Robert Torricelli

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank the Senator very much. At this point, I want to deal with several of the questions that have been put before the Senate. In the absence of anyone coming to the Senate floor to confront the overwhelming logic of our amendment, I want to deal with the stealth arguments being presented in Senators' offices. Even though no one will rise in defense of this indefensible cause of the networks, nevertheless, there are silent arguments being waged. I will debate those even if there is not someone in person to do it. As some of my colleagues have noted, some of the most effective arguments were actually made yesterday in the Washington Post by David Broder, the columnist. Let me begin by quoting those arguments. I quote: The reality is being ignored-- That is in dealing with McCain-Feingold-- as senators debate rival measures, all of which have a common feature--reducing the flow of contributions that pay the campaign television bills. Common sense tells you that if the TV bill remains that exorbitant, politicians will continue the ``money chase'' under any rules that are in place. Exactly. Further: The reality is that any measure that becomes law without such a provision-- Parenthetically, that meaning the cost of television-- is likely to be no more than a Band-Aid. As long as broadcasters can continue to treat politics as a profit center, not a public responsibility, the money will have to come from somewhere to pay those bills. The current debate focuses too much on the people who write the checks. It's time to question, as well, where the money goes. That is the heart of the argument for this amendment. Where does the money go? Mr. McCain and Mr. Feingold deal with the demand for money. We are dealing with the supply of the advertisements. This is an equation that inevitably must be dealt with together in the bill. It has been noted by my colleague, Senator Corzine, of our experience in the New York metropolitan area, although indeed we do so simply because we are the most familiar with it. The arguments we are making about New York and Philadelphia could be made in any market in the country, al though I want, parenthetically, to deal with how the networks are approaching political campaigns today, not as a responsibility to enhance communication but as an economic opportunity. It should be noted that of the 10 stations that made the most money from political advertising in the year 2000, three are in New York: NBC, ABC and CBS; two are in Philadelphia, WPVI and WCAU. They range from WNBC in New York, which placed $25 million of advertising, and in Philadelphia with $11 million for WCAU. It is best described by the sales director at the CBS affiliate in Philadelphia as ``the best year we've had in forever.'' Why was it the best year and why all this excitement? Let me quote from an article by Paul Taylor, former Washington Post political reporter. Quoting the CBS affiliate in Buffalo, WIVB-TV, Patrick Paolini, general sales manager, who said: We're salivating. No question it will be huge as far as ad revenue [is concerned] . . . It's like Santa Claus came. It's a beautiful thing. He was not talking about the quality of the debate. ``Santa Claus coming'' was not about substantive arguments to help the people of New York. He was talking about the prospects of Hillary Rodham Clinton running for the Senate and the potential revenues, recognizing the expenditures in a Clinton Senate campaign. ``We're salivating.'' ``It's a beautiful thing.'' ``It's like Santa Claus came.'' It is not by chance that we come today making this argument. There has been a calculation by television networks to take advantage of this political system and this fundraising to maximize their profits. There are arguments going on in Senators' offices as we speak. Papers are being circulated, as I have suggested, in the absence of any Senators coming to argue against this amendment. Stealth arguments are being made to Senators' offices. Let me go through a few of these arguments for a moment. The National Association of Broadcasters is arguing, first, that we are going down the slippery slope of free time. My colleagues, there is no amendment before the Senate requiring free time. Indeed, there could be an argument for it. All of our European allies, in every other industrial democracy in the world, broadcasters are required to provide free time to help the public debate. We are not doing that today. It would be warranted, but it is not being argued. We are simply requiring that the law read as many Senators believe it already exists--lowest unit cost. We are closing a loophole in the current law. Second, the National Association of Broadcasters is arguing in Members' offices that: Candidates already receive a 30 percent discount on regular commercial ad rates. Oh, my colleagues, if only it were so. As I think we demonstrated earlier in my arguments, that is a fiction. Candidates are not getting 30 percent. Yes, that is the law. That is what should be happening. But as we have demonstrated--in Minneapolis, 95 percent of advertising is now being done at commercial rates, 4 percent is at lowest unit rate; in Detroit, 8 percent is at lowest unit rate; in Philadelphia, 9 percent; in San Francisco, 14 percent; in Las Vegas, 38 percent; in Seattle, 9 percent. No, National Association of Broadcasters, you are not providing a 30- percent discount. That is the exception. The rule is, you are price gouging. You are charging commercial rates--contrary to current law. Third, arguing that: This has a fundamental, constitutional problem. There is no constitutional problem. First, we have had, for more than 30 years, the requirement that ads must be sold at the lowest unit rate. We are not doing anything new. We are closing a loophole in current law. If there is a constitutional argument now, then there has been a constitutional argument for decades; and it has never been raised before, although, frankly, even if it had been, it would have failed. The fifth amendment's taking challenge would fail in this provision. There is no right to a grant of a license or property interest in the use of a frequency. The networks have a public license to use the public frequencies for their network business. There is no constitutional right to it. You apply for a license, and you can get that license subject to conditions. Public responsibility is one of those conditions. Selling air time for the public debate at a reasonable cost is another condition. That has always been a condition. Under section 304 of the Communications Act of 1934, broadcasters are required to ``waive any claim to the use of any particular frequency or electromagnetic spectrum as against the regulatory power of the U.S.'' There they have waived the constitutional right to claim that the spectrum must be used for public purposes. In Federal Communications Commission v. Sanders Bros. Radio Station, a court decision, the Supreme Court of the United States interpreted this provision to mean that: No person is to have anything in the nature of a property right as a result of granting a license. There simply is no constitutional right impaired by asking these reduced rates. Finally, the broadcasters are arguing, in correspondence to our offices, that broadcasters should not bear the burden of campaign reform. Why not? Isn't dealing with the campaign finance problems of the country everybody's responsibility? We are saying that candidates for public office should no longer avail themselves of soft money, should abide by certain rules. Why indeed should broadcasters not bear some of the responsibilities? Do they not have public licenses? Do they not have responsibility to air the news fairly, cover campaigns, to inform the public? Should they be allowed to price gouge? They make the argument: What about newspapers? Shouldn't newspapers bear this responsibility? I don't know a newspaper in America that deals with a Federal license, nor are newspapers under the same circumstance of a market that will only permit so many newspapers. The spectrum has limited the number of television stations; hence, the FEC's requirements and Federal law. These National Association of Broadcasters arguments are an insult. They confirm the arrogance with which the networks are approaching Federal campaigns, the arrogance that is leading to avoidance of Federal responsibilities, the selling at lowest unit rate cost, or the raising of these extraordinary arguments without merit. That is the sum and substance of the case they are making. To the credit of my colleagues, they are so meritless in their points that no one will actually argue their point of view. Hence, I challenge them alone. We have other colleagues who have come to the floor to make their case. I yield the floor. Senator Durbin will be available to speak to the Senate.

Mr. TORRICELLI. If the Senator would yield, could I have 1 minute, then, before the vote, just to close on my amendment?

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, the Senate is now moving beyond a simple soft money ban to genuine campaign finance reform, ensuring that as we reduce the amount of money in the political system, we are not reducing the amount of political debate in the Nation. There is nothing new or startling about this amendment. Under current law, the broadcast industry must provide the lowest unit rate for political broadcasting. The problem is, they have been evading their responsibility. Stations now will have to participate in a shared sacrifice. Candidates will not raise certain forms of money that are undermining political confidence, and the broadcast industry must meet its public responsibility to provide low-cost broadcasting. I believe this is a critical component to comprehensive campaign finance reform. It allows many of us to be part of McCain-Feingold.

Mr. TORRICELLI. I believe it is a proper addition. I thank the Chair. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk. I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, tomorrow I will join my colleagues, Senators Durbin, Corzine and Dorgan, to support an amendment designed to reduce broadcast rates for political candidates and parties. This will be discussed at length tomorrow. For this evening's purposes, it is probably best to introduce the amendment with the words of David Broder today in the Washington Post who writes the current campaign finance debate: . . .focuses too much on the people who write the checks. It's time to question, as well, where the money goes. There remains no greater factor in the astronomical expense in political campaigns than the rising cost of televised political advertising. Nearly $1 billion was spent on political advertising in the 2000 Federal campaign, a 76 percent increase since 1996. As demand for advertising time rose, advertising rates have risen as well. In Philadelphia and in New York City, the cost of some political ads increased 50 percent between Labor Day and Election Day. Political candidates were held hostage by the calendar and the television networks took full advantage. By law, candidates are supposed to pay the lowest unit rate for a station's most favored commercial advertisers. That is the law. The problem is that to ensure their advertisements do not get displaced, candidates often end up paying the highest rates available. This Congress had an intent, and it wrote a law that Members of the Congress have available the lowest unit rate available by station. But it isn't happening. That is the purpose of this amendment. In Detroit, 88 percent of the advertisements at one television station were sold above the lowest rate. In Minneapolis, 95 percent of all the advertising sold was above that minimum rate. The lowest unit rate has become a fiction. Political candidates are competing with General Motors, Procter & Gamble, Ford, and the greatest advertisers in the Nation. We are in a bidding war against commercial interests in order to communicate public policy issues with the American people. There is no greater hypocrisy in our time than the television networks that have maintained the need for a change of a campaign finance system at the same time they are increasing rates during the fall campaigns and gouging political candidates for more and more money. Indeed, political advertising is now the third greatest source of revenue for the television networks behind retailers and the automobile companies. The Torricelli-Durbin-Corzine amendment prevents broadcasters from gouging candidates and parties into paying the highest rates for fixed time by: One, requiring stations to charge candidates and parties the lowest rate available throughout the year; Two, ensuring that candidates and party ads are not bumped by other advertisers willing to pay more for the time in the bidding war in which we are now engaged with commercial parties; Three, requiring the FCC to conduct random checks during the preelection period to ensure compliance with the law. Candidates in markets of all sizes would benefit. A candidate in Alabama could save at least 400 percent on one station alone. We have calculated that a candidate in Los Angeles could save 75 percent at one station by having this lower rate available. This amendment does not require broadcasters to allocate candidates free time, as indeed is done in almost every other industrial democracy in the world. Many of my colleagues believe such free time is the answer. We are not requiring that in this amendment. We are not altering the content of their programming nor charging a fee for use of the public spectrum. All we are doing is requiring what we required so long ago, but now enforcing it --now ensuring that it happens in practice; that is, that the lowest unit rate be made available. This will be discussed in length tomorrow. But it is eminently reasonable that in a public policy debate, in choosing leaders of this country, the public airwaves provided on license to the television networks not be a financial opportunity for the networks to get candidates in a bidding war against commercial advertisers, and not taking advantage of those weeks before an election when advertisers, by necessity, must be placed and, therefore, an opportunity for the networks to increase their rates to take advantage of the calendar. This simply assures fair access at a fair price. It is a necessary component of campaign finance reform. If we are to reduce the amount of money that is available as part of the effort to perform, reduce the amount of political money in this system in order to ensure the integrity of our Government and increase public confidence, and if we are to reduce these expenditures without reducing the cost of advertising, there is only one possible result: Less campaign fundraising will result in less communication, less informed voters, and candidates unable to bring their message to the people. There is only one way to avoid this eventuality: Reduce the amount of campaign money by reducing campaign costs. That is at the heart of the Torricelli - Corzine - Dorgan - Durbin amendment. I will return tomorrow morning with my colleagues. We will present our case at length and I think make a real and lasting contribution to the fight for reform. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I yield to Senator Ensign of Nevada.

