision to leave the conference, to attack its agenda, and to make clear we will have no part of it. For many years, Arab regimes have used the United States to advance their anti-Israel agenda. What is happening in Durban today is not new. The tragedy is the lesson has not been learned. In 1975, with the support of the so-called nonaligned nations, these regimes succeeded in passing the infamous ``Zionism equals racism'' resolution. After much work, the United States, to our considerable credit, had that odious resolution rescinded in 1991. The U.N. Secretary General, Kofi Annan, has referred to that resolution as the ``low point in the history of the United Nations.'' To his credit, Annan has acknowledged the historical U.N. bias against Israel and called for the normalization of Israel's status within the U.N. Indeed, normalization has been acquired. For 40 years, Arab and Muslim nations prevented Israel from becoming a member of any regional group. By that denial of regional status, Israel and Israel alone is prohibited from becoming an eligible member of the Security Council. This tremendous injustice was finally rectified only last year when Israel was able to join the Western European and Others Group. Despite the Secretary General's leadership in trying to improve U.N. resolutions regarding Israel, we are now forced to fight these old battles again, those seeking to defend not only anti-Israel but indeed anti-Semitism for their own political purposes. While the anti-Semitic rhetoric being shouted by demonstrators in the streets of Durban is alarming enough, it is more appalling to see the rhetoric being placed in official negotiated documents of a U.N. conference itself. This demonstrates that not only have we not made progress, but indeed this is as bad as any action taken in the unfortunate history of the U.N. on this subject. The declaration being produced by the conference and the program of action which flows from it are intended to help countries strengthen national mechanisms to promote the human rights of the very victims of racism. But including anti-Semitic language in these documents cannot possibly have a positive effect for the conference agenda. If the anti- Israel language is allowed to stand in the conference declaration, it will have real and lasting effects. The language proposed in this conference will only serve to encourage virulent anti-Semitic language pouring forth from the Palestinian media and media of those of Israel's neighbors. The language of intolerance and hatred is a key factor in inciting the brutal acts of terrorism now being perpetrated against Israel's civilians. So an organization created and dedicated to peace is now promoting language, in an official conference, during a time of violence in the Middle East, that can only result in the loss of life and further hatred. American withdrawal from this conference sends an emphatic message to the Arab world that the United States commitment to Israel has not wavered and our concept of the United Nations as an organization dedicated to peace and resolving these very disputes has not changed. The administration's decision to abandon the racism conference once it was clear that Israel would continue to be singled out was not a partisan action; it was a principled action. I fully endorse it. I hope the United States will defend any nation, not just Israel, which is unfairly singled out for criticism. While I support this decision, I believe there are larger problems involved that deserve our attention. The forces that compelled us to withdraw from the conference--anti-westernism, anti-Americanism--have come together in the U.N. before and may represent a growing challenge to our country. So the decision to withdraw because of anti-Semitism was proper. But it may not be the only justifiable reason. There are others. Only a few months ago, in May of this year, we had another debacle involving the United Nations when the United States was voted out of the U.N. Human Rights Commission. What an unbelievable outrage. I do not stand in the well of the Senate believing that the United States has not committed historic acts worthy of criticism; clearly we have. I do not argue that the United States is beyond criticism for actions in our generation; clearly such acts have occurred. I am willing to have our Nation measured against the highest standard. But for the United States of America to be removed from the Human Rights Commission upon the votes of an organization which includes Iraq, Libya, and Cuba is an outrage. So while I take the floor today in light of the current acts designed against Israel, I do so in the context of the actions of the United Nations on a continuing basis with regard to many countries, including our own. The United States has had a seat on the Human Rights Commission continuously since 1947. We have been a clear leader on the Commission, enforcing investigations of human rights abuses around the world. Indeed, U.N. High Commissioner Mary Robinson has said that the United States has made a ``historic contribution'' to the Commission. Indeed, I see no need to justify the actions of the United States with regard to human rights. Indeed, it is not because we don't defend human rights that we were removed from the Commission; it is because we do defend human rights that we were removed from the Commission. Had we not taken actions against Cuba, had we not spoken up against atrocities in North Korea and China, had we been silent about actions in Africa and Latin America, there is no doubt the United States would have remained on the Commission. We are victims because of what we have done right, not because of what we have done wrong. I have no doubt that our standing up against anti-Semitism and in defense of Israel will now strengthen the case against the United States as an advocate of human rights. So be it. Let the nations of the world balance the actions of the United Nations and their own regimes against the historic role of the United States, considering our historic difficulties, and let history be the judge. Which institution, the U.S. Government or the United Nations itself, has been the more consistent and dependable defender of the weak and the vulnerable, with a principled stand for human rights? I will accept that judgment of history, and there is no need to wait for the result; it is clear. The U.S. Government has had no peer in defending the rights of peoples around the globe. I take the floor as a partisan Democrat involved throughout my career in the fight for human rights and an active involvement in foreign policy to salute this administration. Secretary Powell did not go to Durban. He made the right decision. When the administration withdrew from the Durban conference, President Bush made the right decision. Durban is not our place. If we must fight the fight against racism, the fight against anti-Semitism, alone, without the United Nations, from the perch of Washington rather than the perch of the U.N. conferences in New York or regional conferences in Durban or Switzerland or anywhere else, we may fight alone but we fight in good company. