Robert Torricelli

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Early Detection and Prevention of Osteoporosis and Related Bone Diseases Act of 2001 along with my colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe. Osteoporosis and other related bone diseases pose a major public health threat. More than 28 million Americans, 80 percent of whom are women, suffer from, or are at risk for, osteoporosis. Between three and four million Americans suffer from related bone diseases like Paget's disease or osteogenesis imperfecta. Today, in the United States, 10 million individuals already have osteoporosis and 18 million more have low bone mass, placing them at increased risk. Osteoporosis is preventable through the use of new technology, yet the majority of Americans with the disease remain undiagnosed and untreated. Osteoporosis is often called the ``silent disease'' because bone loss occurs without symptoms. Often people do not know they have osteoporosis until their bones become so weak that a sudden bump or fall causes a fracture or a vertebrae to collapse. Every year, there are 1.5 million bone fractures caused by osteoporosis. Half of all women, and one-eighth of all men, age 50 or older, will suffer a bone fracture due to osteoporosis. The consequences of osteoporosis are often unrecognized. In New Jersey, individuals hospitalized with osteoporosis fractures average 9.3 days in the hospital for hip fracture and 71 days for vertebral fracture. National statistics show that 10 to 20 percent of people with hip fracture either die within six months, cannot walk without aid or require long-term care. Education is needed to encourage individuals and their providers to diagnose osteoporosis early and treat the disease swiftly, preventing costly and debilitating fractures. Osteoporosis is a progressive condition that has no known cure; thus, prevention and treatment are key. The Early Detection and Prevention of Osteoporosis and Related Bone Diseases Act of 2001 seeks to combat osteoporosis, and related bone diseases like Paget's disease by requiring private health plans to cover bone mass measurement tests for qualified individuals who are at risk for developing osteoporosis. Bone mass measurement is the only reliable method of detecting osteoporosis in its early stages. The test is non-invasive and painless and is predictive of future fractures as high cholesterol or high blood pressure is of heart disease or stroke. This legislation is similar to a provision in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 that requires Medicare coverage of bone mass measurements. Medical experts agree that osteoporosis is preventable. Thus, if the toll of osteoporosis and other related bones diseases are to be reduced, the commitment to prevention and treatment must be significantly increased. The bill is supported by the National Osteoporosis Foundation, American Medical Women's Association, American Society for Bone & Mineral Research, Osteogenesis Imperfecta Foundation, National Association of Orthopedic Nurses, American Physical Therapy Association and the Health Promotion Institute. I ask unanimous consent the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank the Senator from Nevada for yielding the time. Before I begin my own remarks on brownfields, I want to join him in commenting that Hillary Rodham Clinton had potentially one of the most difficult transformations ever, maybe, becoming a Member of the Senate. It is also fair to say after only 100 days she has probably had one of the most remarkably successful transformations ever made to the Senate. Rarely has someone come to the Senate and devoted themselves so diligently to the details of their work, meeting their responsibilities to their State with such bipartisan acclaim by her colleagues. I think the people of New York should be very proud, under difficult circumstances and the changing of public responsibilities, of how well she accomplished the feat and now how proudly she represents the State of New York. Since the fortunes of New Jersey are so closely tied to those of our modest neighbor across the river, we are grateful that New York is so well represented. I congratulate her on her introduction to the Senate. As my friend and colleague from New York, I wish to address my colleagues on the question of the brownfields legislation. We have now completed an unprecedented decade of extraordinary national prosperity. But it is a cruel irony that many of those communities which, a generation ago, laid the foundation for America's industrial might and the prosperity of our generation have not participated in every aspect of this new prosperity. Critical to the goal of ensuring that all communities do, indeed, benefit from this prosperity is creating sound economic development in these traditional economic centers. Although often more graphic in central cities because of their limited space, brownfields redevelopment is not just an issue of these old centers. It has also become a question of small towns. The problem is, whether it is these older industrial centers upon which our Nation built its future or it is small towns or rural areas, the Senate now in considering again changes to brownfields legislation must deal with the reality that brownfields redevelopment projects must overcome several difficult but critical barriers. These barriers historically have included: No. 1, a lack of process certainty; No. 2, liability concerns; No. 3, added expenses of environmental cleanup and the lack of redevelopment financing. S. 350 is a bipartisan effort to address these very issues and to make our brownfields program of the last few years everything that it can, should, and must be. Since 1993, when the Brownfields Pilot Program was implemented, hundreds of communities across the Nation have been successful in their efforts to assess, clean up, and redevelop vacant or underused contaminated sites. In my State of New Jersey, brownfields revitalization represents the potential rebirth of many distressed cities. Indeed, in many respects brownfields and HOPE VI grants have entirely changed the landscape of some of the most distressed urban areas in the State of New Jersey. In Trenton, an old steel plant has been transformed to a minor league baseball field. Now a center of recreation, attention, and life of the city of Trenton, only years ago it was abandoned, contaminated property. A railroad yard on the Camden waterfront in front of a enormously wonderful view of the city of Philadelphia, what should have been some of the most productive land in the Nation, was abandoned. It has now become a major entertainment center for the bistate area. The city of Elizabeth is taking a former landfill and constructing a shopping mall. For all of these reasons, brownfields legislation is critical, irreplaceable, in the economic revitalization of the cities of New Jersey. It is not a theory. It is not a potential. It has been proven. It is real in every one of these communities. But it does need to be improved. I support the enhancements contained in S. 350 because, No. 1, they reduce the legal and regulatory barriers that prevent brownfields redevelopment and provide funds to States for cleanup programs. No. 2, they address the needs to address potential liabilities faced by prospective purchasers and adjoining landowners. Finally, they provide funds to assess and clean up abandoned and underutilized brownfields sites. This has not been the province of private funding sources. This bill goes a long way to remove many of the uncertainties that have made the financing of a brownfield project such a formidable task. While this legislation is a major step in the right direction, there is more that must be done to enhance the public-private partnerships to complete the picture of brownfields revitalization. The strengthening of the public-private partnership utilizes tax incentives to help attract affordable private investment. In August of 1997, this body approved a potentially significant brownfields tax incentive. This tax incentive, referred to as the ``expensing provision,'' allowed new owners of these contaminated sites to write cleanup costs off their taxes in the year they were deducted. This allows for increased cashflow for redevelopment projects. Surprisingly, despite the potential advantage of this expensing provision, there have been relatively few takers. A GAO study reported in December of 2000 that in New Jersey there had been only three development projects which had even applied for this tax benefit. Developers told me they are discouraged from using the provision because of the provision's indefinite future and the exclusion of brownfield sites containing petroleum. There is simply no incentive for real estate developers to complete projects and market them quickly if the tax benefit they have derived is going to be taxed as ordinary income at 39.6 percent rather than capital gains at 20 percent. The financial impact of that reality is very significant. I intend to propose legislation which I believe is a very positive enhancement. My legislation will tax this ``recapture'' or reclaiming of this previously earned benefit as capital gain at a rate of 20 percent rather than as ordinary income. Using tax incentives to overcome capital shortages, in the market place, to achieve greater public benefits, is a proven formula for success. This is exactly what I intend to do. This can be done to reverse negative trends and start new, constructive initiatives. In 1962, the Regional Plan Association of New Jersey-New York- Connecticut in its publication ``Spread City'' stated that the region was drifting into a costly spread-out pattern of suburban development versus dormant central cities. This publication noted that this pattern would produce suburbs with ``neither the benefits of the city nor the pleasures of the countryside.'' Four decades later this vision of ``Spread City'' has, in fact, materialized. Today, brownfields redevelopment should be viewed as a method of controlling urban sprawl and ultimately preserving greenfields. A recent study of nine New Jersey cities posed conservative estimates that redevelopment of identified sites across the state could house nearly a quarter of 225,000 new residents expected by 2005. It is, therefore, good economic policy. It is good social policy. It is good housing and job creation policy. Finally, it is good environmental land use policy to enact brownfields legislation, and to enhance it and improve it with the necessary tax incentives to stimulate growth based on this exciting concept. I strongly identify myself with this initiative hoping the Senate will consider my changes when indeed it is time to vote on brownfields. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Campus Fire Safety Right-to-Know Act so that we can move forward in protecting our children at our colleges and universities. It is an unfortunate reality that it often takes great tragedies to highlight vulnerabilities in our laws. On January 19, 2000, several New Jersey families experienced an unimaginable tragedy. A fire in a freshman college dormitory killed 3 students and injured 62 others. Investigations into the fire revealed that the dorm was not equipped with a sprinkler system, which could have saved lives. In addition, during that fatal evening, many students delayed leaving the building because they assumed it was a false alarm, an all too common occurrence. On March 19, 2000, a fire broke out at a fraternity house at a Pennsylvania university, killing three students. This was not the first fire at that fraternity house, in 1994, five students were killed in a fraternity house fire. On June 8, 2000, a student was killed in an early morning fraternity house fire at an Illinois University. Local authorities said the building was not protected with an automatic fire sprinkler system. And, as recently as April 1, 2001, a fire in a residence hall at a New Hampshire college forced 100 students out of the building and seriously damaged at least two apartments. This was the second fire to occur at a residence hall at that college within two months. This is a national crisis that endangers our children's lives. Although the average number of college residence fires dropped 10 percent in the last decade, an average of 66 students still are injured in campus fires in dorms, and fraternity and sorority houses. In the 11 deadly campus fires between 1900 and 1997, an average of two people died in each. The National Fire Protection Association reports that 72 percent of dorms, and fraternity and sorority houses that suffer fires are not equipped with life saving sprinkler systems, even though sprinklers are proven to cut by up to two-thirds the risks of death and property damage in fires. I have a proposal that will help make university housing safer. The Campus Fire Safety Right to Know Act would highlight the issue of campus fire safety by requiring colleges and universities to provide annual reports that explains fire policies, frequency of false alarms, and whether dorms are equipped with sprinkler systems. These reports would be straight-forward and based on the types of reporting that many campuses already do. Colleges and universities could use these reports to highlight their successes and progress with campus fire safety. They would be, in part, a marketing tool to attract students and families. The reports would also bring greater awareness about campus fire safety to schools that have not made progress, and encourage them to take action. And, the reports would be a resource for students and their families, so that they know whether their dorms are fire safe and can work with their schools to improve fire safety. My bill is supported by universities in my State, Seton Hall, Rutgers and Princeton, and is also endorsed by the National Fire Protection Association, the National Safety Council, and College Parents of America. We need to pass this measure so that we can ensure that the tragedies in New Jersey, Illinois, and Pennsylvania are the last of their kinds.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Campus Fire Safety Right-to-Know Act so that we can move forward in protecting our children at our colleges and universities. It is an unfortunate reality that it often takes great tragedies to highlight vulnerabilities in our laws. On January 19, 2000, several New Jersey families experienced an unimaginable tragedy. A fire in a freshman college dormitory killed 3 students and injured 62 others. Investigations into the fire revealed that the dorm was not equipped with a sprinkler system, which could have saved lives. In addition, during that fatal evening, many students delayed leaving the building because they assumed it was a false alarm, an all too common occurrence. On March 19, 2000, a fire broke out at a fraternity house at a Pennsylvania university, killing three students. This was not the first fire at that fraternity house, in 1994, five students were killed in a fraternity house fire. On June 8, 2000, a student was killed in an early morning fraternity house fire at an Illinois University. Local authorities said the building was not protected with an automatic fire sprinkler system. And, as recently as April 1, 2001, a fire in a residence hall at a New Hampshire college forced 100 students out of the building and seriously damaged at least two apartments. This was the second fire to occur at a residence hall at that college within two months. This is a national crisis that endangers our children's lives. Although the average number of college residence fires dropped 10 percent in the last decade, an average of 66 students still are injured in campus fires in dorms, and fraternity and sorority houses. In the 11 deadly campus fires between 1900 and 1997, an average of two people died in each. The National Fire Protection Association reports that 72 percent of dorms, and fraternity and sorority houses that suffer fires are not equipped with life saving sprinkler systems, even though sprinklers are proven to cut by up to two-thirds the risks of death and property damage in fires. I have a proposal that will help make university housing safer. The Campus Fire Safety Right to Know Act would highlight the issue of campus fire safety by requiring colleges and universities to provide annual reports that explains fire policies, frequency of false alarms, and whether dorms are equipped with sprinkler systems. These reports would be straight-forward and based on the types of reporting that many campuses already do. Colleges and universities could use these reports to highlight their successes and progress with campus fire safety. They would be, in part, a marketing tool to attract students and families. The reports would also bring greater awareness about campus fire safety to schools that have not made progress, and encourage them to take action. And, the reports would be a resource for students and their families, so that they know whether their dorms are fire safe and can work with their schools to improve fire safety. My bill is supported by universities in my State, Seton Hall, Rutgers and Princeton, and is also endorsed by the National Fire Protection Association, the National Safety Council, and College Parents of America. We need to pass this measure so that we can ensure that the tragedies in New Jersey, Illinois, and Pennsylvania are the last of their kinds.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to welcome to our nation's capital the Honorable Jaswant Singh, Minister of External Affairs and Defense for the Republic of India. Minister Singh's visit will be an opportunity to reaffirm the warm relations between our countries as a new Administration gets established in Washington. The Minister's visit to Washington will include meetings with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, as well as the National Security Advisor. Minister Singh's visit comes at a time of major transition in U.S.- India relations. Last month, Washington welcomed the arrival of the new Indian Ambassador to Washington, Mr. Lalit Mansingh. Ambassador Mansingh succeeds Ambassador Naresh Chandra, who was well known and admired by many in Congress during his tenure. Ambassador Mansingh presented his credentials to Secretary of State Powell on March 23, and the two discussed a wide range of issues concerning the future of U.S.- India relations. Secretary Powell reiterated President Bush's intention to ``build on the good work done in the past.'' I hope that the message from the new Administration to Mr. Singh will be one of support for building on the progress in U.S.-India relations that we have seen for much of the past decade. After years of being treated as a relatively low priority, the U.S.-India relationship has, since the early 1990s, steadily moved to a higher priority on the American foreign policy agenda. President Clinton's Administration recognized the importance of India, as a trading partner, as a force for stability in Asia, and as a leader for democracy and prosperity in the developing world. The Clinton Administration also recognized the wonderful resource that the Indian-American community, over a million strong, represents in building closer ties between the world's two largest democracies. I hope that the Bush Administration will continue this progress. The early signs are that the Administration recognizes the significance of India to the United States. In announcing the nomination of Robert D. Blackwill as his choice to be the next Ambassador to India, President Bush spoke of ``the important place India holds in my foreign policy agenda.'' I look forward to reviewing Mr. Blackwill's nomination in my role as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. If Mr. Blackwill is confirmed, he would succeed U.S. Ambassador Richard Celeste, the former Governor of Ohio. Ambassador Celeste, who presented his credentials in November 1997, has served during an eventful time in U.S.-India relations. In the past two months, as India recovers from the devastating earthquake that struck the state of Gujarat on January 26, Ambassador Celeste has done an excellent job of helping to coordinate the American aid effort. As he prepares to leave New Delhi, I want to congratulate Ambassador Celeste for a job well done. In the past year, with President Clinton visiting India in March and Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee visiting the United States in September, the level of friendship and partnership between India and the United States is perhaps the highest it has ever been. During last year's summits between President Clinton and Prime Minister Vajpayee, the United States and India signed a series of agreements to accelerate bilateral cooperation in a wide range of areas. The U.S.-India Vision Statement of March 2000, signed in New Delhi, pledged cooperation on counter-terrorism. The two countries also pledged to cooperate on issues of nuclear non-proliferation. That agreement also established the U.S.-India Financial and Economic Forum, the U.S.-India Commercial Dialogue, and the U.S.-India Working Group on Trade. Minister Singh and then Secretary of State Madeleine Albright signed a joint statement on cooperation in energy and environment in a ceremony at the Taj Mahal in March 2000. This week, President Clinton has returned to India to visit the State of Gujarat, scene of January's devastating earthquake that left an estimated 18,000 people dead, and thousands of people homeless. While the trend in relations between the United States and India has been positive, there is still a great deal of work to be done. The visit to Washington by External Affairs and Defense Minister Singh, just a few months into the new Administration, offers an opportunity to build in the work of the past few years, while charting a new course for even closer ties between our two countries.