Mr. TORRICELLI. If I could interrupt the Senator, on tomorrow we will present to the Senate correspondence illustrating exactly the phenomenon to which the Senator from Nevada was speaking. Political candidates will place an ad for $20,000 in compliance with Federal law at the lowest unit rate, and the television station will write back and say: You have an advertisement placed at $20,000, and you should know there is a commercial buyer for that time. If you do not send us another $20,000, you will lose the slot. We will move your ad where we intend to move it, which means the middle of the night. In fact, they take a candidate's time trying to communicate to the American people in accordance with Federal law at the lowest unit rate, and then you get into a bidding war with the commercial interests because the station is trying to take advantage of the time. They know you advertise in October and September. Tomorrow we are going to have a complete example of what the Senator is discussing.

Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank the Senator for his help. I believe we will succeed tomorrow on a bipartisan basis. I think people recognize the purpose of campaign finance reform is not that the United States have less political debate, not that the American people will be less informed, but that there will be less money in the system. If we are to achieve both--and that is, to have people to be well informed but have less money in the system, and build confidence--we have to lower the cost of campaigns. This is the way to do it--on the public airways. Unfortunately, we are not doing what is done in Britain or France or England, which is providing this time free because they are public airwaves. We are taking a very modest step. Indeed, we are only putting into law what really, in fact, was in the law but now is being evaded, and that is this requirement of lowest unit rate. Indeed, the Senator's experience in Las Vegas is not unusual. He has seen a 300-percent increase during this decade. As I pointed out, the national average, in just 4 years, is 76 percent. There is no cost of business for any industry I know of that is rising faster than the cost of advertising for a political candidate. But what is unbelievable is, in the entire national debate on campaign finance reform, this has largely been absent. It is as if candidates are raising money because they enjoy it, that somehow people like to raise money because it is entertaining. People are raising these phenomenal amounts of money for one purpose: to feed the television networks that are demanding it, and holding the political system hostage. So I suggest that tomorrow Mr. Brokaw and Mr. Jennings and Mr. Rather, who have led this campaign for campaign finance reform--we are joining them and going to make the point that rather than being a critic of it, you can make a contribution. This is their way of making a contribution. We are going to lead them to do so tomorrow. Would the Senator like to add a point?

Mr. TORRICELLI. If I could share one of my own experiences: In 1996, in my own Senate race, we tried to buy the advertising in advance. We knew, as did the Senator, how many points we wanted to buy. We offered to send the money to television. They would not take it because they wanted to increase the rates. They told us in advance: These rates will not hold. We will not take your money. The more they see the demand from political candidates, the more they increase the cost. Now, to the point, if we are to have a $1,000 limit on all expenditures under McCain-Feingold--no soft money--only $1,000 contributions, in the city of New York an ad covering much of the State of New Jersey can be $60,000 or $70,000. So it will take 70 people writing $1,000 contributions to pay for one ad--one. The point becomes, how many people do you need? How much do you have to raise to run a television campaign? Effectively, for a candidate in New York today, we will never see another Senate campaign that costs less than $25 million. At that rate, how many thousands and thousands and thousands of people have to write $1,000 contributions? There is no escaping this addiction of money until we lower these costs. I am very grateful the Senator from Nevada has joined this cause. I am very grateful on a bipartisan basis it seems overwhelmingly the Senate is prepared now to have the second leg on the chair of campaign finance reform--control the money, control the costs, and then we have a balanced program for genuine reform. I thank the Senator. I look forward to being with him in the debate tomorrow. I yield the floor. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Nevada for yielding the time. For more than 4 years, this body has considered the need for comprehensive bankruptcy reform. I have been very proud in each of those years to work with Senator Hatch and Senator Grassley in accommodating the needs of individual Senators in fashioning what I think is a fair and balanced approach. I am certainly grateful to each of them, as well as Senator Biden, Senator Sessions, and Senator Leahy, for what I think has been an extraordinary and a very balanced approach on incredibly complicated legislation that has accommodated so many individual Senators. We are now approaching the end of this very long and detailed debate. I think it is worth noting, as we approach a final vote, that the legislation before the Senate has not only been considered for many years but has received extraordinarily broad and deep support in the Congress. Indeed, very similar legislation passed the House of Representatives 2 weeks ago on a bipartisan basis with more than 300 votes. That legislation provided an important change to what is, by any reasonable assessment, a very flawed bankruptcy system. Indeed, the best evidence of the need for this reform is that in 1998 alone, in the midst of one of the greatest economic expansions in American history, nearly 1.5 million Americans sought bankruptcy protection. This is a staggering 350-percent increase since 1980. Indeed, while the filings may have been reduced slightly in 1999, they are still far too high. It is estimated that 70 percent of filings were made in chapter 7, allowing a debtor to obtain relief from almost all of their unsecured debts. Conversely, only 30 percent of petitions filed were under chapter 13, which requires a repayment plan. This is the heart of the problem. People with an ability to repay some debts are repaying almost no debts because current bankruptcy law allows them to choose, totally escaping responsibility. The Department of Justice estimated that 182,000 people last year could have repaid some of these debts and didn't. The question has come to the floor of the Senate, these 182,000 people, representing some $4 billion that could have been repaid but escaped repayment, what this means in public policy. Members of the Senate appropriately have raised questions about the impact on families, on poor people, on middle- income people, and on small businesses. Each of us has an obligation to ensure people meet their responsibilities, that we are not ending the opportunities for people who want, need, and deserve a second chance in American life. To our credit, in our system we have allowed people who often, through no fault of their own, face bankruptcy to get another chance. We have been particularly sensitive to the poor, that those who have been disadvantaged or face tragedy in their lives are given a chance to reorganize their lives, to start over, through the protection of bankruptcy. It is important that every Member of the Senate know that this bankruptcy bill was rewritten to be sensitive to these needs, and more. It has been argued on the Senate floor that these protections would help large American companies--credit card companies, banks, large retailers--who sometimes now are left with the price of inappropriate bankruptcies. It may help their interests. But how about the small retailer or the consumer who ultimately pays for inappropriate bankruptcies? How about the small business--the contractor, the subcontractor--that is left to absorb the cost of these inappropriate bankruptcies? It happens every day. As when one person or business inappropriately files for bankruptcy, though they could pay the bills and escape their obligation, that cost is passed along, not only to the consumer who pays more for everything in every store through every product but the subcontractors, the mom-and-pop businesses that are sometimes forced out of business by abuse of the bankruptcy law. I believe this reform and these changes protect them as well. But even so, if we did so while still victimizing the single mother or the child or child support, it wouldn't be worth doing. Indeed, I would be here opposing the bill rather than fighting for it. That is not what we did. This bill protects the American family, the vulnerable child, the single mother. Under current bankruptcy law, a single parent and the child are seventh in line behind the Government, accountants, rent, storage, and tax claims. Under this bill, a mother and child seeking money in bankruptcy stand behind no one. They are first in line in claiming assets in any bankruptcy. Second, the question has been brought to the Senate, How about those who are poor and seek protection in bankruptcy? Are they jeopardized if they are not single mothers or not children who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in bankruptcy? This bill provides a waiver so any judge can use discretion to ensure any citizen who needs bankruptcy protection because of extraordinary or extenuating circumstances, who is otherwise not eligible, can and will get it. Finally, the question has been raised on the Senate floor: Is it not true that all the fault of bankruptcy is not with the individual, it is sometimes with unscrupulous, unnecessary, even unconscionable credit solicitations? I cannot tell the Senate that in every way this bill provides all the consumer protection I think it should have. Rarely in the Senate do we get to vote on perfect legislation as envisioned by any Member. The question is, as in protection for women and children, Is it better than current law? Unquestionably, the answer is yes. There are 3.5 billion solicitations for credit cards in America every year, 41 mailings for every man, woman, and child in the country. The issue before the Senate is, If this bill is passed, is the consumer better protected than under current law? Under this bill, we will require the prominent disclosure of the impact of making only minimum payments every month so every consumer knows. Every consumer today does not know. It will require the disclosure of late fees, what they will be, and when they will be imposed. That is not required under current law. It will require disclosure of the date under which introductory or teaser rates will expire, as well as what the permanent rate will be after that time. That is not required under current law. I do not say this will provide perfect consumer protection but it is better consumer protection. So in all these ways we have taken a difficult situation, recognizing the reality of abuse of bankruptcy laws, and provided a more fair bill, with access to the courts, protecting the most vulnerable with meaningful consumer protection. For all those reasons I ask Members of the Senate who on several occasions previously have voted for this bill to do so again, recognizing the balance we have tried to reach in one of the most extraordinarily complex pieces of legislation in which I have ever been involved, and that we follow our 300 colleagues in the House, vote for this legislation, get it to the President in the belief that he will sign bankruptcy reform and will provide these added protections for American businesses, large and small, and for American consumers. With all the costs being imposed on American businesses in difficult and competitive times, one of the costs that should not be imposed is unfair and unreasonable petitions for bankruptcy from people and businesses that have the ability to repay these debts. At long last, after all these years, having spoken on this floor more times than I care to remember for bankruptcy reform, this is my last speech. The Senate is nearing its last action. It is time to vote for the bill and implement bankruptcy reform. I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alabama for yielding. I rise in support of the bankruptcy reform bill. Indeed, for as many years as I have had the honor of serving in this institution, I have been rising in support of the bankruptcy bill. I am very honored in this cause to have worked with Senator Grassley, who chaired this