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I make a point of order a quorum is not present.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Madam President, I rise today to bring to your attention a noteworthy television program as we in Government continue to encourage broadcasters to produce more ``family entertainment'' programming. It is a program that reflects a commitment to family programming by a cable television network and an individual, Mary Amoroso. The program is called ``Real Life with Mary Amoroso,'' and appears on the Comcast Cable Network's CN8 Channel. It can be seen in about four million households from the Washington DC to New York City mid-Atlantic region. Completing its fifth season, the program is a multiple Emmy Award nominee. With criticism around the country about a lack of quality family programming, Real Life with Mary Amoroso has stood as proud proof that family entertainment can be accomplished. Real Life with Mary Amoroso has tackled issues ranging from grieving for the loss of a child to finding a job after you've been laid off to Internet dating. The show has focused on government's involvement in personal lives, in topics ranging from the human impacts of Federal approval of stem-cell research to the effect of divorce on today's families. In fact, comedian/philosopher, Steve Allen, father of the talk-show format, told the show's producers that he'd never had a better interview after he appeared on the program to talk about ``Dumbth''-- his book about the ``dumbing-down'' of American discourse. ``We talk about birth, death, dating, child development and parenting issues, addictions and abuse, public range and school yard shootings, mid-life crises, and aging,'' said show host Mary Amoroso. ``If our viewers are living it and worrying about it, we want to talk about it and offer them resources and connections.'' I would like to recognize Ms. Amoroso, who is also a columnist on family issues for the Bergen Record newspaper in New Jersey, for her excellent work and dedication to these family-friendly formats. The Comcast cable television network and the Roberts family owners also deserve a great deal of credit for its commitment to this initiative.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. president, I request unanimous consent to engage the distinguished chairwoman of the VA/HUD appropriations Subcommittee in a colloquy about a critical health care matter facing the veterans in my State of New Jersey.

Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank my distinguished colleague from Maryland. In my State of New Jersey, the veterans population is facing an epidemic in receiving the health care services they need. They have earned these health care benefits by virtue of their service to our country in the Armed Forces, and I believe, as many other Members of this body believe, that we should make every effort to ensure that the men and women who have served their country in times of war should have access to quality and dependable health care when they need it. The problems that the veterans of New Jersey come across in receiving the care that they need are many. Each year, under the Veterans Service Integrated Network, our region has been seeing its veterans health care funding dwindle as it is reallocated to other parts of the country. This means that there are fewer hospital beds, fewer doctors, fewer nurses, and fewer support staff members to respond to the needs of the 750,000 veterans who still live in New Jersey. This also means that there are fewer facilities where veterans can go to get checkups, prescriptions for much needed drugs or therapy and rehabilitation for ailments incurred during their service. Indeed, a veteran in New Jersey who puts in a request to have a routine checkup may have to wait several months before they receive an appointment. I cannot overstate the critical situation that thousands of New Jersey veterans face each day. There is a severe backlog of appointments at all of the New Jersey's veterans hospitals and outpatient clinics and unless this matter is addressed in the near future, the problem will only become more acute. Earlier this year, I met with members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars from New Jersey. In our conversation, they stated that one of the ways we can alleviate the current problem being faced by the veterans in our state is to establish a new outpatient clinic in Passaic County, NJ. This new clinic could provide services to veterans throughout the northern part of my state where a large concentration of veterans live. Currently, many veterans in this region of New Jersey have to travel long distances to get health care, some even as far as New York City. The House VA/HUD Appropriations Subcommittee agreed with the merits of establishing a new outpatient clinic in Passaic County, and encouraged the VA to establish one there. It is my hope that the members of the Senate will recognize this need as well and encourage the VA to locate a new outpatient clinic in Passaic County. It will provide a great measure of relief to a veterans population that has been underserved for many years.