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, at some point, the division of this Senate on the issue of a tax reduction proposal must end. We must find some moment where there is a bipartisan approach that both protects our resources to deal with education and health care initiatives, but also has meaningful tax reduction. This can be that moment. I join with Senator Breaux because I believe we have found a reasonable compromise that is bipartisan--a $1.25 trillion tax reduction that lowers rates, offers real relief to middle-income families, but also protects enough resources to deal with our education, prescription drugs, and other family needs. We have been told in recent months that there is a false choice. We can either deal with these problems or we can provide tax relief, but most assuredly we cannot do both. With this proposal, we achieve both by doing each modestly. I have in the past indicated my belief that I could support a $1.6 trillion tax reduction as proposed by President Bush. Indeed, if required to do so, at some point I might vote for it, but surely this is the better path--not a tax reduction of 51 votes, no Vice President breaking a tie to decide upon a major national initiative that will decide the basic fiscal parameters of this Government for the next decade. This, a bipartisan plan that is affordable, protects the surplus and allows for a variety of other initiatives. This is the most important part of the plan because while these are good times in America, they are not perfect times; and while the economy has been strong, it is now troubled. In the last few years, we began an effort to hire 100,000 teachers; 50,000 remain to be hired to complete the program to reduce class size in America to 18 because we know it is the one variable that does the most to improve the quality of education. Under the plan I offer with Senator Breaux, this initiative can proceed. I am not certain it can with a larger tax cut program. The Nation is living through a virtual revolution of technology with prescription medications prolonging life and helping the quality of life. Yet 15 million Americans have no access to prescription drugs. They are a vital part of their quality of life. This plan leaves enough resources to write a realistic prescription drug program. Were it larger, I am not certain that would be possible. I hope Members of the Senate will look carefully at what Senator Breaux has offered today, our first chance at a bipartisan product to move toward meaningful tax reduction and a balanced program. I am sympathetic with the need to reduce taxes and reduce them substantially and immediately. I do not think a nation at peace, in relatively good economic times, should be taking 28 or 30 percent of the incomes of middle-income families. Indeed, 39 percent of the income of any American family should not be expected in peacetime and in relatively good times. That is exactly what we are asking of the American people. The average per capita tax in America is $6,300. In my State of New Jersey, it is an astounding $9,400 per person. For a middle-income family, that is money the Federal Government should not expect because the Federal Government does not need it. That is money that should be going to educate children, feed them, house them, to deal with family security and emergencies and savings. That is the better use of these resources. I believe that meaningful tax reduction in an economy of this size, with these emerging surpluses, can allow for dramatic tax reduction on this scale. Senator Breaux has offered a meaningful beginning to writing that tax reduction and providing that relief. I am proud to join with him. I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to bring to your attention an editorial written by Dr. Harold (Hal) Raveche, president of Stevens Institute of Technology that appeared in the Boston Sunday Globe on February 18, 2001. Dr. Raveche is a highly respected academician. His recent Boston Globe editorial discusses the need to change our higher education system to reflect the changing dynamics of a high technology driven New Economy. Stevens is already teaching its students in a unique, different way called ``Technogenesis.'' I ask unanimous consent that Dr. Raveche's editorial be printed in the Record and urge my colleagues to give it thoughtful consideration.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the accomplishments and commitment of one of New Jersey's great leaders, John ``J.J.'' Johnson. He has dedicated his life to protecting and promoting the rights of his fellow union members and has worked to help many others build on the promise of the American Dream. J.J first became active in the labor movement in 1960, when he organized the workers at the Peter Pan factory in East Newark, New Jersey. Since then, J.J. has worn many hats in his long and distinguished career of public service. For ten years, J.J. served as Secretary-Treasurer of Postal Union, Local #10. In 1975, J.J. co- founded Service Employees International Union Local 617, where he served for 25 years as Executive Vice President. Since then, Local 617 has become New Jersey's largest Public Employee Local, representing over 3,500 members. Throughout the years, J.J. has been on the front line of progress for union members in New Jersey. In 1996, J.J. became the first African American from New Jersey to be elected to the Executive Board of the Service Employees International Union. As a member of the board, J.J. fought for fair wages, better health benefits, and safer working conditions, and was later elected president of the SEIU New Jersey State Council, which represents over 25,000 workers in the State of New Jersey. In 1998, J.J. had the honor of being the first African American to serve as Grand Marshall of the Essex-West Hudson Labor Council ``Celebration of Labor Day Parade,'' and received the National Leadership Achievement Award from the SEIU Caucus of People of African Descent. In 2000, J.J. also became the first African American to receive the New Jersey AFL-CIO Labor Award, and later this month he will be honored by the National African American Caucus of the SEUI for his outstanding leadership in the Union. I am proud to recognize the accomplishments of J.J. Johnson, a man who for thirty years has been a standard bearer of the labor movement. His hard work, determination, and service are a model for our labor leaders, indeed all leaders, to follow and learn from.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, today, I rise to introduce the Higher Education Affordability and Fairness Act. It is easy to forget that less than ten years ago this nation faced an endless stream of budget deficits. Today, through fiscal responsibility and the hard work and sacrifice of the American people, an unprecedented budget surplus has taken the place of annual deficits. Clearly, there are many priorities to be addressed with this good fortune. The time has come to ease the tax burden on the American public through a reduction in tax rates. We must reserve a portion of the surplus for necessary investments in education, a prescription drug benefit, as well as a continuation of the progress we have made in reducing the national debt. Among those priorities we must include programs and policies to increase the affordability of a college education. I believe that this can be done through expanding tax credits and making college tuition tax deductible. A college degree is becoming a prerequisite for the advanced skills that have become necessary in this global, information-based economy. And financially, a college education is integral to achieving middle- class earning power. In 1999, the average male college graduate earned 90 percent more than the average male high school graduate. In the late 1970's the difference in pay was only 50 percent. While the benefits and the need of higher education have increased, so, too have the costs. In the last decade, the cost of sending a child to college has increased 40 percent, nearly two and a half times the rate of inflation. Too often, the struggle to send a child to college consumes the budget of working families. In New Jersey, families spend anywhere from 30 to 50 percent of their incomes on college expenses, leaving little for the mortgage, medical bills, long-term care for a parent, or even a car payment. In years past, Congress has sought to address college affordability by providing a HOPE Scholarship tax credit of up to $1,500 for the first two years of expenses and a Lifetime Learning tax credit of up to $1,000 for the third and fourth years as well as for graduate school. For low-income families, Congress has increased funding to $8.75 billion for Pell grants, a need-based grant program that will help send four million Americans to college this year. But more can and should be done. Under existing law, taxpayers cannot deduct higher education expenses from their taxes, unless the expenses meet a very narrow definition as ``work-related''. In addition, families living in high cost states like New Jersey or California do not receive the same benefits as those living in lower cost states because of unfair income limitations. Finally, a family who invests in an Education IRA cannot use the savings for a child's college education and also receive the benefits of the HOPE or Lifetime Learning tax credits. Today, I am introducing the Higher Education Affordability and Fairness Act, HEAFA, to address these issues. HEAFA would allow families who take the HOPE tax credit to deduct up to the next $8,000 in tuition expenses not covered by the credit, capping the deduction at $15,000 in tuition expenses in one year if a family has more than one child in college. Families ineligible for the Hope Scholarship, due to its income limitations, would be able to deduct $5,000 of tuition costs. The bill would also increase the Lifetime Learning credit to 20 percent of $10,000 of tuition, from the current 20 percent of $5,000, and provide families with the choice of taking either the credit or a deduction on up to $10,000 of tuition, $5,000 if a family earns more than $120,000 a year. HEAFA would raise the phase-out limit for the HOPE credit to $60,000 for singles and $120,000 for couples, allowing more families to benefit. In order to ensure that savings go to the intended beneficiaries, families and students, the bill directs an annual study to examine whether the federal income tax incentives to provide education assistance affect higher education tuition rates. Finally, to address the needs of low-income families, the bill expresses the sense of the Senate that the maximum annual Pell Grant should be increased to $4,700 per student. With so many families struggling today to pay their mortgages, afford the high cost of prescription drugs and contribute to the long-term care of their parents, helping families better afford college is the least we can do.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, in my brief tenure in the Senate, I have never witnessed the Senate perform better or meet the expectations of the American people so unequivocally. The Senate is particularly indebted to the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell, , and the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, for presiding over this debate and dealing with difficult moments. They have led the Senate to what is, in my experience, its finest hour. I will confess, when this debate began on McCain-Feingold, I had real reservations as to whether, indeed, an attempt at narrow reform could genuinely result in comprehensive campaign finance reform. This legislation has exceeded my expectations. The public may have expected simply an elimination of soft money, but many of us who have lived in this process know that the rise of soft money contributions was only one element in a much broader problem. This legislation is genuine comprehensive campaign finance reform. We have dealt with the need to control or eliminate soft money, but also reduce the cost of campaigns themselves, allowed a more realistic participation through hard money contributions, and dealt with the rising specter of eliminating the class of middle-class candidates in this country by opening this only to become the province of the very wealthy. The burden may soon go from this Congress to the Supreme Court. I only hope that the Supreme Court meets its responsibility to protect the first amendment, assuring that in our enthusiasm to deal with campaign finance abuses we have not trespassed upon other fundamental rights of the American people. I understand that is their responsibility. I know they will meet it. I hope they also balance that this Congress felt motivated to deal with the problem of public confidence, assuring the integrity of the process; that, indeed, the Court is mindful that we have attempted to meet that responsibility. I have never felt better about being a Member of this institution. I am proud of my colleagues. I believe we can feel good about this product. It is not partisan in nature. It does not deal with one part of this problem. It is broad. It is deep reform. It has been a good moment for the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, are we now in morning business?