subcommittee when I was the ranking member on Judiciary. We worked for countless hours to craft a bill that was both balanced and fair. Indeed, this bankruptcy reform legislation already contains amendments from Senators Durbin, Schumer, Reid, and on both sides of the aisle Members who recognize there is a problem with the abuse of the bankruptcy system but wanted to make sure that consumers had every protection possible. I am not here to state we have achieved the perfect legislation, nor that it is balanced in every respect. I can only suggest there is one thing upon which every Member of the Senate should be able to agree: it is that current bankruptcy laws are not working. It is an abuse to small and large business, creditors, and lenders. The system is broken. We benefit nothing by pretending otherwise. While not perfect legislation, it is fair. And it provides for a functioning bankruptcy system for businesses and consumers alike. It is for that reason I believe after several attempts to pass this legislation, with the overwhelming support of a majority of Senators, Members of both political parties, and a President who appears now positioned to sign this bill, it is time at long last to get this done. There are many Senators to be thanked before I go into the substance of the legislation. Having already mentioned Senator Grassley, I also mention Senator Biden. This legislation is in some significant measure at his inspiration. He has, in my party, been my partner in crafting this bill and moving it to this position. Even before he became a Member of the Senate, Senator Carper, then Governor Carper of Delaware, was a major force a year ago in crafting this legislation. He is also to be thanked. Of course, all of this happened, as Senator Grassley and I fashioned this legislation, under the leadership of Senator Hatch. I am grateful to him. Indeed, although Senator Leahy has expressed opposition to some provisions of this bill, to the extent that it has been improved in recent years, that is largely due to Senator Leahy's own involvement. Similarly, although Senator Durbin has expressed reservations about many provisions, before I became the ranking member of the subcommittee Senator Durbin was in this position. To the extent there are good consumer protection provisions in the legislation, it is largely at his design. Those are all the hands that have touched the legislation and brought us to this point. Now Senator Sessions and I are here as two advocates of the bill to suggest its passage. I don't think either of us would argue that we have achieved every objective, simply that we are providing a better system that is more fair. As I think Senator Sessions has recognized, the reality is that in this country, no matter what provision you might like to change in the current code or in this legislation, you can broadly accept the principle: We have a problem. In 1998 alone, nearly 1.5 million Americans sought bankruptcy protection. The United States was in the midst of the most significant large-scale economic expansion in the history of this Nation, or any nation, and 1.5 million Americans were availing themselves of bankruptcy protection. It is estimated that more than 70 percent of those bankruptcy filings were done in chapter 7, which provides relief for most unsecured debts. Conversely, only 30 percent were filed under chapter 13, which requires a repayment plan. For all the discussion and all the debate and all the delay, that, my colleagues, is the heart of the matter--the overwhelming majority of 1.5 million Americans seeking virtually complete relief from their financial obligations rather than entering into a repayment plan, although they have the means to repay some of their debts. The Department of Justice actually reviewed these filings under chapter 7 rather than chapter 13, and came to the conclusion that 13 percent of debtors filing in chapter 7, or 182,000 people each year, actually had the financial means to repay their debts. That means $4 billion could have been paid back to creditors. It was not paid--it was lost, although there was the means to repay it--because the law was being abused. It has been said on this floor that that was money lost to large credit card companies and huge banks, major financial institutions. No doubt there are large companies, private and public, that would have received some of this $4 billion back each year. But they do not stand alone; they were not the only ones abused. I do not rise today primarily in their interests. How about the small business owner, the retailer on Main Street who has a small profit margin on the clothing he sells or the hardware? When some declare complete bankruptcy, although they could have repaid their debt, those small business owners have lost their product. They made a sale that they thought would go to pay their debts, only to have someone file bankruptcy, and they lose all the revenue. They have no reserves. They have no place else to go. How about their family? Their business could be lost, and indeed every year those businesses are lost, family businesses that are abused by the misuse of the bankruptcy system. How about the small contractor, the plumber, the carpenter, or the electrician who gives his labor, the sweat of his brow, even the products he buys and resells, to have someone declare bankruptcy and walk away from all their obligations? Although their labor has been taken and the product they sold is gone, they are left with a debt, but the abuse of the bankruptcy system leaves them and their family faced with bankruptcy. It may be true that if this bill is passed, the major banks in New York or the major credit card companies may benefit. Indeed, if the law is being abused to their disadvantage and they are losing the resources of their stockholders or their employees, I make no apologies that this bill helps them deal with an abuse. But they do not stand alone. Overwhelmingly, proportionally, the principal benefit will go to other small businesspeople. I hear Members on this floor almost every day claiming that they stand with the small businessperson, the family company, the middle- class family, the working men. Here is your opportunity. How many of those plumbers and electricians and small retailers, mom-and-pop stores, will not make it through this year because someone takes their labors or their products falsely, declares bankruptcy, abuses the system even though they had the resources, as the Department of Justice has demonstrated, to pay their bills? Rather than words of encouragement, how about your vote in support of those small businesses? Then the critics will argue: You may be helping small business, but surely this is a problem for the poor. I have suggested for 4 years, and I will say so again today, with all respect to my colleagues who oppose this bill we have so carefully drafted, that is simply just not true. What this legislation does is assure that those with the ability to repay a portion of their debts do so. No Americans are so poor or undefended or powerless that they are denied access to bankruptcy under this bill. We have done this by changing the legislation through the years. This is not the legislation that began in this process 4 years ago. We accomplish this goal by establishing a flexible yet efficient screen to move debtors with the ability to repay a portion of their debt into a repayment scheme. If you are poor, if you have no ability to repay, your status will not be changed; your debts will be discharged. The bill provides judicial discretion to assure that no one who is genuinely in need of debt relief will be prevented from receiving what every American deserves--a fresh start. This is a second-chance society. If you fail through no fault of your own--or, indeed, even if it is your fault--and you have no ability to repay, your debts will be discharged and every bankruptcy judge in America will have the discretion to ensure that protection remains. No matter how many times a Senator comes to this floor and says to the contrary, it just is not so. Critics have argued the bill also places an unfair burden on women and single-parent families. Not by my authorship. It is not true; it is not right; and I would not be standing here today if there were an element of truth to it. It is unfounded. The bill contains an amendment that Senator Hatch and I offered a year ago that not only ensures women and children are not in an adverse position they are now in a superior position. The Hatch-Torricelli amendment facilitates child support collection by making it easier for the person to whom support is owed to obtain information on the debtor's whereabouts. The ability of a father who walked out on a wife and a child under current bankruptcy law and hides will no longer be possible. Under the Hatch-Torricelli amendment, we will find you. That information is available, and you will be forced to meet your obligation. The bill also provides that the status of women and children under the current law is further enhanced. Under current bankruptcy law, women and children seeking support are seventh in line after rent, storage, accountant fees, and tax claims. Every one of those stands before a child today in need of child support from their father. That is the current law. If you vote against this bill, that is the law you are voting to maintain. Don't suggest that Senator Grassley, Senator Hatch, or Senator Biden, or I will come to this floor with something that does not enhance the welfare of a wife, a parent, or a child. Indeed, it is the opposite. We take those children from seventh in line in bankruptcy under current law to first. No landlord is ahead of you, no government, no accountant, and no lawyer. You get first claim on whatever revenue remains. In addition to these child support protections, the bill includes other provisions designed to assure protection for other vulnerable aspects of American society. One that is the most important to me that I helped put in this legislation is for those in nursing homes. There is a plague of nursing home bankruptcies in America. When a nursing home goes bankrupt, this legislation requires that an ombudsman be appointed to act as an advocate for the patient; that those who are left vulnerable in the nursing home have someone representing them in the process. They have the greatest stake in bankruptcy. The patients are the most vulnerable. Under current law, they have no one and they have nothing. If you oppose this bill, you are voting to maintain that vulnerability. Under provisions that I helped put in this legislation, that now ends. We provide clear and specific rules for disposing of patients' records so that in bankruptcy the records of those in the nursing home will not become the public property of creditors, but it is protected. These provisions could not be more important under current circumstances with rising bankruptcy and the vulnerability of nursing home patients. One nursing home company alone recently with 300 homes went bankrupt leaving 37,000 people without beds, without protection, and without an advocate when it went bankrupt. That will not happen again under this legislation. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it was always my goal--from the original introduction of this legislation in our debates in the Judiciary Committee under Senators Hatch and Leahy to the floor that there be consumer protection in this bankruptcy bill. It was not enough to provide fair bankruptcy protection for the industry which was losing money due to unnecessary bankruptcy. It was not enough to provide protections for the poor, for families, and for children. Real bankruptcy reform must contain consumer protection. Indeed, no aspect of the bill has been amended more or changed more significantly than the consumer protection provisions of bankruptcy reform. That is as it should be. The credit card industry sends out some 3.5 billion solicitations a year. Senator Dorgan and Senator Durbin have spoken about this, to their credit, at length. Much of their criticism is well founded. These solicitations by the credit card industry are more than 41 mailings for every American household--14 for every man, woman, and child in the country. It is an avalanche of solicitations with an invitation for a mountain of debt. But it is not merely the volume of the solicitation. It is also those who are targeted for this availability of debt. High school student and college student solicitations are at record levels. What happened to Senator Dorgan is not unusual. Children everywhere are being invited to participate in the American habit of addiction to debt. It is not surprising, therefore, that the poor, along with the young, have sometimes been victimized by these practices. Since the early nineties, Americans with incomes below the poverty line have had their credit card usage double. The result is not at all surprising. Twenty- seven percent of families earning less than $10,000 have consumer debt that is more than 40 percent of their income. These families have virtually no chance to get out of debt, and the interest payments consume what is required to maintain the lives of their families. What is important is that we deal with these abuses by consumer information, by full disclosure; that we strike a balance that we are not unfairly denying the young or the poor credit when they need it, want it, and deserve it for business opportunities, for education, and to deal with crises in their families. That is the balance we tried to strike in this bill. We achieve nothing by denying the poor or the young the credit they need for their own means as long as we give them the information so that they understand the situation and for protecting against the abuse. I believe we have struck a balance. It is not as I would have written the bill personally. But in legislation and in an institution where both political parties evenly share power, I believe it is the best we can do. Most importantly, it is far better than the current law. The bill now requires lenders to prominently disclose: One, the effect of making only the minimum payment on the account each month. That is not in the current law. If you vote against this bill, you are voting that we will continue not to give people information. We require it in this bill, and it is a significant advantage. Two, when late fees will be imposed so people understand the consequences of not making their payments; Three, the date on which an introduction or teaser rate will expire as well as what the permanent rate will be at that time. This is potentially the greatest abuse of the consumer who believes they are getting an interest rate at a very low level only to discover that they expire quickly and they are subjected to a higher rate that they cannot pay or maintain. In addition, the bill prohibits the cancelling of an account because the consumer pays the balance in full each month and avoids incurring the finance charge. We are, indeed, encouraging that kind of payment and avoidance of debt and interest charges. That, we believe, makes sense for the American consumer. There is not every degree of consumer protection that all of us would like, but no one can credibly argue that current law compared with this legislation is superior. It is much superior. Finally, let me raise the issue that was the focus of great debate in the last Congress--the question of whether debtors seek to discharge the judgment they owe because of their violence against abortion clinics. I believe because of the efforts of Senator Schumer and Senator Hatch language assuring that those debts cannot be avoided is now in this bill, and in my judgment, satisfactory to warrant, for those of us who are concerned about abortion clinic violence and the protection of women's rights, fair and balanced legislation. So I urge the adoption, at long last, after years of work on a bipartisan basis, of this important bankruptcy reform. There are not a few Members but an overwhelming number of Senators who have amendments, changes of laws, and their considerations in this legislation. I am, again, very indebted to Senators Grassley, Hatch, Leahy, and Biden for their extraordinary efforts that have brought this bill to fruition. And I am very proud to join with Senator Grassley as the principal coauthor and Democratic sponsor of this important legislation. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for yielding and commend him for his leadership on this issue. So many millions of Americans have only us between their work, the labor that they may love or do, a necessity to feed their families, and the inevitability of injury if we do not act. The Senator from Massachusetts has noted, indeed, the irony that 10 years ago it was Secretary of Labor Dole who, responding to reports of increased repetitive stress injuries in the workplace, responded by initiating the development of these standards. Secretary Dole called the issue ``one of the Nation's most debilitating across-the-board worker safety and health issues.'' Good for her. She was right then, as we are right now. Opposition by industry and their allies in the Congress has at various times stopped, delayed, forced needless studies--anything--to stop the development of a standard designed only to protect the health and the safety of working Americans. During these delays, the Bureau of Labor Statistics issued reports showing that the number of work-related ergonomic injuries was increasing. Senator Kennedy just cited these numbers. In 1997, they reported that ergonomics-related injuries accounted for one-third of all lost workday injuries and illness --one-third, amounting to thousands and thousands of people unable to perform their labors, sustaining serious injury. Finally, last year while the National Academy of Sciences worked on its own second congressionally ordered study, Congress allowed OSHA to develop and issue an ergonomic standard. After 9 weeks of public hearings, 1,000 witnesses, 7,000 written comments, 10 years of study and debate, OSHA issued the standard this past January. How many studies, how many more years, how many more consistent conclusions? The Congress had a right to ask for the studies. Maybe it was proper to be deferential, to let time pass until we understood the issue better. But can there be anyone in the Senate, after 10 years of debate and all these studies, through Democratic and Republican administrations, who genuinely doubts any longer the health impact on the American worker? It leads one to believe it is not a doubt about the health of our workers. In my judgment, it is a question of fidelity with their cause. The nonpartisan National Academy of Sciences twice reported a clear relationship between work-related activities and the occurrence of injuries such as back strains. According to the National Academy, workplace ergonomic injuries have led to carpal tunnel syndrome, back injuries, permanent nerve damage in the hands, neck pain, and tendonitis. Many of the workers who suffer from these injuries are crippled by debilitating wrist, shoulder, and back pain. Some have had to change jobs or even stop working. This, obviously, is not good for workers. But can anyone actually argue this is good for business? Workers needlessly crippled, missing thousands and thousands of hours of work, needing replacement, costly medical treatment? If you didn't care about the workers, why would you still be here arguing this? This isn't good for the workers. This isn't good for business. This just isn't good for the country. There should be no constituency for those opposing these standards. The NAS studies provide us with the science to show just how important this issue is. The point is, if you didn't have the studies, if you hadn't studied it again, the injuries and the way they affect lives and these businesses--we are replete with examples. After 14 years as an information technology analyst for the New Jersey courts, Susan Wright started to develop numbness and tingling in her fingers. Here is my study: When she turned a doorknob, Susan would feel something akin to an electric shock in her hands. By 1998, she had undergone two operations. Susan's operations were a success and her office has recently had ergonomics training to prevent future injuries such as Susan's. But not every story ends with a success. Another constituent of mine, Pattie Byrd of Trenton, has a permanent disability in her right hand from constant work-related computer use. Susan's and Pattie's injuries could have been prevented. The loss of their labors in their place of employment was not necessary. The cost of training replacements was not necessary. The lost efficiency was not required. Their pain and their medical expenses were not necessary. It all could have been avoided, and that is what these standards are for. They are not limited to computers or office workers. It is a problem for every sector of the economy. They affect industries ranging from meat packing to nursing to truck driving to construction. In the Nation, 1.8 million people report work-related injuries such as carpal tunnel syndrome, tendinitis, and back injuries each year; 1.8 million. Last year more than 600,000 of those injuries were serious enough to cause them to miss work, which is why we stand here, not just for the workers--as if that were not good enough--but this is a massive problem in the economy, for the functioning of our businesses, our offices in every sector of the economy. The new OSHA standard is expected to prevent hundreds of thousands of these injuries. After 10 years and 6 million unnecessary ergonomic- related injuries, it is now time. Critics still argue that the OSHA standard is based on bad science. Others fear the standard will cost too much for business. The facts simply do not bear out these concerns. The National Academy of Sciences report requested by this Congress reaffirmed the scientific evidence underlying the standard is strong. If you weren't going to accept the results of the study, why did you ask for it? If you don't believe in the National Academy of Sciences, why do we fund them? If you were not going to accept all these years of analysis, all these independent and objective reviews, why did we wait? One gets the impression that it is not the evidence, it is not the credibility of the studies, that nothing is going to meet the threshold where this Congress will act to protect American workers. Maybe that is the worst commentary of all. It is estimated this standard will cost $4.5 billion annually. Maybe. But it can also save $50 billion a year in compensation payments, lost wages, and lower productivity. The costs associated with the OSHA standard will be minimal compared to the savings. It is right for these workers. It was a good commentary on this Congress and the previous administration that we acted. It will similarly be a bad commentary on our sensitivity to our people, the workers of our country, and a bad commentary on this Congress if now we act to undo that which we did, which was right, after so many years of waiting, after such overpowering evidence. The workers of this country deserve an advocate. It is said that every powerful special interest in America has some advocate in this Congress. On this night we determine who are the advocates--who will stand for the average American worker who faces these injuries, this loss of wages, this pain and suffering? Let me make my position clear. There have been enough studies, enough time has passed, enough people have suffered. Let the standards stand. I yield the floor.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Mrs. Bernice Williams as she retires after a distinguished 45 year career in the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Throughout this time, she has been of great service to both her nation and her community. Mrs. Williams' accomplished a great deal during her tenure at the INS. In 1968 she had the distinction of becoming the first African American female officer for the Northern New Jersey office of the Department of Immigration. Since then, she has taken on many important roles in the INS such as serving as manager for EEO and Affirmative Action Programs and Projects as well as the Senior Immigration Examiner on sensitive political asylum cases. Whether dealing with a timely asylum case or helping those in need in her community, Mrs. Williams has been selfless in everything she approaches. She is a member of the A. Philip Randolph Association and works through the Giblin Association to provide food and clothing to the less fortunate. She has also worked as a tutor for local children, helping to ensure a brighter future for our students. In these and countless other ways, she has given graciously of herself. In every aspect of her life, Mrs. Williams has exemplified the meaning of good citizenship. The INS and the community of Newark have truly been blessed to have an individual as dedicated, talented and generous as Bernice Williams. It is a privilege to recognize her many accomplishments today.