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Madam President, I rise to introduce a bill that is intended to provide tax relief for people who have lost their jobs due to the current economic slowdown and the fact that many corporations are now forced to downsize their workforces. The number of layoffs this calendar year is approaching an all-time high. There were over 770,000 job cuts during the first six (6) months of the year. U.S. employers cut 124,852 jobs during the month of June. The June figure increased 56 percent from May, 80,140, and marked the sixth time in seven months that job cuts exceeded 100,000. Last month the number was actually 624 percent, over June, 2000 when job cuts totaled just 17,241 which was a three (3) year record low. I am introducing a bill which will provide tax relief to these displaced workers. This legislation will exclude the first $5,000 of severance pay received by people who may be adjusting to an extended period of unemployment in an economy that is no longer bustling. This exclusion is available for any displaced worker whose overall severance payment does not exceed $125,000. Under present tax law, severance payments are included in gross income. However, severance pay is not intended to be included as part of a worker's wage. Rather, it is intended to be a supplement to assist them during unemployment. Displaced workers often lose nearly a third of their severance packages to taxes. The lump sums they receive in severance pay drives them up into a higher tax bracket that is not representative of their true income or standard of living. Corporations are already allowed to write-off the severance packages they provide to laid off employees, yet the workers are often adversely effected. For good reasons this body has devoted much time and attention this session to determining how to return to American tax payers that which is rightfully theirs. Clearly, these displaced workers deserve what is truly fair tax treatment at a time when they could truly benefit from it. The economic prosperity of the last decade benefitted most Americans. Unfortunately, many of the industries most adversely effected by the current economic cycle contributed greatly to our unprecedented growth. Therefore, it is inexcusable for our government to disregard the needs of these displaced workers. It is important that our government take steps to help these workers by removing the unfair tax burden that is placed upon them.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I congratulate Senator Murray for her success on Transportation appropriations. This Senate, commencing a summer recess, is required to deal with Mexican trucks and northeastern cows. We now have one success behind us, and one more to go. There are those who are going to claim that our insistence on the inspection of Mexican trucks is somehow a defeat for free trade. Nothing could be further from the truth. The commitment of this Senate to free, fair, and open trade is complete. We understand that the foundation of our prosperity rests upon open markets and free trade. But because we worship at the altar of free trade does not mean we have abandoned our faith in truck safety, the rights of labor, or environmental protection. We must keep a commitment to all of these things at the same time. The roads of the United States are open to Mexican trucks--as they are open to Canadian trucks--when Mexico can pass a regimen of truck weights, the licensing of drivers for hazardous cargo, that licenses are issued to 21-year-old drivers, and that the Mexican trucks can meet our safety requirements. Upon current inspections, nearly 40 percent of Mexican trucks are failing inspections. Our borders are not ready for 24-hour inspections to ensure safety. We want Mexico to have access to American highways. But for 50 years we have insisted that all trucks on our highways have limited weights, properly licensed drivers, and disclose hazardous cargoes. As we have insisted upon these requirements for Canadian and American drivers, we insist upon them for Mexican drivers. We welcome that day. What we have done today is a success.

Mr. TORRICELLI. I know in time Mexico will be able to comply with these requirements. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Reserving the right to object, could I have 2 minutes after Senator Murray?

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Reserving the right to object, could I add, when the Senator from Minnesota has finished, following the remarks of the Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, I be recognized to speak for 5 minutes?

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, for purposes of a unanimous consent request only, I yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania. Amendment No. 1191, Withdrawn

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, for purposes of a unanimous consent request only, I yield to the Senator from Wisconsin.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Louisiana so she may conclude her remarks.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, the Senator from Pennsylvania has withdrawn his amendment for the moment. But the Senate should be under no illusions. The amendment will return, and this fight will go on. It will go on tonight. It will go on tomorrow. It will go on next week. It will go on. There are States in this Union that have asked, to protect their own interests, to be able to be in dairy compacts--States in the South, States in New England, and States in the Northeast. As sovereign members of the United States of America, the legislatures in our States have voted to join these compacts. It is a right that no one should deny us. We have a right to it; we have a need for it; and we are going to insist on it. This can be an important day in agricultural policy in the history of this country. For a long time, States such as my own, because we care about the Union and we care about farmers across America, have remained silent. I have voted for wheat programs and corn programs and peanut programs and cotton programs. I have voted for crops I have never heard of. I do it because it is in the national interest. It is usually not in the interest of the State of New Jersey. This is in our interest, a $17 billion agricultural appropriations bill. If one takes the entire Northeastern part of the United States, the most densely populated part of the country which pays the highest taxes in America, we have $200 million worth of appropriations of $17 billion. Enough. Enough. Every time there is an emergency, every time there is an agricultural disaster, every time some farmer has a problem, the Senators from Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, Vermont, and Maine come to this floor to do our duty because we want to support the country. Now we want support. Our dairy farmers are not in trouble. They are out of business. We ask for no