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Tennessee for yielding. For nearly 2 weeks, the Senate has been engaged in an exhaustive but illuminating debate on reforming the campaign finance system of the Nation, the foundation of the rules by which a free people choose their government. The consequences could not be more enormous. I believe the Senate has met the best expectations of the American people in this debate. It has been thoughtful, civil, and far reaching. Indeed, rather than simply engaging in a narrow changing of the rules, what has emerged from the Senate is genuinely comprehensive campaign finance reform. It may not have been our intention, I don't believe it was planned, but in the best traditions of the Senate, Members from both political parties, with good ideas, took some basic reform legislation and made it into a workable, comprehensive system. That is what brings this question before the Senate. If these were simply individual changes in the campaign finance system, where some were enacted and some failed, it would be interesting but not of overriding consequence. That is not what the Senate has done. This is a series of reforms inextricably dependent on each other. If one or more is removed, the Nation will have a radically different campaign finance system and our system of choosing candidates, and even the people whom we elect, will be altered. I understand in the rush to judgment there are some who are prone to reform for reform's sake. It is a question of pass anything, get something done, and we will live with the consequences. But the truth is, the campaign finance system of this country is changed only once in a generation. These rules will last, not simply for us but for those who follow us, not just in this decade but in decades to come. The fact that we have seized this opportunity in these 2 weeks to write comprehensive changes, far-reaching in nature, is not only to the credit of the Senate but it is a genuine contribution to the country. This is the last great debate of the campaign finance consideration. But in some ways it is the most profound question because ultimately the question is whether we have simply decided on a series of ideas that will be thrown out to the American people to challenge in the courts where others will make the decision or whether we have really designed a new campaign finance system in the Senate, where it is our responsibility. It is important to look at how each of these provisions is linked because, as one Member of the Senate, I am only voting for McCain- Feingold because of the different provisions and how they are all related. We eliminate soft money for the political parties. We also eliminate it from outside interest groups. But we do not want to deny the American people political debate, so we raise the hard money limits. We want to end the monopoly on candidates' time and the growing expense of campaigns, so we lower the cost of television advertising. Those are all related and they are all important. My colleagues, what is to happen if the Supreme Court of the United States decides the Senate has decided upon six interrelated provisions but we do not like one--or two? Then the Senate is no longer writing campaign finance reform; we simply made a few suggestions, enacted them into law, and we will let someone else write them. This would not be so perplexing to this Member of the Senate, that we might be yielding in our responsibilities on the question of severability, if not for the fact that the Senate has been at this moment before. This is exactly what happened in 1974. If you do not like the campaign system now in the United States of America, if you object to what has happened in public confidence, the rising expense, the dominance of powerful interests, the rise of soft money expenditures, then you have a responsibility to ensure these provisions are inseparable, or the Supreme Court will write this law just as they did in 1974. Here is the most remarkable thing about the campaign finance system in the United States: No one ever proposed it, no one ever wrote it, and no one ever voted for it. Because the Supreme Court of the United States created it, and that is exactly where we are going again. In 1974--a year in which I did not serve in government, but I remember the debate, and some of my colleagues were here--had the Senate been presented with the following proposition: We will limit contributions to $1,000 but we will allow unlimited soft money to political parties and we will allow outside groups to spend their money and we will allow wealthy candidates to spend unlimited amounts of money--if anyone had come to the floor of the Senate with that bill, it would have received no votes. There is not a member of the Democratic or Republican Party who would have voted to limit themselves to $1,000 contributions while wealthy individuals could spend unlimited money and outside groups had no restrictions at all, with no control on expenditures. No one would vote for such a system. But that is the law of the United States of America. It has governed our country for 25 years. If we fail today, it will continue to govern our country. That has created all this outrage, and that is the product of not having a nonseverability clause. That was an attempt to have comprehensive reform. But when the Court ruled provisions unconstitutional, rather than meeting our responsibilities, returning to the floor of the Senate to rewrite the legislation consistent with constitutional guidelines, ensuring it was comprehensive and met our national objectives, the Senate failed to meet its responsibilities and this problem was created. By what logic do we solve this problem now by returning to the same rules, the same yielding of responsibility, to ask the same Court to write campaign reform legislation once again? I ask my colleagues to think of the system that may not evolve from McCain-Feingold as we have voted upon it but which might evolve from a reasonable action by the U.S. Supreme Court. I believe every provision we have agreed to in this Senate, absent possibly the Wellstone amendment, is constitutional. It is noteworthy the Senator from Tennessee does not put the Wellstone amendment in his nonseverability amendment that he offers the Senate at this moment. I believe the remainder is constitutional. But if I am wrong and the U.S. Supreme Court decides that Snowe- Jeffords amendment controlling expenditures by independent groups by the use of unlimited soft money is unconstitutional, mark my words, the system we are creating in the United States of America is a radical change in how we govern this country and, for all practical purposes, it is the end of the two-party system financing national elections as we have known them in our lifetime. That is because under a McCain- Feingold bill that no one in this Senate voted for--and I suspect no one really supports--the system enacted in the United States will be the Democratic and Republican Parties will be limited to hard money expenditures only and independent groups will spend unlimited money with no restrictions or controls. Of all the thousands of organizations in America, civic and corporate and labor, of all the thousands of organizations, we will have chosen two for these restrictions: The Democratic Party and the Republican Party. In the practical world in which we live, let's consider what this will look like. I, as a candidate, may choose to run for office on a progressive platform, wanting to describe my own views. And good allies that I believe in, such as organized labor or environmental groups or women's rights groups or civil rights groups, may decide to support me. But they will run my ads. They will decide what I am for, describe my positions, and run my advertising. My Republican opponent will be in a similar position. The Chamber of Commerce or a business group, a gun advocacy group, will run advertising with soft money, saying what I am against. American politics will be fought over the heads of the candidates-- aerial warfare with the Democratic and Republican Parties in the trenches simply firing at each other. The real battle will be fought by surrogates, and political candidates in the Democratic and Republican Parties will be nothing but spectators in American politics. This is not the system anyone here wants. Were I to offer it now, no one would vote for it. It sounds like 1974, doesn't it? It is. And we can have exactly the same result. My colleagues, the Senator from Tennessee has offered an important, in some respects the most important, amendment in campaign finance reform. It is the difference between a few ad hoc ideas to reform the campaign finance system and ensuring that this is comprehensive and fundamentally changes the entire system. Each becomes dependent on the other. I asked the Senator from Tennessee to change his amendment in one more respect. I do not want my intentions questioned on the Senate floor. I have voted for campaign finance reform as often as any Member of this Congress in the last 20 years--as many times as Senator McCain, as many times as Senator Feingold. I will keep voting for reform. My intention to ensure that this is constitutional and comprehensive is not because I oppose reform but because I want it to be genuine and complete. It is because of that that I asked the Senator from Tennessee to adjust his amendment. He complied. Under his amendment, not only are these provisions nonseverable, but there would be immediate Federal court review. Upon action of the district court finding any provision of this legislation unconstitutional, there would be immediate appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to ensure that this Senate had guidance immediately so we could return to session and correct any constitutional defects. This, my colleagues, is exactly what this Senate has done in dealing with other legislation that was of questionable constitutional compliance. It is what the Senate and House of Representatives did in dealing only a few years ago with the Religious Land Use Institutionalized Persons Act. We ensured that the provisions would have to stand together, and that there would be immediate court review if they did not return to the Senate. So I ask the Senate to do what it did to correct what it did wrong in 1974 and did correctly on three previous occasions to ensure constitutionality and that the responsibility for writing this legislation remains here. I