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to recognize the historical significance of the Abel and Mary Nicholson House, located in Salem County New Jersey. I am pleased to have Senator Corzine join me in this important effort, and would like to announce that Congressman LoBiondo will introduce companion legislation in the House of Representatives. The Nicholson House was built in 1722 and is a rate surviving example of an early 18th century patterned brick building. It is a classic example of architecture of this period. The original portion of the house has survived for over 280 years with only routine maintenance. It is a unique resource which can provide significant opportunities for studying our nation's history and culture. As one of the most significant ``first period'' houses surviving in the Delaware Valley, the Nicholson House represents a piece of history from both Southern New Jersey and early American life. In addition, it is situated in an area known for its early American economy. Delaware Bay schooners patrolled the waters of the Delaware River throughout the 18th and 19th centuries harvesting clams and oysters. This industry was an integral part of the region's economy, and contribute to the culture and history of New Jersey. The site is listed on the New Jersey Register of Historic Places, as well as the National Register of Historic Places. In addition, the National Park Service recognized the importance and historical value of the this site by designating the Nicholson House and a National Historic Landmark. The Salem County Historical society and the Salem County Department of Economic Development both endorse the establishment of a national park at this site. A national park would encourage ecotourism in the area and spur economic growth. In addition, the site is located at the southern end of the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail. This theme trail runs along the New Jersey coastline and introduces visitors to the region and encourages them to take full advantage of the many natural and cultural attractions. The Nicholson House National Park would be the southern anchor of this interpretive trail and would enhance tourism and understanding of the culture and history of the region. This area is truly a valuable asset to the State of New Jersey, and I feel it is only proper to share this wonderful resource with the entire nation by establishing the Nicholson House as a unit of the National Park Service, (NPS). The Federal Government has already acknowledge the significance of the Nicholson House, by designating the area a national historic landmark. Establishing it as a unit of the NPS would increase the presence the site, and the NPS would provide staff and tours, and allow for a better, more educational interpretation. My legislation would take the first step towards this important designation by directing the NPS to study the feasibility of establishing a national park at the Nicholson House. I ask that my colleagues join me in support of this worthy effort, so that an important element of our culture may be preserved for future generations.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to recognize the historical significance of the Abel and Mary Nicholson House, located in Salem County New Jersey. I am pleased to have Senator Corzine join me in this important effort, and would like to announce that Congressman LoBiondo will introduce companion legislation in the House of Representatives. The Nicholson House was built in 1722 and is a rate surviving example of an early 18th century patterned brick building. It is a classic example of architecture of this period. The original portion of the house has survived for over 280 years with only routine maintenance. It is a unique resource which can provide significant opportunities for studying our nation's history and culture. As one of the most significant ``first period'' houses surviving in the Delaware Valley, the Nicholson House represents a piece of history from both Southern New Jersey and early American life. In addition, it is situated in an area known for its early American economy. Delaware Bay schooners patrolled the waters of the Delaware River throughout the 18th and 19th centuries harvesting clams and oysters. This industry was an integral part of the region's economy, and contribute to the culture and history of New Jersey. The site is listed on the New Jersey Register of Historic Places, as well as the National Register of Historic Places. In addition, the National Park Service recognized the importance and historical value of the this site by designating the Nicholson House and a National Historic Landmark. The Salem County Historical society and the Salem County Department of Economic Development both endorse the establishment of a national park at this site. A national park would encourage ecotourism in the area and spur economic growth. In addition, the site is located at the southern end of the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail. This theme trail runs along the New Jersey coastline and introduces visitors to the region and encourages them to take full advantage of the many natural and cultural attractions. The Nicholson House National Park would be the southern anchor of this interpretive trail and would enhance tourism and understanding of the culture and history of the region. This area is truly a valuable asset to the State of New Jersey, and I feel it is only proper to share this wonderful resource with the entire nation by establishing the Nicholson House as a unit of the National Park Service, (NPS). The Federal Government has already acknowledge the significance of the Nicholson House, by designating the area a national historic landmark. Establishing it as a unit of the NPS would increase the presence the site, and the NPS would provide staff and tours, and allow for a better, more educational interpretation. My legislation would take the first step towards this important designation by directing the NPS to study the feasibility of establishing a national park at the Nicholson House. I ask that my colleagues join me in support of this worthy effort, so that an important element of our culture may be preserved for future generations.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to recognize the historical significance of the Great Falls area in Paterson, New Jersey. I am joined by my colleagues from New Jersey, Senator Corzine, and pleased to announce that companion legislation has already been introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Bill Pascrell. Paterson is known as America's first industrialized city. Alexander Hamilton founded Paterson in 1792 as a mercantile private-public partnership, using the powerful falls to power industry. He built a laboratory, and established the Society for the Establishment of Useful Manufactures which actively promoted the textiles industry. Textiles were a large part of the development of industry in Paterson, once known as the Silk City, and regarded as the center of the textile industry for many years. New and developing industries located to Paterson and contributed to the growth of the city. New immigrants, arriving at nearby Ellis Island, settled in Paterson, and provided the workforce necessary for this newly industrialized city to thrive. Rich in history, the Paterson Great Falls is also endowed with natural beauty. The Great Falls is an island of beauty in a sea of urban development. The Great Falls is the second largest waterfall on the East Coast, and attracts visitors from within and outside of New Jersey. Paterson Great Falls is also an educational tool for New Jersey's children. Students young and old travel to Paterson Great Falls to witness its natural splendor, to learn about the industrial revolution, and the pioneers who helped build our Nation. This area is truly a valuable asset to the State of New Jersey, and I feel it is only proper to share this wonderful resource with the entire nation by establishing the Paterson Great Falls as a unit of the National Park Service, NPS. The Federal Government has already acknowledged the significance of Great Falls, by designating the area a national historic landmark. Establishing it as a unit of the NPS would increase the presence Great Falls, and the NPS would provide staff and tours, and allow for a better, more educational interpretation of the site. This designation is warranted. Our Nation's urban history is currently under-represented by the NPS. Not many sites tell the story of the growth of our Nation and its economy from that of agrarian to industrial. Other than Lowell, Massachusetts, a one-time industry powerhouse whose historic district was designated a national park, I am not aware of another NPS site which represents our Nation's rich urban history. My legislation would take the first step towards this important designation by directing the NPS to study the feasibility of establishing a national park at the Paterson Great Falls area. I ask that my colleagues join me in support of this worthy effort, so that a critical chapter in the story of our nation may be told to future generations.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to recognize the historical significance of the Great Falls area in Paterson, New Jersey. I am joined by my colleagues from New Jersey, Senator Corzine, and pleased to announce that companion legislation has already been introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Bill Pascrell. Paterson is known as America's first industrialized city. Alexander Hamilton founded Paterson in 1792 as a mercantile private-public partnership, using the powerful falls to power industry. He built a laboratory, and established the Society for the Establishment of Useful Manufactures which actively promoted the textiles industry. Textiles were a large part of the development of industry in Paterson, once known as the Silk City, and regarded as the center of the textile industry for many years. New and developing industries located to Paterson and contributed to the growth of the city. New immigrants, arriving at nearby Ellis Island, settled in Paterson, and provided the workforce necessary for this newly industrialized city to thrive. Rich in history, the Paterson Great Falls is also endowed with natural beauty. The Great Falls is an island of beauty in a sea of urban development. The Great Falls is the second largest waterfall on the East Coast, and attracts visitors from within and outside of New Jersey. Paterson Great Falls is also an educational tool for New Jersey's children. Students young and old travel to Paterson Great Falls to witness its natural splendor, to learn about the industrial revolution, and the pioneers who helped build our Nation. This area is truly a valuable asset to the State of New Jersey, and I feel it is only proper to share this wonderful resource with the entire nation by establishing the Paterson Great Falls as a unit of the National Park Service, NPS. The Federal Government has already acknowledged the significance of Great Falls, by designating the area a national historic landmark. Establishing it as a unit of the NPS would increase the presence Great Falls, and the NPS would provide staff and tours, and allow for a better, more educational interpretation of the site. This designation is warranted. Our Nation's urban history is currently under-represented by the NPS. Not many sites tell the story of the growth of our Nation and its economy from that of agrarian to industrial. Other than Lowell, Massachusetts, a one-time industry powerhouse whose historic district was designated a national park, I am not aware of another NPS site which represents our Nation's rich urban history. My legislation would take the first step towards this important designation by directing the NPS to study the feasibility of establishing a national park at the Paterson Great Falls area. I ask that my colleagues join me in support of this worthy effort, so that a critical chapter in the story of our nation may be told to future generations.