money. We want a compact. This compact will not cost the American taxpayers a dollar, not a dime. It supports prices, because without those price supports we cannot remain in the dairy business. The price of land in New Jersey where dairy farmers operate is $10,000 an acre, $25,000 an acre. The taxes dairy farmers pay could be $100,000. Their labor costs are high. Their energy costs are high. What is it we are to do, have no farmers left in New England, none in the mid-Atlantic, close down agriculture in the South? That is what this is about. What is it we ask that is so unreasonable? We are not asking for any money. We take nothing away from any other State. We only ask the actions of our own legislature be recognized. America is changing. From Washington, D.C., to Boston, MA, the Nation is becoming one massive suburb. Shopping centers follow shopping centers, malls follow malls, highways upon highways. We do not fight for agricultural prices. This amendment is not just about how much a dairy farmer earns; it is about not losing the last of our agricultural land. It is about the great environmental issue of this decade, stopping the destruction of open space. Since 1961, New Jersey, which had 128,000 dairy cows, is down to 20,000 cows, a loss of 108,000 producing dairy cows. Since 1950, when the State of New Jersey had 26,900 farms with 1,200,000 acres, we have lost a quarter of the acreage and have but a little more than 9,000 farms left from 26,900. It is about saving land. It is about a way of life. It is about a local culture. A quality of life depends upon more than suburban row house upon suburban row house. It is a chance to drive with one's child through some open space. A healthy life and a good community is about not having to buy milk that comes in on a railroad car from halfway across the country but a local farm, with a fresh product, whether it is tomatoes or corn or fresh milk. For 200 years, from Maryland to Maine, people who have lived in the Northeast and New England have enjoyed that quality of life. It is being lost, and that is what this is about. Two years ago, I came to the Chamber to wage the same fight. Since I spoke 24 months ago for this same amendment, when we lost, the number of dairy farms in New Jersey has declined from 168 to 138, another 17 percent loss. In the last decade, we have lost 42 percent of our remaining dairy farms. I was here 2 years ago. I am speaking about it again tonight. If necessary, I will speak about it 2 years from now. It is clear to me, if we fail tonight, there will be no one left to defend. This is our last stand. I hand it to my colleagues in the Midwest. Win this fight one more time and we may never have to raise it again. There will be no dairy farmers left in my State. Give it another 10 years, there will be none left in New York. Give it 20 years, there will be none left in Vermont. It will be a success. Congratulations; some working class people, who have lived on the land for 200, 300 years, produced fresh produce for their neighbors, were put out of business. They were not put out of business to save the Federal Government money, because the amendment costs no money, but just to deny our own State the right to set a price so a farmer can get a decent return on his money. What is the real price? It is the 138 dairy farmers who remain. It is the loss of a quality of life from the fresh produce for local people and fresh milk. It also means this: Next year, like this year, another 10,000 acres of New Jersey will be plowed under to suburban development. We have lost 600,000 such acres in recent decades. For almost 2 years, this has accelerated because the USDA has repeatedly announced plummeting milk prices that have directly lowered the ability of dairy farmers to earn a living. Prices have dropped as much as 40 percent in a month, and middle class farmers with high costs have had to absorb this cost. The result is known. I have already told it. They go out of business. There is no other answer but to allow this compact to go ahead. I cannot say it might not cost consumers some money. One estimate is it could cost 4 cents, though, indeed, in New England, after they joined, their prices actually declined. It may be 4 cents more; it may be 4 cents less if the State is in the compact, but it does provide price stability. I do not know a person in New Jersey, if it did cost 4 cents, who would not pay it to know that the last of our agricultural land is not going to be lost. It would be a fair bargain for consumers and for our quality of life. There are those who will argue maybe it does not cost consumers more money, maybe it saves the land, but it does cost Federal benefit programs money, programs such as WIC for children, for families, or school milk programs. The compact, by law, is required to reimburse Federal nutrition programs such as WIC and school lunch programs that use 68 million pounds of milk per year, many in my State, to ensure they do not have higher costs. They are protected under these provisions. Nothing I am suggesting to the Senate is theoretical in its benefit. The compact is not new. New England has had a compact. It worked. It stabilized retail milk prices and provided a safety net for producers. Indeed, New England retail milk prices were 5 cents per gallon lower on average than retail milk prices nationally following the Northeast Dairy Compact initiation. It did not cost consumers money. It saved consumers money, while costing the Federal Government nothing. On September 30, the compact for New England expires. The consequences are enormous, and it will help my colleagues to understand why we come to the Senate across the South, across the mid-Atlantic, across New England, to insist on its reauthorization, because the price is so high and the consequences so devastating that no matter what it takes, we cannot allow this legislation to go forward without Senator Specter's amendment.

Mr. TORRICELLI. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from New York.

Mr. TORRICELLI. I respond to the Senator from New York, as I indicated perhaps before he entered the Chamber, 40 percent of the dairy farms in New Jersey in the last 10 years have been lost. I am not certain any will survive the next 10 years if there is not a dairy compact. The situation in my State is somewhat more acute than New York, but certainly the pattern of the rate of decline is the same.