do not understand, my colleagues, in fact, if we vote differently. The lessons of 1974 were learned in a very hard way. The American people lost confidence in this Government, and the campaign finance system evolved which took Members of the Congress away from their responsibilities and dispirited us and our constituents. It is not a system worthy of a good and great country--but it is the law--because we did not write it. We allowed others to write it. It evolved. It was not thought through or properly conceived. I thought we learned that lesson in 1974 because on the last three occasions that we reviewed campaign finance legislation in this Congress, we ensured that there was a nonseverability clause. What Senator Frist does today, on three previous occasions this Congress assured was in campaign finance legislation. What he does is not the exception. It has been the rule, specifically because of what we learned in 1974. Now Senator Frist brings it to the Senate again. I urge my colleagues to act with caution. This vote has meaning, and it will last. It will change the complexity of this entire Congress as the years pass because the access to financing and how we govern this campaign finance system governs who rules, who wins, and who loses, and what issues come before their institution. It could not be more profound. I urge my colleagues, no matter how they have viewed this question of severability in the past, to think carefully--not reform for reform sake, not a slogan, not a campaign statement, but a careful review of how this law will evolve and what it means to this Senate and to this country. I compliment the Senator from Tennessee for offering it. I urge my colleagues to adopt it. I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI. I am glad the Senator noted that. I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. If the Senator will yield time.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Tennessee for yielding. I compliment him on his leadership on this issue. This is a regrettable debate in the McCain-Feingold reform question because it is in some measure a distinction without a difference. This is a matter that should have been and should still be settled. The Senator from Tennessee is offering an amendment that allows a $2,500 individual contribution per election. I believe it is the right level. Some of my colleagues have been apoplectic, that this is an extraordinary change in the system; it would destroy the campaign finance system. The only right and proper thing for the Republic is to have a $2,000 individual campaign limit. Our Republic must be weak, indeed, if that $500 is the difference between reform and destruction for the whole national campaign finance system. I believe Senator Thompson has struck an appropriate level. Indeed, the $2,500 level that he has established is less, accounting for inflation, than the reforms of 1974. Indeed, in adjusted dollars, the $1,000 limit of 1974 is now worth $300. That $1,000, if adjusted for inflation today, would be $3,400. Let me explain to my colleagues why I feel so strongly about raising this limit. My hope and wish is we could have reached a compromise on this level. Real campaign finance reform means creating a balanced system. We cannot reform just one part of the campaign finance system. Different aspects must be adjusted for a balanced, workable system. Can I have order, Mr. President?

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, a balanced system must include a reduction of costs to end this spiraling cost of campaigns that adds so much pressure on Senate and House candidates. We did that by reducing the cost of television time. We must eliminate soft money to increase confidence on accountability of these funds, and limits so every American believes they have an appreciably equal influence on their government. We must ensure that not only the wealthy can get access to fundraising and their own ability to dominate the system is limited. But there is another component that perhaps only Members of Congress themselves understand, another element of reform. It is the question of time. How much time are Senators taking, raising funds rather than legislating? How much time with their constituents rather than at fundraisers? How many times do they meet ordinary Americans rather than simply being with the wealthy and privileged few. That last element is part of what Senator Thompson is trying to accomplish today. Because the $1,000 limit forces people to go to hundreds and hundreds of fundraisers, putting together these contributions to fund these massive campaigns is part of the problem. Indeed, I demonstrated to the Senate a few days ago what it would take to run a $15 million campaign today at $1,000. You would raise $20,000 every day, 7 days a week for 2 years; 1,500 fundraising events at $10,000 per event. This is part of what we are addressing. If a person, indeed, contributes $2,500 per election, $5,000 a year, no one in this institution can possibly believe that either by perception or reality the integrity of a Senator is compromised. Indeed, if our country has come to the point where the American people have their confidence in their government undermined because of a $2,500 contribution, there is no saving this Republic. Certainly, we have better people in the Senate.

Mr. TORRICELLI. I will yield 1 minute and I will conclude. I believe with the Thompson amendment we will have this balanced system reducing the amount of time candidates must campaign, and sufficient hard money can be raised to be able to communicate a message. It is a workable and a balanced system. Mostly I regret we have to divide ourselves on this issue, a $500 difference between the Senator from California and the Senator from Tennessee. Even at this late moment, I wish we could bridge this gap. But I hope we can avoid coming to the conclusion that because this amendment is agreed to, somehow we have a less viable reform. This is still fundamental and comprehensive reform. It still reduces the amount of campaign expenditures and the reliance on large contributions. It is a better system under McCain-Feingold, and it is a system that now includes the support of more Members of the Senate on both sides of the aisle. I yield to the Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Explosives Protection Act.'' I do this in memory of 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 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. 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, materials which can result in an equal or even greater loss of life. It is time to bring the explosives law into line with gun laws, and this is all my bill does. Specifically, the extend the list of persons barred from purchasing explosives so that it matched that of people barred from purchasing firearms. 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. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Neighborhood Watch Partnership Act.'' This bill will broaden the eligibility of groups that may apply for essential funding for neighborhood watch activities. Communities across the country are finding sensible ways to solve local problems. Through partnerships with local police, neighborhood watch groups are having a decisive impact on crime. There are almost 20,000 such groups creating innovative programs that promote community involvement in crime prevention techniques. They empower community members and organize them against rape, burglary, and all forms of fear on the street. They forge bonds between law enforcement and the communities they serve. Unfortunately, many communities find it difficult to afford the often expensive equipment such as cellphones and CBs needed to start a neighborhood watch organization. While the COPS program within the Department of Justice provides funding for some neighborhood watch groups, an organization must incorporate to benefit from the current program. A mere 2000 of the nearly 20,000 groups incorporate, however, meaning that the vast majority of watch groups cannot apply for funding assistance. This makes very little sense. The time has come to make a clear commitment to these groups. That is why I am introducing a bill to extend COPS funding to unincorporated neighborhood watch organizations. The bill would provide grants of up to $1950 to these groups. Under current law, either the local police chief or sheriff must approve grant requests by unincorporated watch groups. We would impose the same requirement on unincorporated groups, thus providing accountability for the disbursement of funds. Neighborhood watch organizations provide an invaluable service. By extending the partnership between community policing and watch group organizations, we will boldly encourage small and large communities to preserve and create crime prevention tools. We should act now, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, today I introduce the Gun Parts Trafficking Act. For years, I have fought along with many of my colleagues against the gun violence that has plagued America. We have sought to keep firearms from the hands of children and those who would use them to do harm. After long debate, we succeeded in enacting a ban on assault weapons, as well as the Brady bill requiring a criminal background at the time of a firearms purchase, positive steps in the effort to protect our communities from gun violence. Gun violence, however, continues to have a devastating impact on our Nation. The statistics have been well documented, but bear repeating. In 1997 alone, more than 32,000 Americans were shot and killed. Fourteen children die from gunfire every day. The economic toll of firearms deaths and injuries on our country, $33 billion each year, is astronomical. In light of these staggering figures it seems obvious that we must do more, including regulating guns like any other consumer product. But while we look forward, we must also be mindful of attempts by some to subvert the progress we have made. Some gun dealers are exploiting a loophole in current law that allows them to sell, through the U.S. mail, gun kits containing virtually every single item needed to build an automatic weapon. When we enacted a ban on these deadly automatic weapons, we exempted automatic weapons legally owned prior to the ban. We also allowed replacement parts to be legally sold so that these grand-fathered weapons could be repaired by their owners, and we allowed these parts to be shipped through the mail. These provisions, however, have been exploited and replacement part kits that can convert a legally owned firearm into an illegal automatic weapon are readily available and heavily advertised in numerous publications. Some of these kits even go so far as to provide a template that shows how to make this conversion. This is a flagrant effort to evade the laws of the United States. This activity must be stopped in order to maintain the integrity of our ban on assault weapons and protect our communities from gun violence. To that end, I am reintroducing the Gun Parts Trafficking Act, legislation that I first introduced in the 106th Congress. This bill is designed to close the loopholes in existing law and end the sale of kits designed to convert legally owned firearms into illegal automatic weapons. It will expand the definition of ``firearm'' to include the main components of the weapon and will prohibit the manufacture or assembly of guns by an individual who does not have a license to do so. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the ``Gun Parts Trafficking Act'' and ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, today I introduce the Gun Parts Trafficking Act. For years, I have fought along with many of my colleagues against the gun violence that has plagued America. We have sought to keep firearms from the hands of children and those who would use them to do harm. After long debate, we succeeded in enacting a ban on assault weapons, as well as the Brady bill requiring a criminal background at the time of a firearms purchase, positive steps in the effort to protect our communities from gun violence. Gun violence, however, continues to have a devastating impact on our Nation. The statistics have been well documented, but bear repeating. In 1997 alone, more than 32,000 Americans were shot and killed. Fourteen children die from gunfire every day. The economic toll of firearms deaths and injuries on our country, $33 billion each year, is astronomical. In light of these staggering figures it seems obvious that we must do more, including regulating guns like any other consumer product. But while we look forward, we must also be mindful of attempts by some to subvert the progress we have made. Some gun dealers are exploiting a loophole in current law that allows them to sell, through the U.S. mail, gun kits containing virtually every single item needed to build an automatic weapon. When we enacted a ban on these deadly automatic weapons, we exempted automatic weapons legally owned prior to the ban. We also allowed replacement parts to be legally sold so that these grand-fathered weapons could be repaired by their owners, and we allowed these parts to be shipped through the mail. These provisions, however, have been exploited and replacement part kits that can convert a legally owned firearm into an illegal automatic weapon are readily available and heavily advertised in numerous publications. Some of these kits even go so far as to provide a template that shows how to make this conversion. This is a flagrant effort to evade the laws of the United States. This activity must be stopped in order to maintain the integrity of our ban on assault weapons and protect our communities from gun violence. To that end, I am reintroducing the Gun Parts Trafficking Act, legislation that I first introduced in the 106th Congress. This bill is designed to close the loopholes in existing law and end the sale of kits designed to convert legally owned firearms into illegal automatic weapons. It will expand the definition of ``firearm'' to include the main components of the weapon and will prohibit the manufacture or assembly of guns by an individual who does not have a license to do so. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the ``Gun Parts Trafficking Act'' and ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President today I introduce a bill that will reduce the number of firearms on the street and help keep guns out of the hands of criminals. In the wake of the tragic shooting this year outside of San Diego, we are reminded of what happens when the wrong people have access to guns. Such tragic shootings become even more troubling when they involve a former police gun or firearms previously involved in a crime. It is vital that law enforcement agencies have the very best equipment available to ensure their safety and to protect America's communities, but purchasing new weapons can be expensive, particularly for smaller cash-strapped municipalities. Thus, to offset the costs of purchasing new weapons, law enforcement agencies have often in the last two decades either sold their old guns to dealers or auctioned them off to the public. However, this practice has led to an unintended result, increased risk that these guns would end up back on the streets and in the hands of criminals. In the past 10 years, firearms once used by law enforcement agencies have been involved in more than 3,000 crimes throughout the United States, including 293 homicides, 301 assaults, and 279 drug-related crimes. In 1999, Bufford Furrow, a white supremacist, used a Glock pistol that was decommissioned and sold by a police agency in the State of Washington to terrorize and shoot children at a Jewish community center in Los Angeles and then kill a postal worker. Members of the Latin Kings, a violent Chicago street gang, used guns formerly owned by the Miami-Dade Police Department in Florida to commit violent crimes in Illinois. And a 1996 investigation by the New York State inspector general found that weapons used by New York law enforcement officers had been used in crimes in at least two other States. It is time that we help our law enforcement agencies do what they are trying to do--get out of the business of selling guns. With the help of the bill I am introducing, law enforcement agencies will no longer be forced to resell their old guns or guns seized from criminals to help them obtain the new weapons that are necessary to carry out their duties. Instead, this bill would provide grants to State or local law enforcement agencies to assist them in purchasing new firearms. In order to receive these grants, the law enforcement agencies must simply agree to either destroy their decommissioned guns or not sell them to the public. A growing number of States and cities have already decided to ban the practice of pouring old police guns into the consumer market. They recognize that the extra money gained from selling old police guns is not worth the possibility that those guns would contribute to additional suffering or loss of life. It is simply bad public policy for governments to be suppliers of guns and potentially add to the problem of gun violence in America. Regardless of where one stands on gun control, logic, common sense, and decency demand that we also recognize this simple truth and unite behind moving this bill to passage. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President today I introduce a bill that will reduce the number of firearms on the street and help keep guns out of the hands of criminals. In the wake of the tragic shooting this year outside of San Diego, we are reminded of what happens when the wrong people have access to guns. Such tragic shootings become even more troubling when they involve a former police gun or firearms previously involved in a crime. It is vital that law enforcement agencies have the very best equipment available to ensure their safety and to protect America's communities, but purchasing new weapons can be expensive, particularly for smaller cash-strapped municipalities. Thus, to offset the costs of purchasing new weapons, law enforcement agencies have often in the last two decades either sold their old guns to dealers or auctioned them off to the public. However, this practice has led to an unintended result, increased risk that these guns would end up back on the streets and in the hands of criminals. In the past 10 years, firearms once used by law enforcement agencies have been involved in more than 3,000 crimes throughout the United States, including 293 homicides, 301 assaults, and 279 drug-related crimes. In 1999, Bufford Furrow, a white supremacist, used a Glock pistol that was decommissioned and sold by a police agency in the State of Washington to terrorize and shoot children at a Jewish community center in Los Angeles and then kill a postal worker. Members of the Latin Kings, a violent Chicago street gang, used guns formerly owned by the Miami-Dade Police Department in Florida to commit violent crimes in Illinois. And a 1996 investigation by the New York State inspector general found that weapons used by New York law enforcement officers had been used in crimes in at least two other States. It is time that we help our law enforcement agencies do what they are trying to do--get out of the business of selling guns. With the help of the bill I am introducing, law enforcement agencies will no longer be forced to resell their old guns or guns seized from criminals to help them obtain the new weapons that are necessary to carry out their duties. Instead, this bill would provide grants to State or local law enforcement agencies to assist them in purchasing new firearms. In order to receive these grants, the law enforcement agencies must simply agree to either destroy their decommissioned guns or not sell them to the public. A growing number of States and cities have already decided to ban the practice of pouring old police guns into the consumer market. They recognize that the extra money gained from selling old police guns is not worth the possibility that those guns would contribute to additional suffering or loss of life. It is simply bad public policy for governments to be suppliers of guns and potentially add to the problem of gun violence in America. Regardless of where one stands on gun control, logic, common sense, and decency demand that we also recognize this simple truth and unite behind moving this bill to passage. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, the Senate now turns its attention to what is the other half of the campaign finance problem. It is, after all, not simply what is raised but why money is raised and where it is going. This Senate, for 5 years, has had to overcome four filibusters to get us to this moment in considering campaign finance reform. We have voted on 113 occasions to reform the campaign finance laws. We have considered 300 pieces of legislation, heard 3,000 speeches, and filled 6,000 pages of the Congressional Record. But none of this will mean anything, this legislation will accomplish no more than leading to a less informed public with less political dialog, if we do not complement the reduction in fundraising with more availability of information by reducing the cost. The McCain-Feingold legislation, as written, will not abate the expense of running for political office. It could, if not amended, simply lead to an American public, as Senator McConnell has said many times, that is less informed with less political speech. I know no one in the country who believes that is the kind of reform we genuinely seek. The Alliance for Better Campaigns recently stated: Reform must do more than limit the supply of political money. It must also restrain the demand for political money. There is a perception in the media and in the public that the entire problem of campaign financing is the amount of money. That is a problem, but it is not the only problem. Members of this institution know that an equal burden that must be addressed is the amount of time Senators and Members of the House of Representatives are taken away from their legislative responsibilities, not meeting with ordinary citizens, to cater to the wealthy to gain access to this money. On the chart on my left, I have taken a State at random, New Jersey, and given an indication of what it takes in time to run what all future Senate campaigns in New Jersey probably will cost--a minimum of $15 million. This would require, under current campaign finance laws, raising $20,833 every day 7 days a week for 2 years, or 150 fundraising events, each raising $100,000, or 1,500 events at $10,000 per event, 1,500 fundraisers at $10,000. We can make it more difficult to raise the money. We can eliminate soft money. The question remains: Are we simply adding to the burden of how much time candidates must spend doing that? If we are eliminating categories of money, making it more difficult to get the $15 million, all we could be doing is adding to that time which candidates must spend finding it. That will not be an achievement. That is why today we are dealing with the other half of the equation--not what is raised but how much is spent. The 2000 elections provide an illustration. Common Cause estimates that the 2000 elections cost $3 billion. This is a 50-percent increase over 1996, begging the question, At this rate of increase, where is the Nation going? Obviously, to anyone in the system, by far the greatest component of this campaign spending is the cost of television advertising. Indeed, one-third of the $3 billion raised and spent in the 2000 elections went to pay for political advertisements on television. My predecessor, Senator Bradley of New Jersey, probably said it best a few years ago: Today's political campaigns function as collection agencies for broadcasters. You simply transfer money from contributors to television stations. During the 2000 elections, the broadcast networks enjoyed record profits. The placing of political advertisements on the networks is not a public service. They do not do this under duress. It is a major form of network profits. It is estimated to be at least $770 million and, indeed, figures could be as high as $1 billion that was spent by candidates on political advertisements--a 76-percent increase over 1996. The chart on my left illustrates the rapid increase. President midterm spending, in 1982, adjusted for inflation, was $200 million; in the year 2000, now reaching $800 million. It is an exponential increase that is unsustainable. The Alliance for Better Campaigns recently issued its report, ``Gouging Democracy, How the TV Industry Profiteered on Campaign 2000.'' This report illustrates how stations across the country took advantage of candidates by increasing their pricing for advertising just when they knew that campaigns needed the time the most. In Philadelphia and New York City, the two media networks which serve my State of New Jersey, the cost of some political ads increased almost 50 percent between Labor Day and election day--television stations recognizing that unlike an automobile manufacturer or a soap manufacturer that can advertise at any time of the year, a candidate has no choice but to communicate with those voters between Labor Day and election day. They have a captive market and they take full and unconscionable advantage. The letter on my left is a perfect example. This is a television station which has had an ad placed by a Federal candidate. Under the law, they are required to sell this ad at the lowest unit rate. But as is typical of the television networks, they wrote a letter back to the candidate saying: Activity is a lot heavier than the station anticipated, and your schedules are already getting bumped. My colleagues, this is the heart of the problem. The candidate placed the ad at $6,300, as required by law. But the television station let the candidate know: You may have bought this ad in accord with Federal law at $6,300, but you will never see it on television because we will bump it. You will not get it for when you bought it. It will be shown in the middle of the night when no one will see it. So they politely extort another $8,000 in order to guarantee the time slot that has been provided. An ad required to be sold at $6,000 by law is now in excess of $14,000. This is the heart of the problem. And it is typical. In our surveys across the country, as in Philadelphia and New York, these rates were going up by 50 percent. We have seen in others, typically, 30-percent increases in these rates. Now, by law, Members of the Senate undoubtedly think this was addressed years ago, and they would be right in having that belief. Nothing I am now reviewing should be allowed by law. But there is a loophole, and the loophole, as I have illustrated, is that they will sell you the time. They will just never guarantee it will ever be seen on television. That, as I think anybody could assess, is not much of an advertising campaign. The law is actually being complied with as an exception. The rule is the violation. The chart on my left illustrates this point conclusively. The heavy red lines are advertisements that are placed above the lowest unit rate--remembering that the law requires that advertisements be sold to political candidates, as required for communication in Federal elections, at the lowest unit rate. WCCO in Minneapolis met its public responsibility by selling 4 percent of all of its advertisements at the lowest unit rate. And 95 percent of all the ads placed were higher than lowest rates. They are paying commercial rates. In New York city, an advertising market with which I am familiar, WNBC--not some unaffiliated station, but one owned by the National Broadcasting Company itself--15 percent of their ads were in accordance with the law at the lowest unit rate; for 78 percent they were charging commercial rates to Federal candidates for public office. There are stations that are better. The chart illustrates that virtually in every market in the country, large States and small, rural and urban, the responsibilities are not being met. In Los Angeles, KABC--once again, an affiliate owned by the network itself--34 percent of all advertisements are being sold at commercial rates. In Columbus, OH, it is 90 percent. At KYW, one of the most popular stations in Philadelphia, it is 91 percent. At WXYZ in Detroit, it is 88 percent sold at commercial rates. My colleagues, the law as you intended it, to require lowest unit rate sales of advertising, has collapsed. It is not happening. Broadcasters are auctioning advertising time to Federal candidates in competition with the industries of America. Any candidate is facing the prospect of a bidding war with General Motors or Ford or IBM when they go to place political advertising. The law is simply not functioning. Similar patterns, as I have demonstrated, are all over the country. To quote the Alliance for Better Campaigns, ``while this law remains on the books, its original intent is no longer served.'' The other part of this equation is not simply that there is price gouging of candidates by taking advantage of a loophole in the lowest unit rate, but, almost incredibly and simultaneously, the broadcasters are violating another responsibility. One responsibility is the lowest unit rate to allow advertising, not to increase the cost of campaigns and increase fundraising responsibilities and burdens; the other is to provide news coverage. These, my colleagues, after all, are the public airwaves, licensed by the Federal Government for the interest of the American people to promote their debates. The Federal airwaves are not to be used entirely for sitcoms and cartoons, or to sell soap or automobiles. There is a public responsibility. I am going to show the difference between what is going on in advertising and news coverage. As you can see on this chart, those ads sold at the unit rate are flat. The red line shows that almost all advertising is going on to the non-unit rate or commercial rate of advertising. We will move on to the news coverage. Now, remembering how the advertising was increasing at commercial costs, exponentially the chart was rising to the top. Consider this, remembering the two responsibilities: selling at lowest unit rate and providing news coverage in the public interest. In Philadelphia, during the New Jersey Senate primary--remembering there was no incumbent--we were choosing a U.S. Senator for New Jersey, during a Presidential election, the final 2 weeks of the campaign. In Philadelphia, this is the amount of news coverage in the final 14 days of the election: WPVI in Philadelphia, an average of 19 seconds per evening; WVAU, in the public interest, on a federally licensed station, dedicated an average of 1 second per night to informing their viewers on the Senate campaign in its closing days. In New York, the situation was not very much different. WNBC--once again, a network-owned-and- operated affiliate, not some arm's length operating station, but NBC's own station in New York, in the final 2 weeks of the campaign--gave 23 seconds to covering the primary. At WCBS in New York, an average of 10 seconds was given to covering this. As Robert McChesney wrote in Rich Media, Poor Democracy: Broadcasters have little incentive to cover candidates, because it is in their interest to force them to publicize their campaigns. Exactly. Why