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act of 2001. I am sure that this bill will face opposition, but I am equally sure that the need for this bill is so clear, and the logic so unquestionable, that we will eventually see gun consumers fighting for the passage of the legislation. Mr. President, I have long fought against the gun injuries that have plagued America for years. We succeeded in enacting the Brady bill and the ban on devastating assault weapons. And in the 104th Congress, even in the midst of what many consider a hostile Congress, we told domestic violence offenders that they could no longer own a gun. These were each measures aimed at the criminal misuse of firearms. But there is another subject that the NRA just hates to talk about-- the countless injuries that occur to innocent gun owners, recreational hunters, and to law enforcement. Every year in this country, countless people die and many more are injured by defective or poorly manufactured firearms. Yet the Consumer Products Safety Commission, which has the power to regulate every other product sold to the American consumer, lacks the ability to regulate the manufacture of firearms. Amazingly, in a nation that regulates everything from the air we breathe, to the cars we drive, to the cribs that hold our children, the most dangerous consumer product sold, firearms, are unregulated. Studies show that inexpensive safety technology and the elimination of flawed guns could prevent a third of accidental firearms deaths. Despite this fact, the Federal government is powerless to stop gun companies from distributing defective guns or failing to warn consumers of dangerous products. This gaping loophole in our consumer protection laws can often be disastrous for gun users. To take just one recent example, even when a gun manufacturer discovered that it had sold countless defective guns with a tendency to misfire, no recall was mandated and no action could be taken by the federal government. The guns remained on the street, and consumers were defenseless. Time after time, consumers, hunters, and gun owners are each left out in the cold, without the knowledge of danger or the assistance necessary to protect themselves from it. For too long now, the gun industry has successfully kept guns exempt from consumer protection laws, and we must finally bring guns into line with every other consumer product. Logic, common sense, and the many innocent victims of defective firearms all cry out for us to act--and act we must. To that end, I am introducing the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act, legislation giving the Secretary of the Treasury the power to regulate the manufacture, distribution, and sale of firearms and ammunition. The time has come to stop dangerous and defective guns from killing American consumers. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act of 2001. I am sure that this bill will face opposition, but I am equally sure that the need for this bill is so clear, and the logic so unquestionable, that we will eventually see gun consumers fighting for the passage of the legislation. Mr. President, I have long fought against the gun injuries that have plagued America for years. We succeeded in enacting the Brady bill and the ban on devastating assault weapons. And in the 104th Congress, even in the midst of what many consider a hostile Congress, we told domestic violence offenders that they could no longer own a gun. These were each measures aimed at the criminal misuse of firearms. But there is another subject that the NRA just hates to talk about-- the countless injuries that occur to innocent gun owners, recreational hunters, and to law enforcement. Every year in this country, countless people die and many more are injured by defective or poorly manufactured firearms. Yet the Consumer Products Safety Commission, which has the power to regulate every other product sold to the American consumer, lacks the ability to regulate the manufacture of firearms. Amazingly, in a nation that regulates everything from the air we breathe, to the cars we drive, to the cribs that hold our children, the most dangerous consumer product sold, firearms, are unregulated. Studies show that inexpensive safety technology and the elimination of flawed guns could prevent a third of accidental firearms deaths. Despite this fact, the Federal government is powerless to stop gun companies from distributing defective guns or failing to warn consumers of dangerous products. This gaping loophole in our consumer protection laws can often be disastrous for gun users. To take just one recent example, even when a gun manufacturer discovered that it had sold countless defective guns with a tendency to misfire, no recall was mandated and no action could be taken by the federal government. The guns remained on the street, and consumers were defenseless. Time after time, consumers, hunters, and gun owners are each left out in the cold, without the knowledge of danger or the assistance necessary to protect themselves from it. For too long now, the gun industry has successfully kept guns exempt from consumer protection laws, and we must finally bring guns into line with every other consumer product. Logic, common sense, and the many innocent victims of defective firearms all cry out for us to act--and act we must. To that end, I am introducing the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act, legislation giving the Secretary of the Treasury the power to regulate the manufacture, distribution, and sale of firearms and ammunition. The time has come to stop dangerous and defective guns from killing American consumers. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I compliment Chairman McCain, Senator Hollings, Senator Bingaman, Senator Murray, my friend Senator Breaux, and those who have worked on this legislation. I voted for this pipeline safety legislation in the last Senate. I would like to be able to vote for it in this Senate. It is legislation that should be enacted. As a nation in the midst of an energy crisis, we need to have the pipeline network of the Nation constructed and expanded to supply communities in need, and to do so can only help reduce prices. This Senate should act forthwith to do so. As I voted for this legislation previously, it is worth noting that this is not the same Senate that it was a year ago. The membership is different, the balances are different, and this bill should be different. My colleague from New Jersey, Senator Corzine, is prepared to offer a series of amendments that I think are thoughtful and would help not simply communities in New Jersey but communities in States throughout the Nation. They are centered on several specific objectives. I am going to review them, but I first want to make clear that I do think the legislation as offered makes some progress on these issues. The bill does require an assessment of the risks associated with pipeline facilities in environmentally sensitive and high-density population areas and requires the implementing of a plan to mitigate these risks. That is helpful, it is a beginning, and I am glad it is in the bill. The bill before the Senate is a good first step in strengthening safety regulations. There have not been enough in the past. It is a good beginning. The legislation does increase the amount of information companies must provide to communities where pipelines are located so communities can zone their property properly and plan for emergency services so people who live in the communities know what is happening in their towns. Finally, it increases civil penalties substantially for those responsible for pipeline disasters. In the analysis I will offer, I do not discount the work of the committee or the progress this legislation offers, but I take the floor, as did my colleague, Senator Corzine, because there are people in my State who will watch this vote carefully, and we are not alone. From New Jersey to Washington State to Texas, communities have experienced not simply disruptions in gas supplies from ruptured pipelines, we have lost lives, a lot of lives. Since 1996, there have been 18 major pipeline disasters in the United States--major disasters. But if a pipeline ruptures and causes a fire or explosion in your neighborhood, the Federal Government may not declare it major, but I assure you, in your neighborhood, it is major. The map on my left illustrates the States where in the last 10 years there have been 2,241 major accidents. They are in every State in the Nation, at least on this map indicating the lower 48 States in the Nation; high population areas, such as New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, and Connecticut, which have the greatest concentration; one can see in Indiana, Michigan, and Illinois, in Texas and in California-- these are significant numbers of pipeline explosions. One of the most recognized has led to my effort today with Senator Corzine. On March 23, 1994, Texas Eastern Corporation's 36-inch high-pressure natural gas pipeline was running through a residential community in Edison, NJ. Nearby, there was an apartment building and residential housing. The pipeline exploded. As it exploded, it consumed the neighborhood in a fireball. Buildings burned. Three hundred homes were destroyed. One of the neighbors was killed. The night became an inferno for miles around. One moment, a peaceful suburban community; the next, a war zone. One can only imagine the trauma to a family living in their suburban community in the middle of the night watching their neighborhood explode in a ball of flames. The heat from the blast touched off fires in nearby neighborhoods. More than 2 hours after the explosion, the pipeline continued to send a wall of flame hundreds of feet into the air. Two miles away, ash rained on cars. On the New Jersey Turnpike, the principal artery through the northeastern part of the country, roads were filled with debris. Drivers likened it to driving on a newly salted road. The highway was covered with this debris. The National Transportation Safety Board found that the inability of the pipeline operator to properly stop the flow of natural gas contributed to the cause of the accident. It is the lasting impact of this incident that brings me to the floor and to offer and support several important amendments. My State has not forgotten. If this Senate fails to address the reality of this problem, I can assure you, in the next 10 years, when one of these 22 accidents comes to a neighborhood near you--it is not New Jersey, it is Nevada or California or Florida--they will remember as well. We do not ask a lot. We know the reasons these accidents are happening. Here you have a 36-inch pipeline running, as the crow flies, no more than 8 miles from midtown Manhattan--in the most densely populated area of the Nation--to New Jersey. A pipeline erupts, and the company does not have personnel trained, capable, or instructed in how to stop the flow of gas. The local community did not have enough information to deal with the emergency. These are not unreasonable requests. The bill contains provisions to deal with a cost-benefit analysis. My colleagues, what is the cost-benefit analysis of the cost of ensuring that personnel are trained, that a pipeline is inspected, compared to the cost of 300 people running from their homes in a fireball in the middle of the night? Allow me to share with you a cost-benefit analysis. As you consider voting on whether or not people should have licenses to work on these pipelines or whether or not these pipelines should be inspected, this is your cost-benefit analysis. Every one of these children pictured here have been killed--burned, killed in an explosion because of a ruptured pipeline. They are dead. Mr. President, 2,200 accidents in 10 years will cause that kind of destruction. Our amendments are very simple. I do not believe Senator Corzine and I are being unreasonable. What is it we would like? One, a community have the right to know the flow of the pipeline, what is in the pipeline, basic information about the pipeline. Even if it were not required by law, and you operated a pipeline, wouldn't you want the fire department to know that basic information? Wouldn't you want a local builder to know about the pipeline if they are going to put residential homes next to it? Wouldn't you want the planning board to know about the power of a potential explosion? We require it in the bill. But if we did not require it in the bill, wouldn't you want to do it anyway? Second, mandatory testing of natural gas and hazardous liquid pipelines themselves. This is the most extraordinary to me. I do not know of any principal structure in the Nation, on a mandatory basis-- from the local building authority through airplane construction, to your own car--that does not get inspected. If I do not take my car to a local New Jersey motor vehicles inspection station and get it inspected every year or two, I am in violation. But you want to put a 36-inch pipeline across my State, next to thousands of residents, knowing that it has cost lives, and you do not want to require an inspection every 5 years, every 7 years? I do not think this is unreasonable. Third, the certification of pipeline personnel. I do not know a profession or means of employment in the Nation which involves health-- life and death--and public safety where you do not have to get a certification. I have a certification to drive here to work in the morning in my car. It is called a driver's license. But you are going to operate a high-pressure gas pipeline across the Nation, and you do not want a license? Lest you think this is somebody else's