Mr. TORRICELLI. It is the loss of dairy farms, and we are not doing in our region what other States did and by right we are entitled to do. When their farms and products were in trouble, they asked for Federal appropriations. We asked for no appropriation. We asked for the right for a fair price for our dairy farmers. When I began my remarks, I quoted the remarks of the Senator from New York in the caucus that there is a $17 billion appropriations bill and our entire region of the country is getting $200 million in appropriations. In the next couple days, when we object to the bill and Senators ask how can you jeopardize this entire legislation for the whole country, recognize this is what matters for us, and it may be all that is in the bill that matters, and that is why we are going to take a stand here and do what is required across the region, across the South to ensure these few remaining farms can survive. I thank the Senator from New York for his support and leadership, and I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for offering the amendment. We will be back to fight another day. I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, as most Members of the Senate, I have listened to this debate patiently for many hours. I have heard many things said that Senators need to consider before this debate comes to a close. Mostly I have heard that the United States somehow will be violating our treaty obligations with Mexico if we insist upon the safety of our citizens on our highways from Mexican trucks. I have heard that this Senate would be turning its back on the NAFTA treaty. I have heard it not a few times but 5 times or 10 times. For the consideration of my colleagues, I will answer it but once, because this Government does not violate a treaty obligation and the Senate does not violate the law or its obligations. Indeed, it has been said before, but in a recent arbitration panel decision looking at the NAFTA treaty and our obligations to our citizens and truck safety, it has been said: The United States may not be required to treat applications from Mexican trucking firms in exactly the same manner as applications from United States or Canadian firms . . . U.S. authorities are responsible for the safe operations of trucks within United States territory, whether ownership is United States, Canadian, or Mexican. It is not our intention nor will this law violate our treaty obligations. It simply says this: 50 years of efforts to protect Americans on our highways are not abandoned. The facts are clear. Senator Murray simply wants to know that Mexican trucks entering America will be inspected and they will be safe. Our intentions are well founded. Mexican truck on average are 15 years old; Americans' are 4. Mexican trucks weigh 135,000 pounds; American trucks, 85,000 pounds. Mexican drivers are 18 years old; American, 21. American trucks are documented for hazardous or toxic cargo. Until recently, Mexican trucks were not. Indeed, the evidence supports what Senator Murray is attempting to do. Forty percent of all Mexican trucks now entering the United States are failing inspections. This is not an idle problem. One hundred thousand Americans a year are being injured, or their children are injured, or their neighbors are injured in serious trucking accidents in America. We share our neighborhood roads and our interstate highways with 18-wheel trucks weighing tens of thousands of pounds. For what purpose has this Senate and our State legislatures for all these years required special engineering of trucks if we will not require it of Mexican trucks? Why do we have weight limitations? Why do we implement laws about special training and driving if we are to abandon that effort now? Of the 27 border crossings between Mexico and the United States, 2 have inspectors 24 hours a day. What would the Senator from Texas and the Senator from Arizona do in these hours when Mexican trucks without training, without weight requirements, and without inspections arrive at America's borders if there is no one there to weigh them or inspect them or assure that our families are safe? That is a difference of what we do today. Senator Murray requires it. The Senator from Texas would not. The United States has a right to insist under NAFTA that our citizens are safe. No, I say to Senator Gramm, we don't have a right; we have an obligation recognized by an arbitration panel looking at Mexican law and American law and the NAFTA treaty. I have never seen it more clear that the Senate has operated within its obligations and its rights to our citizens than in recognition of this amendment. I do not know how long we will have to be here, but I can tell you this: If it requires tonight, tomorrow night, next week, next month, this Senator will not be responsible for American families losing their lives. I will stand for our treaty obligations, but first I will stand for our families. I commend the Senator from Washington for her tenacity and her vision. I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Washington not only for yielding me the time but for leading this effort in what has been a difficult and important moment for the Senate. Madam President, it is fairly said that in an institution such as the Senate, every interest is ultimately represented; in an enormous country of varied industries and peoples, there is someone who will represent every cause. The cause that Senator McCain brings to the Senate today is fair trade. Indeed, this is a cause in which we have all participated in recent years. I voted for the Canadian-American Free Trade Agreement. I have come to this Chamber in favor of the World Trade Organization. We have all understood that open, free, and fair trade is a foundation of our prosperity. But, ultimately, Senator McCain makes the point not for free trade, but that any good cause can be taken to its illogical conclusion. This is the limit of common sense, and it is a collision between our fundamental belief in free trade and our belief in a variety of other causes for more than a generation. We believe in free trade, but we also believe in a number of other things I want to outline for the Senate today. We believe in protecting American citizens on our highways. We believe in the highest standards of automotive construction. We believe in emissions controls. We believe in safety from hazardous cargo. We believe in licensing and training drivers. We believe in all of these things. We believe in free trade, to be certain, but not to the exclusion of everything else. That is the issue before the Senate. For 50 years, we have looked, in horror, at the death toll on American highways. Every year, 100,000 Americans are