would anyone provide free coverage in the public interest in hard news when, alternatively, candidates must pay millions of dollars to the stations themselves to get their message across? There is a disincentive to provide news because people have to pay for it. The Brennan Center reports that, indeed, in the 30 days preceding the November elections, the national broadcasters averaged about 1 minute per night--1 minute--in substantive campaign coverage. Rather than a discussion of substantive issues, the broadcast networks covered the campaign 2000 primarily as a horse race. Only one in four network news stations aired stories that were, indeed, issue oriented. The chart on my left makes this comparison: what is happening in advertising in which candidates are now paying nearly a billion dollars, and what is happening in news coverage as required by Federal license. These are the top four rated TV stations in Philadelphia and New York. Overall, a viewer in the State of New Jersey is 10 times more likely to see a paid political advertisement--10 times--than they are ever to see a news story, excepting that most of those news stories are scandal, and horse races, and are not news anyway. Conceding they really are news, let's operate on the fiction they were putting news on the air. Nevertheless, one would be 10 times more likely to see a political advertisement. Here are examples in Philadelphia: WPVI, 122 advertisements ran between May 24 and June 5. The number of news stories was 11. WNBC in New York, 99 advertisements, 16 news stories. The fact is, news coverage has reached an all-time low. Just as the networks are evading their responsibility for the lowest unit cost under the law, they are also avoiding their responsibility to provide hard news. During last summer's political conventions for Democrats and Republicans, ABC, CBS, and NBC reduced by two-thirds the hours they devoted to convention coverage of 1988, the last time there was an open seat Presidential election. Broadcasters are in many respects public trustees. They should not be putting the public airwaves out to bid when political candidates want to communicate with their constituents. They receive their licenses by meeting FCC requirements under the 1934 Communications Act in the public interest. The law makes clear that the airwaves are public property and that they must be used for the ``public interest, convenience, and necessity.'' Indeed, perhaps maybe this Congress deserves some of the blame. In 1997, the Congress gave broadcasters digital TV licenses which doubled the amount of spectrum. If sold at auction, it would have brought in $70 billion. William Safire wrote: A rip-off on a scale vaster than dreamed. . .by the robber barons. Bob Dole called it ``a giant corporate welfare scheme.'' What all this has meant is broadcasters taking advantage of this new technology without any new responsibility, and we have allowed this situation to deteriorate to the point of billion-dollar campaigns putting enormous burdens of time and money on the political system. That is, in my judgment, unsustainable. In response to this gift of public assets, President Clinton appointed an advisory panel to update the public interest obligation of broadcasters. The panel advised broadcasters to voluntarily air 5 minutes a night in the 30 days before the election. During the 2000 elections, local affiliates of NBC and CBS agreed to the 5 minutes. Although these stations should be commended, they and other stations made similar decisions representing 70 percent of the 1,300 local stations. Shockingly, ABC, which was the second biggest beneficiary of political advertisement last year, did not make any commitment at all. The refusal of ABC to join other broadcast networks was the broadest step toward further corporate irresponsibility. In sum, what much of this means is that contrary to law and the national interest, the broadcasters have now developed a dependency on political advertising. As the chart on my left illustrates, this is now the source of revenues of television stations and networks, gaining 25 percent of all of their revenue from the automobile companies, the largest industry in America; 15 percent from retailers across the country, and, unbelievably, 10 percent of all revenues of television stations is now coming from political advertising. If this, however, were a chart of Iowa or New Hampshire or early primary States, we would find during the Presidential elections that it is not third but first. Even taking the network's greatest advantage of looking at this nationally, it is clear television stations have developed a dependency--indeed, an addiction--on political advertising. That is clearly not in the national interest. What should, however, gain the attention of the American people is the almost unbelievable hypocrisy of the networks on this issue. They have joined the fight for campaign finance reform by criticizing the current finance system, and we welcome their assistance. If there is to be genuine reform, we are glad the voices of the networks have been part of the drumbeat of criticism to bring this Congress to a change. They want change. They just do not want to be part of it, recognizing there is a reason this money is being raised, and they are the principal reason. Outside this Chamber, today the National Association of Broadcasters will have its lobbyists attempting to convince Members they should not bear any responsibility and they should be able to evade the current law and charge commercial rates for their $1 billion in political advertising. Indeed, since 1996, the National Association of Broadcasters has spent $19 million. While the network broadcasters are convincing the American people to change the political system, their lobbyists are in the hall spending millions of dollars in lobbying time convincing people not to lower costs, do not raise money, but keep spending it on us. From 1996 through 1998, the National Association of Broadcasters and five media outlets together spent $11 million to defeat 12 campaign finance bills that would have, if implemented, reduced the cost of broadcasting for candidates. Time's up. You wanted campaign finance reform and you were right, the system should be changed, but you miscalculated because you are going to be part of that reform. On a bipartisan basis, this Senate is going to vote today to implement a law which we intended a long time ago. These are public airwaves. There will not be price gouging for candidates for Federal office. This time will be sold at the lowest unit rate as was always our intention. Under the Torricelli-Corzine-Durbin-Dorgan, et al., amendment, we are going to bring the letter of the law back in line with the spirit of the law. Our intention is very simple: One, require broadcasters to charge candidates and political parties the lowest rate offered throughout the year. Therefore, the gouging that takes place because the networks know that we must advertise between Labor Day and election day will end. They will base these prices on the lowest rate throughout the year. Second, ensure that candidate and party ads cannot be bumped, displaced, by other advertisers willing to pay more for the air time. Simply stated, to avoid the problem, as in the letter I indicated from one television station, where a candidate for public office attempting to communicate with their constituent is told that General Motors is willing to pay more for the same spot; therefore, either you pay what they will pay or your advertisement will run in the dead of the night. Three, require the FCC to conduct random checks during the preelection period to ensure compliance with the law. In 1990, Senator Danforth of Missouri requested a similar audit by the FCC and for the first time revealed the extent to which broadcasters were not charging candidates the lowest unit rate. Although the crackdown resulted in a temporary dip in rates as broadcasters followed the law more closely, recognizing the FCC controlled their licenses, as soon as the study was finished, the monitoring was over, rates went up again, and the law was violated. This time we will monitor it, but we will monitor it permanently. Savings that will result from this amendment are extraordinary, as is the ability to change the national political culture of the fundraiser, reducing costs, resulting in reduced fundraising. This is a great opportunity. I do not know a member of this Congress who wouldn't rather spend their time legislating than raising funds. I don't know a Member of this Congress who wouldn't prefer to be at home on the weekends with their family or constituents, rather than traveling around the Nation raising funds. This isn't something that anybody enjoys. There is an endless spiral of fundraising that is out of control, but it will not be stopped simply by eliminating soft money or making it more difficult to raise money of any kind. Candidates will find money within the law under some system unless we address the question of costs. In the modern political age, the cost of a campaign is easily defined. It is television. This is a network-driven process. And it can change. My final chart illustrates the difference in running political campaigns in three jurisdictions. If the Torricelli-Corzine-Durbin- Dorgan amendment is adopted, the cost of running advertising in Los Angeles, the second most expensive media market in the country, would be a 75-percent difference by applying the lowest unit rate; in Denver, 41 percent; in Birmingham, AL, an incredible 400-percent difference. This goes to the heart of the problem. We are simply requiring what was asked a long time ago. We do not do this to an industry that is struggling. The broadcast industry is making record profits by using Federal licenses with new technology that has been given without cost. Now, my friends, it is time to ask them to meet their responsibilities. A new campaign finance system in America will require responsibilities and sacrifices by many people--certainly by every Member of Congress. This amendment will welcome the broadcasters into a new responsibility in being part of the answer to the problem rather than the core of the problem itself. I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Let me inquire. We have several colleagues who want to speak on behalf of the amendment. While I want to speak, I do not want to take all the time that remains. So I am under the Senator's guidance.