abstract problem--these people who are operating these pipelines--here are the areas they impact as shown on this map. You cannot serve in this Senate and not represent somebody who lives near one of these pipelines. All we want to know is, if you work on these pipelines, and you have responsibility for pipeline safety, we would like to know that you know what you are doing. It does not have to be a high threshold. Give me the easiest test you want. If you do not want to strain them, if you do not want to make them study, OK, I will be reasonable, but how about some certification? The person who died in Edison, NJ, in the destruction of that neighborhood, did not know how to turn off the flow of the gas. When I bought my home, I went in the basement and said to the guy who showed me the house: If there is a problem here, how do I turn off the gas to my house? It took me about a minute. In a town of tens of thousands of people, the operator of the pipeline did not know how to shut off the gas. Standing in midtown Manhattan, you could see the fireball in central New Jersey. This is an important business. There are more people living by these pipelines, having their lives on the line, than people living by airports, but you would not have somebody operate an airplane without a license. Finally, we ask for additional liability penalties, recognizing that in our system in this country, one sure way to ensure that the pipeline companies build a quality product, with quality personnel, to the highest safety standards, with the best materials, is they know that if they do not, they are liable for those kids who lost their lives and to the towns that lost the housing where I live. We would like them to be liable so they have an incentive to ensure that people are safe and secure. I am concerned that this bill has been brought to the floor-- recognizing that Senator McCain has improved the bill. He has designed good legislation, but it is not legislation that any of you can take back to your States, along these pipeline routes, and say: My friends, I have done everything I can to ensure that your family is safe. I have struck a balance. We are going to have pipelines that lower the cost of your natural gas. We are going to get you additional supply. We are going to meet the Nation's needs. And I am going to protect your family. We have done a good job. We have not done a good enough job because we can do more to ensure that people are safe. That is the balance I want. That is what I think this Congress can do that is better than what the last Congress did when this legislation was before it. I find it frustrating that we need to return again to deal with an issue that has been raised that the Senate knows is a real problem. We are going to offer these amendments. We are going to insist upon them. I ask my colleagues to think carefully in weighing the consideration of passing this bill today or tomorrow or waiting a day or two or a week and getting it done right. The stakes, I am afraid, are that high. We have tried to do this voluntarily. Maybe the cost of compliance is too much. We have passed statutes before. We have not seen them enforced. This is a list of pipeline safety regulations that have not been met in the last 12 years, things we have asked to ensure that people would be safe and that standards would rise, only to find that, increasingly around the Nation, they have been ignored. That is why we have increased penalties and liability. Are they really so unreasonable? The Pipeline Safety Act of 1992. Emergency flow restriction devices to ensure that if there is an accident, operators on an emergency basis can restrict the flow of gas. That alone would have made the difference in destroying the neighborhood in Edison, NJ. Underground utility location technologies in the Pipeline Act of 1992. Carry out research and develop programs on technologies so that people can quickly locate where these pipelines are in an emergency so they can map them properly if there is a problem. These are 23 different attempts to ensure compliance. We have not met our responsibilities to do this properly. I know the desire to increase the Nation's supply of natural gas. I believe as strongly in it as anyone in this Chamber. I also know how strongly we are going to feel if we do this wrong. If we do this wrong, a lot of people get hurt. That is the issue before the Senate. Certify the personnel, let communities have a right to know about the operations of these pipelines, require an inspection of them every 7 years and liability to ensure compliance with the laws, laws that have often been ignored, to our considerable peril. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. TORRICELLI

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, in these times of extraordinary budgetary wealth, it is easy to forget it was less than a decade ago that a now famous comment was made that the U.S. Government would have deficits as far as the eye could see. Indeed, in 1992 when the Clinton administration began, the annual deficit was $290 billion and was projected to grow to $455 billion this year. Today, not only has that annual deficit been eliminated but the budget surplus is $237 billion, for the first time in generations, 3 successive years of budget surpluses, leading to the extraordinary ability of the U.S. Treasury by next year to have reduced the aggregate historic debt of the United States by $600 billion. It is now realistic to discuss the elimination of all outstanding U.S. Government debt--not in another generation, perhaps not even in another decade, but in our own time, on our own watch. This extraordinary change of the national finances has led to the recognition that the Federal Government could generate a $3.1 trillion surplus, even while excluding the accumulating Social Security surplus that we mutually agree needs to be held in reserve. This is clearly a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Any generation of Members of the Senate only could have dreamed of the chance to reorganize the finances of the Federal Government with surpluses that were even a fraction of these magnitudes. The choices before the Senate are obviously considerable. We arrived at these massive surpluses for a combination of reasons: Our taxes, extraordinary work by the American people, rising productivity and technology, but also because for a long time our people simply went without some benefits. Like a company that improves its bottom line by not investing in its personnel, our country cast a blind eye for some time to real human needs and human investments in order to balance our budget. First and foremost among those things that the country simply ignored for a period of time was the medical needs of our people. Modern medicine is obviously revolutionizing health care. Despite the fact that prescription drugs are an integral part of the health care of any citizen, 35 percent of Medicare beneficiaries, or 15 million senior citizens, have no prescription drug coverage and are either choosing between their rent and food or paying their prescription drug bills or simply doing without at the cost of compromising the quality of their lives, or life itself. It remains first on the national objectives to be corrected in these new circumstances. Second, arguably, the United States has the finest system of higher education in the world. But no one could defend the current quality of our elementary or high schools. They are literally bursting apart at the seams: Aging schools, postponed improvements in their infrastructure, the need for higher standards, to retain good teachers, and get even better teachers. It is axiomatic that in this time of revolutionary technology and international competition, it will be impossible to maintain the standard of living in the United States or our national strength or even democratic character without improving the quality of instruction in our schools. Mr. President, 2,400 schools will need to be rebuilt by the year 2003 to accommodate rising enrollments alone, and 130,000 teachers will need to be hired over the next decade. This, too, was postponed. Third, until most recently, this generation postponed its obligation to maintain the quality of life by maintaining the quality of the land of our country. What began with Theodore Roosevelt in preserving our national monuments and lands and open space for our generation was postponed as we fought to balance our budget. No State in the Nation is a better example of this phenomenon than my own native State of New Jersey. Forty percent of the land is already developed; 10,000 acres are lost per year. There is an epidemic of sprawl. America is losing 50 acres of open space every hour of every day, all year long. These three, from my own personal perspective, are on top of a long list of postponed national ambitions that need to be debated in the context of broad and meaningful tax reduction, which I support. Prescription drug benefits, new teachers and schools, preserving of open space, and the quality of our environment--they are a part of this debate. The resources that go to one are not available for the other. This Congress, unlike many that came before us that dealt with the question of comprehensive tax relief, must commit itself to balance, to balance the resources that are necessary for national goals and the resources that are required for comprehensive and meaningful tax relief. The question of tax relief itself also involves issues of balance. I begin this discussion with a profound belief that tax relief is not only affordable, it is owed to the American people. There are many contributors to the national surplus. This Congress and President Clinton deserve considerable credit for reducing spending and some enhanced efficiencies. The American people deserve most of the credit for the new productivity of this economy and its efficiency through their hard work. But it is also true--indeed, it is inescapable--that a significant portion of the Federal surplus is a direct result of high tax rates that have produced increased revenue, and the American people deserve a dividend on their high taxes of all these years. Rates were increased and they were too high, and now they are simply not necessary. The projection of a $3.1 trillion surplus should end forever the argument about whether the U.S. Government can afford broad-based tax relief. It is right, it is necessary, and it is affordable. The question becomes the character of this Congress; whether we not only have the judgment to balance our educational, environmental, and medical needs against the need for broad-based tax relief but whether the tax relief itself can be comprehensive and balanced to a variety of national objectives. President Bush has proposed a $1.6 trillion restructuring of the tax brackets. It is largely a reflection of the broad-based tax relief offered by Senators Coverdell, Breaux, Kerrey, and myself in the last Congress. It is deeper and it is broader, but it is based on the principle of lowering rates generally and specifically moving middle- income American families into the lowest bracket possible. That is simple but it is direct and it is right. But the tax debate must include more than simply lowering rates in the broadest fashion possible for most Americans. There are other specific national objectives to be achieved through the Tax Code. I was pleased to see that Senator Lott has joined in my efforts to include in this tax reduction a further cut in capital gains rates. The business community has made clear its own desire to see the R&D tax credit made permanent and reform of the international tax laws. Those in my State of New Jersey, home of the pharmaceutical industry and increasingly of high technology, and involved in a disproportionate amount of international trade, are grateful for the help of our economy and growing employment base. Both political parties have pledged themselves to end the marriage penalty and to eliminate the estate tax for at least small businesses, family farms, and to fix the alternative minimum tax, which is a rising burden on middle-income people. Indeed, with a surplus of this magnitude, there is no shortage of legitimate ideas. All of these concepts for tax reform and tax reduction have one thing in common: They are justifiable, they have a rationale, and they should be considered. But they also have this in common: None should be considered to the exclusion of other ideas, and each should be balanced. This is a moment the country is not going to visit again for a long time. This should be considered at length, seriously, and done right. Let me begin with several ideas that I believe are critical, in