injured on our American highways with large trucks hauling cargo. Not hundreds but thousands of Americans lose their lives. Democrats and Republicans and State legislatures and the American Congress have responded through the years by insisting on weight limitations, training, and better engineering. It has been a struggle of generations to reduce these numbers, even as our economy grew. The Senator from Arizona would bring to this Senate Chamber today a proposal that on January 1 the United States will allow Mexican trucks to come across the borders on to the highways of every State in the Nation, recognizing that at the 27 crossing points from Mexico to America there are inspectors, 24 hours a day, at 2. Every other road, during all those hours of the day, is without inspection for weight or qualifications or licenses. Those trucks will traverse our highways. Would the Senator from Arizona come to this Senate Chamber and ask that we repeal weight limitations on American trucks? I think not. Would he come to this Senate Chamber and ask that we repeal emissions controls? I doubt it. Would he like to offer a requirement that we reduce licensing requirements from the age of 21 to 18 years old? How about the licensing of the trucks themselves? How about background checks for criminal activity for those who will haul hazardous cargo? I doubt it. The Senator from Arizona is a reasonable man. He cares about his constituents and, obviously, his country. No Member of this Senate would propose any of those things. Yet that is the practical effect of exactly what he offers. Mexico, until recently, has had no restrictions on hazardous cargo-- no warnings, no signs, no background checks. Those cargoes will flow into America. Mexico does not have the emissions controls of the United States that have been so important in my State and other urban areas around the country. Those trucks will come into the United States. Ten years ago, Senators rose in this Chamber--to the man and woman-- as we witnessed hazardous cargoes being dumped into our rivers and along our highways, as people dumped these dangerous cargoes. We did background checks to ensure the highest integrity of those hauling such cargoes. Mexico does not. One day it might. Today, it does not. Those trucks will enter America. Why would we do indirectly--by allowing unlicensed, uninspected Mexican trucks into the United States--that which no logical person would do directly in repealing our own laws? This is the effect. And here is the further reality: One day, if NAFTA succeeds, the regulatory systems between Mexico and the United States will be similar as they are between the United States and Canada. One day, respect for environmental protection, hazardous cargoes, and labor rights will be similar. That will be a good day for all nations. And in that equalization, this border can truly be liberalized and opened fully and fairly, for the movement of peoples and cargoes as we now want it, for trade under NAFTA. We have not reached that point. These are fundamentally different transportation systems. The average Mexican truck is 15 years old. That means Mexican highways have trucks that may be 20, 25, and 30 years old. The average truck on the interstate highway system in the United States is 4 years old--with modern emissions controls, modern braking systems, antilock braking systems, and equipment for foul weather, with proper communications. I respect my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. But as they rise to defend NAFTA, who will rise in this Senate Chamber and defend the average American family, who rides the interstate highway system, with their children strapped in the back seat, to go out for the afternoon, already sharing our interstate highway system with massive 18-wheel trucks, sometimes two and three trucks long, a necessity of a modern economy, now sharing that road with 18-year-old drivers, potentially in 15-, 20-, and 25-year-old trucks, hauling massive cargo while unlicensed, uninspected, potentially harzardous cargo? It is not a theoretical threat. Of those Mexican trucks that now are inspected, theoretically, arguably the best of the Mexican trucks, since they are subjecting themselves to inspection, 40 percent are failing. The most common element: their brakes don't work; second, inadequate stoplights. Who in this Senate wants to be responsible for telling the first American family to lose a wife or a child that this was at the alter of free trade? Free trade to be sure, but have we become so blinded in our faith in free trade that we have lost our commitment to all other principles, including the safety of our own constituents? I have seen causes without merit in the Chamber of the Senate before, but never a cause that so little deserved advocacy. To be intellectually honest, the authors of this amendment that would strike Senator Murray's language in the bill should come to the floor with the following proposal: The United States has a limit of 85,000 pounds for trucks because heavier trucks destroy our roads and cost the taxpayers billions of dollars in repair. Mexican trucks are 135,000 pounds. Come to the Senate floor and repeal the American limit and make it identical with Mexico, if that is what you believe. American drivers are 21 years old. In Mexico, they are 18. Come to the Senate floor and repeal the 21-year-old limit. We are licensing these drivers to ensure they can handle hazardous cargo and toxic waste. Come to the Senate floor and repeal that background requirement. I do not believe Senator Murray's language is perfect. I do not believe in a year or in 18 months we can reconcile differences between the trucking industry in Mexico and the United States. Indeed, I do not believe we can do so in a decade. I am certain of this: There is no chance of having an inspection regime in place by January 1--none. This is not only wrong; this is irresponsible. I, for one, if I were the only Member of this institution, would not have my fingerprints on the loss of life that will follow. Yes, there is an advocate for every cause in the Senate. Perhaps every cause should be heard, every voice should be recognized. This cause does not deserve advocacy. Free trade, yes, but to the exclusion of the safety and interests of our citizens, never. I rise in support of Senator Murray's language and urge the Senate to reject the amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona. I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington for yielding the time. I rise in opposition to efforts by Senator Gramm and Senator McCain to strike the Murray language regarding access by Mexican motor carriers to United States highways. In fact, while I commend Senator Murray for her efforts to reach compromise with regard to access to United States highways by Mexican truck companies--I am indeed even opposed to her compromise--I believe that any compromise is going to result in danger to American motorists and believe the better course is for the Senate to follow the leadership of the House of Representatives and ban these trucks unless and until we are certain that American motorists can be safe. Senator Dorgan and I have prepared such an amendment and are considering offering it. Obviously, that can only be done if, indeed, we begin by defeating Senator McCain's efforts. While serving in the House of Representatives, I opposed the NAFTA treaty. I believed then, as I believe now, that for all of the advantages of integrating the economies of North America, NAFTA was a missed opportunity. It was a missed opportunity to establish regulatory environmental and labor requirements that would protect both our natural environment and also our human resources. Now we are about to make the same mistake again at an enormous price. I do not believe NAFTA or any international law imposes on the United States an obligation to lower or ignore safety standards for our citizens in the name of free trade. I believe in free trade. I have often voted for free trade. I believe its economic advantages to our Nation are overwhelming. But our first obligation is always to protect the health and well-being of American citizens. If there is a question as to whether allowing Mexican trucks immediate and unlimited access will endanger American citizens, one need look no further than developments along our southern border in the last decade. Since the enactment of NAFTA, the number of Mexican commercial trucks crossing between our countries has increased by 324 percent. There are over 4.5 million commercial truck crossings a year into our Southern States. Only 1 percent of these vehicles are inspected by U.S. personnel. Thirty-six percent of those trucks inspected failed basic safety standards for such things as faulty brakes, broken lights, unsafe transportation, or dangerous cargo. As this chart illustrates, the percentage of trucks ordered off the roads because of faulty brakes or hazardous and dangerous or toxic cargoes is 50 percent higher in Mexican trucks than in America trucks and nearly four times as high as with Canadian trucks. If you were to extrapolate this number on the basis of actually inspecting all those trucks crossing the American border, 1.5 million truck crossings would pose a safety hazard, the vast majority of which are obviously undetected. Public Citizen estimates that were we to do nothing, there would be an additional 3 million truck crossings. Using this 36 percent failure rate, that means, incredibly, that we could expect 1 million hazardous truck crossings per year from Mexico to the United States. Based on our current experience, 1 million trucks are going to enter into the States that Members of this Senate represent with faulty brakes, hazardous cargo, unsafe lighting, and unsafe design. How many lives will be consumed by 1 million faulty trucks on America's highways? It is a question no one can answer. But every Senator can agree upon this: It is going to cost lives--not maybe, not perhaps. People will lose their lives. This problem is driven by systemic flaws within the Mexican regulatory system which result in low compliance, lax enforcement, and little or no sanctions for violations. The chart on my left demonstrates the stark difference between American and Mexican truck regulations, beginning with driver fatigue. In order to assure that drivers are alert on American highways, American truckdrivers are limited to 10 hours of consecutive driving. Even with this American limit of 10 consecutive hours on the road, driver fatigue still causes one-third of all truck accidents in the United States. Only months ago, Mexico instituted its first limitations on hours of service. But most trucks in Mexico are exempt from the limitation. Imagine American highways with Mexican truckdrivers who have no experience with these limitations and who lack compliance with driving for limited hours. Truckdrivers from Mexico earn, on average, $7 per day driving these truck rigs across the United States. I can tell you this about a truckdriver who earns $7 a day to feed his family. Having him stop driving after 10 hours when he lives in those economic circumstances, not being accustomed to these regulations, having no history of them, with questionable enforcement-- these trucks are going to be driven for hours and hours past current regulations. Second, logbooks: In the United States, all truckdrivers are required to keep detailed logbooks of their driving time, cargo, and destination and to present them, on demand, for safety. In Mexico, the law for keeping logbooks is not enforced, and border inspectors have reported that virtually none of the Mexican drivers entering the United States uses these logbooks--virtually none. Weight limits: American trucks cannot exceed 80,000 pounds and are often inspected by weigh stations throughout the Interstate Highway System. Eighty-three percent of the fatal truck accidents in the United States involve trucks that are over 26,000 pounds, clearly establishing that heavier trucks are the cause of most fatal truck accidents. In Mexico, the weight limit is an incredible 135,000 pounds, or 28 tons higher than the American limit. Equally as disconcerting as this higher weight limit is that even should the limit be reduced, there is inadequate infrastructure or even space along the border to perform weight compliance checks. Seventy percent of inspection sites in the United States have room for only one or two trucks. Not only are these trucks out of compliance, not only are they dangerous, but even if we were requiring compliance, we do not have the infrastructure to do it. These trucks are coming to American roads. It is a safety problem, to be certain, that is going to cause loss of life. It is also an invitation to massive damage to American highways, massive damage to highways and bridges that are not designed for these kinds of extraordinary weights. Hazardous materials: In the United States, all hazardous materials must be clearly marked with an official placard when transported, and all truckdrivers transporting hazardous materials must be specifically licensed. This has been done to ensure safety that when hazardous materials go through our neighborhoods and our cities and our States, we know the driver is competent, but we also know that driver is traceable and responsible if those toxic or hazardous materials are dumped in water supplies or