addition to the clear objective of restructuring the tax brackets themselves. First is the affordability of higher education. There is no greater burden on middle-income families, on working couples, than the prospect, the daunting challenge of a college education for their children. With the possible exception of buying a home, it is the principal financial burden in life for most Americans. For those less fortunate, there are a variety of scholarship and loan programs. The very wealthy will never have to be concerned. But most Americans find themselves in neither situation, and we are facing the prospect where the middle class will simply be out of range of a quality graduate education or even a college education. Both our sense of fairness and our economic prospects as a nation are going to be radically altered if a quality college education is the province only of the upper middle class and the privileged. We will destroy the engine of our economic growth while taking basic fairness and social mobility out of our society. As this chart indicates, over the last decade the cost of sending a child to college has increased by 40 percent, two and a half times the basic underlying inflation rate, for public universities and for private universities. It is not tolerable and there is something that this Congress can do about it. If we were to add one single deduction to this new Tax Code that this Congress is going to write in the coming weeks, in addition to the broad-based relief in the lowering of tax brackets for all Americans, it would be 100-percent deductibility of college tuition. It makes sense and it should be done now, and nothing would add more to the finances of middle-income families. Long ago this Congress recognized the need for deductibility of basic investments by business to add to its capabilities of productivity and efficiency. As a nation, that same investment strategy is reflected by average Americans every day when they seek the financial security of their families and their productivity as a people by educating their children. I recognize, because of the variety of deductions and rate alterations that are going to be suggested in this Congress, that 100- percent deductibility for Harvard or Yale or Princeton might not initially be possible. Because we cannot do everything does not mean we cannot do anything. If 100-percent deductibility for the most expensive schools in the Nation is not possible, 100-percent deductibility for the cost of going to a State university or a more moderately priced school is affordable and should be in this legislation. Second, the national crisis of savings and retirement: There is no arguing that these are extraordinary economic times by almost any measure--national competitiveness, efficiency, employment, and quality of life. In this panoply of good news, there is at least a single measure of a mounting national problem: the national savings rate. As this chart demonstrates, from only 20 years ago, when Americans were saving 10 percent of their income, for the first time since the Great Depression, the Nation now has a negative savings rate. The consequences of this are very clear. American families are maintaining their standard of living by going into debt further and further every year. In the last 23 years, the debt burden on American families has quadrupled. We are now last in the developed world in the amount of money available to every family in their personal savings. Nearly two-thirds of Americans have no stake in the society, no accumulated wealth but the value of their home. The consequences of this on society are very clear. Most Americans are no more than a sickness, a natural catastrophe, a divorce, or the loss of a job away from losing a home and everything they have worked for all of their lives. A stable society that is prosperous and confident must have broad-based savings by its people. There is a reason why Americans have stopped saving money. This Government has made savings an irrational economic act. A working family on a modest income, who puts a few dollars in the bank or in the stock market every year hoping for a dividend, a small capital gain, some appreciation, faces the prospect of paying taxes on it every April. This denies people not only security from the vagaries of everyday life, it also denies them the ability to save appropriately for their own retirement and ultimately makes them dependent upon Government to an extent that should not be necessary. Let me be clear because I believe this is so fundamental to this tax bill. The Federal Government, in its current circumstances, does not need tax revenues from taxing the dividends, interest, or capital gains of working-class families who decide to have modest savings and make an investment in the country for themselves, their children, or their future. We not only do not need their money, we should be encouraging them to every extent possible to participate in the growth of the country and save their own money: Buy a mutual fund, put money in the bank, get in the stock market, make a family investment, and keep your money. If we provide a $500 exclusion for dividends, savings on interest in bank accounts, $2,000 or $3,000 exclusion for capital gains, we can eliminate all taxes on savings for 20 million Americans; 20 million Americans would be eliminated from the tax rolls with regard to their savings account or their brokerage account. This Congress could make saving money and getting financial security to be a rational economic act again. For most Americans, this would translate into the ability to have $10,000 in the bank or in the stock market, knowing it is theirs and it will not add to their tax liability every April. I believe this second element, in addition to a broad-based rate reduction, is a critical component of comprehensive tax reform. Third, the elimination of the estate tax for small business and family farms: There is clearly a general agreement in this Congress by Democrats and Republicans that we can eliminate all taxes as we now know them on estates for small businesses and family farms. The question is whether we can afford to do this for everybody or only for 90 percent of those Americans who would be eliminated from the estate tax rolls if we simply increased the threshold to $5 million or $7 million. We all agree there is a problem. Seventy percent of small business owners choose to sell their businesses rather than pass that business on to their children and pay the estate tax. The estate tax is destroying small business in America, family businesses, the continuity of ownership and pride within a business inside a family. As a result, only 13 percent of small businesses in existence today will survive to the third generation. With the loss of family farms, it is even worse, adding not only to the loss of continuity of ownership of a family farm but in a State such as mine, in New Jersey, more importantly, the destruction of the land. People who want to be in farming and want their children to be in farming have to sell the farm to a developer and divide the acreage because upon their death, their children cannot afford to pay the tax. The better alternative, if we cannot afford to eliminate the estate tax entirely, is to increase the exemption to such a level that every small business and every family farm, for all practical purposes, is excluded from the tax. Under current law, there is a $2.6 million exemption for qualified family farms and small businesses. But in a State such as New Jersey-- indeed, much of the country--if you have significant acreage, you may not be a wealthy person--indeed, you may have no cash available at all--but your land may be worth more than that, and you cannot afford to give it to your child on your death. Therefore, the more effective alternative to repeal may be to increase the threshold to $8 million or maybe even $10 million. This would deal with the practical problems of destroying small businesses and family farms. Four, rate reduction. I began this discussion by conceding the point--and, indeed, conceding it gladly--that every American deserves a tax break regardless of their income because every American, regardless of their position, has contributed to the surplus and the new national prosperity. I say this because my hope is that this discussion of tax reduction cannot become a debate about different sections of the country any more than it should about different stratums of wealth, a fight of region, or class warfare. All Americans helped produce this prosperity, and everyone should share in its benefits. But I also want this congressional debate to begin with the idea that we all do come from different sections of the country and have different concepts of the tax burden. The issue becomes that we all want these tax reductions to go to primarily middle-income people, which begs the question: What is a middle-income family? Is a family of four making $40,000 or $50,000 middle income? There are regions of the country where the answer to that might be affirmative. In the State of New Jersey--indeed, I suspect in New York, California, southern Florida, or northern Illinois--the answer most decidedly is no. A family of four earning $40,000 to $50,000 a year is struggling every single day to pay their mortgage, educate their children, feed their children, and clothe them. That is not a life of prosperity and ease. It is only marginally sometimes middle income. Indeed, in my State, a family earning $70,000 a year is probably a police officer married to a nurse or a schoolteacher. This is a family of middle-income status that deserves these benefits. So I hope we can avoid a discussion of broad-based tax relief that focuses most tax benefits significantly below this level of income. I want to be accommodating to my colleagues. I want this to be a bipartisan and broadly based tax plan, but I will fight to the end to assure these levels defining ``middle-income families'' are realistic for these police officers, nurses, teachers, and small business people who have modest incomes and high expenses in our urban and suburban areas of the country. Last year, when Senator Coverdell and I introduced the first bipartisan broad-based expansion of tax brackets for lower rates, the center of our plan--largely now adopted by President Bush--was to expand the 15-percent tax bracket to a family of four earning $75,000. This would move 7 million taxpayers into the lowest Federal bracket, recognizing that no one in this bracket, as I earlier suggested, should be paying 28 or 31 percent. This is the centerpiece, in my judgment, of any rate reduction. Finally, I leave my colleagues with two other concepts that I hope will be considered, recognizing that in addition to the education and health care and open space agendas of the Nation, and the need for broad-based rate reductions, there are two other issues Congress has addressed previously where we are not succeeding that could be impacted by the tax break. First is our urban agenda. We have tried Empowerment Zones and HOPE VI grants and a variety of measures to deal with our urban problems. Some have succeeded. Indeed, I am proud of many. But my sense is that our cities are now at the point where private investment could largely follow these Federal initiatives in an urban renaissance. If we could change, even marginally, the profitability of urban investment, such as, in wide areas of Newark and Jersey City--I recognize private housing is beginning to be built, but what is a tentative beginning could be an explosion of investment if we could marginally change the tax status of the developers. So I propose, for home ownership and investment in our urban areas, we take these areas of urban Empowerment Zones and do an exclusion on capital gains for those who will invest in new housing or new investment. Allow the developer to keep $25,000 of capital gains on every house they build in an urban enterprise zone as their money, if they will take the risk and change the economics of that investment. Second, and finally, on brownfields, brownfields is an important concept to recycle urban polluted lands into vital economic resources. It has been successful, but it must move more quickly. Mr. President, I conclude simply by suggesting I want to accelerate and increase the tax deductibility for investment in brownfields. I leave my colleagues with the thought that I hope this is a good debate on tax reduction. I hope it is comprehensive. I hope it is balanced. I hope we seize this extraordinary moment to impact the lives of as many Americans as possible while assuring our economic future. I yield the floor and thank the Presiding Officer for his indulgence.