streams or neighborhoods because of a long problem of criminal and even organized criminal activity in dumping these hazardous materials. Nearly a quarter of all trucks entering the United States from Mexico are transporting hazardous materials but only 1 out of 14 is properly identified. Age: The average age of a commercial truck in the United States is 4\1/2\ years. In Mexico, the average truck is 15 years old. There are few truck companies in America that operate any trucks that are 15 years old. ``Average'' or ``median'' age means a significant portion of Mexico's trucks is 20, 25, and 30 years old. By definition, such a truck is not safe to be operating on the American Interstate Highway System. Lest anyone think my concerns are solely on the Mexican side of the border, let me discuss for a moment the failure of the United States to properly prepare for an inspection program. On the assumption that Senator McCain's efforts will fail, we are left with Senator Murray's efforts to reach a compromise on this to try to improve this system. We hope she succeeds. But if she does, it will require a Federal inspection system. Today, Federal and State inspectors are on duty 24 hours a day at only 2 of the 27 border crossings with Mexico. If a Mexican truck enters a border crossing when no one is there, it is not subject to inspection. The Department of Transportation, under these proposals, is going to issue operating certificates to Mexican firms based on their answers to questionnaires. The Department will have 18 months to perform a safety audit on the firm. But the firm's trucks can freely travel throughout the United States during this 18-month period when the questionnaires are being reviewed. Second, the inadequacy of the U.S. inspection infrastructure is an invitation to problems. Many State inspectors who augment Federal inspectors do not even routinely check for licenses and documents. Most border crossings lack any telecommunications, so the inspection personnel cannot even check on the validity of licenses and registrations being offered at border crossings. I make these points to demonstrate that the Mexican trucking industry as well as the American inspection system are not ready to protect the American driving public. There is no infrastructure. There is inadequate personnel. There are not weigh stations. There are not even telephones. There are not parking spaces. There is an avalanche of old Mexican trucks, without requirements for safety or background or design, that are coming to the United States. This Nation has spent more than 50 years modernizing its trucking industry, learning about safety, training drivers, ensuring that they understand how to operate these rigs. After 50 years of experience, and lowering mortality rates, we are now opening our borders to Mexican trucks. I recognize that this issue is difficult because of our close relations with Mexico and our obligations under NAFTA. Indeed, on February 6 an international arbitration panel ruled that the United States cannot bar all Mexican applicants from entering the United States. The United States wants to comply with its international obligations. But the arbitration panel also found that because of vast differences between the two regulatory regimes, the United States did not have to treat Mexican applicants the same as it did United States or Canadian applicants. The panel indicated that NAFTA did not restrict the ability of the United States to implement measures to ensure that Mexican trucking companies and their drivers meet United States standards. I quote: Nor does it (NAFTA) require that Mexican-domiciled firms currently providing trucking services in the U.S. be allowed to continue to do so, if and when they fail to comply with U.S. safety regulations. Later on the panel added: U.S. authorities are responsible for the safe operation of trucks within U.S. territory, whether ownership is American, Canadian or Mexican. I believe the authority of the U.S. Government in this area is clear. We have the right--indeed, we have the obligation--to ensure that our citizens are safe and our highways are operated to the very highest standards. The record in the United States, for all of our efforts, is not overwhelmingly positive. Despite 50 years of efforts, the highest design requirements in the world, the best training in the world, over 5,000 Americans are killed every year and over 100,000 people are injured on American highways because of accidents with heavy trucks. There is no one in the Senate who can credibly argue that if Mexican trucks are allowed in the United States without adequate inspection, without modernizing the infrastructure, without a tremendous change in the operating performance of these old Mexican trucks, with poorly trained drivers, and no experience with modern regulations, these 5,000 deaths are not going to be increased and the loss of life will not be considerable. Mr. President, I believe this case is compelling. There are few times Members of the Senate can cast a vote knowing that the results are potentially so dramatic. The citizens of our States are already frustrated with crowded highways that are deteriorating under heavy use. The loss of life from accidents is inexplicable--100,000 injured Americans. To now open American highways to Mexican trucks, given their record of compliance, the failures of infrastructure, is to guarantee an increase in this dangerous situation. I urge defeat of Senator McCain's efforts. Then the Senate needs to seriously consider whether the compromise that is in the legislation is sufficient to protect American families.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. I am happy to yield.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition to the confirmation of John D. Graham, Ph.D. to direct the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, (OIRA), at the Office of Management and Budget, (OMB). As Administrator of OIRA, Dr. Graham would be the gatekeeper for all Federal regulations. In my view, Dr. Graham, with his anti-regulatory views, is simply the wrong choice to serve in this important policy making position. In enacting the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Clean Air Act and other safety and health and environmental laws, Congress made a clear policy choice that protection of health and the environment was to be paramount consideration in setting regulations and standards. Dr. Graham's views and opinions are directly at odds with these policies.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise to ask the distinguished managers of the bill if they would consider a request that I and my colleague from New Jersey have concerning the conference.